Jan Cox Talk 0250
Job Description: Upwardly Mobile, But Success-Averse Nomad to Develop Efficient Atomizer With Two Contrasting Scents
Audio = Stream the audio (from the video) using the bars below in two parts.
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0250 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
#250 Mar 5, 1987 - 1:38
[All 'systematic' approaches to anything are equivalent to "divide and conquer" --even those purporting synthesis. This Thing as a kind of new dividing, rendering the underlying unity visible in what was already mechanically rent. Ordinary systematic approaches give a feeling of understanding to the many in its initial divisions, but as they get finer, to the point of imminent digestion by the Yellow Circuit, they lose their meaning, become moot and terminally confusing, too complex. ]
[Communities of men: oasis, village, city --internally applied. In the ordinary, one community dominates; in the Few, all communities exist in more or less balanced condition. The Few should carefully observe the reality of these communities, with the complexity and manner of their interface. ]
[Binary consciousness is the great producer of 'gods & demons'. Connection to religion, not as a negative operator in mankind, but as a necessary beneficial advancing divisor. It cannot be otherwise given binary consciousness. There IS no consciousness without a cleavage into 'gods &demons'. ]
[Yellow Circuit dissatisfaction. For optimum mechanical operation of consciousness, an immediate appearance of opposition is required. Example of concern over trade deficit US/Japan and attendant devaluation of dollar vs. yen = growing unemployment in Japan as Japanese manufacturers invest in relatively cheaper US factories and workers. This sequence of events is frustrating to Yellow Circuit; de facto shutdown in overload condition. Similar process happens to The Few when straining the tolerance limits of binary consciousness. ]
[Passion for change results because the stakes are so low! Change is a virtual impossibility for -the ordinary. ]
["It's OK to get caught --but not to confess”, never admit to weakness; offer an 'insouciant', indifferent, even clinical explanation of the fact of your DNA print. A detached, precise notation of ordinary functioning. Confession never ends; admission creates need for more accusation. The Few should never consent to be interviewed. ]
[What is Life up to that it forbids pictures of pornography but allows the written equivalent to coexist in full view in the same magazine. Hint: consider the circuitry; the communities. ]
[Question from Group: does efficiency mean a lack of resistance? Binarily considered, it's true--but triaxially considered it's impossible, would cause nonexistence. Consider the application to the Partnership--no resistance = disappearance. About the feeling of failure --the majority of men are wired for this; The Few cannot allow this; should see it as merely your job description, not take it seriously. ]
[1:29 TASK: Within 2 wks visit 4 different religious institutions during a regular church service. Observe clinically; attempt to perceive the natural kinds of diverse energies that are being offered there. Note differences between churches; community energy transfers.
UPWARDLY MOBILE, BUT SUCCESS-AVERSE NOMAD TO DEVELOP EFFICIENT ATOMIZER WITH TWO CONTRASTING SCENTS
Document: 250, March 5, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
In the ordinary world a quite accurate description (and before now an unknown description) would be that all ordinary systematic approaches to Life actually are based on the proverb "divide and conquer." This view is in opposition to the generally held belief that such a system as a particular religion or a school of philosophical thought brings people together and in some way produces a cohesive structure of thought and belief.
From the view I am describing, these ordinary, horizontal systems mince everything under their consideration into smaller and smaller pieces until it eventually becomes meaningless. This view is not the prevailing one and it is quite strange, but it is nonetheless correct once you can see it from this view. To pick an obvious, glaring example, from a quite real view, religion renders all of man's apparent questions about good and evil, life after death, life before death, life before breakfast, to the point that such questions are meaningless.
Every now and then Life, in its wisdom, raises up a man or woman to say, "Religion is a waste of time. I had all these questions when I joined the church and the church didn't answer any of them." These people are in a minority. They are just sore heads -- a passing pain in Life's head. The people who remain good followers of some religion do not necessarily believe their questions have all been answered, but everything has been cut up into such small pieces that all questions become meaningless. The systematic approaches that Life has produced in the body of man, religious or philosophical, as well as the few smart-alecks here and there driven to point out that institutions are not answering questions, have all missed the point. Part of the institution's job is to take apparently important questions and cut them up into smaller and smaller pieces to the point where nobody can digest them, nobody has any interest in them, and everything just becomes meaningless. To render a question meaningless is as good as an answer.
If you can grasp any of what I have been talking about, let me expand it and point out that what I am doing here is dividing anew all that has been divided before so that a few might perceive the original unity of it all. Binary consciousness would be taking an almost opposite approach to what I just said. The proper approach from the view of ordinary thinking would be to put it all back together. All of you have tried that. Life also has people, under the guise of philosophy, metaphysics, mysticism, religion saying they are going to restore the Garden of Eden, put man back in his original state of higher consciousness, put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Has it worked? Do you believe in every fire sale you see? Do you believe everyone who knocks on you door and says, "My crew of aluminium siding people just happen to be in the neighborhood and we have some materials left over and just happen to notice what a beautiful house you have." If you are the type to say, "Please come in," you can ignore the rest of this.
Don't limit yourself by my saying ordinary systematic approaches, and then using as examples religion and schools of philosophy. If you can expand your vision you will see that everything of which man can be conscious has been chopped up from some original unity. Dividing things so they can be remembered, cutting things into their binary opposites is the only way information can be made useful to ordinary consciousness. If you are conscious of anything it has been chopped up from some singularity and the more it is chopped up, up to a point, the more you believe you understand it. If you don't believe that, why do you think cliff notes were created?
If you decide you are interested in particle physics you might start by trying to read reviews of papers that were read at last year's Particle Physics Convention and Motorcycle Race down in Houston. You tried to read it and you thought, "There is too much math, I don't understand all of the terms." So you keep an eye out for the New York Times weekly science article and that too proves to be too hard. Maybe you watch for an article on particle physics in Popular Mechanics or Redbook. Eventually, if you keep looking, you will find an article that appears to be on your level. "I can grasp this, I can start here." What has happened, in a sense, is that the information has been chopped up, but you perceive it as an exposition. You feel you are just about to understand something.
Ordinary consciousness does not look at it this way, but when the chopping up process reaches a certain point, when the pieces get finer and finer, you lose interest; the subject has become meaningless to you. Later someone may offer to lend you a book on particle physics written for the layman; they let you borrow the book and you never read it and you don't know why. The subject of particle physics no longer has any interest for you.
If you look at what seems to be more Blue Circuit or emotionally based religions there seem to be people that had great fear about being alive, fear of failing, fear of being misused; then according to the ministers (and the people seem to agree) people had fear about dying. What's going to happen to them? The preachers cannot give a guarantee.
If you were driven to be a hard-wired cynic for Life's purposes you might say, "How can people believe that? Even if people are afraid of dying, how can they believe this guy in a polyester suit and a cheap rug on his head when he says, 'The gods said so and so right here, and here's what he meant, and here's what is going to happen to you when you die if you give us enough money. Amen' -- how can people believe that? The man can't guarantee anything. People are fools." You don't understand; you missed the whole process.
Let us assume there was some basis for these people's fear of dying. Here's what happens. The people go week after week to hear a man preach and wave his so-called holy book and talk about John 7:14 or Ecclesiastics 9:12, or Fatso chapter 59, whatever, and the preacher keeps saying, "Here's what the gods meant, here's what happened two thousand years ago." In a sense you sit there and listen and listen, and it is as though you are back in your mother's arms and you are afraid of the dark, and your mother or father rocks you back and forth and sings some phrase over and over until you finally go to sleep. Do you think that being in a church or temple is different? The rhythmic praying, the kind of hypnotic music that is used, do you think you are not being put to sleep?
There is nothing wrong going on, but people go to church to have their fears cut up into such small pieces, smaller and smaller and smaller, that nobody cares anymore. Nobody looks at it this way, but it's as if someone said, "I used to be upset with life before I joined this church and gave them a lot of money and came here every week." "And how do you feel now? Are you as upset?" "Well, maybe, but I'm not upset about being that upset anymore."
Returning to what I was pointing out about This. If any of you can see, in a sense I have taken that which was already mechanically rent in you before I met you and rent it further, you would believe that institutions, ordinary consciousness had already had its impact on you and things had already been rent sufficiently; you were expecting in a sense, without necessarily defining it in these terms, that if you ever found a world-famous guru he could put everything back together again.
It's as though when you were a child your parents told you, "There is a god somewhere and he will take care of everything and he knows everything, not unlike me, your father or mother." Then you found out your father was a coward and your mother was a drunk and it all seemed to fall apart. What was falling apart was what seemed to be a whole panorama of realities spread out before you as a child; your consciousness gets chopped up, as it must or you would not become conscious. Everything seems to get chopped up to the point that it becomes more and more meaningless, there is nothing to depend on, everything falls apart. Woe is me. You are now an adult, and the belief is, without analyzing it that way, that somebody is going to put this back together. But you can't put it back together. There is nothing to put back together.
What I am doing, in a sense, is taking that which is already sufficiently divided, confusing, and rendered almost moot -- all your beliefs, all your ideas, no matter what your background was, no matter what your culture was -- I have rent it anew, not just horizontally (which would be bad enough if it could be done) but I have rent it at right angles.
In the same way that the planet is divided into communities, you can view an individual as communities. You can apply the terms Oasis, Town and City to the progressively more complex nature of man, from the lower regions to the higher regions. People living in an oasis community would meet only periodically, and almost exclusively on the basis of mutual gratification of Red Circuit needs. What seems to hold these people together, if at all, is almost nothing more than blood kinship, family units. The rest of the time if they get together it is very often at a literal oasis, but maybe a place where the term oasis is not necessarily pertinent -- simply a place that seems to be mutually beneficial. The few people who are mutantly less than one sidedly balanced out of a triaxial situation need to see that in them there is a community still alive that operates in the oasis zone. For men sometimes it is sex, just to give you some place to start. It can be simply food. It can be all forms of so-called physical gratification.
The town is a more complex community with at least semi-permanent structures, physical structures and institutions -- an institution not necessarily being a material entity. They seem to have developed some laws and morals. Who knows where it came from; as far back as anybody can remember, people in the town have agreed not to spit in each others food. But who decided that? "As far back as I can remember my father told me not to and he said his father told him not to." In the oasis I wouldn't count on that. The oasis can be a dangerous place. The town community also offers some food for social needs, and you can see the first stages of so-called artistic expressions. Note that in you people sufficiently mutated; simultaneous with the oasis community is the existence of a township.
The city would be much more complex than the town community. It would be a place that had permanent structures and more than just standards of conduct and morality with a vague history. The city would have legislative bodies or at least some identifiable government that would be issuing edicts or laws. The city would be unique compared to the oasis and the town; in the city thinking of acting would be becoming as important as acting itself. This would not be true at all in the oasis; all they are doing there is acting. As far as it can be described comparably, thinking of acting would have very limited importance in the town. There would have to be the beginnings of thinking of acting or you would not have any code of conduct or have the ability to see the so-called creative arts and there would be no possibility of feeding social needs.
In the city would be increasing areas wherein the thinking of acting was more important than the acting itself. In contemporary western areas it might be referred to as a whole country becoming service oriented as opposed to manufacturing based; people doing jobs which, if you saw them in a silent movie, you would not be sure what they are doing. They are not working on assembly lines, not planting food, not apparently doing anything identifiably contributing to the benefit of humanity and this planet, yet at the end of the week somebody hands them money.
You should see that on this planet right now all of these extreme cases are becoming increasingly hard to find; the whole world is becoming more and more homogenized. More importantly, at least a few of you should see that all three of these are going on inside the few proper people. They are going on in other people, but they are hard-wired to such a point that they have to find what seems to be some central voice in their own partnership, one or the other of these communities seems to be the one in charge. The more balanced you are, for the few people, which of course compared to everybody else the more unbalanced you are, you don't have just a strong single voice.
I want to stress to you that all of this has some significance internally if you can begin to see it. You could ask yourself such questions as, "How stringently divided can I see this community aspect in me, in other people -- an oasis, a town and a city? I can see how the township here in me in a certain area, if it was fed a little bit, could grow into a city. It is on the verge of becoming so complex that some of the activity, some of the interests of the town are getting to the point where they are going to be thinking about action instead of the action they are doing now."
It is a misnomer really for me to talk about three communities because they all intertwine. It is a gradual process where they are feeding one another, and feeding off of one another. You cannot separate them except for the purpose of trying to rend that which is already divided to the point that you begin to see the original unity of it all. To use this community picturization, ask yourself how you can see overlaps. Can you see the same institutions, in a sense, operating in all three communities under different names? You can see the seed of something in the oasis, turning into something a little more permanent or part time in a town, that becomes a full time occupation in the city. The complexity of it does increase but there's still much in common.
Turning now to Second Romans, chapter four, sub-category aluminum siding salesman. In spite of my best efforts, religion continues to receive a bad rap from some quarters and there are those of ordinary consciousness who believe that something is dreadfully amiss -- people still believing in gods and anti-gods, gods and demons, and so on. When you're dealing with binary consciousness, can you begin to see that it cannot be otherwise? Binary consciousness is the exposer, the presenter of one thing, and one thing only, and that is the world of gods and demons. If you had never heard the words gods and demons it would not matter because you have your own version of it.
When you are dealing with binary consciousness, the only world presented, the only world possible, the only world that consciousness can perceive, is a world of gods and a world of demons. Whatever argument your Partnership wants to put forth, whether it's new age liberal intelligence versus out of date anachronistic superstition, or any other dualism, it's all just synonyms for gods and demons.
All of the apparently intellectually based criticism that many partnerships have -- people believing that religion has been a millstone around man's neck, believing, at least in the western version of history, that (for instance) the catholic church has been an absolute direct hindrance upon the civilizing process of man -- they missed the whole point, they're absolutely blind. We would not be nearly as civilized were it not, just for instance, for the catholic church.
Your ordinary consciousness acting as critic, based upon how you are wired up already, may or may not find any interest in criticizing religion. It may find interest in criticizing the economic structures of the world or the apparent political structures; but it has been a unified progression and it is only consciousness that cuts it up. At the heart of this binary consciousness is a world of gods and demons, and that's it! There is a cleavage; it is almost the initial cleavage. You might ponder why all communities throughout the world have some notion of O.S. -- Original Sin.
You could have been raised in a den of atheists, in a pride of atheists, even a herd of atheists, but as soon as you are conscious, you are conscious first of one thing, that here we've got a universe of gods and demons. The initial division would take you back closer to an intellectual big bang, closer to the original unity of it all; that you could not be conscious until this initial cleavage occurred into a world of gods and demons, or whatever you're accustomed to call it. When you see the unity of it all, of course, we can't talk about it. That's why I keep hoping that some of you get there, so I can have somebody to talk to. Then there's nothing to talk about, don't you see?
Along similar lines, let me point out something that some of you have already experienced for which you've never had any description. I've never talked about it, and it's not available in Life. It has to do with an area that I've covered in several views/descriptions, over the last few years.
For ordinary consciousness to operate at its most mechanically efficient (now this is not an attack) there has got to be the appearance of immediate and obvious opposition to whatever consciousness is thinking about, looking at, considering. There is another aspect of human consciousness and no one notices it. Specifically, there is a kind of dissatisfaction out in Life in pursuing even information that is horizontally available.
Here is a perfect specimen, and I didn't even have to think of it, all I had to do was listen to the news, and it's so good I didn't even try to improve on it. Someone was pointing out the trade difficulties between the United States and Japan; mentioning the ever increasing and bothersome trade deficit between our two countries. Now listen fast, you don't have to know much about economics, and as always, economic trade relations are not the point; I'm repeating pretty much just what was said on the news. Those in charge of our economy have been trying to devalue the relative worth of the U.S. dollar compared to the Japanese yen, and for the last few months have had glowing success. The ratio of dollars to yen has continued to decrease so that the U.S. dollar is worth fewer and fewer yen. This would help balance the present trade deficit since Japanese goods coming to America would now cost more and American consumers would not continue to buy Japanese products. Now there are less dollars being spent here on Japanese products, less money from U.S. sources going to Japan. As a result of decreasing profits from America, Japanese companies are having to lay off some employees. The Japanese began looking for ways to make their products more competitive again. One of the ways they used to accomplish this was to build plants in America to build Japanese products and to hire Americans, who they can now get cheaper than the folks back home.
Now if you were following all of this, right about here is where the Yellow Circuit goes off duty. It is all reasonable at the start; the apparent imbalance was being corrected, the processes were all working as intended, having the desired effect, but as it continues it turns into, at the very least, a binarily conceived circle. By the time you get to the point where Japan is building plants in America and hiring American workers to build Japanese products, for the Yellow Circuit it is dissatisfying to say the very least. I could say it becomes frustrating.
By the time this story, this detailing of a horizontal news event, of a process taking place in Life, gets around to where Japan is now building plants in America and hiring American employees to build Japanese products because they work cheaper, what happens after that? What happens after that, I am trying to suggest to you, is that the Yellow Circuit shuts down. Now the Yellow Circuit may have its own story in your case; suddenly you decided to get a cup of coffee or go to the bathroom. What I am trying to get you to see is that if the electricity went just before that point, the Yellow Circuit in ordinary people would not grab the radio, shake it and say, "Well, what comes after that? Good grief, I gotta get the power back on!" There is a kind of dissatisfaction, almost a shutdown of the Yellow Circuit; it is getting too close to a kind of reality, too close to an area that can no longer be confined to binary reality.
This Thing is going to begin to swallow itself. It is getting to the point that the Yellow Circuit cannot literally comprehend it. It is like an absolute overload and the Yellow Circuit just doesn't want to hear anymore, it can't hear anymore. That is the condition many people involved with This have hit before. You get to a point where ordinary consciousness cannot support you any longer, cannot carry you any further, and nothing is amiss.
What I want you to see is that this goes on in Life and it is not recognized. Ordinary consciousness would blame somebody, "To heck with the Japanese, who cares," or "I'm not interested in economics. Anyway the whole country's going to hell." Nobody notices (they are not supposed to) that the only thing that happened is the tolerance, not psychologically but physically, the tolerance of their thinking machine has reached its limits.
In regard to This Activity, on occasion it will seem that, "I almost got it, but then I had to go to the store." It goes through a process before you can get new systems ignited, in which the tolerance of your present equipment is reached and it just seems to shut down. You've got to be able to find not just a 7-11 store of consciousness, you've got to find a 24 hour store. Of course, I admit nobody's wired up for 24 hour consciousness. You've got to build your own place. The most you are ever going to find is 7-11. Of course, if you live in the backwater, hanging around an oasis or a town as opposed to a city, you will find that 7-11 closes at ten o'clock anyway, so you are always behind.
The reason for the apparent passion behind the desire to change is that the stakes are so low. Ultimately when it gets to an individual case, it's meaningless.
It is okay to get caught, but not to confess. Now I can go ahead and talk about apparently external conditions, but as always, you must see that there is an internal parallel and therein is the significance. It is alright to get caught since you have no choice, but it is not alright to confess. The ordinary arrangement for people, everyone else and your own partnership and/or corporation, is that when you get caught you confess; but I am telling you people, in as much as being found out is unavoidable, do not confess. Never admit to a "weakness." You should never make any admission whatsoever; if captured, "I will not talk," if tortured, "I will only scream," or if you are so inclined, I guess, whimper.
What you can do, is offer an insouciant, clinical account of your own DNA print culpably being itself, yet again; and the only way that is acceptable, once you begin to see it yourself, is you have to be insouciant, you have to be indifferent. You have to be extremely objective and precise, and if you are insouciant you are always precise. Only the indifferent can be precise; which leaves out all scientists, all religious thinkers, leaves out everyone because everyone else takes it as a serious matter. The few should never confess; but you have to do what is minimally civil. It's alright to make externally some statement, and it should appear sincere, but it should be insouciant and it should be clinical, of simply noting that, "Yeah, I'm me again."
The real importance herein is the way in which you are dealing with yourself, your own partnership. "Well, there I did it. I hollered out at somebody...it's my temper again. Jesus, I'm sure that's my major weakness, that's what's holding me back from reaching Buddhahood." You are making a grave mistake, you're bleeding yourself. You might as well be a leach doctor. You can make a clinical notation that your own DNA profile has yet again shown itself. All you've got to be is clinical and insouciant, that is extremely precise and objective. Without those two aspects of it, you're admitting that as long as whatever seems to be the forces can cause you to make admissions over and over, you will remain a captive. "Admit it, you came here to spy on us." "No I didn't." "Slap him around." "Okay, yeah, I did." "You came here to spy on our naval activities, didn't you." "No." "Stick those splinters back under his fingernails." "Ouch, okay. It wasn't the navy though, I came to spy on your aerial activities." "Who are you spying for, Albania?" "No." "Hit him some more." "Stop. The Slavs sent me." There's no end to it. As long as you confess today, they will keep you alive one more day and slap you around again tomorrow. This condition of consciousness, the partnership will stay extant one more day and tomorrow you will confess anew. You can be accused of things that you never thought about. "Well, I never thought about it, but I guess if conditions were right I'd probably do that," or on the contrary you might think, "Heavens no, I'd never do that." Those are both admissions.
If there are people who understand anything on this planet, they are never interviewed. Have you ever read an interview where at the end you thought, "Gosh, this person knows something." No. If by some accident they were approached by an interviewer, they'd say, "You've interviewed me already, under another name." Of course to be interviewed you have to be interesting to start with. If you have nothing to confess, you're not interesting.
Those who can't immediately stop admitting can make this kind of insouciant, almost silly notation -- not externally, that's not even the point; not to other people -- to yourself -- a clinical notation that my own DNA profile, my own genes have yet again (surprise, surprise!) been themselves. If you can't be as phony as you should be, if you can't appreciate, even from afar, the great cosmic phoniness of people like Moses and Buddha, Jesus and Pee Wee Herman, then you don't understand what's going on. Those who belong at this particular strange edge of the concentration camp, close to the fence, will find out that is workable. They'll take that for a while. Long enough to get out of here.
Remember, it's the lack of treating the partnership seriously. You cannot laugh at a rabbi, you cannot laugh at the pope, forget how they dress and what they do; in these two cases you can't laugh and remain a Jew or a Catholic. The institutions of the community must be taken seriously to function. You must take the partnership seriously or you will not stay in business with it.
You could go home and practice at least every night and first thing in the morning looking deadly serious in the mirror in the bathroom while you are brushing your teeth; but remember, inside you've got to be totally insouciant. You appear to be on the verge of confessing something really bad, but you never do. "I will not be interviewed. Oh, okay if you insist," but then you don't tell them anything. You give them wrong names, false information, and if they won't buy that, give them real information.
I have a question. I'm going to use an example that is germane at this particular time to the locale, the community from which I am physically speaking right now. There is renewed interest and concern over pornography. Don't anybody get entangled by the example, I'm just picking out one that readily came to sight and mind in the last few days. I was a little behind in my attempt to keep up, for very clinical reasons, at a newsstand the other day I picked up a girlie magazine, one that I hadn't seen in several years. I found it was replete with photographs of sexual acts, except that at the extreme place where the act would be taking place, where certain, shall I say openings in the human body and certain protrusions might meet, there would be big black circles and squares and triangles covering up, I believe the psychologists would say, the good stuff. At the same time the magazine was full of letters to the editor and captions going along with the photographs that were supposedly telling some story. The writing was just exemplary pornography. I mean it was describing all the things that the black circles and squares were covering up, right there next to it.
I repeat, I am not talking about pornography and I am not talking about morality, I am talking about a situation in Life. What I am trying to point your interest to is not in the field of morality, it's in the field of circuitry. Now my question. What is Life up to right now (whether it changes tomorrow or not) in its overall scheme of things, that it forbids picturized pornography and right next to it allows written pornography describing that which is blacked out? What possibly is going on, in the needed transfer of energies, in the greater scheme of Life growing and evolving, that in this particular instance Life would forbid explicit pornographic pictures but give absolute free reign to explicit written pornography? Circuitry. I am giving you a hint. Circuitry!
Here is a question I received from someone. "Does efficiency mean lack of resistance?" Three dimensionally it would seem absolutely so, would it not? But under such conditions the thing or the process under discussion would ultimately be rendered non-extant. To binary consciousness operating in its three dimensional milieu it would be absolutely, unconditionally correct that the most efficient process would be on in which there was no resistance. And yet if you could see three dimensionally in a 4-D world you would see that if such an occurrence happened, ultimately, perhaps even in a matter of seconds, whatever was under consideration would be rendered non-extant. More than moot. Worse than useless. Non-extant.
Now let me ask you, who could see that this could be used in one's relationship to the partnership? Did I hear you say, "No, no! If you're going to work on yourself you've got to work on yourself. You've got to shore up your weak points, you have to be prepared to admit your shortcomings, you've got to be ready to confess." I thought we just went through that. What if internally you could treat the partner -- "No, no!" What if you offered no resistance -- "No, no!" What if you approached the arbitrary drives of your own partner -- "No!" Well I guess this .pais indeed too serious a matter for me to just give you...uh, we'll get back to this later.
Here's another question I'm going to just extract the heart from; the part I want to use. The person points out that it seems that throughout their life, whenever they get started doing something, they lose their footing, they feel as though they have compromised what they started and it never works out. Let me get clinical with it. It's a feeling, not uncommon in people, that the majority of humans are wired up to be susceptible to this in varying degrees, the feeling that, "I continually fail." Fail not in some great metaphysical sense of your entire life, but in specific, enumerable instances that you could actually point to. The apparent failures may seem to be small; looking back they seem less than cosmically significant, and yet it is an extremely tough feeling to live with. With ordinary people, as always, you must understand it is of no particular consequence; but for the few, that feeling of your life being a continuing series of small, middle sized, large and combined failures, must be seen as being an occupational description and not a personal one. It is impossible to live with that general sensation and do This simultaneously. You have got to see that if your life indeed has been that way what you are dealing with is a job description. It might as well come from the Washington bureaucracy.
To try and do This and at the same time live with that general sensation of failure, and taking it as a personal description of you, is impossible. Once you see that it may be your job description, we go to a different matter. At one time I pointed out to you that you truly cannot say good-bye to a place until you know it. You cannot leave your community until you understand, "I was born in this community. I had nothing to do with it, my parents had nothing to do with it, and I was born with a job classification: I was born being Fred to the 1,029th power. This particular job description may be of a male human who, apparently through his own ill-founded partnership, shaky corporate structure, continues to pursue failing endeavors. That is my job description and it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. My job is being a screw-up, my hobby, me personally, is failure."
The writer of the question also threw this in: "Is this in any way connected with 'if you don't act right, you don't feel right'?" Take note of this: for an ordinary person it's meaningless to say if you don't act right you don't feel right. It might as well be a canon from the pope, or maybe just a .22 ricochet from a cardinal, but for the few, if you can understand, it would be an absolute holy cliche. If the way you act, trying to do This, is as though you are your job description, then you never feel right, which is the way you are supposed to feel. That's part of your job description. So you'll never act right and you've got a good story, "Well, I can't act right. I continue to screw up." Right. "Would you help me?" Sure. "Would you really?" Yes, I will. That's what I'm here for. "You're probably going to tell me my weakness and really..." Yes, I am.