Video=no you tube
Audio = Stream the audio from the video in two parts below. The first 8 minutes is members of the Atlanta Group reading the AKS - the "And Kyroot said......"
Summary by TK
#263 Jun 4, 1987 - 1:55
[Kyroot reading to :08.]
[To think that methods of consciousness expansion such as externally sensing/observing more than you normally do, are ends in themselves vis a vis enlightenment, is a mistake. Just a method which can be used profitably more or less. Rather, to internally expand awareness to see the anti-aspects of yourself --the flip side of every coin of your partnership--is what The Few do in This. The Few must not allow a 'two-eyed' partnership to be the only internal witness. They must create multiple witnesses that can see both sides of every coin.]
[What if The Partnership (TPS) is a low-level manifestation of two of the 3 forces?; the feeling of only 2/3 of the universal dance of ad hoc forces.]
[From a peculiar view, the lack of talent can manifest itself in the desire for dominance--for control. Consider the internal aspect: everyone has a voice of control, which seeks dominance of behavior--even the shy ("don't you speak up, dammit! blend in"). Such voice severely lacks talent. How else could it be so ineffectual in effecting the change it commands? Lack of talent = hunger for dominance. The one big exception: Life itself.]
[One of the true joys of creativity is the sensation of freedom arising from the feeling that your creation is uniquely yours; that 'this is all mine!' Art done by a committee (a closed, dictatorial form of gov't, for example) is extremely questionable as art. Consider, where does the creative burst in you come from? Not from a committee!! It circumvents TPS; C-channeled and aligned. Also in this freedom/joy is a kind of bravery; a straining of the established logical bounds of sequence and habit; a stretching of oneself--and done in solitude. A truly revolutionary artist has but one audience: himself.]
[To live solely on externally acquired ideas is to subsist on 'welfare'. The True Revolutionist is against himself for standing in the welfare line--not against the erstwhile power giving out the welfare chits.]
["There are no such things as 'false gods'--unless you don't believe in children". What possible use is the attempt to propitiate gods with gifts and sacrifices? It is obvious that the gods will still generate every possible form of good and ill regardless of such attempts. Consider the internal application.]
[ 1:23 epilog TASK: 7 days 1 x hr play "what if" game about an impossible situation (eg., what if you walked into a 7-11 store and there behind the counter waiting to serve you was...you!).]
[ 1:30 Extensive instructions and comments to ATL Group re: new project to make up outlines for segmentation assignments to individuals to become expert on (segments include timespan, topic and category to be covered). Overall areas: history, great books and geo-mapping.
FEELING THE FREEDOM OF UNDAUNTED CREATIVITY
Document: 263, June 4, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
For those of you concerned about whether you'll ever be famous let alone rich and famous, ask yourself this: have you ever seen, heard of, or read about any spiritual or philosophical thought or activity that changes? For instance, it may take a period of six hundred years for a church to decide that its leader should wear a green vest with a yellow collar, instead of a yellow vest with a red collar. Now look back on the notes you made of my lectures six months or a year ago. What is being said here changes constantly. Certain ordinary people might have an initial interest in This, but their impression is almost predictable: "Can't he make up his mind? I heard him talk about conality, and it really struck me. But as far as I can tell, he's forgotten all about it. I knew he was going to build into something, he came right to the edge of a fleur-de-lis of the mind, and then he started telling jokes. It was never mentioned again. I need something that I can count on." Alright, how about an abacus?
Note that you can question someone extensively about an event that he's observed, and he'll wrinkle his forehead, think about all the details, and perhaps describe a number of aspects of the event. But no matter how astute the observer, another person can recount an astounding number of details which the other missed. This is accepted in Life, and surely somewhere this phenomenon has been named. It's apparent that we don't observe as much of the external world as we could. You could even use this observation to form a would-be mystical school as the basis for expanding your consciousness. You should be aware of all that's occurring, from the nuances of the air conditioner as it whoops and slows down to the noise from the street while listening to me talk.
Note the popular exercises of remembering a holy name or idea, or repeating a cosmic law with every breath, over and over. Those could be good exercises, but you're mistaken in believing that such methods are the end in themselves, the goal. They are simply particular methods. It's no different from doing two thousand push-ups every morning for no reason, or losing eleven pounds on a whim. Observing more than you ordinarily do does allow for change: it extends the use of your senses and expands horizontal consciousness. But it doesn't necessarily lead to vertical growth.
Direct your attention internally with the knowledge that you alone do not observe all that a number of people in concert can observe together. Force yourself to make observations about what you seem to be thinking, feeling, and witnessing beyond those your ordinary partnership could ever make. I'm not referring to externally attempting to expand the functions of your senses, or suggesting that you become introspective and philosophical; trying to analyze and explain particular aspects of your behavior. Observations such as, "I have a terrible temper, but after forty-five years, I realize it's because of the way my mother treated me as a child," won't do it. Instead you must become an internal witness to other possibilities, be able to see the other side of all of your internal coins.
Under the right conditions, you can learn something about other people's observations of you. But collecting such opinions is not the most efficient method for doing this, since most of the opinions are going to coincide with things you've already said to yourself. "I have a bad temper." "Yeah, you do." As long as you operate within the confines of the partnership, you'll continue to witness the same things over and over. The partnership is never going to reveal observations, other than the ones it has already made. All that the partnership can ever observe, you've already observed. It's observations are lineal, logical, and reasonable. It will always uphold the status quo. The partnership will not disturb the peace. It will never grow a beard, put on army fatigues, and head for the mountains. It has no interest in revolution.
When an ordinary person, using his powers of observation, admits to having a bad temper, he is not dealing with revolutionary data. He might say, "All my life I've had a terrible temper, and it breaks my heart when I let it get out of control." He's wired up to say that, but it does not break his heart. This very scenario will repeat itself over and over.
In a sense, your whole life was played out before you left your teens, like a dim photo, a poor film copy, or a very weak recording. That might sound like a science fiction story, but level with me. What has ever happened in your life that came as a big surprise? Naturally, there have been unpleasant occurrences such as unexpected deaths, but has anything new ever happened in your personal life? Did you ever wake up, look in the mirror, and say, "Good grief, how could this happen? I've never felt this way. I never had a thought like that. It's unbelievable." Never, never, never. It's as though you knew what was going to happen.
All observations made by the partnership, under the conditions of Line-level consciousness, via the structure of your circuitry, are established before you leave your teens. You and the partnership may read a book entitled, "How to Increase Your Biological Consciousness," and then attempt to follow the author's advice. You may try to strengthen the muscle of the mind, and see more, but it will never affect what you are able to observe about a given scenario or situation. You and the partnership will never see more than you've already seen.
You need a new internal witness. You cannot do This and let the partnership act as your sole witness. You must expand the possibilities of what you seem to observe and feel about a person or situation. That is the beginning, you might say, of lateral expansion; trying to horizontally expand how you look at another person, a particular situation, or how you look at Life. You need to become an internal witness to what the partnership thinks, feels, and believes it's observing. Look a what you think is the observer in you. Look at what seems to be your feelings about what it thinks it's observing. Examine what seem to be your thoughts. Then you'll begin to understand what it means to look at the other side of all your internal coins. You can't let that two-eyed partnership act as your sole witness to yourself or Life.
Many of you have expressed a feeling of strangulation, that you've reached some kind of, if not brick wall, even worse, a cotton wall. "It seems like I can't go any further. Every time I inhale, it's as if I inhale a big piece of asbestos. I try to climb it, and it's as though the wall is made of taffy." You're making the same observations that you've always made, using the same witness to your life that you've used since you were a teenager: no new ideas, thoughts, feelings, or observations. You keep waiting for magic, for lightning to strike, believing that the problems and solutions are external, but you're merely reviewing the same old story. People once believed that lightning ran from a higher to a lower point, and now, it's known that lightning is an electrical reaction involving both points. I personally don't want to get involved with that, and tell you where my sentiments lie. You need new witnesses.
I'm going to bring up something that's fraught with fraughtness. Everyone on this planet has a feeling that there are two people inside of him -- "me" and then something else. Psychologists call it the conscious and unconscious mind. Religions call it the good and evil spirits. Since Man learned to speak, men everywhere throughout history have felt as though there was more than just one "me".
What if the partnership is, in reality, a low level, internal manifestation of two of the Three forces? What if two of the three necessary, ad hoc forces flowing through all people are what give the forever, historic, inescapable feeling of a binary condition in "me"? Two of the Three forces struggling, interacting, in an attempt to locate and open the most efficient channels for the growth of Life itself, and in turn, what seems to be the individual attempt to grow. The partnership is continually involved in two-thirds of a nonstop triaxial dance. Two-thirds of the dance is continually reflected and felt within you. If this were true, and you could see it, you'd say, "My condition isn't a curse after all."
From a particular view, a lack of talent can manifest itself in what seems to be a desire for dominance and control. Those who apparently seek dominance of a group, tribe, community, or nation seem to lack real talent. You don't have to be a run of the mill cynic to see this. You should be able to smell it's validity. Since I'm the one who made this up, I'd like to suggest to you that, externally, people without talent who apparently seek power are the rule. Yet there are exceptions. That's why it's exceptional. That's why the network news bureaus will report on a South American dictator who can loosen the collar on his uniform, grab an accordion and make you want to polka. There is a kind of non-understood awareness that those in power severely lack, what? Talent.
A similar situation exists in you. The very thing in you that seems to want to dominate, that has been struggling all these years to maintain power, is severely lacking in talent. That might sound strange, so let's examine it using linear logic. At Line-level, a part of you is always talking about making changes. It's the very part that says, "Hey, I've just got to make some changes. Starting next week, I'm going to do so and so." That's the part that apparently wants to dominate. It's the critic, the judge. You should be aware that this voice has been doing this all your life.
Even the most shy, backward person will find within themselves, a part that speaks of, that smells the desire to dominate. If it's not the domination of other people, then it's the part that says, "Listen, shyness is the way to get through this travail we call life. Don't ever speak up. Don't volunteer anything. Don't look up. Keep shying it." So, within everyone is some desire, even if it's just apparently aimed at oneself, to be in control; to seek out power, and dominate some other part.
This voice has been saying such things all of your life. Logically, if this voice had any real talent, why can't it make you do what it says? Why can't it trick you into changing? Why aren't you any better off? You're living with a very pompous, well dressed, would-be tyrant. It may have a side arm strapped to his or her big hairy thigh, but you can't expect it to display any talent, nor demonstrate the subtle finesse of an artist, a composer, or even a philosopher. Can you even expect it to display decent humane sense?
Why can't this thing, this voice that has been seeking to dominate you, force you to change at any level? If it's a talented tyrant, it could pull out a weapon, such as guilt, hold it to your head and say, "If you don't change, you're going to die. I'm going to drive you crazy. Haven't I shamed you enough?" Any tyrant can do that, or he won't last the weekend. Moving up through the mid ranges of man's development, why can't this thing seeking domination and power reason with you? Why can't it make you see, "We're intelligent men and women now. Why should I have to threaten you with guilt? You should be past that point. Let me lay out for you, quite clearly, that it would be in your best interest to make these changes."
If the voice had any talent, it could convince you to change. And what has it done for you? Nada. It's done nothing. So, I suggest, from a certain particular and correct view, the lack of talent can manifest itself in the desire for domination.
Anyone who seeks to be the entertainer to your audience: a religious leader, a man on a street corner, a college professor is seeking to dominate. "But wait," you say. "Surely, a professor with a master's or doctoral degree in some field or a religious leader has to be a learned person. Surely they have some talent. I think I've found the exception to your rule." Have I carried this too far? Are we entering the mine field of possible exceptions? I gave you the equation. The lack of talent equals the desire and hunger for domination. Look for it yourself. This might be of use to you, any time someone's attempting to dominate you, to take control of the situation or wanting to exercise some power over you. If that's what's going on in the ordinary world, I'm telling you it's a manifestation of a lack of talent. There is one exception and that is Life itself.
Everyone here should be pursuing any talents you seem to possess, be it music, painting, gardening, or bird watching. All it has to be is something within your experience that fits the definition of "creativity", whatever that is. One of the true joys in that which seems to be creativity is a feeling of a kind of freedom, a freedom that seems to be "all yours." You may be playing the guitar and suddenly a whole song or chord progression emerges that you've never heard before. For those who like to draw, perhaps you'll be sitting around doodling and find yourself absolutely delighted with the sketch. In a sense, it's better than anything you thought you could draw. What you've done is almost better artistically than the internal critic, the one with no talent, says you are capable of producing. And you did it. There is a joy to it, a freedom and sensation that this is "all mine." It was "all me."
Conversely, art done by committee, to say the very least, is always extremely questionable. Consider this: art that's been created under the auspices or within the confines of an oppressive, dictatorial society rarely catches the eye of the art world. They'll call it visual propaganda because it always carries a message supportive of the dictatorship. A tyrannical government will not tolerate weird art, weird music, or strange literature of any kind. All art must be government sanctioned, and I'm being charitable, with a little cheek in my tongue, even calling it art.
What if you were to invite ten painters who had all studied with Michaelangelo to work together on a project. You locked them in a room and told them to paint a fresco. You do know what would happen, don't you? I'll tell you this much, it would not win any awards. Creativity does not evolve by committee effort.
I recently asked you to consider why we are apparently talking about the external world. Why do I pick physical examples and concrete situations "out there"? Surely, I'm not talking about the good old tyrannical dictators running South America? Take this reality and turn it inward.
Now, let me ask you, where does this burst of creativity come from? Why are they so enjoyable? Why that sense of freedom? At least in the beginning, I will suggest it's because it may be one of the few times that the product was not produced by committee.
Some of you may feel as though no part of you is wired up to be creative. You may have a tin ear, can't dance, can't draw anything but stick figures, and then others can't even tell that they're stick figures. You may apparently be sans creative ability. Is it even possible that someone could be interested in This and apparently have no talent?
For a moment, let's forget about interjecting personal judgement into the evaluation of a piece of art. Forget about calling a piece of art good or bad. You can look at a piece of art, listen to music, and know that the artist was working almost entirely for C Force at the time the work was created. No matter how ordinary, as they created their work of art, the artist was experiencing a moment of freedom and having a great time; having as much fun as they could ordinarily have with their clothes on. You can look at the painting and feel this. They were experiencing a singular pleasure, a kind of freedom, while working for "C".
Another aspect to this description of freedom involves a particular type of bravery. Without discussion, without an audience, certain ordinary people will shut themselves away, fueled by C Flow, and create extraordinary works of art. Art that is not simply an extension of their habitual selves. It's the bravery of straining the logical bounds of sequence and habit. For the time being, I am going to suggest that these paintings, these works of literature, music, architecture seem to jump out in history. Using binary terminology, certain of this art has been deemed pivotal. One example would be the impact of the impressionist school of painting upon classical art, resulting in a sharp turn within the world of painting. Not all impressionist paintings are a pricey as a van Gogh, but everyone involved with the impressionist school played some part in this pivotal change.
I am suggesting to you there is a kind of bravery involved, of course, not on the artist's part, never among ordinary people, even though they would describe themselves as being brave and experiencing freedom. The bravery was on Life's part. Life was stretching its own bounds of sequence and habit; straining against the limits of its own logic for that time and place.
Sometimes if Life continues down a course for a long enough period of time, such an era and its activity is considered classical. It survives for hundreds of years. When that happens, parts of Life's body, that is, people say, "Hey, that stuff may have been written in three hundred B.C., but that guy was right on the money." Or you could simply look back and note something that seemed to happen in philosophy, architecture, or religion. Even though it may not have survived in a particularly influential form, it was still pivotal at the time.
If one was to interview an ordinary artist after he or she had recovered from the heat of passion that produced the work of art, "My dear, your work is such a shift in the thinking of our times. It's so radical. What brought this on?" All they would be able to do is stutter and spit out some half cocked response. "Well...uh...This is what happened...uh...it was a flash of inspiration." Does that sound familiar? You may not be an artist, but you should know by now, if someone were to walk up to you and say, "Why did you do that?" You'd say, "Sure, I can explain why..."
Let's jump to another paragraph and play elastic man, keeping one foot on what I've already discussed. To live solely on externally acquired food/information, apparently externally acquired ideas, is to subsist on welfare. You might say, "Yeah, but some of the ideas I've gotten from other people have kept me going." Many of you might say, "If a person is seriously intent on being involved with This, he'd forget about any kind of welfare. If you want my opinion, I wouldn't put up with that stuff. I'm the kind of person who's struggling for the greatest amount of freedom, even if I don't always practice it. I'm not the kind of person that would turn to some government and ask them to help me and give me handouts. Not me. There have been .patimes that I've been very poor, and I never applied for food stamps." Oh, really?
You don't realize that you're living on welfare when you live on externally acquired ideas, and food/information. You may hold your head up high, man the barricades, and shake your fist at the apparent authorities, but you're still going to show up and ask for your handout. You are submitting to whoever's in control, yet you call yourself a revolutionist. You are living on welfare.
I have a higher definition of a real revolutionist, which isn't necessarily practical or paradigmatic; it's beyond any form of dichotomy. A real revolutionist isn't someone who says, "To hell with everybody." He says, "To hell with ME." Then you're getting somewhere. You don't say, "To hell with the powers, the authority that seems to be handing out welfare." Instead it's, "To hell with the me that would live on welfare."
Of what use is the practice of offering gifts and sacrifices to the gods? The deities are ultimately going to generate every possible form of havoc and sunshine regardless of the sacrifice, yet everyone at Line-level, including you, is driven to offer gifts and sacrifices. I don't mean the sacrifice of one's virgin daughter, people sacrifice sugar, tobacco, alcohol, self-respect, talk, silence, and peace of mind. Everyone has this desire. It is proper ordinarily to offer unto your gods, gifts and sacrifices. And, it's obvious that no matter what you offer, the gods will ultimately generate every possible havoc and sunshine. They always have, and they're doing it right now. Society could spend every waking hour thinking up ways to sacrifice. They could throw every third person in their tribe into a lake in homage to the lake god. When they all get sick or develop hydrophobia, they might decide, "We need a new god, because we're not throwing anyone else into the water." So they quit doing it for a while. The gods are going to generate every possible form of apparent destruction and construction regardless of what the people do.
Imagine the people who attend church or temple, dressed in suits, bowed in prayer, and at first you laugh at them, or wonder why they do it. But notice your own internal processions and desires to give gifts and sacrifices. See if you can laugh at that. It's a funny kind of laughter: the realization that no matter what you do, what sacrifices you make, all possible forms of havoc and sunshine will be generated.
Of course, it doesn't matter at Line-level whether or not people are sequentially logical. Ordinary people believe in their sacrifices. To them it means something. If you live by the rules of the partnership, you're living with the idea that, "I should be giving gifts to my great internal god, the great all encompassing judgmental spirit, ME." But no matter how you try to pacify it, ultimately it's going to do whatever it wants anyway, and at one time or another it will execute all possibilities. Think of the number of wasted sacrifices. I personally don't like to think about it.