Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts. The first 15 minutes of the audio stream contains Kyroots that are not on the video.
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk #307 Dec 28, 1987 - 1:36
[Kyroot to :15. ]
[More on figurehead king and his minions. Everybody has a "king" dream --but look what you've ended up with: all your affairs are run by pygmies. The Real Revolutionist should not give up his king-self. The Real Revolutionist should be ashamed of allowing pipsqueaks to run things. Consider: who settles your internal disputes --what flunky? And who do you pay homage to? ]
[The Real Revolutionist needs to be able to produce New Data by finding new views of ordinary subjects, not necessarily the ultimate view. A new approach is like running along the shoulders of the road (of established views) without stumbling or getting lost. You can then see "up the road" (the future); by taking a shortcut you don't have to 'get there first' by the ordinary road route. In this way the future becomes recognizable, becomes here-now. If the future is only ordinarily arrived at, it is unrecognizable because indistinguishable from the old ordinary reality (just more problems). An illustration of "new approach" running along the shoulders of the road is the "deja vu" theory where that state is brought on by 'something you ate' and is merely a reminder, an enabling-to-see that you live the same damn day over and over again. Thus deja vu is something to be avoided, even to the point of fasting, or eating only very unstimulating foods. Such new approach, whether or not true proposes a radical revision of the ordinary understanding of memory and the possibility of real knowledge. The future can be now for the Real Revolutionist. All usable (somewhat self-produced) possibilities must be available now for the Real Revolutionist. For instance, future pleasure (anticipated vacation, new car etc.) is not controllable, not self-produced out of own understanding --therefore not usable by the Real Revolutionist. The external, horizontal flow-of-events in constant permutation can contrast to the relatively more stable, re-callable, internal state: such internal states are usable by the Real Revolutionist since not so transitory. The external flow of events/time cannot be so used. If a possibility is usable it is always present; (how much does this cause disinterest in the future?). ]
[To whom will you listen --be dominated by? By the cellular conversation or something higher, more complex? The cellular voices will not revolt against themselves, thus are in conflict with Real Revolutionist goals. A fanatic is a super-dominant figure and thus has wide appeal to the molecular need in man to submit. He evidences no uncertainty and will be submissive to nothing. Those who will submit to such a one do not see him as a 'fanatic'; the unwilling to submit see him so. Man's concept of God is a super dooper fanatical figure, and hence even more attractive to man's submissive need. God is a super-fanatic for man. So, will you settle for a phony-baloney molecular need of submission to a flunky god or to something greater: your own king? ]
[The purpose of philosophy is not to provide answers. This is a misdiagnosis. Its purpose is to fuel the philosophy process of producing more questions. The supreme misdiagnosis: man needs to, should, and can change.
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
Document: 307, December 28, 1987
I'm going to say some words about reasons. NOT reason the singular, the grand old world of Yellow Circuit logic, not linear directions of inference, or even conclusions, but reasons in the plural. First, let me point out that it is only in the confines and limits of the 3-D world that reasons exist. It is only there that things follow, that there are reasons for what happened. The basis of what appears to be the conveyance of information, the apparent expansion of the Yellow Circuit storehouse of knowledge is based upon a very poor excuse known as reasons. This produces in ordinary consciousness what amounts to a collapsible world; one that continually turns on itself, and falls in on itself.
Let me use an example that might carry this to a place that may snap a few of you. Real actions, and by that I mean usable actions, self motivated and in some way under your control, are not dependent upon or based on reasons. With actions that apparently succeed no one in the 3-D world questions the reasons. On the contrary, it is unsatisfactory actions that demand a thoughtful, wordy inquiry into the background of the reasons that caused the failure. It is unsatisfactory actions, some degree of failure, that produce in the 3-D world a demand for a blue ribbon committee to investigate the actions involved. Otherwise there is no interest in reasons. This is not some kind of so-called psychological game going on in the 3-D world. Successful actions, usable actions, actions that some group of people apparently seem to have some control over (or from another viewpoint; actions that continue for some length of time) such that it is obvious that Life is benefiting from them, are not based upon the collapsible world of reasons. It is only when the actions collapse -- based upon some group of people's expectations of them -- that Life wants to hear an investigation into the reasons.
Now, if you were my kind of F.R.I.P. (Fictitious Reasonably Insane Person) and could listen with a third ear, what I have just talked about would just about take all the wind out of your sails or take all the taste out of your mouth. If you want to assume, up to this point, that I have been talking about the external world, then now I'm talking about what takes place inside the confines of your very own skull. There is nothing wired up in you that has any interest in the reasons for success. As I've already pointed out, once you become king you don't have to worry about any fancy ancestors; you don't have to pull out some scroll showing where you came from; once you take power, nobody cares. (Remember, we are talking about what goes on inside you.) All interest in, "I wonder what his lineage is," is gone. So when you find something that seems to be successful for you, that you can apparently live up to some expectation you had, you NEVER have an inquiry internally. You never say, "Gee, I wonder what the reasons are for my success." Let me emphasize, NEVER. You just don't do it. But at the level of 3-D consciousness, a large part of one's Yellow Circuit time is spent in what appears to be an internal congressional investigation that chatters on and on about reasons and the background for your failures. What else do you talk about, daydream about? If you want a slogan for the week, how about, "Reasons aren't everything." If we want to make it stereo, how about, "Reasons aren't Anything." Truer words were never spoken.
To take this same thing in another direction, let me say that ordinary consciousness could not conceive of doing something without reasons, since the Yellow Circuit would immediately go, "Well, wait a minute, no reasons? You mean I'm going to do something I've got no motivation for? That's just plain silly!" And it is a hard position for ordinary consciousness to defend, because there is the built-in assumption that things operate in a linear manner within man's consciousness -- that there are reasons for "what I do" that precede the action. Some of you can begin to just barely discern at the cellular level something quite different, and some of you have run close enough to a great cosmic ringer to stick your finger in it a few times and see something. You have actually realized, as I put it, that 3-D consciousness is the last to know. 3-D consciousness is without reason for motivation. The Yellow Circuit can hear that and begin to process it, but it comes back to, "No, no, it can't be, or you could not even have that sentence. You have got to start with THE distinguishing characteristic of homo sapiens, consciousness." So in the 3-D world they may say reasons are spurious or ill-founded, but they still insist that reasons precede action. On a cellular level, everybody knows better, but at the cellular level, humans have only reached the point of translating just a few things: hunger, sexual desire, movement, and that covers everybody from the bricklayer to the president. As I pointed out, on a good warm day some of you can do better. That is about it.
I would like to point out to you from another unexpected direction that reasons are a city excuse for not using the two, let me count them, the two great teaching aids -- misdirection and deception. Of course, in the city they are not aware of it, they are not involved with the revolution, it is not part of the job description. Deception is a great teaching aid, misdirection is an even better one, and together they are just supreme. My excursions, and to say the least, much of what I say during these talks is either deception or absolute misdirection, otherwise it would be based upon a linear acceptable line of reasons, and the transfer of energy would go along whatever lines we could all agree on, which is very efficient for ordinary consciousness, but useless if you are after really new information. You cannot get new information without using the aid of deception, and I am not being pseudo-mystical when I say that everything I talk about is to some degree deception. It is not literally true, it is not allegory but it is deception and the part that is not deception is misdirection. That is the only way This can be done. Throughout history that's always what is involved at the time. Now history has this way of shaving off some of the sharp edges if This is going to get remembered. Give it a few generations to sink into the general history books, or have some group of people write it down and it becomes less revolutionary, less misdirecting. Given enough time, even insanity sounds most conservative. Regarding deception and misdirection, ultimately you have got to learn how to use them as your own form of self instruction. Without them you go in circles forever, without them you can't even get past something like, "Well, if everything is an illusion, then even my belief that everything is an illusion is likewise an illusion, so..." And on and on. You can't get anywhere without someone like me pointing out that up until you met me, you hadn't really gotten anywhere outside the Yellow Circuit. If you are wired up to do This, then you will use deception on yourself. I know how strange that sounds, but I remind you of how strange it sounded the first time I told you that to operate most efficiently you should not tell yourself what you are doing. If you are going to try to alter some habit, then by all means do not tell yourself about it. Let's take coffee as an example. If you say, "I don't like the effect, or just for the heck of it, I'm going to stop drinking coffee of any kind. I'm going to stop this habit." That is not the way to do it. You have to do it, but not tell yourself you have to do it. When the sentence begins about what you are going to do, then you must stop it before it actually imprints itself on the screen of consciousness. There is no real description, but instead of saying, "I'll quit," it's like you put the words, "I'll quit," in limbo. You put it all in suspended animation, you put it all in a state of continual expectation. You and the habit and the voice that wants to talk about it, nobody can actually know what's going on. Nobody can deal with that kind of secrecy, it is outside the binary dance that confronts anything consciousness wants to talk about. It comes out as, "Yeah, that's a good idea, I'll just cut my coffee consumption in half and from there..." I'm telling you do not respond, if you do you give up power. The king does not deal with peasants, not if he is going to be a real king. You've got no power if you are going to deal with the common people. Of course, I mean the common voices inside you. They have no business being involved in what you are doing.
Since I've been using the pictures and terms and allegories concerning a revolution, I have also pointed out that external revolutions are notorious failures. Let me update and expand on that statement. It does seem so, that revolutions on all parts of the planet are notorious failures, but let me point out that these apparent failures are yet another case of mis-diagnosis and mis-expectation. It is a mis-diagnosis in that ordinarily the revolutions do not actually intend to offer new freedom. So now, let me give the definition of freedom, which is the release, right then, of unwanted domination. That is not as obvious as you think it is. But that is freedom. Life does not have it wired up and arranged for ordinary revolutions to offer some release from unwanted domination. Rather than some new degree of freedom, the promise that all revolutions must make are euphemisms for this: "I will replace the present domination with my domination." In that, all revolutions are a success. If a revolutionist usurps the sitting power, that is success; and they always promise all kinds of freedom, whether economic, political, or whatever. It is mis-expectation though, from Life's lack of need, which translates into the inability of the people to understand that everything everybody says is a euphemism. It appears as, "Hey, now, I helped you get in power, but things haven't changed a bit; if anything, from my view, they may be a little worse." So we have this great case of more mis-expectations. But the former revolutionist that now sits on the throne says, "You do not understand the reasons involved," which is being very magnanimous, because once on the throne the king doesn't even tolerate questions like that.
Let me take this moment to point out a great, maybe the great mis-expectation. If you think of it in terms of contrast, it would be hard to top this one. Here it is -- the difference between what men are made to say they expect, and what they get. Do I hear the soft strains of someone singing in the background? Is that someone singing, "That's Life"? Now I mean this, that is a supreme mis-expectation involving everyone on this planet. No time restraints on that either. If you want to talk about contrast, taking it from the highest, broadest, level of mass expectations that a group, a nation, or a religion say they have, down to just you, then what greater contrast could there be than what you are made to say you expect, and then what you actually get? And it happens over and over and over again. So what does humanity continuously flail and holler about? FAIRNESS.
It has been said that from their moment of birth, all creatures, all beings, and may I throw in, all organizations (of which man is an organization of molecules) have within them the seeds of their own destruction. And beyond the very obvious, rather non-metaphysical view that everything born is already beginning to die, let us assume something a bit more metaphysical was intended. In that case, this should strike you as something that could be true, but if it is true, then what does that say about man's potential creativity, about the whole dream of growth, of change?
Now, let me say something else about organizations, again including the molecular structure of man. While they do have a life span as any other creature or being, they must protect themselves not only from flagrant failure, but also from too much success. It's not difficult to find examples of empires becoming pregnant with power to the point of collapsing internally, or a company becoming too large to offer the very kinds of services that brought about its success. There is, in a every true sense of the 3-D description, an inherent danger to success as well as to failure in an organization. But organizations of all sorts, including man, operate with a heightened sense of efficiency while they are threatened. You can see this in terms of nations being threatened by their neighbors, or companies by competition, or on an individual level, man being threatened by the general pressures of simply being alive.
Now, you are aware that I have always bad mouthed suffering, to the point of saying that if you fall into a general category and stay around here long enough, I will invalidate your suffering card. I have poked fun at self-pity as well as all forms of suffering, and at how we love to hear or read about bad news. So, I ask you, could there not be some reason for Life to arrange things in this way in the ordinary world? One of the reasons, not psychological, but molecular, that men apparently love to think, talk, and dwell on the problems that would seem to threaten not only their health, but perhaps their survival, is the contrast -- it is a heightened sense of efficiency. Whether it is half drunk bricklayers sitting in a cheap bar somewhere bad-mouthing the communists, or a conference of scientists and thinkers, all dressed up and apparently sober, bad mouthing the negative spillovers of technology that create pollution in the environment, it all sounds the same. Or maybe the next headline on one of those tabloid papers in the supermarket reads, "Oxygen causes cancer," and you look at that and say, "How silly, people just love to suffer," and, "Boy, I'm sure glad I met you know who, 'cause now I don't worry about all that silly stuff, and I realize how foolish it is for the rest of the world to worry about it." No it's not, no, no, no, no. It gives a heightened sense of efficiency, very much similar to some of the things I had you do, that you otherwise would not have done, since you have been involved in This. Just at the Red Circuit level, notice the feeling of excitement doing something new. You got through it, and it gave you a heightened sense of being alive, and you couldn't help grinning and smiling. That is molecular, it is cellular voices talking, it is not just foolishness, of humans sitting around everywhere discussing the potential destruction of us all. It gives a heightened degree of efficiency, an added awareness of being alive. And just because I pointed out that we are not going to blow the planet up, that does not mean these worries voiced by men are not serving a purpose. They most certainly are serving a purpose.
I want to add one more thing about this, but again we have no word for it. I will say serenity. I mean something else, but this is a close as words can get to it -- Real Serenity, Willful Serenity. Real Serenity is part of a revolutionary's game. It is not a game they play in the city and it will never be, and it's not supposed to be. If I could somehow speak to large groups of people, the general public, and tell them, "Hey, I can show you very quickly some little things to do that will produce Real Serenity." If I could do that and people would accept it, and say, "Yeah, I want that," it would not be of any use to them. If I continued far enough, it would not only not be of any use to people in the ordinary world, it would begin to wreck the whole structure of human existence. Serenity is a game to be played by only a few people because the rest of what seems to be self pity, self doubt, insecurity, uncertainty are the very things that produce a heightened sense of efficiency in Life. As foolish as I can make these things sound, they are nothing to laugh at -- they serve Life's growth.
The Real Revolutionist has not only got to learn how to use the heightening potential of general run of the mill threats and pressures, he has got to seek them out. If that's not sufficient, you have got to learn how to produce that kind of tension to keep yourself at a peak of operating efficiency. If you are not doing that you are just sitting around. The term I want to leave you with is, "The threats," because that is what it feels like. Any organization operates with a higher sense of efficiency when threatened. It is up to the Revolutionist to produce the kind of tension I am talking about because in the city, threats all have the same basic motivation, that of, "How can I protect my place in the hierarchy." The concern for status, that is the driving force after food, shelter, and sex, which are no longer factors for all of you, and most everyone else at our time and place on the planet. The concerns, "Should I get a new car, what do the neighbors think of my kids, what does my boss think of my work," are basic cellular motivations that are no different than the pecking order of wild rats, dogs, or monkeys. It is just your basic, "I am being dominated and who else is going to dominate me?" It's not sociological or psychological and it is most certainly not unique to the species, homo sapiens.
There is not one of you listening to me that would be so foolish as to admit that, "I am free from caring about what people think," that you haven't regularly entertained these voices and given them some importance even to the point of saying that they may help your revolutionary desire to change and grow. I tell you they do not. The motivations are basic cellular motivations common to everyone, and if you let them speak to you and you listen to them, you are ordinary because they will always conflict. The Revolutionist has to be aware of these motivations, but it is not these motivations that will produce the kind of heightened sense of efficiency that a Real Revolutionist needs for his operation.