Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts. The first 12 minutes of the audio stream contains Kyroots that are not on the video.
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk #312 * Jan 14, 1988 * - 1:51
[Kyroot reading to :10 followed by reading of "who This is not for" :12. ]
[Distinction (separation) vs. connection. Men either assume external reality is an actual battle, say between 'good' and 'evil,' and unrelated to the conflict within their own consciousness (distinction-separation) or they assume external conflict is a mirror of man's internal conscious battle/contrast (distinction-connection). But both of these are the same, not opposite views. The sense of internal conflict is the essence of 3-d consciousness --it can be lessened by disease or agent (alcohol). The natural condition of consciousness is an inability to see a connection/distinction; to see internal and external reality as one. In the City any process that is thought to be deficient has for an opposite, an equally flawed condition. E.g., what has warts on one side, when turned over must have dimples (inverse warts). The People think that the opposite of a flawed condition is not flawed, is even the cure of the flawed condition. E.g., alcoholic becomes 'reformed' alcoholic. But no reform is possible; supposed perfection is impossible. There is a connection here to the mathematical impossibility of ever realizing a specifically defined, a satisfactory dream. The actual formulation/description process renders its actual achievement impossible; can't have them both. Thus the religious zealot can never find god. Thus the Real Revolutionist has plans, dreams which he cannot talk about --even with himself. The supreme exercise of cowardice is to discuss/reveal your plans. The discussion automatically negates the act. Only the fearful operate like this. Reformation is not a perfecting of flawed behavior. There is a crude awareness of this at the 3-d level: a dislike of a 'reformed' anything. This is why there are no periods, no certainty in the City; every answer raises a new, unexpected question. Everything is constantly treated (symptoms) but no cures arise. ]
["Much talk breeds miniscule sense of duty". An inverse relationship between talk and duty. Everybody is flawed; everybody has "transient systemic anomalies".]
[To be properly effective, the "Look" method must incorporate the "stand-aside" corollary. The Real Revolutionist must 'stand-aside' from the ordinary operation of his circuits in order to Look. This is how to "know thyself". The People believe that to 'know thyself' is virtually impossible, hopelessly complicated except for those who have devoted their life to it in a timely fashion—in the beginning. But as a Real Revolutionist you can know yourself: stand aside and look at everybody else, and there you are! ]
[ If you could "absolutely" do anything, be anything, you could then "forget it". Nobody in the City can be 'absolutely' anything. ]
[1:51 Epilog. Solicitation for "Index Prohibitorum" (words not to be used).
THE OPPOSITE IS ALSO FLAWED
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 312, January 14, 1988
Ordinary people are not wired up to distinguish between, or connect, their internal consciousness and their external assumptions of what is going on in what they feel to be the "out there." As always, there are two apparently different views available to ordinary humanity, which I will illustrate -- but I am skating around something else, and we are about to hit a wall of words.
There are many people who operate on the assumption that there are indeed externally tangible good and evil forces in conflict. Yet these people cannot distinguish between or see the need to connect this externally observed conflict with their own internal conflict. On the other hand there are many, existing simultaneously within the same body of Life, who believe the externally observed struggle to be a reflection of a struggle within Man. They assume that this is simply a protection of the internal struggle between their id and their odd -- between their consciousness and their non-consciousness. At the ordinary level these two groups or views might be regarded as a distinguishing line between those still tied to the past and those more "up to date." Thus, the quite common notion: "Some of us are contemporary in our views, but a lot of us are just plain backward."
Neither of these binary views will suffice for the Real Revolutionist. Once again Life has had man go too far or cut him off short of the mark. The two views I've described are two-thirds of a tripartite balance that is unrecognized.
My equation, "I + Not-I = Everything" cannot be understood without seeing the distinction/connection between inner consciousness and the assumption of external reality. Distinction/connection should really be one word, because they are not opposites.
It is impossible for an ordinarily wired person to feel anything other than a struggle going on between decency, or good, and anti-decency, or evil. That is why This Thing can never be evangelized. Every nervous system on this planet, feels this conflict -- internally and externally.
If your nervous system becomes less than fully active at the current level, the feeling of conflict disappears. You can do this by taking in alcohol or lowering your consciousness by withdrawing from or denying something. It can happen through a physical accident or a frontal lobotomy. If you lower consciousness far enough, you'll have no sense of good and evil. Without an operative Yellow Circuit you have no sense of right or wrong. Unless the nervous system is activated up to the point of Yellow Circuit consciousness, there is no internal conflict -- no more so than in a dog or a gopher.
Consider my equation again: I + not-I = Everything. My two words distinction/connection are mutually exclusive, apparently. They are opposites and yet I am putting them together.
If I had a gun aimed at the whole world and forced them to discuss my equation, half the world would find it not to be true. They would say, "Now wait a minute. That doesn't make any sense at all, because there is no real distinction between us and "out there." We are responsible for what we do to other people. You're erecting an artificial distinction." The other half would say, "That's correct; in fact, you've got the 'I' and the 'not-I' too far apart. You should push them right up against the plus sign. I know I've been abused and misused all my life. Why, people can just ruin another's life by a word or a look. Whole nations can ruin one another."
Under ordinary conditions, back at the City born level of consciousness there is a continual inability to see any distinction/connection between what's going on in you and what's going on out there. Consciousness cannot even take into consideration that there could be a distinction between or with everybody continually. The connection/distinction is part of consciousness, and there is no way to stop the merry-go-round and say, "Ok, everybody! Jump off and look!" You cannot do that because consciousness does not operate in that manner.
There is a flow going on throughout my equation -- the plus sign might as well not be there. It is a misnomer, a misdirection. It is an addition, a separation, a combination of separation and cohesion. It is a combination of distinction and connection. There is not, contemporaneously speaking, a majority of humanity believing the "mind" is totally influenced by what goes on in the "out there." That is not the predominant voice currently, so it does not seem as valid as the other view. The view that out there is simply a reflection of the projection of "in here," seems to have more validity, but it's of no consequence, it does not answer or explain anything. One view runs all the flow of information in one direction.
If all the information flows in one direction only, it's as if you send a rocket off and never see the explosion. You would be playing Noah, sending your little bird of ignorance off, saying, "Go bring me some knowledge." The bird says, "Fine," and leaves and you never see him again. There you are seventy nine years old, still waiting for the bird to return.
If information flows in one direction, there is no loop, no access for retrieval. If you are dealing with what seem to be facts, and it only goes in one direction, what do you expect? You are continually waving Mama off on the train, and she never comes back. You are waving her off by such things as, "Hell, I went through school, it cost me four years and twenty thousand dollars to get through college." You're waving goodbye. "Look at the way I treated that woman. I was so good to her for years." Wave bye bye. "Look at what I put up with in that man." Bye bye. "Look at all those years I spent taking dope and reading strange books." You're waving bye bye.
In the 3-D world, the opposite of something that is flawed is also flawed. Consciousness cannot natively deal with this. It will tell you that evil is definitely flawed, and the answer to the flaw is good. If something starts out with warts and you turn it over, or inside out, it has dimples. It is a four-dimensional fact that the opposite of anything that starts out deficient is also deficient. It is an unanalyzed belief that the evil or false is flawed and therefore to be avoided in favor of the good or true, which would be perfection. But that is physically impossible and, to see it requires a trans-dimensional consciousness.
Remember, I am not talking spiritually or religiously about good and evil. As long as the limit of your consciousness is that the truth is the complete rehabilitation of the false, as long as you believe there is such a dichotomy -- you're wrong. I am talking not about good and evil, true and false, but the forces that run the world, for which there are no names. I just give them temporary labels: East, West and North; C, D and E; X, Y and Z.
The forces are such that as long as you continue with only a binary sampling, you can only be conscious of one of the two possibilities. Instead of good and evil, right and wrong, true and false, how about, "How will I behave in this situation should it arise again? How will other people act?" One way always seems preferable to you, particularly concerning the actions of others. "They are going to tell me no! But the opposite would set things right. I would be happy, and closer to my goal if they said yes." If No is flawed, Yes is also flawed.
I want you to consider again my statement regarding dreams. If any dream you have can be specifically formulated, it can never happen. You may dream, "Oh, if I could just one day be standing outside Carnegie Hall, playing my kazoo, and the man in charge would walk out and hear me and say, 'Oh, my god! a prodigy!'" Your dream cannot happen. No matter what the picture is, whether it's you suddenly becoming famous for your painting, or your outstanding facial beauty, the picture can never be possible. You can never achieve it. You will never realize it. If you can describe it you can't have it. You cannot do both. I am describing a scientific fact. If you can begin to get a grip on it you can take it as an Operational Directive -- that is, the Revolutionist has damn few plans and aims that he can discuss.
Everyone is wired up to believe they have been hurt and misused, that life would be better if there were a few things in the past that could be undone, some crimes that could be unwound. "I wish I could say something to my mother and father to make them forgive me for something I've done!" If you can formulate it specifically, to your satisfaction, it can never be. If you can get a grip on that, it will explain many, many things.
Insofar as the discussion of plans are necessary in the City, they are, from the view of This Activity, another veil for a kind of cowardice. As long as you can say, "Well, what I really want to do with my life is thus and so and such and such," you have marked out another place where you need not make any effort.
City people effectively hide cowardice behind a wall of words. This has a real distinction/connection with excessive talk about plans and dreams. Even when people are apparently talking about the past they are still talking about the dreams, "Well, the dreams won't be like what happened in the past. If I could undo the past, then the dreams would come to be." But the more specifically you can talk about something, the less it can actually happen.
I assume you see some of the humor you are surrounded by in the City. People will pay thousands of dollars for courses teaching them to visualize and describe exactly the kind of lover they want, all the way down to the exact color of Ferrari they drive. But all of their dreams are impossible. Even if you actually get the lover or the Ferrari, the feeling you formulated about it will never happen. It is a physical law -- you cannot achieve it.
I want you to direct your attention to the fact that nobody likes a reformed anything. At certain levels in the City there is a crude awareness of this, once it is pointed out. The obvious example is that of the reformed alcoholic -- the one that gets drunk, kills his wife and kids in a car wreck, and then apparently undergoes a drastic change. He becomes an adamant non-drunk. If you place this reformed drunk with another person, the reformed drinker is going to talk -- he has to -- and within a matter of minutes whoever he is talking to has had enough. Nobody likes a reformed anything. There is a crude awareness that something is flawed.
Although there is this kind of suspicion of a flaw, humanity in general cannot learn from it -- there is nowhere they can go with such suspicions. There is information seeping out in Life's body: Whenever somebody is apparently acting in a flawed manner, such as an alcoholic, there are immediate voices that renounce it. "It's not good for your health. It's not good for society in general. It's self destructive." But the opposite of the analyzed behavior is flawed as well, and this is why there never seems to be any certainty in the City. If you turn on the news you hear, "Recent tests show that a Type A, aggressive personality, long known to be responsible for a higher risk of heart attacks, is apparently also responsible for a higher chance of surviving those heart attacks."
In the City, there is an unending string of commas; but they are not willful commas like I use. Every time Life has some field, such as biology or physics, apparently make some great stride with a resulting new answer of some sort, what happens? "Well, it brought up a brand new question we didn't even suspect." Of course, those that are operating in that part of town, that is, in the domain of the Yellow Circuit, don't get upset. Bakers get dough on their hands and farmers step in you know what. Intellectuals step from one hole to another. But to consciousness in general, it seems as though nothing can be depended upon.
Consider again my example of the "new information regarding type A personalities." The opposite was not the opposite. There cannot be a closed loop of information. If Life is to continue growing there cannot be any certainty in the City. You cannot go out to the great Canyon of the Cosmic Truth and holler, "What is it?" and wait to hear the answer.
What remains unrecognized is the automatic belief that anything consciousness can see as being questionable, worthy of criticism or flawed, must have a solution. And the solution is always, "Turn it over." "If you're a drunk, quit drinking." That's obvious, but if you have a corn with warts on it and you turn it over, you have a corn with dimples in it.
In the City you can apparently treat things but you cannot cure anything. "When are we going to get down to the real causes and stop dealing with the symptoms?" Never. Having plans, in a Revolutionary sense, would be beyond discussion, even with oneself. Too Much talk ends up producing a minute sense of duty. Thus, many parts of Life's body believe they smell a flaw in those who are serious and vigorous proponents of some belief system.
There is a sizable part of humanity that wants nothing to do with those who passionately evangelize or promote some position or idea, religious, political or otherwise. "Yeah, I heard what you said when you handed me your pamphlet, and I've got no complaint with anything you said. But there is a flaw here somewhere." There's a flaw everywhere. Every human, every group of humans, every institution suffers from transient systemic anomalies. Try that! That sounds a lot better than saying we are all flawed. If you're human you suffer from transient systemic anomalies -- they come and they go.
A sense of duty, is related to talk by an inverse ratio. By "talk" I mean not only what you say to others, but also internally what you say to yourself about This Activity. I am speaking only of quantity -- the wrong word could be too much.
I have described the "look method," wherein to see what is really going on one simply looks around. But I should add to that the "stand aside and look" method. You have to get outside the immediate, magnetic field of the hard wired nervous system to really look.
In the City there is no such thing as a "look method." If I suggested the method to ordinary humanity the response would be what? "What the hell do I do with it? What is there to see? It's all confusion, it's all running amok." Everyone has transient systemic anomalies. Everyone is apparently screwed up. You have got to at least step aside from wherever you are. If you remain captive of the binary flow of distinction/connection, with only one-half seeming pertinent, you will continue to believe that things can ride off into the sunset and actually return with the information you want. People say, "I'd like to study the workings of my own mind. But where do I start? It's like I'm living in an infinite river and I can't find one stone on which to step." You have got to learn to stand aside and LOOK.
I'll give you a slap in the face shortcut. The whole idea of the difficulty in knowing oneself is not correct. Ordinary consciousness cannot approach this in the manner I will describe, but here it is: To know yourself, whoever you are, all you must do it stand aside and look at everyone else -- and there you are. This is more dangerous than a truth: it is a correctness.
Notice that I said Everybody. You've got to stand aside and look at Everybody else; and you can see everybody in about 10 or 12 people. There you are. Knowing yourself is a fait accompli, a piece of sweet potato pie. It's yesterday's news, honey! In the City, they would take this as some sort of allegorical message, but its not. There is nowhere else to look, there is no mystery or secret lurking in dark places. There it is and there it is! That is self-knowledge.
I should stop and applaud Life for another wonderful instance of misdirection. Humanity continues to believe that to know oneself one must study oneself, notwithstanding the fact that this has never gotten anyone anywhere. Life seems disinclined to even let some ordinary smart aleck call it a bad joke. Everyone will salute the "know thyself" flag when it rolls by. But you can't wave Mama bye bye on the train and be Mama.
I have mentioned that everyone involved with This Activity should absolutely do the best you can. I will add, you should absolutely do the best you can and then forget it. In every possible area, absolutely be the kindest, the most considerate, the most honest, you can be, and then forget it.
In the City, if I tried to convey this information of absolutely do the best you can, then forget it, there would be three responses: "Yeah, I agree with that," or, "Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't agree with it," or, "Yeah, I've heard that but it's meaningless." Any of those responses would be proof that the speaker could not absolutely do anything. If you could absolutely do anything, you could forget it. If you could absolutely be as nice as you can, you could forget it. Even if someone said to you, "Compared to my Uncle Charlie, you're not all that nice," it would not affect your forgetting it. If you accepted such a comment it would show that you were still in the City, where everything is flawed, where everything operated by contrast and there can be no agreement.
In the City you cannot absolutely be anything: If you could absolutely be a type-A personality, you would absolutely have the world's most astounding heart attack. You would have a heart attack to be written up in all the journals. Then, you would make the world's most astounding recovery. You would have a heart attack that would scare the wits out of any doctor alive and in 30 seconds you would bounce back up, ready to play football. Or, you would be able to absolutely be as nice as you can, and if people didn't like it, you could say, "To hell with you," and that would be the end of it; although you would not necessarily do it verbally.
There is misdirection in my saying "as nice as you can" because, in the City it seems open to all types of interpretation and discussion regarding circumstance and conditions. But to absolutely be anything is not open to discussion or conditions. You can't even put words on it. If you can absolutely do something, you transcend anyone's world of reason, and are not bound to such questions as, "Why did you do that? You were acting real nice and then, right in the middle of it you just walked out. It's irrational. It's illogical." You would be free to do whatever it is you do and then walk away from it. Whatever it was, you then treat it with the same respect as you do parsley.
Although ordinary people cannot do that, you can see reflections of it in literature and movies. Commonly, they are known as heroes: some figure who seems to be capable of doing something and then simply walking away. Somebody crosses them and the hero pulls out a gun, shoots the offender and then gets on his horse and leaves, without apparently giving it another thought. There has always been such heroic figures in literature and mythology. Such actions cannot happen in Life in any widespread manner: Life would essentially have landed on one foot and remained there. It would be as though Life let its breath out and you realize, "Hey, that guy isn't going to inhale again!"
I always hesitate using this, because it is almost too sticky, but if you found yourself in a situation that called for aggression or hostility, you would still have to be able to absolutely do it and then forget it. To do this, a new, non City bred molecular structure is required. The ability to do it absolutely is impossible in the binary world. In the City, if it is absolute, it is dead. The only person you can trust in the City is a dead man. A dead man is the only person who can have an unchangeable opinion.
If you could take the term I started out with, "distinction/connection," and to use metaphysical terminology, squish it all up together, you would be close to "absolutely." In a sense, you would have distinguished and connected all possible foregrounds and backgrounds with all possible peripherals. There would no longer be the difference between the nice and the un-nice, the yes and the no. You no longer simply distinguish between or simply connect, you do both. You have got to see that energy flows both ways.
If you only have a choice of two things, remember, neither one of them is correct; because the one that doesn't seem correct, even if you turned it inside out or reversed it, would still be flawed. Instead of waving Mama goodbye on the train, suddenly you are on the track, the train is right behind you and you can't get off. Do you think that you would be in better shape that way -- running the rest of your life, with that train right behind you with Mama yelling, "I'm here! Come back! I'm here!"
Try to remember that at the ordinary level of human awareness, energy flows in one direction. If it were possible to reverse what seems to be flawed in you, or in Life, the reverse would be equally flawed. If you can formulate the flaw, you can formulate the cure, but then even that would be flawed.
You ask, "Is there no hope?" There is more hope than gets used up -- it just lays around. What to keep hoping for is to find some people to use up some of the hope. Of course, I mean "hope" in another sense -- that is, "Is there no real information?" How do we escape such a quandary?" Do you have no molecules that aren't currently being used for some profitable purpose? Take your time to answer that -- don't rush into it. Okay, now rush into it. All your little molecules are useful? All of them are talking to you on their little cellular phone and it is all for your direct benefit? They all exercise and try not to be hostile of critical? They all run and eat well? They do all that; do they? Well, I sure would like to meet you, although not enough to actually meet you. Because I know that almost certainly you're going to want to tell me about it; and as far as I am concerned, that would ruin the whole thing.