Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox 0321 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See below
Diagrams = See Below as Diagram #148 video grab
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk #321 * Mar 3, 1988 * - 1:58
[Life's "First Story Fans". Usually successful; look upon life as a battlefield with meaningful victories between birth and grave. The Real Revolutionist too sees life as a battlefield --but as an epic drama wherein all play roles; their goal is to play role pleasurably but impersonally. There is a group of people that live right at gut-level. That is, they are not driven either by lower circuit hungers or by upper circuit ones: "seekers". They have the possibility of balancing upper circuit and lower circuit hungers; of using the lower circuit passion to support upper circuit ones. They do not mechanically almost smother the lower circuit fires (calmness), but redirect them to drive and enhance the upper circuit. In the Real Revolutionist the upper circuit is merciless while the lower sees no need for mercy. There is a connection between First Story and conscious functioning in naming things. The Real Revolutionist has got to be ready at all times to "move out" --have no excuses, just move out. Naming things precludes being about to move out; turns verbs piecemeal into nouns. The Real Revolutionist cannot feel satisfied with any name. There are also Secondary First Stories in life, which fills in if the first one fails; an example of one: there is a difference between knowledge and understanding—i.e., that they are two different things: labels. Another secondary First Story: there is reality behind appearance: secret knowledge. The "ultimate First Story”: there is an 'out there' (separation is); or, there is a difference between true and false (there is a difference between anything!). Where there is a difference between true and false, the 'truth' cuts off all investigation beyond it. A Real Revolutionist would have to abstract all First Stories; summarize (not condense) everything now known. This must be done in a 'peripatetic fashion' --with process awareness --on the move.]
[There is no 'one right thing' to be/do --but there is a right combination of things. The Real Revolutionist must find this
right combination —on the move. ]
[Revenge is condemned only because no one knows how to do it right!! ]
[Group questions: if you were in perfect balance would you be in favor of change? No! Everyone has a built-in out of balance feeling.// "I" above-the-line is a process// The cellular parts of any organization can never predict the future of the whole. This relates directly to the definitive dream being unachievable.// No Real Revolutionist method can become mechanical.// Does any problem make any sense? This Thing has nothing to do with problem solving. Note that in all evolution absolutely no progress has been made in getting rid of problems.// None understand the below-gut unalterable difference between the sexes; a yawning unbridgeable gulf which creates disadvantaging lack of knowledge--even the possibility of knowledge. The Real Revolutionist has got to treat his mate based on this knowledge of irreversible disadvantage, much like he would take a disability like blindness into account in his dealings with another. ]
[1:58 Excursion: give yourself a 'freedom favor'. Sacrifice some small annoying behavior/habit. To do this is Real Freedom.
FIRST STORIES, BELLY FIRES AND ICE WATER
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 321, March 3, 1988
By and large, everyone accepts Life's First Stories. But there are also people who I could refer to as being "fans" of Life's First Stories. They are the ones who apparently have no trouble at all with life, compared to most ordinary people. They run the good rat race and very often do quite well in life. And there is nothing wrong; they are very important people, though not the kind of people most Revolutionists would care to be locked up with in a closet over the weekend. In a very particular way they look upon life as being a kind of battlefield. They also seem to believe in the distinct possibility of the existence of meaningful little victories between here and the grave. They look upon other worldly or spiritual concerns as really pretty spooky. They are the ones who buy the story, "You only go around once."
In a peculiar way, a Real Revolutionist also sees ordinary life as being a kind of warfare. But, I would suggest, he or she sees it as being a dramatized warfare. It is like a neighborhood theater group, except of course that the neighborhood theater group stretches and girdles the planet from top to bottom and East to West. To the Revolutionist, success in this warfare would be in the ability to willfully play roles to a pleasurable perfection. That is, to play out a role in a drama about warfare while at the same time understanding that everyone else takes it as being rather serious, to say the least. Just as everyone else takes death as being serious.
If it were not for Life's First Stories, I would not be doing This as I am doing it now. Because no matter that I constantly point out that nothing is broken in Life, from a certain view it sounds like I am preaching to you people. It sounds as though something is wrong. But what's the choice? What other possibility is there? You know why? Because Life's First Story has already had its effect. It is built into your nervous system: Life's primary First Story that "things are amiss." It also has a a minor story that comes out through affairs such as This. It is as though two or three cells in Life's little finger (or perhaps a higher area) try to tell the rest of Life, "Hey! Look at this!" And the rest of the body does not care to hear that. The rest of the body is too worried about where it is and about how soon this whole unspecified drama is going to terminate.
Once I used the map of "gut-level." Below gut-level are the fires of the lower circuits. Those fires are driving the majority of humans on this planet. It is the majority class of humanity. There is another group who are living right on the gut-level line. Living there are the majority of people in our modern, sophisticated, been around the block, part of the planet. These people are at the place where the transposition of lower circuit hungers to upper circuit hungers take place. They are not completely driven by the fires of the belly, nor by the hungers of the upper circuits. This is what ordinary people now claim to be the land of frustrations, tension, ulcers and ambivalence of feeling. They seem to be caught between two worlds. The Real Revolutionist restructures the arrangement so that the fires below gut-level now fuel and support the very clear, clean ice water blood in the upper circuits. This is the proper balance I have mentioned. The proper balance is not seen in the City as being important. In the City, people cannot reach their minimum threshold of health. Those who are overweight can't lose it; those who are underweight can't get it. Those who are dumb can't get smarter, and those who are bored can't get unbored. Proper balance is in a sense unnatural.
Proper balance is not unlike the "sweet spot" in an automobile engine. There is a certain spot wherein an engine operates at maximum power and efficiency, according to factors such as RPM, type of fuel, and whether the engine was set up to run hot or cold. That kind of efficiency is not natural. It is not necessary to live in the City, do your job in Life, and to be minimally healthy. You must see that. People in the bell curve of humanity are not healthy. What is one of the most popular hobbies? Health. In all forms of the media, "health" is one of the outstanding features covered. No one in the City expects to be healthy -- no one. No one insists on it. Nobody demands it. But I'm going to tell you this: a Real Revolutionist does. I'll make it real crude. There is a fire that drives everyone; ordinary people would probably call it "the will to live." How hard would it be to kill you? If you were dying, would you be a good patient? Or would you die hard: you keep "coming to," nurses get too close and you grab them and choke them, you start trying to kill people...
You have to recognize the fires below gut-level in order to no longer be in conflict with them. That fire is not evil. It is not to be subdued. The very people who have almost no reason to condemn the body -- that is, they are just barely holding on -- what is the first thing they do in pursuit of a spiritual goal? Give up sex or fast for 47 days. It's not their fault; this is the way Life operates. It is beautiful, beautiful justice. They pick out something to immediately attack the fire below gut-level. You cannot be a Revolutionist and believe that attacking the body is beneficial.
But notice, anybody who gets attracted to such as This believes something else. That is, that all such activity has to be based on the big "L." Loaf of bread? No, "Love." What they describe goes immediately against gut-level. There is no such thing as "love" down there. Not in you -- not in anybody. If you tried to holler "love" down in that furnace, all you'd get would be a scorched tongue. A Revolutionist must have a direct perception of that in himself and in everyone else, and then must have some control over it. But it is not in some way to extinguish that fire. Now, from a certain view, people can apparently begin to smother it. If you abstain from food it does begin to have a calming effect. "Since I have taken up fasting and have not eaten in 47 days I have not wanted to fornicate with my neighbor's wife." Hell, if you go without eating for 47 days I assure you (especially you men), you won't be in the mood to fornicate with anybody. So it is possible to calm below gut level, but by itself that won't get you anywhere. And in case you aren't following this, most of you need to do anything but diminish it. You do not need to be throwing water at the gut level. You do need to know what it is. And then you need to have some control over it, because it cannot control itself.
I said that you can learn to control and direct the lower fuel to support what amounts, comparatively speaking, to ice water. Very clear, clean ice water in the upper circuits. Most sophisticated western people (nowadays they are all over the world) are stuck on a bridge. There are two camps, to make it crude but not improper: one camp is hollering, "Life is for living, get me a beer!" The second camp is on the other end of the bridge. This camp believes they have some appreciation for what is now called the "New Age." That is, "Something new is happening and we are no longer simply our old genes." That is true, but those saying it don't know it. They are in fact still fighting it. And it's a losing battle. You cannot fight your genes; your past is alive. You are it.
In the revolutionary restructuring within a human, the upper stories would become merciless. The upper stories know nothing of mercy, and the lower stories know nothing of the need for mercy. So you are left with one area. Where? On gut-level line itself, where people believe they are neither this nor entirely that. Although it is very weak in many people, there is a part of every human which has no conception of mercy. To that part, "mercy" is a word among many other words. And down below gut level there is no need for mercy. If you were starving to death you would take food out of your neighbor's mouth, if there were any sanity left in you below gut-level. At that level there is no concern for mercy. Not theoretically; there simply is none. I might also point out, that is one of the great civilizing purposes of alcohol. Drinking alcohol frees up some of the pressure on the fires below: It can turn a loyal husband into a philandering sex fiend in ten minutes. That surely told you enough, whether you like it yet or not. Ordinary people indeed feel that there is a battle going on. It is normally referred to as the battle between good and evil. "I try to be a decent human being, but sometimes I am overcome by jealousy and selfishness -- I should be ashamed of myself." Everyone buys Life's First Story, and no one looks any further.
Can any of you see the connection between First Story and Life's continual naming of everything? From the viewpoint of This, and of This only, the most potentially destructive First Story is that everything has a proper name.
In the restructuring that I am talking about, you are absolutely merciless in the upper circuitry. And from gut-level down you need not only to be fed, fucked, and properly rested, but also to be always prepared to move out. (For those unfortunate enough to have missed being in our great armed services, "move out" is what they tell the troops to always be ready to do. That is, pack up and walk on a moment's notice.) People are not prepared to move out. On the contrary, they feel that a more evolved and humane person would not have the need to move out.
If you don't find that colloquial expression meaningful enough, let's try it from the negative side, which seems to make a lot more sense (and which everyone always appreciates). If you were ready to move out you would not have an excuse for anything you ever do. Does that cover it? As it is now, your everyday life is full of attempts to excuse what you have done. If it is not to other people, it is to yourself -- which is worse. The alarm goes off, you sleep another half hour and again you are late. Now you are pissed. At who? The alarm clock? And now suddenly the shower is too hot, the toast is too brown, and it is all that you are excusing yourself. That is not being ready to move out. You have no strength; you have no integrity. You are living right there on the line between the gut and higher circuits, and you don't know whether to run by the furnace or to run by ice water. You can't run by either one. You are not properly fed, you are not properly fucked, you are not properly rested and you are never ready to move out -- never. You are never prepared. It is always something.
And of course, being intelligent, sophisticated people, you have an answer for it. I say, "Everybody's got an excuse. No one measures up." And you all say, "Tell it, preacher, tell it!" Remember, I ain't no preacher. If you don't begin to see that you constantly excuse your actions, there is very little else to say. You are a whiner, and you are never going to get out of the service. You are going to die in uniform after going through life believing you are either burning up from the fires below or freezing to death from lack of passion. You need to see that one of the First Stories in Life is that everyone is running either too hot or too cold. Too pushed by the body or not pushed hard enough by the spirit or soul (or whatever they are calling it this month in the City). And the further First Story is that this is in some way a flaw in humanity. And then the next First Story is not only that it should be changed, but that it can be changed. And everybody buys that. But if you are my kind of would-be Revolutionist, all you have to do is look around. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to believe that that change is possible. None. You have never seen anyone overcome it. You have never seen anyone straighten out the belly/upper circuit dichotomy. Nobody. This kind of balance is literally unnatural and unnecessary. If you were so restructured, you would be merciless (in the ordinary sense) and yet you would be -- sort of in secret -- the world's biggest drunkard, glutton, and philanderer.
It has to become a kind of secret restructuring. It is not that you go around engaging in all forms of offensive activity and breaking every known so-called commandment of morality. That's not the point. The restructuring must be such that there is no name for you. If you've got a name for you, then you are not doing it. If you think about yourself now with any label having to do with This Activity, you are not even on the train. I mentioned that Life names everything. The more dangerous aspect of it is for you to smugly assume the title. "Are you still an astrologer? Are you still in that Sufi group? Still studying Kierkegaard?" If you feel good when someone else names you, you are dead. Especially dead if you feel good about it. By "smugly," I mean "satisfied to be named." Everything within the nervous system is to turn the verbs of life into nouns. It is the only way that the nervous system in its 3-D operation can handle what is apparently out there. "Mercurial" cannot be an acceptable term for people. Heroes and leaders cannot be itinerant and unpredictable. I have already asked you: how is it that consistency is so serious a matter in the City?
You are supposed to accept your title. Without the right preparation, if you were suddenly freed from the noun dynamics you would be nuts. It would not be a sudden epiphany. But from any other viewpoint except the viewpoint of This, This is nut City. We should all change our last name in common, not to Christ or Buddha, but to almonds or walnuts. Notice though: a lot of this sounds like preaching, and you want to name it. "Well, exactly what is This? Alright, let me write that down." What I am doing is attempting to shake you out of the noun-ing process.
Some more on First Stories. The idea of the difference between knowledge and understanding is a First Story also. In so-called mystical or spiritual systems the First Story comes out as "the difference between the ordinary people and the chosen people -- those with keen insight who see beyond the surface appearances." Or, "Humanity is asleep, and there are a few people who are awake to the truth." Do you understand that that is a beautiful stroke? Because if you are not wired up to buy the First Story that things "are as they appear," you are going to buy the second First Story: "There must be more than the way things appear." In a sense you end up having to intellectually "keep kosher." That is, you have to keep two sets of intellectual dishes. Anything you can come up with -- good people and bad people, ordinary knowledge and secret knowledge -- has to then come in two examples. Do you realize that were it not for Life's First Story, there would be no need to talk about such as This except once? I know what it is that you want to know. Not only do I know it, I know how it is that you think about it. If not for First Story I could tell you once and that would be it. I just had to say that.
Back to the subject at hand. Let me tell you what the ultimate First Story would be. Well, I'll give you a choice. The ultimate First Story is either one of these: that there is indeed an "out there" or that there is a difference between the true and the false.
Think about the first one. That is the First Story that everyone takes. And that is also the stumbling block (whether you figure it out or not) to being able to plug into a parallel knowledge outside the limits of the 3-D world. But notice -- it keeps the City together. If people did not believe, "I am separate from that," nothing would happen in the ordinary world. The world is split into two camps forever. It's "you" and "everybody else." On a good day it's "you and a few other right thinking people," and "everybody else." Remember, I warned you: for those of you who get good, we are talking about consciousness. If you didn't cut the world up, your consciousness wouldn't operate. Your engine would not have the right kind of fuel. No matter how intelligent you are, the nature of ordinary consciousness is to split everything into two camps. So where is the beginning point? You never even realized they are split, so you never find out where the beginning point is.
How about this as a way to look at the beginning point: let me update and refine the old Adam and Eve creation story. The real story would be that the gods made Adam and Eve and instead of warning them not to do such and such, did not say a thing. (Anything less and you're dealing with knock off gods. You're dealing with gods that are indeed flailing around; they didn't know what they were doing. They painted something and then asked the painting, "How am I doing?" Now that's an artist. If they were real gods, they would have made Adam and Eve and not said anything. Not even, "We're watching you.") To carry my updated version further, the devil would then simply come along and say, "I hope you realize that the world is divided up into you and everything else." And Adam would have said, "You're right!" That would seem to have been a boon, because then he and Eve could have had sex and later argued. He would say, "Get me a cigarette." She'd reply, "What's a cigarette?" And he'd say, "Well, fix me something to eat." And she'd say, "I didn't go to the store." Then he would say, "What's a store?" Without the First Story that there is an "out there," we'd have no romantic love. We'd have no sex, no argument, no groceries, and no commerce.
I did give you a choice. The second ultimate First Story is that there is a difference between the true and the false. Everything appears to be divided into that which is true and that which is false. The master stroke in this First Story is that you are wired up in such a way that the truth cuts off any further investigation. In other words, once an intelligent person sees something is true, why pursue it further? You would be an idiot. "We must love our neighbor. That's true, I just know it is. One down. We got that covered." You are left with continuing, piecemeal, to collect more and more pieces of the truth, with the feeling that pretty soon the pieces will fall together to spell freedom and enlightenment, if not immortality. That's what it comes down to. If you collect enough pieces of the truth, study enough mystical books, and do enough strange things, maybe the gods will notice you and won't let you -- what? Die.
Having pointed out those two possibilities, let me also point out that a Real Revolutionist would have to abstract all of Life's First Stories. Not reject them, because the First Stories are not wrong. You can't even look at them as being wrong, because you don't know any better. The only reason you're even looking at it now is because I made it up and pointed it out to you. It is not that "there is an out there" is not true. But that alone does what? That kind of information by itself means what? A Real Revolutionist begins to find out that any piece of information by itself means what? Nothing. If it did, you would know it all, and changing the parts would result in changing the whole organism. And it will not.
When I say to "abstract" or "summarize" all of these First Stories, it is not to condense them into shorter versions. They can't really be condensed any more than they are. You have to use the Get Real Method on your own experience. You have to be able to pull in every bit of piecemeal information and experience that you've had. You have to be able to take every little frame, as it were, of your life/movie thus far and begin to run it as a continuing verb. Right now it appears to be composed of isolated events which have become nouns. A Revolutionist finally has to Get Real. If you're involved in some quest, what are you doing worrying about being bald at an early age, or being overweight? Or the fact that you neighbor bought a BMW and it makes you look bad? See, those things are not processes to you -- they are nouns. Anything or any experience you have a name for needs to be abstracted, because as it is, it is useless. From a revolutionary viewpoint it is worse: it is like shrapnel fragments imbedded in you. You take it as being piecemeal and separated hurts, traumas, and psychic bruises -- but it is shrapnel. You're like everybody else: a part of the walking wounded.
You take this condition as being natural, but a Revolutionist would not. No way. There is a kind of madness to This. It is a kind of anger that is secret. It is not ordinary anger, but I'm not going to make up another word for it. It is the proper fire. It is what I mean by the FAT theorem: Fuck All That. If you are the walking wounded, you're wasting your time. As a matter of fact, the Real Revolutionist does not carry along the wounded at all. If you got wounded they wouldn't say anything. They just leave you. I am talking about the wounded in you. Leave them. But that flies against what seems to be any kind of spiritual or philosophical quest. Those parts of you that are wounded surely need to be cradled and comforted, right? The only wounds that count are below gut-level. And you can get someone to patch broken bones. Of course the ultimate wound is death. That's what all the make believe warriors are afraid of.
Another aspect of summarizing yourself, your experience, and your knowledge is that you have to be peripatetic. You have to do that which you do while moving. You can't be still and do it, or you are dealing with nouns again. Everything in the City says that it all must be labelled. It must be hounded until it's noun-ed until it's dead. But you have to be peripatetic. A Real Revolution has got to stay on the move. Only a very dumb revolution would announce itself, or everyday, lob grenades from the same spot. Internally, where do you look? All of your life it has been the same voices over and over and over. "What you need to find is a teacher. Go here, go there." And it seems to make sense; it seems to be proper. To be internally peripatetic goes against everything in the nervous system in the upper stories. The upper stories say, "How can you make sense of anything unless you stay somewhere and study it?"
What is one of the signs of institutions of higher learning throughout the world? Good sturdy places, like Cambridge and Harvard, are built massively and do not move. There are not that many famous cathedrals in Europe located in house trailers. You do not expect to find an itinerant religious teacher wandering around outside a cathedral. They would be inside a place which is substantial, stable, and unmoving. A Real Revolutionist has got to be peripatetic to be able to summarize all he believes or else he continues to go here and there. And I'm talking about "here and there" internally. If you are not peripatetic, you continue to frequent the same place over and over in you -- no matter what you call it. You will continue to be unable to use the information you already have available. It is all cut up into the First Story. That is, "there is the true and there is the false."
I should say the following in the wrap up, but some of you may forget the connection. I just gave you two choices for the ultimate First Story. I was going to say at the end, "Oh, by the way..." There is really a third one. This would really be the ultimate First Story: that there is a difference between anything. Because that's all the other two stories are. There appears to be a difference between scientific fact and religious belief; between actual facts and your opinion. Between up and down. The ultimate story is that there is a difference. Of course if there wasn't, everything would run together, wouldn't it? "Yeah, I guess so." And if it all just ran together, you wouldn't know what was what, would you? "Well, I guess you're right." You couldn't tell this from that, could you? "Well, you got me there." How would you properly diagram a sentence? How would you ever be able to spot the subject? "Well, you finally cornered me -- I don't know."
(See, I should have saved it for last. Then I could have weaseled my way out of that.)
I have told you some conditions for continuing This, such as affecting your diet in a certain way and getting exercise of certain kinds. But from a literal view it also sounds as though I have made fun of all such concerns. If you are listening correctly, let me point out that there is no one right thing for the Revolutionist. There is no ambrosia and no one true "lifestyle." But there is this: there is the right combination of things. Although your nervous system may immediately tell you otherwise, that is not recognized in the City. It is not recognized as a combination. No, no, no. There are only right "things" in the City. I knew you wouldn't hear that. What is not recognized in the City is that there is a proper combination for each person, because if that was understood, people would be at their minimal threshold of health. And they are not. What you have got to discover quickly on your own is that for you -- for you, for you, for you -- there is a proper combination of literal foods to eat. Even though there is no "out there," and even though you're a part of everything else, there is a proper combination for your little collection of cells. It doesn't matter what anybody else needs. You may need 10 hours of sleep to operate at maximum efficiency, or you may need 4. You may discover that pizza affects your performance the day after eating it. It is a combination of all kinds of food: intellectual activity to Red Circuit fuel.
Everything I have required you to do is within certain tolerances: not too little and not too much. But beyond that, you have to find what is right for you. I repeat: you can only find the proper combination while you're being peripatetic. You cannot do anything extraordinary while being still. If you're being still you are going through the same processes you've always gone through, over and over and over again. Those processes are now nouns to you. You are tickling that which can no longer laugh. You are kicking that which can no longer holler.
Do you know why revenge is condemned in every religion and by every group and right thinking individual throughout the world at all times? You know why? I don't know why I thought of this. Do you know why it is condemned? Because ordinary people don't know how to do it right. And Life does not like inefficiency. I have no idea what that is related to. God knows why I even brought it up. It has nothing to do with anything I have talked about...ladies and gentlemen of the jury, strike that from your memories. Do not take that into consideration in your later deliberations. It's unwarranted, untoward, and unreal. Pretend I didn't say it.
I want to hit a few questions that I have received. "Why is imbalance in humans necessary for change?" If you were balanced, in every sense of the word, would you be in favor of change? The answer is no. When revolutionists get in power, apparently "out there," what is the first thing they want to stamp out? The possibility of counter revolution. If all were in balance, no one would put up with living. Life would be confronted with a revolt. No one would attempt or put up with change. No one would put up with Life being a verb while being called a noun, were they not already embedded with a sense of being out of balance. Therefore, change has got to be in order.
"If I am simply my thoughts, what is it that might get above the Line?" Does everyone remember the Line of consciousness drawn through my ordinary nervous system diagram? It is not that there is some regular, known, identifiable form of "I" at some level in you which will miraculously jump above the Line. That is the belief in Arcadia -- in instant awakening. The "I" that you are now is irrelevant. You were all born in that place; it's always going to be alive and it is necessary. But as far as what you think you're seeking is concerned, what that "I" knows is either irrelevant or B.S. And I can't remember what B.S. stands for. (Well, there was a man who sent me a book...his name was Lord B.S. Beavershorts. I always think of that. That's beside the point, and since you didn't see the humor in it, it's really beside the point.) It is not that an "I" noun suddenly jumps above the ordinary Line -- it is a verbalization, a process.
"You stated that one cannot achieve a goal if it is too specific." (Let me point out that I did not put it that way. What I said was that no ordinary goal is achievable if it can be specifically formulated by a person. That is, by you.) "The individual assumes that achieving such a goal will make him happy. How can this be?" The writer also added a second part: "Could you also mention how this relates to those who achieve their dreams in life, only to find out they are still unsatisfied?" Well, that part in a sense answered the first part. As to the second part: as I have said, there are those who succeed in Life. The slick ones, the sly ones -- Life really likes them. They serve a real purpose. You people are kind of at the other end. Back to the first part of the question: it is an unrecognized law of physics that any dream you can specifically formulate, you cannot achieve. One way to look at it is that the cellular parts of any organism can never properly, in any way, predict the future of the whole. If they could do that, you'd already know it all. I could tell you one time, and I'd never see you again.
Here's another one. I told you that the Real Revolutionist shouldn't stare. A lot of you played with that and seemed to have found it beneficial for two or three minutes. And you've never done it again. But at any rate, as I could have predicted, almost all of you found it to be very favorable. The basis of the person's question is, should they be concerned over the possibility that such tricks and excursions as not staring may finally become mechanical? Not in any sense that is meaningful to any of you. Nothing revolutionary can ever become mechanical. Let's assume that you are running for an hour every day as I told you to. Let's also assume you are an intelligent person like me, and you hate it. Can you conceive of the fact that some day it will become mechanical? Never, never, never, never, never, never, never. Have any of you ever found that you couldn't quit not staring? If you do believe that...go get help. I'll give it one more shot. Everywhere in the world's religions it is said, "Love your fellow man." Have you ever met anybody who immediately heard the validity and worth of that, and began to love their fellow man to such a degree that now they have overdone it?
I received another question in which a person delineated "a certain problem" in their life. They described it very succinctly and then said, "Does my problem make any sense?" Let me ask you, does any problem make any sense? But in the City they have to, right? If you believe that This is some form of problem-solving, you are living in a fool's paradise. TV is where you belong, or with some group of serious people. I am not attacking the questioner, it's just a beautiful setup. You've had 20, 30 or 40 years -- does any problem you've ever had make any sense? I don't care what it is. Sexual problems, depression, problems with your parents...if problems make sense, then I must ask, in a very humble, straight forward and pristine manner, how come in 5000 years there hasn't been even the eensiest bit of progress made on the so-called problems? Not the teensiest bit. No change whatsoever. Now, watch it. They change the names. I mean, if somebody runs into your car and knocks the fender off and says, "Hey -- you've grown a new violet!" you can still see that they trashed your car. Too obtuse? See, that was the point. That's why I used it. The Sumerians and your great, great grandmother were plagued by evil spirits or the devil -- at least we conquered that! Now we're dealing with "psychological problems." Life's done it to you again. There has been no change. Does any problem make any sense?
To end with, I want to refer to something I threw out awhile back. I said that none of you, especially men, understand the deep, below gut, irreversible and unalterable difference between the sexes. And that is regardless of the so-called feminine revolution, and regardless of the fact that it is a fairly new occurrence for women to be actively involved with This. As you see, half the people I'm dealing with are women. It is a new phenomenon. Having said that, I want to point out something else for those of you who are mates, whether you are both in This or trying to hold something together with someone outside of This. You people should treat your partner as though they are a stranger to this difference between the sexes. You have to treat them as though they are at a sincere, unalterable disadvantage. Both of you have genetic information about your sex that the other does not have. Not better or worse. Women have never understood men, and of course men have been writing sad songs and poetry for thousands of years about the mystery of women. It's just that the male version has been more in the public view. Recognize that difference and don't take advantage of someone whom you, quote, "love." You should operate with each other on the basis that you each are at a continuing disadvantage with the other. If your boyfriend or girlfriend were deaf or blind, wouldn't you take it into consideration? I am telling you: you should do that sexually. I don't mean just the sex act. Your partner is a different sex -- a different species.