Jan Cox Talk 0340

Scouts and Analysts

Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0340 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #340 May 9, 1988 - 1:46 
 
  [The diarchy of the partnership seesaw: army forays for provisional powers. The scout vs. the analyst in these forays: the scout is a taciturn do-er, giving only the bare experiential facts. The analyst is a languid, passive info digester. During his report, the scout is dominant while the analyst is submissive. Then the analyst becomes so as he analyzes the facts. The Real Revolutionist has got to make the scout = the analyst; he must simultaneously experience and analyze. Ordinary consciousness flip-flops between the dominant/submissive dance of scouting and analyzing: a version of action vs. TOA ( Thinking of Action). People do not report events, they report what they think about events. Is it even possible for humans to do otherwise? Everybody begins with "I think..."; everybody is analyzing data far removed from the scouting of it. ]
  [All human arguments are a temporary destabilization of the dominant/submissive dynamic; confusion over who's leading the dance. Internally this arises as constant ambivalence: slow death. It is being in the 'outcome business' --being concerned with/for the consequences of action. The Real Revolutionist has got to be a willful party to 'arranged marriage' --marriage to himself. ]
  [Everybody's life has a plot which they are concerned with. Also, a subplot. The movie about 'making a movie' has a particular fascination to film industry. There is a revolutionary dimension to this: living a life about making a life; a life within a life; a subplot with no outcome. This Thing is a subplot that fits in nowhere; unnatural. ]
  [1:03 Paradigm presents. ]
  [1:46 Excursion--figure out a way (theoretically even) how you could shorten the 24 hr. time lag between the Upper Circuit and Lower Circuit. ]
  [1:48 end 


Transcript

SCOUTS AND ANALYSTS

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document:  340,  May 9, 1988

                       
     One way to describe the Partnership -- the internal diarchy which exists within everyone -- is as a provisional government.  The Partnership is analogous to a provisional government which is trying to expand its territorial power, or one that is venturing into new and alien territory during warfare.  And within this provisional, forward thinking, and even aggressive government there is a need for two specific types of people:  scouts and analysts.

     Remember that I am never simply talking about the physical world of "out there."  You should see that this ostensibly external situation describes the internal terrain as well.  Those involved in This Activity are attempting to push into new territories within their own brain.

     A great example of what I'm pointing towards is the movie genre of "The Western."  In Wild West movies the troops which were sent out to explore and conquer the new territories always sent a scout to check on what was happening up ahead.  The scout would ride out, check on things and then come back to camp and report the information to someone else.  The scout would make his report to an officer in charge who, more than likely, had never even been in that part of the country before.  The officer would take the information the scout had brought back and analyze it.

     Does this sound familiar?  Can you see that I'm not talking about movies and the Wild West?  Remember, I'm using an external example -- an artificial but telling division between what happens internally and what exists out in the world, as exemplified in history and movies.  I can use these examples because people who write movies or history are not free from the genetic call -- the genetic hold -- that runs everyone else.

     You should be able to see that the scout would be a taciturn doer.  When he reports, he simply gives the bare facts.  He doesn't have a lot to say.  In the movies, ofttimes he was even a renegade Indian who could speak very little English.  He never had much to say except what was absolutely required.  He was a doer.

     Then, back at the fort, you have the analyst.  You can view him as being the sedentary, languid thinker.  He doesn't have to go out in the field.  The raw data, which the scout has gathered, is brought to him; he analyzes it and then gives his advice or orders.

     At all given times, under ordinary circumstances, within this diarchy (the Partnership between you and whatever this other you is that takes turns speaking for you, suffering for you, telling you that you should suffer and then you telling it that it should suffer, then it telling you that it thought of it first and then you telling it to shut up) there is a dominant/submissive dance going on.  That is, in the fort the scout returns and the officers ask him what he saw.  At that moment the scout is the entertainer; he has the stage and occupies the dominant position.  He reports on his experience and he does it in a taciturn manner, with as few words and descriptions as necessary.  The analyst is, at this time, in the submissive position.  He is almost a blank sheet of paper or a blank mind.  Then the dance changes.  The officer begins to ask the scout more specific questions about the info.  He becomes the dominant figure and the scout now plays the submissive role.  And it can continue to shift back and forth.

     This momentary, back and forth internal shifting goes on a large part of the time within everyone.  But beyond that there can also be a shifting which goes on in a three dimensionally broader scale.  There are shifts which seem to be more than simply momentary changes.  They seem to last for longer periods -- for minutes or hours or even days.  And the general sensation you have is that you are either dealing with something that you experienced -- that is, something you actually did, some scouting you did -- or else your dominant feeling is the dynamic of analysis -- you think about what you did, you analyze it over and over.  This is all a part of the normal division of labor within the circuitry of man.  But a Real Revolutionist, when it becomes necessary and useful, must be able to short circuit this normal dynamic of the dominant and submissive.  A Real Revolutionist must be able to run them coevally.  To run these two coevally is not natural and it is not necessary out in life.  It is not necessary and it is not even functional.  You could not get an ordinary person to analyze while they are scouting.  Do not let your voices fool you.  They will say that you can do both or that people do both, but they do not.

     Back to the movie version:  a scout can be out looking around and come across a whole tribe of Indians preparing to do battle.  He steps back behind a boulder and quickly analyzes the situation.  "Should I run?  Did they see me?"  But the observation and the analysis do not go on simultaneously.  Once he asks himself all these questions, once the analysis has run out, all he can do is stop and stick his head back out again to see what's going on.  Once there is no more to be accomplished by thinking of acting, then it's back to action.  In the 3-D world the human organism is not wired up for action and thinking of action to go on simultaneously.  This back and forth shifting can go on very quickly, which is why you may have voices in you which say that you do experience and analyze things at the same time.  But it does not happen in the 3-D world.  The closest it comes to is a quick paced dance between the dominant and submissive; that is, one leads and then it quickly shifts and the other is leading.

     To have revolutionary insights, to see information that is beyond the 3-D limits, you cannot be left with and limited to either the scout or the analyst as the dominant partner.  They must both be running at equal intensity and tempo.  It is an unnatural coalition of A-ing (action) and TOA-ing (thinking of action) -- not one and then the other; not you observing something and then having to stop and analyze it.  Can you see what this might lead to?  It could lead to an action wherein even your best analyst would not have the chance to holler, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"  It would be too late.  I must tell you that there is another form of analyst who could see an inversion of the above:  if "full speed ahead" is intense enough, there are no torpedoes.  Torpedoes would be too late.  Ordinary action and analysis of action would be too late.  Under those conditions what's there to think about?  It's too late.

     Let me ask you this:  In ordinary circumstances, do ordinary people talk about things which have actually happened or do they talk about what they think has happened?  (Or should I say what they "feel"?)

     In ordinary, mundane human affairs, do people talk about what goes on?  (To let a little pressure off the internal diarchy I'll allow you the exception of people discussing scientific or technological matters.)  To see this all you have to do is read the newspaper or watch TV.  It is so common that no one even notices it.

     You can watch a TV interview show in which a literature expert is discussing a new best seller.  The host will ask, "Tell us about this new book, Professor So and So."  And the expert will say, "Well, I think..."  Did the host ask him what he thought?  No, he asked him about the book.  But his reply is, "Well, I think that..."  And no one hears it.

     What happens to you at city level?  What happens when you're sitting around and chatting with your friends and family?  Do you talk about things that happen or do you talk about what each of you think about things that happen?  Is it possible, under ordinary conditions, for people to talk about what happened or can they only talk about what they think about what has happened? (Or what they feel about what has happened?)  And, if in the majority of cases people in fact only talk about what they think about things, is it possible to do otherwise?  Is anything else possible?  Why are things arranged in such a way?  I'm not going to tell you much more about this.  You should be able to see it for yourself.  You should be able to see for yourself the degree to which this occurs.

     People do not discuss things that happen.  They discuss what they think about things that happen.  And it can even be generations removed from that.  A person will say, "I'll tell you what I think about what I heard someone on the radio say he thought about the new best seller."  This is not an attack on Life.  It's not an excuse for getting the blues or becoming immobilized over the fact that, "Hey, no one scouts anymore.  The information I'm getting has been analyzed fourteen times before I even get it.  I'm not even analyzing a report that I got from a scout who was actually there.  I'll talk about what I think about a critique I read in a book by a guy who wrote it twenty years ago from something someone who told him about what they thought about something they heard about..."  You can't stop with that observation and get the terminal blues.  You can't be a possum frozen in the headlights.  You can't get stuck there.  But you must see that it is true, and also note that it doesn't have a bit of detrimental effect in the City.  In other words, people don't really know what's going on.  And, in the City, it doesn't make any difference.

     But out in the Bushes -- within the dangerous areas outside of the City where you are attempting to do This -- it does make a difference.  It makes a difference, first, because you must realize that it doesn't make a difference in the City.  In the City it is unimportant.  Things work as they work and they will continue that way within you if you do not do something extraordinary about it.  You must see that this goes on continually.  You can start out the easy way by listening to other people.  Turn on the TV or radio and there it is:  "I think, I think, I think..."  Presidents, priests, rabbis, the man in the street, critics, leading experts all say, "I think, I think, I think..."  Did anyone ask them what they thought?

     In the City it doesn't matter.  When you were young and you asked your parents or a priest about things you wanted to know more about, what response did you get?  Whether you heard it or not they always gave you this:  "Well, I'm glad you asked.  I think..."  I'm sure none of you were so crude as to tug on your father's or your priest's coat and say, "Listen, I didn't ask you what you think.  I asked you a question!"

     I remind you again, I'm not making a joke or being cynical.  You must notice that you never notice this going on.  Notice that it is the predominant way in which things operate between people in the City and it doesn't affect anything there.  It continues to be "business as usual."  My question to you is this:  Does it make any difference to you?  Should it make a difference?  Consider why things are arranged so that no one notices this situation, and then go beyond it.  Recall what I began with:  the scout and the analyst.  Consider how this is all connected.

     Try a further connection.  Can you see that under all ordinary conditions and circumstances, human arguments are a temporary destabilization of the dominant and submissive dynamic?  From a certain view, can you see any routine argument or disagreement between two individuals is a temporary destabilization of the dynamic between them?  Within any relationship between two people -- whether they be long time friends, or strangers who grabbed the same shirt at a bargain basement sale -- there is a dance taking place and as in any dance, one of the parties is leading and the other is following.  And if the relationship is about to change, whoever is dancing forward must switch and begin to dance backward.  In the case of an argument, at the moment when the two individuals are about to switch places, the balance of the dynamic becomes destabilized and at that moment no one is leading.  The dance temporarily stops.  That is what an argument is.

     As always, do I have to point out what should by now be obvious?  There is more to be derived from this than knowing how to shop at basement sales.  This situation goes on internally with the Partnership.  There is an internal dance within everyone which they call "ambivalence."  "There is something that I have to do and I have the wherewithal and the desire, but I don't know what to do."  Can you see that ambivalence is an argument?  Can you see that there is a temporary destabilization of the internal dance?

     I remind you of my description of the business partners, Smith and Jones.  Someone will call the office and Smith answers the phone.  The person calling says, "This is the landlord and you're three months behind on the rent."  And Smith responds, "Well, Mr. Jones handles the rent and he's out of town."  One of the partners is always on the phone; one of the kings is always sitting on the throne.  There is only one partner talking at any given time.  They switch back and forth but only one can speak at a time.

     Within everyone is the feeling that, "I should have done such and such," or, "I need to do something in the future about this problem but I don't know what to do."  What seems to be the inability to act, the inability to move, is a temporary destabilization of no one being in charge.  It is a dance which has temporarily stopped.

     Remember that I am not speaking as a pathologist or a diagnostician of ills of the City because no one is ill in the City.  But from the viewpoint of doing something extraordinary, can you see that there is a flaw in this situation?  In the City it doesn't matter.  In the City the dance stops all the time.  It stops on small scales and it stops on larger scales.  In the City it is necessary.

     Notice that I said it was a temporary destabilization.  Something is going to happen.  The dance stops and the partners wander off for a second; the dance is forgotten.  One of the partners finally moves back into the dominant position and the dance begins again.  The dance may only last another second, but someone danced a step and someone else danced backwards; one partner was dominant and the other submissive.

     What seems to be ambivalence is a form of an argument.  It is a dance in which, temporarily, no one is leading; no one is dominating; no voice is dominating.  Internally it is a temporary destabilization of the dance.  In the City this is necessary and apropos.  But to a Real Revolutionist it is a form of slow death.  It will wear you out.  All your life you've wondered, "What should I do?"  That is the normal, routine feeling of everyone.  The alarm clock goes off in the morning and as always, you've set it fifteen minutes early.  And every morning you look at it and go, "I know I've got fifteen minutes, but should I go ahead and get up?  Can't I wait a few more minutes?  Maybe five more?  Perhaps ten more?"  That's the beginning of the day!  That's when you first open your eyes!  The rest of your day is:  now you're fifteen minutes late so you wonder, "Do I have time to take a bath or should I just shower?  Should I go ahead and put coffee on or, since I'm late, should I grab some on the way to work?"  It goes on and on from there and nobody notices it.  It's all continuing moments of temporary destabilization of the internal dominant/submissive dance.  And that, if you are a would-be Revolutionist, is what wears you out.

     I can describe this temporary destabilization in two ways.  The first one is more difficult for people to hear:  neither of the two would-be rulers or partners in the internal diarchy wants to get on the throne.  The second description, which is easier to hear, is this:  the two are fighting over the throne.  If I were a City lecturer, I would have only used the second description because it is the easier of the two for people to see for themselves.  It is as though the two rulers or partners are fighting.  In other words, you can't decide.  "Should I stay in bed the full fifteen minutes or should I go ahead and get up early?"  It is as though Partner Smith says, "Get up," and Partner Jones says, "Oh, well I'll stay in bed."  It is as though they are fighting over control.

     That might sound like the best way to describe this situation, but the first description is really the more accurate one.  It is as though, temporarily, neither partner really wants to lead.  I remind you, neither partner is right at the expense of the other.  In the binary world nothing is right at the expense of anything else.  Or rather, in the binary world everything is right!

     In the City this dance is a necessary situation but for a Real Revolutionist it is another matter.  This dance will wear you out.  If at one moment the scout is leading the dance between himself and the analyst -- you're hurting.  If the analyst is leading the dance and the scout is dancing backwards -- you're hurting.  If they are both present and one of them wants to say something it becomes like the old comedy routine of two people trying to get through a door at the same time.  The scout says, "Well, I wanted to..." and the analyst says, "I wanted to...."  And the scout responds, "Oh well, go ahead," and the analyst replies, "Oh no, you go ahead."  It's a verbal variation of that old comedy bit.  That is a temporary destabilization.

     A Real Revolutionist would at least be striving (if not actually able) to do something on purpose at all times.  Even if from someone else's viewpoint it is the smallest, dumbest, most boring, innocuous, inconsequential thing possible.  At least a Real Revolutionist would DO it.  If someone asks you, "Would you like cream and sugar in your coffee?" a Real Revolutionist would reply, "Yes!"  And if the waiter came back and said, "We're out of cream.  Would you like it black?" a Real Revolutionist would say, "Sure."  This is not a joke.  He may be wired up to prefer his coffee with cream but if the waiter comes back and tells him, "We're out of cream.  Do you want it black?" the answer would be, "Yes."  A Real Revolutionist would simply DO it.

     If you are going to do This, you cannot stay in the same worn out position that everyone else stays in.  You cannot stay in the same position you have always been in.  That is, the position of being unaware that you are going through a continual temporary destabilization of the dance between the partners.  "What do I do next?  What do I do now?  Do I care what I do now?"  The Revolutionary view is that it doesn't matter.  Not if it is on the basis of:  "Do you want more coffee?"  "Oh well, let's see.  Well, what kind is it?"  You can forget all that.

     No matter what someone asks, a Real Revolutionist would immediately answer.  It doesn't matter what the question is.  "Do you want some coffee?  Is it too hot in here?  Do you want to go to the store?"  Whatever someone asked you, the reply would be, "Yeah, sure."  If later on they bring in a live alligator and drop it in your lap, they you can say, "I've changed my mind," or "No thanks, I'm driving."  But a Real Revolutionist does not hesitate or wonder what to say.

     The dominant/submissive dance is always going on.  It is a dance which goes on under all conditions -- in family life, in romance, with two people chatting.  It goes on apparently between one person and a whole country; between one man and a group of people.  Someone is dominant and someone else is submissive and these positions can last a second or a lifetime.  And it goes on internally within each individual.

     I recently pointed out that a Real Revolutionist cannot be in the "outcome business."  That is, for a Real Revolutionist the effort itself is the effort.  In the 3-D linear world everything is based on an outcome.  Why else would anyone worry about whether they slept an extra fifteen minutes or not?  It is because there is an outcome:  "I'll be late, I'll get fired, I'll lose money, I'll feel guilty, I'll worry about it."  In the City there has to be an outcome.  People generally call it "the consequences of their actions."  Can you see that in the 3-D lineral sense, if the temporary destabilization was expanded, it would be an exact parallel to a lack of outcome?  Nothing could happen.  Can you see any reason for my throwing this in?

     I'll throw in one more.  I recently told you that a would-be Revolutionist would handle his affairs as an arranged marriage.  That is, he would not simply flow with his mechanical drift.  In arranged marriages the union is set up to benefit the two families involved.  The father would tell his daughter, "Never mind all this stuff about love.  Never mind what you think about the other person.  Never mind whether you like them or not.  We're talking about keeping the family fortune.  We're talking about increasing our power.  Get married and then you can do whatever you want to on the side."

     Can you see any connection between an arranged marriage and the internal dance between the dominant and the submissive being temporarily destabilized.  That is, a Real Revolutionist would ultimately be a willful party to an arranged marriage and that marriage is this:  you must marry you!

     Let me ask you another question:  can you see everyone's life as having a plot and a subplot?  (Or, the third one, which I may or may not get to, is no plot.  Let's stick with the first two.)  Out in Life -- in literature, in movies, in television -- the plot is the main story line.  But a story with only one plot is considered childish and simpleminded.  A good story or play has more than one plot.  That is, it would have subplots.  The situations are more complex than one simple story line.  There is more involved than simply the protagonist and antagonist.  I could even draw this example into music.  The more interesting and entertaining music is, the more complex it is.  Even if it is only a syncopated rhythm added to the primary rhythm.  Or a second guitar playing a counterpoint riff in a heavy metal band.  That is akin to a subplot in the literary world.

     Look upon your life (you being everybody).  Does the average, ordinary man's life have one plot and that's it?  Or does it have one subplot?  At the bare minimum, or perhaps at the maximum, you might say that two plots would be all that most people could handle.  You could say that the major plot for most people is to just be a good middle class person -- to raise the kids, make enough money to send them to college, and pay off the mortgage.  You could look at a church leader and say that he has one plot -- to run the church.  But think about it.  Are people's lives limited to one plot?  Everyone has some kind of hobby or side interest -- it could be sailing or even reading about sailing.  Perhaps it's listening to music.  It could be having a few drinks now and then.  Even in the City people have subplots going on in their lives.  Does that have any relationship to This Activity?

     How about this:  The movie industry has always had a fascination with movies about making movies.  This is not the most common subject, nor are movies with this theme necessarily the biggest money makers.  But there is a particular fascination among film critics and aficionados with movies about people making movies.  If that is the basis for a movie, you can bet there are critics and fans sharpening up their pencils in preparation to write about "the subconscious and metaphysical significance of making a movie about a group of people making a movie."

     That is still only a comma -- we're going to take it elsewhere.  Can you see that there is a Revolutionary sense to that?  That is, a Revolutionist must make a life within a life.  Can you see that that is what This Activity is about?  If you are doing This, you are attempting to live a life within a life.  In a sense you are producing an unnatural subplot.  Externally, by all observations, you do not appear to be all that different.  You still go to work; you still go grocery shopping; you still mow your lawn.  But internally you are making a movie about making a movie; you are living a life within a life.

     It is almost as though it's a preparation for another life, when, from all 3-D views, there is not going to be an outcome which is going to lead to living another life.  That is, it's not as if you're going to prepare for this other life and then stick around long enough to live it.  You are making a movie and there is not going to be an outcome.  You are working on goods and services and there is no end product.

     Everyone else has at least a plot in their life and most people also have a subplot.  Before you ran into This, you were at least that interesting; you had a plot and a subplot.  But when you start doing This -- when This becomes It -- you then develop a third subplot (at least).  But it's a subplot with no outcome.  It never gets distributed.  It never hits the theaters.  It has no final scene.  It's not really a movie you are making; it's not really a life you are living.  In a sense, it is a continuing preparation or a continuing filming.  You are filming this movie, living this life, and the plot is about filming a movie, and living a life.

     This is a useful approach that you should take in considering what you are doing with This.  I know how strange it sounds at times.  The inherent difficulty is in the fact that This Activity does not readily (to say the least) fit into anyone's plot or subplot.  In the beginning you may think, "It'll help me get along better with my family.  It'll make me more attractive to the opposite sex.  It'll make me more successful financially."  It might and it might not, but it'll probably be more of the latter.  All of that is not the purpose of This.  But everyone assumes that This is going to fit right in.  Everyone's belief, in the beginning, is that, "This is going to enrich the plot of my life.  Or at least the subplot."

     Perhaps your subplot is that you've always had what you would call a spiritual hunger.  That is your subplot.  "In my spare time I try to become more conscious."  That is a subplot in your life and that is not what This is attuned to.  This is brand new and unnatural.  It is not known in the City.  There is a reflection of it and people use similar terms, but once you begin to realize and feel This you understand:  "This is not what I always thought it was.  This is not what I thought I heard everyone else say it was.  In fact, it doesn't fit into any plot or subplot I ever heard about, read about, felt or imagined."

     A movie within a movie -- you should be able to feel the reality of this.  To you there seems to be a life going on -- you look about the same as you always have, you speak in the same way.  For awhile your friends and family may have thought that you were getting "spooky," but if you understand anything, you know how to squash that right quick, so now no one seems to notice anything weird about you.  In a sense, not that much has changed.  It is as though you are living a life about living a life.

     Need I add that this is in no way pessimistic?  Once you know how to do it you are free.  The noise still runs through you -- the general plot and subplot still run through your circuitry -- but you do know (don't you?) that there are all kinds of unbelievable noises going on in you.  If you need proof, just put your ear to someone else's stomach.  All kinds of noise is going on in you but you only take the talking noise as being personal and serious; you only take the noise of the plot and subplot as serious.  You can create a new, unnatural subplot -- living a life about living a life -- and no one knows you're doing it.