Jan Cox Talk 0342

There Is No Passive Medium

Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0342 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = tbd
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #342 * May 16, 1988 * - 1:36 

  [There is no such thing as a medium —energy transmission channel--that is absolutely pristine, clean, passive, i.e., not contributing to the energy flowing thru it. It must be active, and always gives rise to some level of unscheduled, unexpected info alteration ('spurious' = new). Consider the recall of memory: it cannot be passive; it produces its own kind of info-overtones, white noise--all unrecognized and unaccounted for. Connected to: experienced event vs. what you think about what you experienced. Life could have no use for a truly passive medium, for an outcome perfectly conforming to the input. Thus man has no need for passive mediums either, and his partnership arrangement is an active medium. ]
  [Consider the modern condemnation of smoking: the attempt at after-the-fact modification of genetic heritage via another set of genes; an attempt to alter the past. The only way the arrangement can work is by the appearance of an escape clause, a pristine self that can be returned to --illusion. ]
  [Note man's need to discuss/proclaim moral rectitude when the occasion/circumstance for it is appropriate. Ordinary consciousness is wired to need to talk about morality when the actuality for its efficacy is also present. Thus Life talks to itself, reminds itself thru man of what it should be doing. That is why it is such a striking thing to men when it happens. Real Revolutionists who proclaim morality are cheating Life since they won't do it (or they are over encouraging Life). The Real Revolutionist would never tell anyone what he can do beyond the ordinary. The only question of morality for the Real Revolutionist : if found out are you ashamed? ...or angry? No Real King brags. ]
  [Never raise your hand to the King except when the blow is to kill him. Internal application: no City dweller ever does this --they constantly raise their hand to the king without killing, and thus they inflict the 'death of a 1000 cuts' on themselves. ]
  [Paradigm presents 0:58 to 1:36. ]
  [1:36 Epilog: do not whine and complain. Do not make a fist; do not clinch jaws. It‘s impossible to clinch teeth when you smile (or you're fit for Bedlam). ]
  [end 1:43 


Transcript

THERE IS NO PASSIVE MEDIUM

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document:  342, May 16, 1988

                          
     An accepted belief in this technological age is that when information is transmitted through a good medium, that medium should not interfere with the transmission by adding extraneous noise or data.  This is the accepted, 3-D view.  However, from another view, there is no such thing as a totally passive medium which simply transmits energy/information.  Such a thing is not possible; all mediums become active forces and produce their own unexpected and normally unrecognized information.

     You don't need to worry about your personal computer at home or the mainframe where you work.  Instead, Consider that we're talking about people.  (Strange as it may sound, this is true of mediums other than people, but for now point your Consideration in that direction.)

     When you ask someone a question -- "Do you have any information on this subject?" -- you expect a straight answer.  "Just the facts, just tell me what happened," and when they tell you, you might ask, "Do you know that for a fact?" or, "Is that exactly what you observed?"  If they say yes, you accept that the person has transmitted to you some objective information.  But remember, there is no such thing as a passive medium.

     If a medium is useable -- if it's acting as a medium -- that medium is active.  I don't mean this is true in particular instances, such as when you happen to ask a witness who is biased.  I'm talking about all instances where information is transmitted, even by an observer who is fairly disinterested.  The person may appear to qualify as a reasonable medium; they may agree to simply describe what was going on and nothing else.  But that's not possible.

     Consider, in relation to this, the questionable dependence you have on information obtained from other people, and on your own memory.  The human organism is not wired up to question the methods by which you obtain and later retrieve apparently objective information.  When you're asked, "Do you know such and such?  Do you remember such and such?" you begin to remember and report.  You are apparently acting as a passive medium, at least in those situations where you have no pressing opinion or feeling about the matter.

     Your memory seems to operate by simply retrieving information, but in the process, memory is producing its own unrecognized, unscheduled, extraneous information.  Memory continually produces a kind of floor noise; a spurious line of overtones is constantly added to the transmission.

     Does this shake your faith, if any of you still have any, in your old city-bred self?  Internally, there seems to be a continual information-flow between circuits; there is the ephemeral feeling that somebody, some ruler, is in charge and that information is passed between that ruler and the rest of me.  Desires seem to be straightforward.  When you desire to change some habit, the message demanding change seems to be pristine.  Apparently, some medium in you is transmitting the information that, "I should be changing," in one particular area.  Yet, internally, the extraneous, unexpected information being added by the active medium is always there.  And people wonder why two and two do not equal four; they wonder why they can't just change.  

     If there were such a thing as a passive medium, how would it operate?  You'd put rutabagas in one end and rutabagas would come out the other end.  What could Life do with that?  What would be the purpose of a purely passive, absolutely pristine medium.  If you're going to get back exactly what you put in, why go through the process?

     Information transmittal goes on at all levels, apparently internally in you.  The stomach seems to be sending messages about, "Hey, I wish you wouldn't eat more than a half gallon of ice cream at one sitting."  Somewhere down in your mid-circuits, voices are saying, "Boy, you should treat people better, you should call your mother more often."  No one analyzes this; no one questions whether the transmission of such information to the upper circuitry that seems to be "in charge" is a direct transmission.  There seem to be messages arising from somewhere in you, talking to other parts of you in a direct manner, and you never question what is taking place in the transmission itself.  But remember, if a medium is in operation, that medium is producing its own information along with the information it's apparently transmitting.

     How about this:  There is a way in which Life leads humanity to plan what seems to be change, utilizing the specious notion that there is an "out there" -- an environmental reality separated from humanity.  There is no out there.  There is no environment warehouse where humanity -- individually, collectively, culturally, racially, socially, nationally -- can go and get a bunch of environment and bring it in and suddenly say, "All right, here are some environmental impacts, some new ones."  Yet when there is a movement in the direction of change, Life seems to do just that.  Life says, through people, "We're smarter now, we have some new information, and cultural attitudes are more enlightened, so we know now that humanity needs to change."

     Recently, a popular attitude seems to be, "People shouldn't smoke cigarettes."  Parts of Life's body -- some of the genes in this organism -- are condemning other parts for smoking.  But the habit is already there; the behavior's already going on and is part of the organism.  The genes condemning the behavior have the same genetic background -- they're part of the same body as the genes they're condemning.  Yet one set of genes -- smokers -- tries to alter another set of genes -- nonsmokers -- giving as a reason new environmental "information," "attitudes," "impacts," "influences," etc.

     What this amounts to is that the upper circuitry and lower circuitry live in different time zones.  From a 3-D view, Life seems to be attempting to alter the past, to go back and change behavior that is already going on in Life's own body.  Life's trying to make changes after the fact.  The behavior is already there as part of the organism, but sets of genes going under the names of men and women are trying to travel back in 3-D time and undo a habit that genetically exists as other men and women.

     At the 3-D level, every desire or attempt to change is an attempt to go back and fool with the genetic past.  When you think, "After all these years, I realize I've got a terrible temper, it's causing me stress and I've got to change," you don't realize that your anger is not something you have acquired.  Sophisticated city people believe anger is caused by how you were treated as a child -- by the environment -- and thus can be similarly corrected.  Even in the city nobody believes that you can go back and change the past, for example, undo yourself and your irreversible, genetic heritage.  The idea of change flies in the city only because there is a built-in escape clause:  "the environment."

     There is no environment.  There are no environmental influences.  What everybody in the city calls the environment is somebody else's heredity.  Your parents did not have to go to an environment warehouse to obtain one for you, good or bad.  They didn't have anywhere to go.

     Under ordinary conditions, it's impossible to keep an awareness of this.  Consider what that does to the apparent transmission of information between people, between families, between nations.  If communication goes much farther than, "Is that your foot?"  "Yes, that's my foot," you are asking for trouble.  Especially if you say, "Are you sure?"  Because then you are dealing with the medium beginning to produce its own information.

     Remember, I once asked you the rhetorical question, "Do people actually talk about what they have experienced, or do they talk about what they think they have experienced?"  Suppose a person comes up and says to you, "I want to test a theory I heard about direct information," and you say, "Sure."  So the person touches your nose and asks, "Is this your nose?"  You go, "Yes."  Then they say, "That's your nose I touched, and you understand I'm asking the questions is that your nose?"  You say, "Yes."  Everything seems to be fine.  Then they say, "Are you sure?"  And you say, "What do you mean?" and everything falls apart.  The medium involved is now beginning to produce information; you can be aware of something besides a direct transmission going on.

     If you think this demonstrates that Life is arranged in less than an efficient manner, think again.  There would be no such thing as progress if spurious information were not continuously produced.  There would be no growth in technology or knowledge if everything apparently went from point A to point B without undergoing any alteration.  Rutabagas would go in and rutabagas would come out.  Someone would ask, "Is this your nose?"  Without any reservations, self-doubts or hesitation you'd answer, "Yes!"  You would have finally engaged in a clean, pure, pristine transmission of information, and that would be the last time you and the other person ever communicated.  You might never speak again -- no need to.  You might die on the spot.  But that's not what happens.

     What people think is going on during communication is going on, but unexpected noise in the lines of communication is also going on.  So the audio chain -- the conscious chain -- seems to be breaking down.  "Why can't I get a straight answer?  How come whenever I ask somebody a simple question, it's always blah, blah, blah?"  Because a straight answer would be a dead answer.  A straight answer would stop you in your tracks, and that does not happen in Life.

     On a larger scale, what people believe to be the purpose of communication is not the purpose.  The continued growth of Life, the continued movement of the population in the city, is dependent upon the fact that during the transmission of energy/information the medium -- people -- is always adding unrecognized new information to what's going on.  New information is being produced by all forms of normal communication.  This is part of life in the city.

     City people try to change.  Their friends say to them, "You've got to do something about that temper or you'll never keep a lover."  When their lover leaves, they think, "That's true.  I've even told myself, you've got a bad temper, you should change."  If there were such a thing as a passive medium, that would be that the person would know what to do and would change.  But that is never that.  If direct communication were a reality in the city, shelters for battered women and stop smoking clinics would not exist.  And there would be very little conversation.

     When you tell yourself, "I should stop smoking," you're trying to communicate to you in your own best interest.  But there's a breakdown within the communication itself.  There is a lack of direct transmission between the Partnership.  You continually ask yourself, "How can I get a noose around one part of my own nervous system without killing the rest of me?"  Well, here is another version of the question:  "How can I cut down on the spurious information being added in?"

     Let's move on to another apparent subject, though I'm not changing the subject.  Life arranges things in the city so that people have to discuss what seem to be their moral decisions.  I'm not actually talking about "morals," but that's a term we can start off with that everyone understands.  Sociologists and pollsters love to set up studies to test the woman or man on the street's morals.  A grocery shopper is accosted by a man who says, "We're testing a new brand of orange juice today, would you like to participate in a taste test?  You just taste this and tell us what you think."  Unbeknown to the shopper, the orange juice is laced with prune juice or salt or some other flavor intended to cause the average person to go, "Yuk."  So the shopper takes a sip and realizes, "This stuff is awful."  But there seem to be television cameras recording their reaction, so they say, "Let me try that again, oh, yeah, it tastes great!"  Such tests are designed to show, not just that people will do anything to get on TV, but the extent to which the average person's "morals" can be compromised.  Of course, during such tests, occasionally a shopper will say, "Stop the camera because I can't do this.  This orange juice is the worst I've ever tasted and I just can't say it's good, that would be wrong."

     Social scientists attribute social, psychological, religious, cultural, environmental significance to the results of such tests.  On a larger scale, great historical significance is attributed to those instances in which an individual or a group of people proclaimed and stood up for some moral decision they had made.  On every level, so-called moral decisions seem to be of great importance.

     There are two quick body blows I want to slip in here.  The first is that Life continues to talk to itself through man to remind itself of what it should be doing.  The second is that those involved with This Thing -- the would-be revolutionists -- are cheating Life because they refuse to do that.  Or, perhaps, they are over-encouraging Life by refusing to do that.

     Once your own nervous system is activated beyond the ordinary level, there are just certain things you cannot do, so there is really no need for a "Revolutionist's Code of Conduct."  Yet, a Real Revolutionist would never, never, never say, "I can't do that because it's wrong."  So what is Life up to, forcing humanity to continually talk about such things?  At city level, people respect other people saying, "I cannot morally allow this."  But once you have any real sense of that, you'd never tell anybody.  What is going on?

     This is not really a question, but some of you can already taste exactly what I'm describing.  How would a Real Revolutionist ever explain to his inferiors what he was going to do and why?  Even if he explained his actions to himself, he'd be talking to inferiors.  If there was a reality behind the word .pa"morality," once you understood what to do and what not to do, you would never tell anyone, ever.  Is that unnatural enough?

     One verbal freebie for tonight is:  If a would-be revolutionist ever had a question about something, "Should I be doing this?"  He might ask himself, "If somebody caught me doing this, out of the two possible reactions, would I be embarrassed and ashamed, or would I be pissed?"  That's the end of that freebie.

     Recently I've talked about the "King" and the "people," that is, some part of you and apparently the rest of you.  This is another way of describing your own Partnership in the submissive/ dominant dance.  Among several things I pointed out was that the king doesn't get ulcers -- he gives ulcers.  I also want to point out that a real king does not have to impress anyone; a real ruler doesn't have to brag to be a hero.  A king who calls in his subjects and says, "Oh, by the way, I conquered so and so last week," is middle class.  He may have a crown, but he probably bought it from the Avon woman.

     You may recall my saying that you should never have any mortal -- any other human -- as a hero.  Here's another verbal freebie:  Don't ever be impressed by anybody who gives the slightest indication they want you to be, no matter what kind of information they seem prepared to transmit.  If you have any indication, the slightest idea, that, "They want me to be impressed," forget it.

     Remembering that in the great land of 4-D metaphors I may not be talking about what you hear in your ears, let me add one more thing about the king.  You should never raise your hand to a king unless you are going to kill him.  In light of this, Consider what goes on all the time internally, the endless discussion and transmission.  If you could just raise your internal hand so that when, "I've had enough of this, I'm going to do so and so," you would actually do it, then there would be no time for discussion, no time for any sizeable amount of new spurious information to be added.  If you raise your hand to the king, you'd better go ahead and kill him, right then, or you'll be in for an unpleasant time, to say the least.

     Out in the "real world," you would not go up to the king, to the president or head honcho, and raise your hand as if to strike him.  But people are not wired up to take that attitude toward themselves.  They always believe, "I need more information, I need to watch myself more, I need to take a new self-help course in order to solve these problems with myself."  From the viewpoint of This Thing, it's as though an ordinary person lives a life in which he's dying what the Mongols used to call "the death of a thousand" little bitty cuts.  Apparently, people constantly raise their hand to the king, then merely slap him.

     How many people, to use a crude example, get up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking -- after thirty years of such nights and mornings -- and internally say, "I've got to stop this drinking!"  You seem to live with the constant situation of an unruly king.  But if "the king makes me get drunk," or "the king gets me angry," the best you can ordinarily do is take off a glove, slap him and say, "Enough is enough!"

     You know what would happen if you did such a thing "out there," but when something similar happens internally you think, "Well, that's Life.  Maybe things will work out next time."  If you're going to raise your hand to the king, kill him.