If Something Is True, Why Must It be Stated At All?
AKS/News Items = See Below
AKS/News Gallery = jcap 1989-10-06 (0618)
Summary = See below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Diagrams =
Transcript = See Below (ck edit)
Summary
#618 * Mar 7, 1990 * – 1:05
Notes by TK
Kyroot to :06. Why do people think other people can say what they don’t mean, i.e., not tell the ‘truth’? Why aren’t people motivated to think about such obvious questions? Why are things arranged such that people must not “tell the truth”? Without a confession on the part of the speaker (which will not normally happen), it is impossible to prove anyone is not telling the truth. Why is everybody wired to believe/think people are lying. Why would people need to lie in the first place?
Ordinary intelligence must always deal discontinuously, episodically with local reality whereas ‘truth’ as ordinarily understood would have to be a universal continuum. Personal experience is no proof whatever of anything universal. People continually tell local-truth and cannot not tell such truth. There is an institutional form of this, e.g., “there is more to banking than money” where the institution apparently says what is obviously not true; it is unable to utter the universal. If something is true, why must it be stated at all? Life makes no one state anything except that another person somewhere will oppose it on the grounds it is not true.
Excursion
For NP : You should become your own poet; use language in a private, passionate way that is outside normal intent, denotation, connotation. If you’re wired to need This Thing, have no doubt it will absolutely satisfy you.
AKS
10/06/89-(l)•
…and Kyroot said;
For all you news junkies, and info fans, don’t get all concerned over the questions of “inaccurate items,” “unsubstantiated stories,” and “unconfirmed reports,” after all,
the human intellect RUNS on rumor.
10/06/8942)
…and Kyroot said:
If all you have is a “one-life-time-view’ then one life time won’t
he enough.
10/06/8943)
…and Kyroot said:
“Remember son, eat everything on your plate – including the plate.”
1 0106/8944)
…and Kyroot said:
All political, social and economic theories are worthless – and you can
really forget those that can be proven.
10/06/89-(5)
…and Kyroot said:
If you like, I can fairly wrap up the earlier speaker’s comments for those of you who arrived late. He seemed to imply that within the realm of strictly human affairs, it always comes down to a skirmish of “reason vs a hope-burger.”
10/06/8946)
…and Kyroot said:
Over on a certain planet the cry of one young group was, “If we can’t change the world at least we can change ourselves, and if we can’t change ourselves at least we can change the world.”
…(I must look back in on them one day.)
10/06/8947)
…and Kyroot said:
Inscription on a public building of an obscure civilization as yet to be rediscovered, it reads, “Would there be the need for us to, ‘Pull Ourselves Together’ were we not constructed to
fly apart?”
–(Perhaps, “rediscover” is too kind a word…perhaps.)
10/06/8948)
…and Kyroot said:
Believe It Or Not, See It Or Don’t, it’s still staring at you from right over the hill –
All of life is a matter of conflicting, common interests.
10/06/8949)
…and Kyroot said:
An author with a typewriter in his bathroom may be considered a serious threat.
10/06/89-( 0)
…and Kyroot said:
“Whoa, don’t say that.”
“Don’t say what?”
“I thought you were going to say that everything’s a fait accompli.”
“Whoa, then I won’t say that.”
“Whoa – Phew!”
10/06/89-(11)
…and Kyroot said:
Don’t look off while loading.
10/06/89412)
…and Kyroot said:
On this one planet they have an alternate genesis myth that says everything was created simultaneously, and after that each part merely discovers, rediscovers, and expands its discovery of every other part.
10/06/89- 03)
…and Kyroot said:
We’re all being held responsible within the framework of man,
while not actually being so (outside the framework of man).
10/06/89414)
Kyroot said:
Over in the park this one rather lengthy chap ignored the soap boxes and benches, and climbed directly into a fashionable elm and cried out, “So long as the word ‘ambiguous’ is open to interpretation we’re all in-for-it.”
10/06/89- (15)
…and Kyroot said:
Whilst out surveying history and other wild creatures with his charge,
a father said, “Son, ponder and remember this: If the Siege Of Troy had not have actually
occurred men would have had to invent it.”
(reply) “But Pa Pa, tis fairly well accepted now that it twas mere fantasy.”
(confident sire says), “See!”
10/06/89416)
…and Kyroot said:
A “Fable For Someone Else’s Time”
A whale sighed, “It’s hard to be humble when you’re the largest thing in the sea,” and the waters replied, “Ho-hum.”
10/06/89417)
…and Kyroot said:
An unpublished pharmacist I met at a recent soiree told me that his overriding concern in life was that his own brain wouldn’t take him seriously.
…(I’m not absolutely certain, but I think I heard his frontal lobes go, “Ho-hum.”)
10/06/89418)
…and Kyroot said:
A Rule Of Thumb For The One Handed: Only those with symptoms can find
a diagnosis.
(Parenthetical Corollary: Only those with symptoms DESERVE a diagnosis.)
10/06/89-(19)
…and Kyroot said:
This one fellow says, “Oddly enough, when I’m away from home I feel most like myself,” and oddly enough his near-twin added that, “strangely enough” he almost felt conversely.
…(In the psyche-garment trade I believe this is known as an “odd lot.”)
10/06/89-(20)
…and Kyroot said:
The future is caused by friction;
thus, eliminate competition and be
free of tomorrow.
Transcript
618 T 3/7/90
(c)Copyright J.M. Cox, 1990
Many people believe, that under certain conditions, other
people do not say what they mean. Locally, it’s known as not
telling the truth. If you’re operating at the ordinary level of
intellect, you are inclined to ignore it. You should be
wondering, “Why have I never thought about this?” Why, under
ordinary conditions, are you not inclined to, have no need to,
are not motivated to look at such things that seem to be OBVIOUS?
Here’s an example. A politican is being interviewed by a
television reporter. The interviewer says, “We’d like to thank-
you Senator So and So for being here to discuss House Bill #247
which has just passed the House and Senate. And the Senator
says, “It is indeed my pleasure to be here. I am honored to be
here so I can have the opportunity to speak to my constituents
and tell them about this new law.” A sizable number of people
listening to this would either say or think to themselves, “Can
you believe the crap coming from the mouth of this pompous
idiot? Wouldn’t it be refreshing if they were actually to tell
the truth?” Rephrased it might go something like this: The
interviewer says, “We’d like to thank-you Senator So and So for
being here to discuss House Bill #247 which has just passed the
House and Senate.” And the Senator says, “To tell you the truth,
I’d fly across the country for the chance to be on TV. I’m here
to be seen and heard by as many people as possible and to be
treated as though I’m somebody important.”
Most of you are giving yourselves away, by laughing. It
shows that your own Nervous System has had that kind of sarcastic
reaction before. If you were ordinary and this was some kind of
self-help or psychological group activity, you could all say,
“Yeah, I shouldn’t be so cynical. Someone’s got to run the
government. I shouldn’t be a critic.” Can you see, this has
never been analyzed in any particular way. No one questions
their presumption that people do not always tell the truth.
Why can’t people say exactly what they mean? Why can’t
people always tell the truth, that is, their personal truth?
Let’s say that if this politician’s Nervous System could tell his
own local, personal truth and we asked him, “Why, when you’re
invited to meet the press, why would you get on a plane, on the
weekend, just to be on national TV for 7 minutes? I know you’re
going to say that this new bill that you co-authored, “is so
important that we need someone here to explain it to the public.”
And the interviewer responds, “Come on, what’s the real reason
for doing it? You’re not the only person who could do it. Why
are you doing it?” “It’s the same reason that I went into
politics. I want to be a big-shot. I like to hear myself talk.
I like being powerful and famous.” Why can that not happen?
Would the man die if he got on TV and said such as that? We’re
still assuming, that the politician is not telling the truth and
I’m putting words in his mouth by having him state that he likes
being famous and powerful. “There’s no need to thank me for
being here. I’d have paid you to be on TV. Ask me about
anything, as long as I can be on TV.” If you were watching that,
would he explode? Would you die? Would you and all your
neighbors suddenly run into the streets and begin action to have
him removed from office?
Without confession, which they could not do and it’s not
going to happen, there is no proof whatsoever that that
politician is not telling the truth, when he says he is here to
talk about the new bill. Don’t any of you wander off thinking,
“There’s a chance he might tell the truth, because that’s what
I’d do. I’d be telling the truth.” There is no proof available,
that this politican or anyone else, under ordinary conditions,
does less than say exactly what they mean. When the Senator
replies, “I am honored to be here and help serve the public with
this new bill”, there is no way to ever prove that he is telling
less than the truth.
Why are large segments of humanity wired up to believe that
other people are not saying what they mean? People accept it as
fact, that people lie. Think about it, since there is no proof
available. You’ll never find a psychologist, a biochemist, a
neurosurgeon, anyone with statistics suggesting that there is
proof coming that people do not say what they mean. So why do
large segments of humanity believe, that at times, other people
lie? As far as you and the rest of humanity is concerned, they
are lying. What’s going on? There are 2 questions that you can
ask. Is Life operating this way? And even if it’s not, why do
so many people think it is?
Since it cannot be proven, whether or not people are saying
what they mean, and since humanity in general cannot stop
believing that under certain conditions, specific people are not
telling the truth, then what would be the big deal if the
politician spoke what many people would consider to be the truth?
If he dropped the subterfuge of saying he’s here to help people
and simply say he was here to help himself. Would you die, would
he die, would the whole country fall apart? What’s the big deal?
I could ask, if all that is true, then why is it, that if people
indeed are not telling the exact truth all of the time, then why
can they not do so? Do you always say exactly what you mean?
Everyone in here, from the local building site of the brain would
say, no. “I don’t always tell the truth. I cannot always say
exactly what I want to say.”
Look at the REAL beauty, the balance, the efficiency of
Life, there’s no wasted motion, there’s no wasted energy. This
huge piece of vivus machina. And in the midst of it, why should
things get down to this kick and flop, chinzty level while
simultaneously men designing all sorts of marvelous things.
These same men sit around and if someone says, “We’re glad to
have you here.” And the politician, as people would say, “cannot
tell the darn truth!” He can’t say, people in general can’t say,
“You don’t have to thank me for being here. I would have paid to
be here. I’m sure the networks wouldn’t like me to say that and
they probably wouldn’t accept the money. But anyway, go ahead
with your questions.” A reputable, well respected member of the
U.S. Senate. He might have a PhD in physics. Maybe he’s
involved with writing some of the most sophisticated legislation
for our space research projects. The man is no dummy. At the
ordinary level, the man is at the cutting edge of intellectual
growth, of science and technology. What’s going on? There must
be some reason that the world is populated with people who
believe that, even if it cannot be proven. Why is Life arranged
in such a way, this staggering nexus of connections throughout
humanity, men accomplishing so much, without which, the Earth
would be just another whirling orb. And you’ve got this creature
here with a nervous system, a brain that is just staggering,
despite how little the brain can see of itself. When it gets
down to people discussing their own motivations, a man cannot
simply tell the truth. If the truer response, as many people
believe, is “All I wanted was to be on TV, hear myself talk and
try to impress other people.” This is going on continuously and
not just with politicians.
If all that be true, there’s no proof that people are lying
unless you get a personal confession and you cannot trust the
confession, but I’m not going to go into that. Withstanding the
confession, there is no proof whatsoever and yet all people are
wired to believe others are lying. What if everyone’s telling
the truth? You’re still left with the question of why has Life
developed this inefficient, from one view, method of thinking
that the rest of us are not telling the truth? What if it could
be proven that everyone is telling the truth? Why are things
arranged in such a way, that Life has everybody, to some degree,
thinking that other people are not saying what they mean? What
does that accomplish? Did Life just take a nap while it was
setting up this particular aspect of human functioning?
Here’s a transitorally consistent response to my own
question about why, possibly, things operate this way. Let’s
call it an operational hint. Ordinary intelligence can only
operate locally, personally. Therefore it can only deal with
matters, spasmodically, episodically, thus any kind of verbal
reaction to any situation will be less than what the ordinary
intellect would call the truth because it cannot respond in a
universal manner. The response itself cannot be consistent.
I’ll say it again. Remember, if it be true, people cannot fully,
ingenuously say what they mean. There is a universal something
which is what people mean when they talk about ‘the truth.’ It’s
that which is consistent. As long as the intellect can only act
in a way that is episodic, dealing only in local affairs, it
cannot deal on a universal level. The interviewer says, “Senator
So and So, we’re glad to have you here today” and in that split
second, his intellect responds, “I’m honored to be here.” If I
could tickle that politician’s intellect down at the three-
dimensional level, in that local, personal situation, then you
are wrong to think that he is not telling the truth. A split
second later, you could be correct. A split second before the
politician spoke, if I could tickle him then, and make his
nervous system speak, he could have been thinking, “It’s funny
the way newspeople always treat me. The interviewer is going to
say, ‘It’s an honor to have you here’, and surely he knows, and I
can’t believe he doesn’t know it, but I’d pay them for the chance
to be on TV.” Now I’m just saying that could be possible but
when the camera’s turned on, the circumstances are such, that the
politician will respond, “It’s an honor to be here. I’m pleased
to have the opportunity to explain this bill which is so
important to the American public.” That is local realiy. That
is personal reality. That is an inescapable manifestation of the
episodic operation of ordinary intelligence. At the ordinary
level there is only one reality at a time and it is local and
personal. And it can be in direct conflict with the upcoming
reality. That is, the upcoming truth. But for the truth to
exist in the way ordinary people say it does, you would have to
have something beyond the ordinary level of local reality. It
would have to be universal. You would have to know that all of
this is going on in you and ordinary people do not know it.
The only proper synonym for the truth, which would be the
definition of the truth, is that which is universal. If we are a
3-dimensional part of, let us say, a 5-dimensional reality, then
if you knew everything possible about any subject, 3-
dimensionally, do you understand that anything you said would
still not be the truth. It would still not be consistent because
unless that particular subject is going to die, then some new
piece of information will eventually appear. You could be the
world’s leading authority on this one subject but you’re doomed
to the local truth because tomorrow there will be a new piece of
information. So you’re no longer the expert, that is, the truth
as you spoke it yesterday will not hold up to tomorrow’s scutiny.
For one reason, the only real definition of ‘the truth’ would
have to be universal. It would have to be constant. And what is
called the truth at the 3-dimensional level is never constant.
Never. The closest thing to consistency would be that which
disappeared. That subject would have to cease to be of any
energetic importance.
If it is not universal, it is not the truth. Can you see
that ordinary intelligence cannot tell ‘the truth’. It’s not a
matter of deciding whether or not to tell the truth. At that
level, in that split second when you open your mouth, that is the
local, personal truth. If it was not your local, personal truth,
then why did you say it? A split second after it’s over you
might change your story, then that’s the truth. Then, given the
right circumstances switch back to your initial response so then
that’s the truth.
Reverting to mathematics, an objective, truthful language is
possible. But beyond that, the only definition that would
qualify for what the dictionary calls the truth, would have to be
universal. And there is no such thing as universal with ordinary
intelligence. There is nothing consistent at that level. Can
you see that the idea of people not telling the truth, provides
another energetic means of keeping humanity agitated, a churning
up of their account. Everyone is constantly suspecting that
other people around them are not telling the truth. Salesmen,
strangers on the street, friends, family. Look at what that
does. Look at the beauty of it. There is no proof whatsoever
that people are not telling the truth. Don’t bother using your
own personal experiences as the basis for understanding any of
this. It’s not worth diddly-squat. That puts you on a merry-go-
round going backwards.
There is no proof and none has ever been offered, which is
another little sidestep that some of you should pursue, that
people ever say less that what they mean, right then. There’s no
hinted proof, there’s no offered proof, there are no theories and
no one has ever thought about it. You should find that
interesting. Everyone thinks that other people are shading the
truth and no one has ever wondered, “Now why do I think that?”
Forget about your personal experiences. “What about the guy who
sold me that lemon of a car. I asked him if the car was in good
shape and he assured me it was. Then it blew up two hours later.
There you are, there’s the proof.” That’s not proof of anything.
There is no proof that people say anything less than what they
mean. You say, “Tell me the truth. I’ve got a sick mother and
I’m behind on my house payments and I am badly in need of a car.
Is this a good car?” And the salesman says, “Yes, you bet it
is.” And just because it blew up two hours later is not proof
that the car salesman was shading the truth. If you think that’s
the proof, you’re hung up on the surface drama of life. And
you’ll be driven by it forever. At that moment, when you asked
the salesman about the condition of the car, what he said, he
meant. That was local reality. A moment later, you might have
caught a glimpse of him exchanging glances with another salesman
which you interpreted as, “Some sucker just bought the lemon”.
That does not contradict the salesman’s earlier response to your
question about the condition of the car. Because, then that is
what he means.
Only, if the person speaking had a universal understanding,
only then would it be what you think of, ordinarily as the truth.
It would be constant. It would never change, regardless of the
circumstance. When people say there is something wrong with
humanity, there is a moral flaw that people cannot tell the
truth, what they are saying is that 3-dimensional reality can
only deal with 3-dimensional reality. It cannot swallow anything
bigger than it’s own mouth. It’s going to have a continual
effect on your nervous system because it provides the kind of
energy exchange, that keeps things churned up and you believing
that you are surrounded by people who are ‘not telling the
complete truth’. “This whole machinery of life is run on a pack
of lies.” Lies are just another synonym for error.
There is a kind of institutionalized version of this. Do
you recall an advertising campaign developed for one of the banks
which went like this: “There’s more to banking than money.” From
a more complex view, that is an outright lie. That is not the
truth, right? There is nothing more to banking than money. If
it weren’t for money, there’d be no banking. What about the
insurance company, that, for awhile was using as their slogan,
“Trust is our major policy.” That’s not their major policy.
Profit is their only policy. Or some of the all news radio
station using the tag-line that, “news is their only business.”
Their only business is advertising. The news is secondary.
That’s like believing that the television networks are there to
inform and entertain you. Again, that’s secondary. They are
also in business to sell advertising. There has to be something
on the radio, in the newspaper and on TV other than a constant
stream of ads. So in-between the ads they put on what is
laughingly referred to (I know they’re insincere and not telling
the truth) as entertainment or information. This is an
institutionalized version of the same dynamic. Why is it, on an
institutionalized level, that the bank says there’s more to
banking than money? Why can’t the bank say, “there’s nothing to
banking other than money, which is why we have to make these
types of fallacious statements.” Are they any more likely to say
that, than the politician is to say he’s agreed to be on TV
because elections are coming up and plans to grab all
opportunities to reinforce his position?
Look at any of the major religions. Their approach, up until
now has been, “We’re not interested in mundane affairs, eternity
is our business.” Tacitly they know nothing more about what’s
going to happen after we die that you people do. There is a
widespread institutionalized version, a different kind of
collection of cellular living molecules, than just an individual
man, of not telling the truth. As in the example of a bank
saying that there is more to banking than money. I pointed out
to you that that is not true and I can’t prove that. I could
take their viewpoint and prove that there is more to banking than
money. “That’s the only thing that distinguishes one bank from
another. We give you better service.” And so it is true that
there is more to banking than money. If not, a banker could
stand under a tree during certain hours of the day and hand out
money and do business with you. When they say, “There’s more to
banking than money”, they are right. If it’s true, then why do
they have to say it? If anything is true, as ordinary people
call it, why does anyone have to say so? Why does an outstanding
statesman have to stoop so low as to appear on national TV and
say he’s not a crook?
The institutionalized other side is that you’ve got part of
Life’s system, that is, individuals wired up who respond to a
slogan such as, “There’s more to banking than money”, cynically,
without ever analyzing their reaction. Life would not have some
individual or institution make a statement unless some other
segment is going to react by calling it a pack of lies. Now put
that together with why do there seem to be non-truths running
rampant throughout history on this planet. And why people
believe that others constantly do not, cannot, will not tell them
the truth. Doesn’t this, at least temporarily, shake your faith
in lies and errors?