Diagram 050

Re Talk: 119, 135

       Now I want you to Consider:  What seems to be one's "I"?  Is it a noun or a verb?  Consciousness is a process; it is not a thing, but for the time being I am going to describe it as a triaxial thing.  Until I change my description to one dealing with numbers I'm going to use words, and call the process OAI.  This OAI process has three parts, and they are the minimal aspects needed for a person to be aware of something. The "O" is the Observing part -- functionally, no more than the magnetic attractions of consciousness -- the small parts that consciousness unavoidably pulls out of the whole, seamless totality.  Anyone can immediately see that individual men can only concern themselves with extremely limited information at any one time.  Right now, no matter how hard you try to be aware of your internal or external environment you might not notice the hum of the air conditioner, the person seated three seats down from you, particular odors or how comfortable your seat is.  There simply are limits having to do with the mechanical, magnetic attraction of those parts that consciousness perceives within the whole.  The attractions are mechanical; they are part of a general, non-personal force.

     The "A" part is Analyzation -- a  comparison of two systems or two forces.  Analyzation divides, necessarily, in order to perceive.  No perception occurs without analyzation/division.  For instance, the "A" part of OAI may divide incoming data into that which "I" agrees with and that which it doesn't, or that which "I" approves of and that which it disapproves of, or what is reasonable to "I" and what is not.  Consider, memory is not based upon indifference.  An ordinary person might answer, "Of course, I have no indifferent memories.  Why should I remember that which is boring?"  And to that I'd say, "Aha!"  And he'd say, "Aha to you, too."  But you should find it very interesting that there are no indifferent memories.

     The "I" part of OAI is the method of division to facilitate observation and analyzation.  What if this function, this division, is all that your sense of individuality amounts to?  Of course, the OAI processes happen all at once; I am breaking it up for you verbally to lead you to a dangerous edge.  There is a mathematics concerning the OAI.  The mathematics of ordinary, Line-level consciousness could be described as Not-I divided by I (Not-I / I).  Whereas the mathematics to describe an extraordinary consciousness would be:  

                         Not-I  x  ITTA

              (Not-I times I Times Three Attempted)

     If you can pursue this beyond words it will offer you a different look at the limitations of language, which are synonymous with the limitations of consciousness.  Neuralizing is the attempt to take all Not-I and instead of dividing it by I, you multiply it by the factor of I x 3.  I am speaking of something impossible at Line level; to be conscious at that level, everything must be divided by I.

     OAI also divides into a sequence of time.  Modern man's notion that time is the fourth dimension is specious:  it is specious in that time is merely how OAI sequences apparent events for the sake of memory and manipulation.  Everything someone remembers is an event.  Everything you could put forward as a memory is an event.  Taking OAI as a thing (although I told you that it is a process) -- what it does is SDR. It Separates, Divides and Remembers, all simultaneously.

     I'll elaborate.  The "O," observation, separates something out of the whole magnetic grid.  It is a kind of extrication/isolation that happens without "conscious planning."  The division necessary to perceive the event occurs simultaneously with the event, as does the remembering of the event.  The very act of dividing and remembering "names" something, and thus, what seems to be an event is created out of the whole.  It is only through this process that apparent events ever take place.  Again, let me remind you: SDR is one process, although we must cut it up in order to talk about it.  Separation does not cause memory, nor does memory cause separation.  They happen at once.  I won't push you to see the possibility that you can remember something before it happens.  But you do remember "events" simultaneously with their occurrence.

     Ordinary consciousness cannot conceive that events themselves do not exist.  Events, as you remember them, have no sequence, although memory will tell you otherwise.  Events have no sense of time, but the corollary is that without that sense of time sequence, SDR could not take place.  The only way an apparent event can be separated and perceived is that there must be a sense of time.  And the only way a sense of time exists is through this separation.

     Let us take a common event -- a wreck on the highway.  We will look at several people in relationship to this apparent event.  The first person is in his car, late for a dinner appointment with a prospective client. Having made allowance for every conceivable contingency, nonetheless here he sits in bumper-to-bumper traffic, fuming over his potential loss of dollars.  Another man, on his way home, gives only a small part of his attention to the stagnant traffic.  He is accustomed to getting off work daily at 5:30 and knows that it will take him between 45 minutes and one hour and 15 minutes to get home.  He prefers getting home in 45 minutes, but he is not terribly concerned with the delay because he's well within normal, habitual parameters.  He assumes that there is a wreck ahead of him, nonetheless his sense of time is quite different from our first party.  Now as this commuter inches forward closer to the wreck he sees that one of the cars involved is the same model and color as his wife's car.  He also sees the same bumper sticker as on his wife's car.  Suddenly what seems to be the time sequence, what seems to be the event, has altered drastically.  "That could be my wife or kids in that car!  Are they all right?"

     In yet another car, someone else is making his nightly commute home.  He doesn't particularly care that traffic is stalled; none of the cars involved in the wreck ring any bells of recognition for him.  He glances at the accident as he goes by, but, in a sense, he is not even conscious of the wreck.  For him, there is no "O" part -- he never becomes a magnetized observer, thus the wreck is not even an event.  In fact, when he arrives home, the TV news anchor is describing a wreck on the highway, and his wife asks excitedly, "Isn't that the way you come home?  Was it bad?  It must have been terrible."  And the guy goes, "Wreck...uh, yeah, maybe."  And she says, "They said there were two people killed and two cars were on fire."  And he says, "Well, yeah, I think I saw something."  He drove right by it and had almost no awareness of it.  An "event" does not exist by itself.

     Events exist because of man's absolute need to fulfill his purpose of separating, dividing and remembering.  The SDR process is what gives the appearance of a sequence.  Without SDR there would be no ability to remember, no sense that "I" exists and has lived through a series of events.  If you were to prepare your life story for presentation, it would apparently be told in little segments of events.  Yet "events" do not exist.  Without your ability to remember your life in such a fashion, without consciousness' sensation that, "events have happened to me," you would not even be conscious.

 Things are happening in all possible directions.  In our example, three people started out on the highway just like they do every afternoon.  Most afternoons, as with most of their life, the SDR process runs at a bare minimum.  The regular drive home is usually "eventless."  But for two of our people in the previous example, the drive became memorable -- they will remember it for a while.  For the salesman, the wreck became an event; he certainly didn't plan it; it just happened.  When he realized he was late and helpless to prevent the possible loss of business, his OAI went through SDR -- it separated the wreck from everything else -- and the wreck became an event.  The dividing occurred as it must or else the wreck would not be an event; it would have remained an unperceived part of the greater seamless whole.  The "A" of OAI analyzed it, and in comparing the two possibilities, concluded, "I don't like this event."

     For our second driver the SDR did not take place until he drew closer to the wreck.  Once he saw the color of the car, there was a magnetic, mechanical attraction and -- at the same time -- the analyzation took place.  In other words, he had some opinion, some feeling for what was now an event in his life:  "I hope that's not my wife."

     What about the old question:  If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound?  To ordinary people this is unanswerable.  But the answer is yes -- because at one time a man did hear and observe this phenomenon or he could not have asked the question.  Ordinary consciousness would argue, "Well, that proves nothing.  Just because somebody certainly at one time was in a forest and saw a tree fall and heard it crash -- what does that have to do with right now, out in the forest?"  But I am pointing to a place beyond what seems to be a sequence of events:  a place beyond the separating, dividing and remembering process of ordinary awareness, memory and time.

     Another example:  It's Sunday morning and you're leafing through the paper.  Nothing much catches your attention; you fix another cup of coffee and sit down again.  You have nothing to do, there's nothing special to read, so you start leafing through the classified ads.  This for you is usually not eventful, but it's raining outside and there's nothing else to do.  You spot an ad for a Ferrari, and a mechanical attraction starts the "O" part of the process.  Simultaneously the analyzation occurs:  "I wish I had $70,000.  What fun it would be to have $70,000 just to spend on a car."  Soon you're calling the number in the ad and writing down details.  You continue excitedly, "Here's a Porsche with fire damage.  I could borrow $8,000, sell my old truck," etc., etc.  If you could observe yourself and ask, "What is the latest event in your life?" you'd say, "Well, for some reason I started reading sports car ads, and I've been thinking recently that I should trade cars, sell my truck because it's giving me problems..."  Consciousness makes it sound like it was a planned event.  But do you see that the difference between what seems to be an event and a non-event is almost non-eventful itself?  There is almost no distinction.  I'm throwing in the word "almost" to give you a chance to let it sink in.  The truth is, there is no distinction between events and non-events.  But how can I tell anyone living at the ordinary level that there is no difference?  Hence, trickery is necessary to point in so many different directions under different guises. JC Talk 119