Diagram 085

Re Talk: 212

       I want to say more about the Three Forces, persuasions, possibilities:  C, D, and E.  For anything to occur, for you to fall in love, for you to be angry, for you to daydream about world conditions, to perceive something happening, there must be three parts, like a three legged stool.  If a thing exists it has three necessary functioning parts.  With less than three parts, for all intents and purposes, the thing, the situation, does not exist.  Any less, and you will not see it, feel it, hear it, smell it, or think about it.  You will not be able to perceive it.  A thing must be a triad if you are to be aware of it, not withstanding that ordinary consciousness perceives everything as being a two legged occurrence.  Ordinary consciousness sees in binary terms; it sees two forces at work in disputes or personal relations. 

     If you do indeed activate the nervous system above Line level, you will begin to be conscious in a triaxial manner.  You will have to be; you will have no choice.  All of your so-called spiritual heroes were able to operate in a triaxial manner.  They were not limited to a Yin/Yang, positive/negative, active/passive kind of consciousness, having perceptions of the way Life is, and then some notion of how Life should be. To Understand anything, you must be able to think from three different directions.  You are conscious of any situation having three parts to it.  Any so- called problem, any question, has three legs supporting it, which I've called C, D, and E.  But your ordinary, binary consciousness perceives C Force in any situation as something you find favor with.  Even if your own inner voices say a situation is beyond your personal area of interest, they might still describe what you are seeing as C:  "Here is an objective way in which Life or humanity is moving in a profitable or constructive manner."

     What I refer to as D is that which your voices apparently disapprove of.  "This is not in the best interest of humanity, of decent, civilized society."  Of course, E remains, the eternal problem.  No one with a binary attitude, no one with hard-wired nervous system brains can conceive of an E.

     If you are ordinary, everything is divided into two parts.  It's not ordinarily seen in this manner, but if preachers, ministers, rabbis, would-be gurus receive any recognition at all, what is it they're good at? Being able to divide everything into two.  If you can do that and you have a glib tongue, you've got it.  It's then just a matter of which book you want to wave, and Life can always use another minister.

     All of you should have some feel for how wonderful it would be if everything were divided into two; how easy attempting to do This Thing would be.  All ordinary ideas of growth and expansion, what do they consist of if not some conflict based upon two armed camps?  That, "Wherever you are now is where you don't want to be, and so the answer is in the other place."  It is always based upon some battle twixt good and evil, between right and wrong, between "my potential self and my sad personality."

     There is a great attraction in everyone to hear that everything is divided up into two.  People have always been interested in ideas such as the Yin/Yang, of a masculine and feminine persuasion or higher powers and lower powers, and the battle between the two.  "You are in a less desirable place and you've got to move to a more desirable place."

     What cannot be seen by ordinary consciousness is this third part, which I've been calling E.  To use one example that would seem rather clear cut, how about the symbol of the Yin-Yang?  I could say that you have got to have a circle as the third part of the symbol along with the two parts inside.  But, even then, lateral consciousness is wont to say, "Alright, if one half is C and the other is D or one is Yin and one's Yang, you don't need a circle because they themselves, when put together, they create their own unity. There is no third part."  To which I'll have to reply, go draw me a Yin-Yang on nothing.  I'm not dwelling on the Yin-Yang symbol for some secret reason, I'm just using it to point out that whatever you can conceive of -- good and evil, right and wrong, C and D -- there must be a background for it to exist upon.  This is what ordinary consciousness cannot perceive.

     You can start by trying to perceive E as the background.  Your ordinary consciousness could say, "Yes, I can see two forces.  I'm not tied up in Eastern symbolism or mysticism, but yes, indeed, I can see that the world is divided up into two armed camps and there is a continual conflict.  One day one camp seems to win, the next day the other, etc."  None of that can be drawn, none of that can be depicted, none of that can be written about, thought about, unless there is a background.  No one would know any symbol in the world, be it the Cross, the Star of David or the Yin-Yang unless there was a background to draw it on. Unless there was something upon which to draw it, the light waves could not bounce into your little rods and cones, go into your brain and make molecules move around.  There had to be a background or you would have never seen it.  And this can be a deceptively simple way to attempt to visualize what I mean by E.  E is the ever present background upon which perception is drawn.  If you could hold that simple awareness, it would interfere with the routine of binary consciousness.  If you could just hold the awareness that, "Whatever conflict I can perceive, it can't exist without a background.  None of this exists in a vacuum."

     Now let me relate all this to something quite mundane but, nevertheless, quite apropos -- cartoons.  Everyone, I assume, has seen some of the early classic animated features -- Disney's Fantasia, for example -- produced when it was fiscally possible to employ hundreds of artists at a relatively low cost.  On the other hand, I'll assume everyone has also seen some of the Saturday morning made-for-TV cartoons that, because of the expenses involved, have cheaper, almost static backgrounds.  They spend just a modicum of time making the characters themselves move, but then save all kinds of time and effort with the background.  The background is as crude as possible, very roughly drawn to give some impression of where the characters are.  Whether they are in the mountains, by a river or a downtown urban area, if the characters move, there is very little change in the background.  The characters keep running by the same mountain; one, two, three little humps over and over.  The character can run for ten miles and keep passing the same three mountains.  Or running down the street in a city and passing the same three buildings over and over and over. 

     Alright, hold all that in mind and remember that I started out talking about this elusive E, the third leg that must be present for anything to be perceivable.  Now, taking E as a background, what happens by the time you reach, let us say, that golden age of twenty-one?  By then your background is almost down to the level of crude Saturday morning cartoons.  Or I'll put it to you this way:  at the ordinary level of consciousness, does this description sound far removed from the cartoon lives that everyone leads? Were it not for what appears to be the contact sport -- the interaction between you and some other character, your mate, employer, family -- if it weren't for that modicum of action, how far removed would your life be from a Fred Flintstone cartoon?  The figures just stand there and their chins move a little bit to show that they are talking.  They walk through their house and from room to room, but the background is all the same. JC Talk 212