Video = none
Audio = Stream or Download from black bar below
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 95, Dec 21, 1983, runtime 1:22
[Imagination is real--not imaginary. The Trilateral universe is seen as bilateral. ]
[Conality = individual perception of reality--i.e. as binary: good/bad etc.--a blindness to outlines; e.g. yin-yang vs. outlining circle; words as outlines--e.g. women defining themselves by men's reactions to them. Word/labels as speaker's conality. Consider: how do you know who you are other than peoples reactions to you? ]
[Misunderstanding is a myth (as imagination). ]
[Facts vs. understanding--bilateral vs. trilateral--ordinary vs. reality. Facts are Yellow Circuit maps: specific, isolated describable. Understanding is nonspecific and general: unfettered, unlimited continual survey of all possible connections (including individual Conality outlines). Perfect opposites cannot exist in a trilateral reality--e.g. triangle has no opposite side. ]
[Future is present, accelerated and expanded in all possible directions. Any predicting of the future requires your direct participation. ]
[Rituals: nationalism; Monday night football. Repetition. ]
[The nervous system = magnetic field transformer (old description); new description: radio receiver with tuning crystal: each tuning crystal = an individuality (i.e. tuned to very specific limited frequency range). Must expand your frequency response. ]
[The two bridge points--stand upright to open (allow blood substance to pass). Two such openers: sex and laughter.
[Note: following is a condensation of page 2 of Outline 95, titled "Conality, Biality and Triality," which is the Group outline of Talk #95 and a fleshing out of notes supra and inadvertently included in DH’s treatment]: Understanding is not the opposite of fact; there is no such thing in a trilateral world as an 'opposite' of anything. One side of a triangle has no natural, perfect opposite side. Understanding is related to Considering. Considering is not fastening onto either obvious binary aspect of any circumstance--but a looking for its third participating aspect. Considering is the looking for a way beyond sheer dichotomy. Considering is to not ask the question: Why is there evil?--it is to ask Why has humanity never even come close to answering the question of evil?|| The flip-flop from one binarily conceived opposite to the other is what is taken for change in the ordinary world. But flipping a coin from the head side to the tail side doesn't change it. ][To predict the future is impossible at the binary level without actually participating/effecting the outcome of an event. The trilateral question for causation is: Which causes which: the Cause or the Effect?|| To be able to predict "what will tomorrow bring?" requires the expansion and acceleration of the present in all possible directions simultaneously. That is the future; to Consider is the future. ][People always seek the ritualistic; it is an innate tendency and sees ritual even where none exists. Nationalism is ritual; it is 0-force par excellence. Groups are ritualistic even when they vehemently proclaim otherwise. ][The nervous system is like a magnetic field--a radio receiver--attracting specific energy frequencies.|| Of the whole radio broadcast frequency band, a radio-receptor nervous system is capable of receiving only a tiny fraction, as only that much is necessary for ordinary existence. To do This Thing one's got to expand his frequency reception to include what is presently unheard. ||There is 'nobody' inside of people--nobody to watch out for. Behavior is what must be watched out for--behavior which no individual is/can be responsible for. ][There are two ways to temporarily open up the bridge points at the base and the top of the spine: sex and laughter, respectively.
Transcript
CONALITY, BIALITY AND TRIALITY
Document: 95, December 21, 1983
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1983
Some of you are finding personal value in my descriptions of triality, and particularly my mapping of the Three Forces. I have been trying to gently persuade you, until I can do it more forcefully, that these forces should be called persuasions, since the trilateral universe is not necessarily the last word.
Consider, though, the difficulty of seeing this trilateral universe. Part of the reason that I have recently used more scientific terminology as opposed to religious terminology is to mitigate the intellectual contortions you might be victim of when facing these trilateral descriptions. To a two-dimensional creature, three dimensional reality would appear absolutely incomprehensible, if not magical. Physicists are now exploring the subatomic level; taking it in another direction, and coming up with the same sort of suspicions that I strongly suggest you will eventually have. Life itself is beginning to have a suspicion, it's beginning to conceive of itself in a new way. And it's all reflected in the new physics, in theories on the movement of particles and the quest for the unification theory. Many of the physicists' suspicions and guesses would be unexpectedly answered if they considered scientific reality to be simply a fraction, a piece of another multidimensional reality. This is a parallel to what I've described as a two dimensional universe in which three dimensional manifestations could, in some way, be beheld.
Even right now, as in the thousands of years past, people recognize that there is an unseen reality, and it's reflected in ideas of magic, spirits, in the belief that it is possible to receive messages from other planets, from other times, from other places. But there are also literally ways -- ways which I have described to you -- by which you can see you are living in the midst of a trilateral universe. It's not magic; it's not hidden. It's just that it can't ordinarily be seen. You are surrounded by a series of apparently continuing conflicts: between you and your family, between you and your sexual partner, between you and yourself, between nations and religions. Line-level consciousness can only see two conflicting forces in such situations. You might wonder how, even under the best of conditions, when you sit down and ponder the eternal questions of why there is evil, why there is even the appearance of evil, you find yourself no closer to understanding it than anybody else has ever been. It's because you're dealing with a two dimensional level. And a process cannot comprehend itself at its own level; for example, the Yellow Circuit can't comprehend its own two dimensional operation. It cannot perceive anything beyond the binary level. And when you try to talk to it, when you try to tell it that it's only seeing two-thirds of reality, it sounds like nonsense. Because the Yellow Circuit has nowhere else to look.
I want to direct your attention to Conality: to the individual perception of reality. I've pointed out that individual perception is neither good nor bad, no matter how it varies from person to person. Each person perceives only a portion of the total spectrum. Conality is the bandwidth of what each individual perceives; a certain bandwidth of all that must be perceived. To put it another way, in a certain sense, if you put everyone in the world together, and melted them all down, you would have one person with a very ignited higher nervous system. And conversely, I could say that each individual is a condensed reflection of everything in Life. Let's get back to conality, which is each individual's perception of reality. Within your conality, you can see that which is good as well as its opposition. You know what's right and what's wrong. However, within the full spectrum of Life, one person is not more right than another. No one's conality is closer to reality. Whatever your conality comprehends makes no difference. From the viewpoint of This, a psychotic's conality is as valid as that of an Einstein. There is no better or worse, no graduation of degrees into improvement. It is all necessary, including the necessity that there be people apparently completely out of step with the prevailing conality. But one aspect of individual conality, which you can begin to see without any judgement, is a particular blindness. It is a blindness to outlines. Let me explain. Words detail outlines, in a sense. Words seem to be the attempt to bring about a finalization, to turn verbs into nouns, to turn chaos into order, and unbeknown to the Yellow Circuit in ordinary consciousness, to turn life into death. But words turn life into a usable death. If you can listen quickly, consider it in terms of taking the raw Primal Flow and turning it into something useful, i. e., the I flow. Words delineate outlines, but conality's blindness is in not being able to see outlines. For instance, consider the Yin/Yang symbol. To many people it represents the two great forces which seem to control everything: masculine and feminine, good and bad, dark and light. It's a representation of one force against another, or perhaps a byplay, a perfect balance within the circle. But conality cannot see one more aspect of the Yin/Yang. It cannot see the outline of the circle itself. Consciousness doesn't take the outline, the circle, into account.
People apparently create an outline every time they use words. You call someone a lying cheat. To ordinary consciousness, you have sufficiently outlined and detailed him. What you, at the ordinary level, don't see is that it is your conality that has produced the outline. It is not the outlined person, because there is no such person. There is no person walking this planet as a lying cheat. There is no person walking this planet as Mary, Jim, or Fred either. There are processes that have names. No one sees that the outline of Fred, the delineation of "lying cheat" is the speaker's conality.
In light of everything I've been saying, consider this: how do you know who you are, other than as people's reactions to you? Now every ordinary person has voices that don't all like the implications of this question: "I am a very unique individual. I don't run in any pack; peer pressure means nothing to me." Regardless of that, how do you know? You call Fred a lying cheat, but you've not outlined Fred, you've outlined your conality. But the conality cannot see itself. It thinks it sees someone out there who is a blank blank blank. It apparently outlines him, and it considers that it comprehends him. You can tell others, "Don't tell me about Fred. I fell for one of his silly get rich quick plans and believe me, you'll see, Fred is a blank, blank, blank!" Well, that's not a Fred. It's one person's conality. It could even be more than one person's conality. A group of investors might get together for a drink and all agree that Fred is a lying cheat. But Fred himself remains un-outlined. The closest you can come to a true outline of a person is a eulogy at a funeral. Because then, you can very safely say one thing -- that person is dead. You should realize that everything in you at the ordinary level wants to respond to this on a psychological basis. In a different time or place, the response would be different. Your forefathers would have been inclined to respond to it on a spiritual basis. They would say, for instance, that we should not call our fellow man a lying cheat; we should forgive, we should live and let live, etc., etc. We can safely assume that, regardless of the few ancient voices crying out in your internal wilderness, your primary voices don't reflect that level of development. Line-level consciousness now speaks of "learning to handle your anger, to rechannel it, to clean up your act". But the sum of all the voicings, both past and present, is that there is something inherently unprofitable in hostility against another, and in some way, one's behavior must be changed. Difficult as it is to glimpse and remember, the behavior of ordinary individuals does not change. It only appears to change. If changing one's behavior -- or the appearance of one's behavior -- would ignite the higher parts of nervous systems, everyone could just do it and be there. The difficulty in grasping what I'm talking about is in wrestling your attention from the outline my words seem to create. In other words, the difficulty is in hearing beyond what your conality is constructed to hear. I'm not outlining something out there. I'm not talking about psychology or morality. Calling someone else a name is not spiritually evil nor is it psychologically unprofitable. It's none of those things, though all those things are true. But so what: those things tell you nothing outside the existing outline. There is a trilateral reality in which the spiritual and psychological are just names shifted by time for the same level. But what I am attempting to trick all of you into seeing is that there is nothing wrong going on; there are no mistakes, no misunderstanding. It is not at all a question of seeing somehow that Fred was misunderstood by the person or persons who called him a lying cheat. It is not a question of a failure of communication.
It is possible to begin to see that you live in a trilateral universe. There is a way in which you can properly look on everything outside of "I" as being an exaggerated, all-dimensional reflection of what's going on in you. Once you begin to see this, you see there is no such thing as a misunderstanding, because nothing is wasted. There can be no such thing as a failure to communicate. You always communicate something.
Let's apparently change the topic to what I have called the difference between facts and understanding, which is another way of describing the difference between bilateral and trilateral perception. In this regard, I want to mention a phenomenon familiar to all of you. No matter how seriously you treat your involvement in This Thing, no matter how certain is your feeling of the correctness of This, you all have moments when Life gets all over you like a bad habit. Sometimes it just "bees" that way. But you can't let it get you down, because, as I'm about to point out, the world is constructed splendidly. As piddling and penny ante and annoying as the ordinary world seems at times, it all works the way it is constructed to work. To wit: people must deal in facts at the ordinary level. When you pull into a gas station to ask directions to West Poplar Street, you want the guy to give you a predictable direct answer. And the way things work, you do get a predictable response. You get what you ask for: directions, rather than a bowl of Rice Crispies in your lap.
At the primary level, the level at which humanity serves Life right now, everything operates on a simple, superficial, predictable level. And you should be thankful it does operate that way. When you ask directions to West Poplar Street, you really want an answer like "3 blocks down, 3 miles over, right in front of you. You do not want a dissertation on philosophy or an obscure aspect of sub-quantum physics; you want to know where the heck West Poplar Street is.
I went through all that example to remind you that you must live and operate in that world. Even if you were more activated in the nervous system, if you were more enlightened, I assure you that you would want somebody to tell you -- "no problem, 3 blocks down, 3 miles over, right in front of you". That's my kind of transfer station, my kind of person. That's all I wanted. But you all still experience a sensation of getting pulled back into a swamp, no matter what you do. The question is: what can be done about this sensation.
Line-level consciousness operates in a world of facts. A fact can only be a fact if it is based in the binary world. It is a very specific, very isolated, Yellow Circuit map. To explain further, a fact appears to be information from one person that can be conveyed to another person. It has to be able to run through the Yellow Circuit, to be what people call facts.
Of course, other information, other communication, other energy transfers are constantly occurring. For example, what people call "body language" -- posture, gait, and idiosyncratic gestures, as well as the way you dress or speak. But for something to be a fact, it must be something you can describe. Someone cannot expect to win the Nobel Prize in chemistry by having his friends declare that, "Dr. So and So has made the Most Astounding discovery in the world, in the history of chemistry. He just can't describe it." No one in the ordinary world gains recognition for a fact only he understands and sees.
Now, consider that real Understanding is the ability to perceive beyond the bilateral world. It would be an unfettered constant survey of all possible connections.
Fettered into the forms of words, I could say that my definition of understanding sounds like the opposite of a fact. I could say that Understanding is nonspecific and interconnected, as opposed to specific and isolated. But remember that an exact opposite doesn't really exist. In a trilateral world, there's no such thing as an opposite. Opposites are only true in a bilateral world. Anything with three sides, such as a triangle, has no perfect opposite within it.
If your vision isn't limited to what consciousness immediately, readily sees, then you approach the level of Understanding. Don't put a period on what you see.
For example, you may attempt to consider your anger toward someone else. Immediately, you see two legs of the situation. There's always I plus not-I. There is you, and there is the other person, there's you and your opposition. If it were not for this person, you would not be reflecting this anger, or so you think. If you always stop at what you immediately see, you're always going to see a bilateral universe. You're always going to see two legs of a situation because, at the ordinary level, this view passes for reality. At the ordinary level, you don't need anything else.
Before you came Here, you did not stumble about looking for another leg of reality. You were looking for a way out of this reality, this perception, this dichotomy. But as long as you're only seeing opposites, seeing a bilateral world, seeing all situations as two legged, there is no way out. There is no crack between the two.
It is not a problem of having always been negative and pessimistic then suddenly deciding to join a happy church or find a happy swami and look at the other side. That is what passes for a change in behavior. I'll tell you again: that sort of "change" is no change at all. Everybody's on the wrong track. Except, of course, that everyone's on the right track, everyone's serving his ordinary purpose in Life.
Note that from the beginning of recorded history, philosophers and theologians have always asked, "How could the gods create evil?" You might also note that in 5000 years, no one has even come close to answering the question!
If you were my fictitious reasonably insane man, you might find the lack of an answer, or the lack of an improvement in the answer, interesting. But, realize, then you'd be on the verge of bringing in a new leg to that stool. You'd be getting closer to Considering. Instead of being tied down to the answer, Considering brings in a new aspect: "Why is this the only way I see it?"
To figure out that perhaps no one has realized that they're going about it all in the wrong way is not quite considering. A closer picture of Considering would be the current attitude of physicists. "Hey, maybe we're only seeing part of a larger universe, one that has more dimensions than we have." Of course, don't hold your breath for theologians to come up with that, or .paeven for scientists to decide that their musings might have any spiritual meanings.
So, Considering or Understanding would be to deal with an unlimited, unfettered, continual survey of all possible connections. This question of the gods and the existence of evil has no right or wrong answer. It has..."humanity seems no closer, there is no new answer!" It has..."Another possible connection is my own Conality and humanity's (of which I am simply a small condensed reflection) are outlining this in such a way that any other possible connections are invisible!"
There are no new answers. How come that's not seen as a problem? Why can't humanity consider that? The answer is that you can not have it three ways at the ordinary level. There are no new questions. There are no new answers. Is there something to consider beyond the existence of evil in a gods-made world? Why is it that humanity keeps asking the question? Why can't humanity see that it can't be answered? Why doesn't humanity see that there are no new answers? And why doesn't humanity find any of those questions to be of interest? Because it cannot do three things at once.
Consider the ordinary notion of predicting the future. You should keep in mind that predicting the future is the same as predicting the outcome of a game. If you're back at the binary level, then it cannot be done. No one can do it. You'd have to actually participate in the outcome; you'd have to, in some way, cause the outcome in order to predict it. But then you'd be left with the trilateral consideration of which came first, the cause or the outcome?
So far as wondering what will tomorrow bring, you are in good company. Everyone from popes and presidents to the guy next door wonders, "What will tomorrow bring?" But let's go to a more objective level. I will tell you literally what the future is. It is the present, speeded up and expanded in every possible direction.
If you're entrenched at the binary level, all you'd do is pick out your hard wired interests -- for instance -- you'd pick the breakdown of the moral fiber of the country, or the growing decline of the economy based on the political group in power. Speed that up, you've got bad news tomorrow. However, it is inaccurate; nothing goes in one direction. So, consider everything as it is. Consider accelerating Everything, and expanding it in ALL possible directions. That is exactly what tomorrow is. Today is the expanded, accelerated version of yesterday. But, notice that whatever the nervous system immediately latches onto, if you go with that, you're done for. You're going to lose every bet you make because you're not predicting anything.
Let's go back to the picture of the game and I'll use sports as a springboard to something else. Consider the fans of a certain team. A good many people make a ritual of watching the game every week in the same bar. The same general crowd hangs out there. Nobody's ever talked about it, and they may only see each other Monday nights. If a stranger walked in and headed on down to the part of the bar where every one gathers to watch the game, it's likely that Red Circuit messages go out until the stranger realizes that he's not welcome. He feels he doesn't belong for some reason. It's not that one thing causes another. The crowd at the bar has become ritualistic; the tacit collection of people banding together has become ritualistic. People look for ritualistic situations, and they will seek them, even when the situations don't exist.
There are many examples of these ritualistic situations: nationalism, racial pride, or defense of one's religion. The first place to look in examining this phenomena is right at D Force. If D persuasion has a national anthem or theme song, one of the loudest is nationalism. But please note, the recurring cry that we must break down the bounds of nationalism. It is the idea that wars between nations must cease and cooperation must increase. There has been a voice in Life that claims nationalism is ludicrous and that we should stop fighting among ourselves. That's an aspect of Life talking.
In essence, Life is saying through Man, that something is wrong here. You might as well hum the D persuasion theme song. It's a phenomenon that is beyond mere nationalism -- a sort of "state-ism". It's down to the point of someone saying, "I was born in State X, and it's the best state in the union. I'm from State X, and damn proud of it, too." Now this guy may have been born 2 feet away from the state line and other people in his family may have been born in the adjacent state Y. Of course, this pride sounds silly on the ordinary level. What if that guy had been born a few feet over the line. Where would his state X pride be then? This is not Yellow Circuit logic, though. The pride doesn't come from that neighborhood, and neither is it some human insanity. You're looking in the wrong place. Consider this parallel: "I am a liver and no kidneys are going to mess with me. You stay on your side of the stomach cavity and I'll stay here. Come any closer and you're going to know the meaning of bile rockets," or whatever threats a liver would come up with.
This happens everywhere in Life. It is built into the system to search for a kind of ritualistic feeling, that pride of association. That doesn't mean people are walking around thinking that they want to find a ritualistic situation. It won't be found in words anyway -- it's beyond words.
It would be quite simple to point in one direction at the organized religions and say that they have ritualistic situations, but can you stretch this definition? It is reflected in motorcycle gangs as well as monthly meetings of a book discussion group. What they do, among themselves, is just as holy and revered as a religious ceremony is to those involved in religions. It would be blasphemy or sacrilege in that book discussion group to have forgotten your "review of the month".
Now let's look at something completely different. The nervous system is literally a magnetic field. This electrically charged system achieves its charge partly through its mechanical hard wired connections. It mechanically attracts other forces, other electrical energy and unthinkingly, unknowingly transforms and transfers this energy to other nervous systems. This nervous system can be seen literally as a radio receptor, each person having a particular tuning crystal.
In short wave radios, you buy individual tuning crystals for each specific frequency you want to pick up. The more range you want, the more crystals you buy. You and everyone else, in a certain way, are walking radio receptors, with individual, particular, "original equipment" tuning crystals. Your tuning crystal is unalterably, mechanically set to receive frequencies on a certain limited range. That is what an individual person is.
Lateral expansion of your wiring system is an expansion of the ability to receive the electro/information being broadcast. There are things going on right this second to which you are totally oblivious. A part of the trickery of This Thing, beyond what you may ultimately taste for yourself above this level of consciousness, is to expand all of that which is possible up to the level of ordinary consciousness.
People are automatically attracted to certain other people, to a certain range and frequency of situations. It is based on a physical energy. The more you begin to see This, the more you'll see that there's nobody inside people. There's no one scheming or making plans. There's nobody you have to watch out for. All you must look out for in other people is their behavior, and they're not responsible even for that. But you'd be an idiot not to look out for behavior. There are people you must watch out for, but on the basis of their behavior, not their scheming or craftiness. Once you get a good look at this, you see that everyone is exactly what they appear to be. You can judge all the books by their covers once you know how. The contents are .paall the same: different paragraphs, breaks, verses, pieces of chapters -- but all the same book.
I leave you now with a small gift. Do you remember what little I told you in the past about the two bridge points at either end of the spine? At one time, I gave you a suggestion to open up the lower bridgepoint by simply changing your posture in a particular way. Basically, a person must be able to stand fully upright, and that's about all I said. The bridgepoint had to be open in a certain way to allow that particular substance in the blood to get through, among other reasons.
Now, the two bridgepoints, in a certain way, get closed up. That is a natural part of the process of being here. But they can and must be reopened, and I'm going to tell you two ways that temporarily open them. The two ways to affect the bottom and top bridgepoints respectively are by sex and laughter.
