Video = none
Audio = Stream or Download from black bar below. (includes drumming -at 1:01)
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 99, Mar 8, 1984, runtime 1:35
A refinement of "C, D & E" forces: 3 circulatory systems with 3 different types of blood in each. There is no absolute purity or preponderance of one type over the others and such could not be tolerated if it were to happen. D is characterized/fed by: anger, fear or fatigue. ]
[There is an art to doing This Thing: ability to see what has not yet been named. What has been named--everybody can see. This is repetition: sin. Considering is part of the art of doing This Thing. E.g., of considering: what greater purpose does the word "but" serve? Mere thinking provides no benefit, no advantage, no art in This Thing. The Yellow Circuit function is to draw conclusions, place periods, not see what has not been named. Consider the apparent conflict between what J. says and what Life says ordinarily thru men. Considering is to force a kind of triaxial bridge between them; construct/find their mutual validity, see how they aren't at absolute loggerheads. Seeing how blood types C,D can commingle to become indistinguishable, a convolution space for slight growth. ]
[There is a never-ending pursuit of seeing what can't be seen. E.g., Seeing new perspective on "everybody should do the right thing", when pursued by a Real Revolutionist (in an attempt not motivated by praise or gain, but fed by extraordinary energy) unexpected results occur: discovery that goodness is NOT its own reward; appreciation by the one helped is not forthcoming because the energy to evoke that appreciation was lacking at the outset. Accusations are a search and demand for D response, a D-type blood influx. Note examples of the withholding of same in stories of Jesus (silence) and Socrates (turning back the question w/o answering). "A soft word turneth away wrath" ain't necessarily so --but it is Life providing, thru men, growth energy of widespread internal, individual benefit, though not valid in instant cases externally. Wisdom is unconditionally effective internally, not externally. ]
[Some comments on Kyroot sayings. ]
[1:23 Epilog personal comments to Group. Interrupt normal patterns; pick out self-imposed tasks to do continually. Everybody is always living on the edge of disaster. Expand your awareness of this.
Transcript
SEEING WHAT HAS NOT YET BEEN NAMED
Copyright(c) Jan M. Cox, 1984
Document: 99, GSIBM, March 8, 1984
There seem to be distinct forces that one can identify in Life, especially what we can call C (positive, growth-promoting), and D (Negative, resistive). If we were to leave it simply to the workings of the Yellow Circuit, that is, the ordinary intellect of Man, we would end up with a retelling of the religious ideas of "good" and "evil". The Yellow Circuit would switch it around and come out with, "Okay, what I am seeing now is, I'm sure, some form of the creative force at work. This group of people has good ideas, ideas that would benefit humanity, and are not simply self-serving. Anyone who opposes them, or their ideas, must in some way be oppressive, or resistive, and they are not in charge of productive growth." Can you see, that is just a variation of the "good and evil" concept? It is not that simple. If it were, This Thing could be run based on the Ten Commandments. Or it could come up with ten new ones -- ten new statements that would classify things on the basis of some being good, and others being evil. But, things are NOT that simple.
The concept of three forces at work in Life -- C (creative), D (resistive), and E (everything else) -- is extraordinary, and cannot be conceived by the binary processes of the Yellow Circuit. Ordinary consciousness cannot even deal with the simultaneous existence of two forces, let alone three. It must always deal with one force at a time, and must necessarily view it as either good, or not good. One's Understanding can be pushed and expanded by a sincere Consideration of the idea of the Three Forces. Now, I want to expand on this concept further.
It is as though, within the whole being of Life, there are three circulatory systems through which blood is supplied. I am using "blood" in the broadest sense: if the body of Life was a human form, these three circulatory systems would be carrying nourishment all the way from the toes to the top of the scalp. Furthermore, within the three different circulatory systems are three different types of blood in all sorts of combinations.
As far as can be described in words, these three systems within Life cannot tolerate a pure force, or blood, of any one type. And yet, the Yellow Circuit will believe that the C force in some way should take over; that Life should arrange itself in such a manner that C force should reign supreme. If that were possible, it would turn Life itself into a mad mutant. But that cannot happen; there can be no growth without resistance. There can be no C without D, and there can be no C or D without E. But to ordinary consciousness, there is only one at a time.
It appears to the Yellow Circuit that at times there is a great preponderance of one of the forces, and those imbalances are what mainly stand out in history. For example, at times there seems to be a great surge of D force, when a "madness" seems to sweep across large segments of humanity. At other times, there seems to be a surge in C force -- an increased interest in knowledge, technical and scientific advancement, concern for the poor and hungry. An example would be the Renaissance. But it is always an absolute misperception, or miscalculation, to listen to your own voices, to believe that in some way there is, PER SE, singularly a good force -- the one I am labelling as the C force. Similarly, it is a misperception to believe that what This Thing is about, and what Life is after, is in some way to eradicate D force. Ordinary consciousness thinks that there would be real progress if there was no resistance, but there would not. It would be madness; it would be destruction. It would be the end of everything.
The Yellow Circuit cannot see the unstable balance of everything. Life is in continual flux; a continual shifting, rocking back and forth. It is Life almost tripping, then getting itself back up. But, if you can See beyond this binary limitation, you can See D manifesting itself in what appears to be C activity. You can feel it, you can smell it. For example, a group of philosophers, religious leaders, ministers may proclaim their new ideas and their plans to benefit humanity. You will be able to see that these proclamations and plans are either angry, frightened, or tired. You can See this in yourself, in your voices and daydreams. You can taste D in what appears to be C-based plans: you can see it as the desire for revenge, or self-pity. For example , you might say: "Oh my, things are not going fast enough. I was surely close to awakening the higher regions of the nervous system, and now I'm back in the doldrums". You cannot listen to the voices in you that might attempt to defend themselves, that might attempt to explain themselves on the basis of: "What I am involved with is quite acceptable, and can in fact lead to something beneficial". If you can smell anger, fear or weariness in your voices, forget it. You are back to the ordinary level. You are back in the same position as humanity's philosophers, religious leaders and the like. And you must continually Remember that this is not an attack on religion or the ordinary workings of the Yellow Circuit. You must Remember that "nothing is broken"; that all of it is in perfect, unstable balance.
One reason the Yellow Circuit cannot see this balance is that it has to deal with "periods". It has to take chunks of reality and "put a period" on them. If it did not, it would have no memory; it would not be fulfilling its ordinary function. It would have no information, for all information would just run together into a mishmash. So, the use of "periods" is the natural way in which information must be filed in the Yellow Circuit, under ordinary conditions. But that is not Understanding. That is not Neuralizing.
The apparently "strange definition" of Neuralizing -- "to Remember something without thinking about it" -- can be viewed from other angles. It can be viewed as being aware of something without the Yellow Circuit running it through the ordinary channels, wherein you normally go "I see, I see, I see." You do not put a period on what is being perceived. Neuralizing can be used to try to arrive at a Triaxial reconciliation of all the .paforces, of all the combinations of bloods running through the Three Circulatory Systems of Life.
Consider for example, the apparent contradictions between things I say, and things that Life says. You can find these apparent contradictions everywhere. Let's say you read a newspaper article stating: "A famous scientist points out that a knowledge of the history of science is absolutely indispensable for further advancement". And simultaneously I say: "Don't ever look back. The past is dead, and don't ever look back unless death is your destination". Both statements strike you as valid, but how can that be? How can both statements be true? You can view these apparent contradictions in the sense that, what seems to be horizontal, ordinary knowledge, is continually springing towards the vertical direction of Real Growth. The present location and the destination are at RIGHT ANGLES; they are not in contradiction.
Neuralizing can be used in such a manner in the attempt to arrive at a reconciliation of apparent opposites. You are now, in ways that you normally overlook, filled with these kinds of random contradictions because your circuitry has been fed in a binary fashion. When you are aware of "only one", that one seems valid. This is true of any Yellow Circuit awareness - your feeling for a person, a news item, a football team, someone's clothes, your connection with time. The Yellow Circuit is aware of "only one" at a time.
Consider the world of finance, the world of politics, the so called "establishment". From one viewpoint you can surmise in your Yellow Circuit, or believe you have surmised, that politics in general must be run or fed mostly by the D flow. And yet, if you can shift your viewpoint a little bit, if you can get outside the limits of your ordinarily established receptive mechanism, you can See otherwise. For example, there can be so-called politicians that at some time seemed to be driven by the C force. However, you cannot see it as a predominant C force, because together with the politician's ideas of progress, and his beneficial programs for the community, is the fact that he is being criticized for broken promises, for "forgetting the people" once he was elected, and so on.
What you should attempt to Consider is that there is a meeting place where the bloods, type C and D, commingle. They commingle in a way that you can See. It is not simply C force running absolutely into D force and vice versa; it is a point of convolution. And you can See it as a kind of unsteady, very slight and unstable rocking back and forth. It is not a matter of some pristine battlefield, with the great forces of D running down one hill, and the great forces of C running down the other, and may the "best flow" win. If you could See a collision between opponents C and D, you would See what ordinary consciousness can never see. Ordinary consciousness cannot See what happened, because what happened is that the forces disappeared. There are no villains or heroes anymore. No one wins, no one loses. If you could expand the receptive mechanisms that you ordinarily are harnessed with, and you could See the two forces running at each other, they become something other than .pajust two opposing forces. You could then ask, "Where the hell did they go?"
There is an art to doing This Thing. And that art is being able to See what has not yet been named. Everybody in the world can see what's been named, even if they have never heard of it. I can take the dictionary and pick out a word nobody has ever heard of. Then I can read the definition and you go: "Oh yeah, I can see that, I can see what it means!" That's nothing. There is no art to that. Anything that humanity has named, Life has named. And anything that Life has named is now within your own mechanical dictionary. But, the Real art to This Thing is, being able to See what hasn't been named. (You might also see a connection here to the reality behind my word "Neuralizing".)
You might get a piece of what I am pointing out about Considering from this example: you are out there in Life, and you See something for which there is no name: you would not have Seen it if you had not come across This Thing. You See something for which there is nothing to correspond in your mechanically established dictionary in the Yellow Circuit. It is unable to name this strange connection, this strange phenomenon, that has happened right before your eyes. That is part of the art of doing This Thing -- the art of Seeing that which has yet to be named. It is beyond the experience of you being ordinary.
The ability to See that which has not been named is also the ability to See Tomorrow. Tomorrow has yet to be named. And yet, you are Seeing it. You have no name for what you are Seeing, because you are Seeing Tomorrow. You cannot run quickly to a library and try to find an explanation of what you have Seen. There is absolutely nowhere to look. This is when you can taste the difference between what I have been calling Neuralizing, and what is apparently ordinary knowledge. The difference in taste is almost the difference between there being a taste, and there being no taste. This is no negative criticism of ordinary Life; remember, nothing is broken in Life. But, there is no taste to ordinary knowledge, there is no nourishment and no excitement to it. It is going nowhere. When you See something that you had never seen before, once you See it, there is no name for it. It will "strike" you somewhere as, "Yes!" and there you sit. It would have passed you unnoticed, because there is no name for it. Then, of course, you are left with the fact that you can't tell anybody.
To "think" about something will never help you achieve any Understanding. You will never approach the art of what This Thing is in the Yellow Circuit. When I ask you to Neuralize something, I am asking you to sincerely attempt it, to sincerely wrestle with it, but not to "think about it". Try this now, with something specific. I ask you to Neuralize this question: What is the purpose in Life for the word, "but"? Forget the immediate answers your internal voices will supply. Forget ordinary so-called psychological interpretations. Just Consider: why is it so difficult to write a sentence without having "but" in it? Why don't people just state things? You might find yourself looking for a book on languages, to see if anyone had ever tried to analyze common words. You might find some ordinary person who asked the same question: "Where did the need for the word "but" come from?". So, let's say you found such a book and you read it, and you went: "Aha!...That makes a lot of sense to me!" That's nothing. That is not Considering. Even though you might read it; even though there might be a certain amount of Yellow Circuit pleasantry involved with your discovery -- that is not Neuralizing. That is simply a part of the proper exercise of the Yellow Circuit on the horizontal ordinary level.
I can suggest several other good examples for you to consider. For example, this idea is accepted by a large segment of humanity: "One should do the right thing". Forget the fact that "the right thing" could be slightly different from time to time, and place to place. The majority of people feel that "you should try to do the right thing." You should be attempting to be more charitable, more compassionate, and the like. However if you try to do "the right thing" without the ordinary intention of being recognized, of being praised, you may be quite surprised at the outcome. Let's assume that you are doing "the right thing" without being motivated by the ordinary intentions. You are simply confronted with a situation, and without any debate, or choice, you simply accept your duty as doing "the right thing". You are going to receive a shock, because certain energies produce certain reactions, and conversely, certain reactions require certain energies to be fed. In the example, you can apparently help somebody, and they may hate you for it. I am not saying that you will always be hated, I am just making an extreme verbal example. But, you will be confronted with that sooner or later. You will do that which is your Duty, something that you would be prepared to just do and forget. And yet, suddenly, there seems to be negative energy coming back to you over doing this good deed. Suddenly, you are in for a shock, because the people seem to resent your good deed. They don't know why. The reality of it is that certain reactions are brought about only by certain interplays of energy.
Remember, in a sense this is a lie. Because all of this is talking about form, not about the energy behind what is occurring. But it is part of the continuing hobby of learning things from Life, piece by piece, even if you don't see the immediate benefit.
There is another aspect of Life that I want you to Neuralize, and it's connected with the previous subject. It is to consider "accusations", and the related idea of "excusing one's actions". Accusations, just in the ordinary sense, are very specific in Life. Just go to the movies, turn on the television set, read a book: you will see accusations. All the way from situation comedies, to drama, to soap operas, they would be nothing without accusations. What is literature, what is any story told without accusations? Take the stories of Socrates' and Jesus' trials. Pure accusations. What might sound, in the beginning, like a request, a solicitation for additional information or clarification, was in reality a demand for a D-Flow response. Accusations are a search, a demand for a D response.
Now attempt to Neuralize the possibility of no response: the silence of Jesus or Socrates' variation, of almost turning the dagger back on the accusers, while apparently preparing to respond to them. You may consider a present day example of this. Suppose on a talk show, a caller-in, or some one in the audience makes a direct accusation to the "expert" on a "controversial subject". The expert is accused by this member of the audience, and it is ultimately a demand for a D-Blood type response. Then, suppose the "expert" comes back with a conciliatory remark, with a positive response. Instead of giving back a D-type response, he agrees with the accusation, and verbally comes to a point of almost saying: "I can see why you accuse me in this manner, let's talk about it later after the program." When this happens, it doesn't sound right at all. It is almost as if the show went off the air, or the audio went off for two minutes. Everything went blank, because certain kinds of energies are supposed to bring about, normally speaking, certain kinds of preordained general response. And accusations are supposed to ultimately bring about a D-Flow response.
Consider the idea of "common wisdom", axioms, and all proverbial wisdom. Take for example what was previously mentioned: "to do the right thing", or "goodness is its own reward." Or take the biblical one of, "a soft word turneth away wrath". All these ideas come forth not from prophets or from the gods. These ideas do not come through voices of gods crying out, listing something on tablets of stone, or leaving secret messages under somebody's doormat. It is Life attempting to grow. It is Life attempting to grow through humanity. It is Life continuing to "stagger". It is Life continuing to keep up this "unsettled" stability. And what in general is going to be beneficial for humanity, comes out through the voices of religious prophets, or so called religious leaders, through philosophers, through the common Man with the so called common knowledge, through common sense, words to live by. In this respect there is a validity to it. But, the validity may not be INSTANT. There is a far reaching validity behind the statement, "a soft word turneth away wrath". But it is not necessarily so instantly beneficial. There can be circumstances where the immediate apparent outcome of "a soft word" was that it did not only not "turn away wrath", but it seemed to encourage the impending wrath, so that the wrath picked up speed, until it inundated the originator of the soft word.
Such axioms and proverbial wisdoms have validity, and they vibrate in Man. They are far-reaching in the recollection of humanity, they are widespread, and they are widely acclaimed as being true and beneficial. This is so because on a wide range, they are ultimately beneficial. But, IN INSTANT OCCURRENCES, they are not necessarily so. And the reality behind it is that certain energies seem to produce certain identifiable circumstances and results, as if you could nearly touch a kind of cause and effect going on in the binary, horizontal, ordinary world. But, it is not because of some external gods, outside this system, sending information through these axioms so that a certain result can be achieved. That is not what's going on.
There is one place where these axioms, where these pieces of wisdom are ALWAYS true, and that is INSIDE one person. They are always valid inside of one person. They are profitable beyond description, because within the confines of what seems to be your own awareness, there is an unconditional validity to them. But, in what we could call "out there", they are not necessarily so in any one particular instant. There are conditions to them "out there". Inside of you, it is true that "a soft word turneth away wrath:" if you do that to your internal flows, to your internal voices, "it will turn them away". It's not so simple between you and some other person, because out there it is all conditional. But when you can turn the axioms inside, there are no conditions: they are true. And you swallow them, and that's the end of it.
Another aspect to what was said previously is the fact that "Life will try anything once". Life is attempting to grow through certain aphorisms and axioms and the like. In its attempts to grow, "Life will try anything once". We can continually find a particular instance of human action that's silly, dumb, ridiculous, unwarranted, unprofitable, and insane beyond comprehension. At the ordinary level of consciousness, you have no choice: you are drawn to it, you are held by it, and no amount of Yellow Circuit speculation will get you out of it. You will identify a "person" who did that. But, that is not the case. Rather it is that Life will try anything once. That is no theory. If Life has not tried it once, no human has tried it. No human could have even thought it.
At this point you should Consider how close to a kind of edge you live continuously; how tenuous is the edge between you and the apparent environment, the difference between I and not-I. There is a kind of balance, a kind of edge where everyone lives. It is not the purpose of ordinary consciousness to be aware of this edge, but you are continually living very close to death. It is not a matter of worrying about this in some mechanical way. (That would simply be an indication of D-blood surge.) You should expand your awareness of this edge, and you should push that awareness. You must develop a nonspeaking, nondirectional awareness that an edge exists nearby, and to expand your awareness of it is to your own great benefit.
