Video=None
Audio = Stream from the bar below or download from the blue link.
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0115 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = pending
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 115, June 28, 1984, runtime 1:58
[Knowledge and Understanding --reading of aphorisms. ]
[You cannot allow yourself to lose the ability to act and feel ordinary --cannot be allowed to feel separated from life to an unprofitable degree. Beware the "Monk" syndrome--"me and the Group against the world"; we cannot have a closed group. ]
[Must see that the "nonphysical" is physical; physical triaxially, not physical as ordinary consciousness understands it. There is no such thing as nonphysical. This is almost impossible to Remember. Ordinary consciousness rejects it out of hand. Human memory is a transforming device. Memory is not non-physical. (Memory = cow chewing its cud; allows "re-eating" of energy). Past as different form via memory. What's dead and gone has just changed form and location--now accessible thru memory. ]
["Loose confederation of immediate possibilities" = room for tolerance in the Great Machine of Life. Life is not absolutely a machine. Has a "Loose Confederation of Immediate Possibility" or tolerance. No absolutely predictable predetermination of events. Has rather, a "local envelope of possibility" --limits possibility. ]
[What is the possible use for what humanity calls "hidden motivation" in Life physically? Why the "Freud Years?" What could be being served in Life? ]
[If you do not feel the need to act in any given situation--then there is no 'need to act. Justice is Life's immediate localized growth needs. Guilt over non-action, regret for action taken and felt neutrality with no action all serve justice in any particular event. ]
[Pretend C and D forces are manifest independently real per se: C = good while D = bad. Separate and in opposition. What if E force then is what consciousness calls the "outcome" and exists simultaneously --even though later in time--with C and D? How can a result be simultaneous with the causing event? i.e. determining which is C and which is D in retrospect. (C being conducive to Life's growth and health). Only the interacting participants "know" which is C and which is D (we're C and they're D). Those who understand could only tell which was which after telling the outcome. But this is impossible as it occurs simultaneously. Is this why E force is invisible--or simultaneous in another dimension? Deficiency of awareness to other dimensions = why we can't see E force. E force defines which force is which. Dictates which is C and which D. But for ordinary consciousness the E-outcome is in the future (another dimension). ]
[Neuralization Adventure--How is it possible that more energy can be expended in search for a result than apparent value of the result itself? How can this be? What kind of economics is this? ]
[Neuralize: "Yesterday is shrinking" Fame is increasingly shorter lived. Bach--Beatles--Sex Pistols.]
[TASK: Neuralize the word "problem”. What is its ultimate purpose. Jan's ans.: Problem is a word to hide the complexity of change.
Transcript
A LOOSE CONFEDERATION OF POSSIBILITIES
Document: 115, June 28, 1984
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1984
After a certain period of involvement with This Thing, in a very unusual non-ordinary sense, a kind of estrangement develops. It is a kind of isolation, a feeling of separation between you and the ordinary flow. If you have never felt this, don't go out and try to experience it, yet you should Neuralize it in another dimension. To say that two things are becoming a little estranged, or to say that a separation has developed between two things, is the same thing (in another dimension) as saying that they are merging. There is no difference. It is both a separation and a merging. I want you to see that you cannot stay involved with This while feeling absolutely isolated, in some way, from Life. You cannot ever lose the ability to appear ordinary.
On a lesser level, this feeling of estrangement is related to that which I will call the "monk syndrome". The monk syndrome is a worldwide inclination among certain people and groups of people to get more in touch with the "C" flow, or the creative flow. Often labeled mystical or religious pursuits, people so inclined are likely to isolate themselves. You can observe it historically, and contemporaneously, in people wanting to segregate themselves from life. They can do it by dressing in a particular fashion. They can do it physically, by moving to a commune. The churches do it through monasteries. Whatever you call it, I am calling it the "monk syndrome". Such people feel they must separate and segregate themselves from the general commerce of Life's corporation. What they attempt to do is to sustain the general weirdness of whatever it is they are drawn to.
Picture someone who, at least once, casually, got in touch with Life's consciousness and came back with all sorts of messages. For a while, he seems to have this charisma, this charm, some kind of information or passion that attracts others. They become followers and all band together. Without exception, they will want to isolate themselves. It just arises. The would-be leader says, "Well, there is too much sin," or, "There is too much distraction in life. We need to buy us a big farm, and move away to where we can all meditate, where we do not have to put up with the foolishness or the evil, the insincerity of life."
You cannot physically separate yourself from Life and continue This. You cannot continue with This and support the naturally arising feeling of, "It's just me and the others interested in This. They are the only ones that are sane, that I can talk to." It may be true, but I would never set up a closed community. If I ever tell you that I am, you can assume the end is near for me, and you had better run for your life. If I ever tell you I'm writing my autobiography, believe me, something's got me: "D" flow finally got me; age got me; alcohol got me; psychological depression -- something -- got me. If that happens, and you don't immediately run for your life, if you stick around to see what's going to happen, it will just be proof positive that I wasted my time with you.
I want to expand upon the reality that you cannot suffer and ignite the higher end of the nervous system. Everyone in ordinary Life carries a "suffering card", but you cannot hold onto yours and do This. You might as well quit suffering. Get over it, because it's like a bad habit. Just abandon it. There is no way out. There is no possibility of going any further with This while retaining your "suffering card"! You simply cannot suffer and ignite the nervous system beyond its present level.
In your efforts with This, you cannot stay at a level wherein you keep restating the problems of the human drama. You may attempt to find new ways to draw picturizations in poetry and prose, apparently describing what you have understood through This. Seen from another level, you are still depicting the great human soap opera. It is not your fault. It is a part of the Three Flows at work. And this tendency to restate the human condition continues to plague everyone who undertakes the journey. It is not a curse, nor a demon. It is not a psychological flaw on your part. Even if you get to where you can live, consciously, with a great amount of continual freedom from the restraints of ordinary consciousness, this tendency continues. When you begin to verbalize, or try to draw out pictures about what you seem to understand, in many cases, you're still at the level of depicting the human drama.
The Few cannot stay there. I cannot let you stay there, and that is part of what I do. I push further and further into realms that sound like philosophical statements. I ask you rhetorical questions. I give you maps and expand upon them. At first you may think, "Well, this may be interesting, and at times, I can follow what you are saying. It is almost like a little science fiction episode. But what about my real problems? How do I get past my temper? How do I get over being so jealous? How do I get over thinking I am not sexually attractive to anybody in the world? How do I get over feeling like I am isolated? How do I handle the real stuff?"
In the beginning I may seem like the world's greatest undiscovered psychologist, and you become involved with what appears to be your own personal strangeness, your own unique problems. You must get past that quickly, because what I am now pursuing is a larger strangeness. Although it may seem at times that I am the world's greatest unknown psychologist, I am not. And it is of no great interest. Your interest in yourself and your apparent problems, is just a passing fad.
What I am describing concerns a larger strangeness. It is a study, a forced familiarity, with a new level of what consciousness wants to call the physical realm (as opposed to the nonphysical). Humanity believes there are aspects of itself that need to be realigned, such as psychological, physical and spiritual aspects. Humanity feels these should be brought in better touch with each other. But this sub-feeling is all based upon the feeling that there is a physical reality, and then there is a nonphysical reality. People speak of prayer, but to ordinary consciousness prayer is not a physical reality. Prayer is called a nonphysical reality. To ordinary consciousness, anger, excluding the visible manifestation of it, is obviously nonphysical. Not the act of making love, but "love". Then take fear, take anything that seems to be unique to humanity, the so-called psychological area. Anything that is obviously nonphysical as opposed to physical, as opposed to good old thighs and legs and stomachs and arms and heads -- as opposed to a table. Unworthy of any analyzing, it is just an accepted fact that there is the physical reality of you and other people, and likewise a nonphysical reality.
You have got to get over that. When the triaxial physical reality is understood beyond the apparent physical and nonphysical you'll find there is no such thing as nonphysical. When consciousness speaks of the physical sciences or the physical aspect of anything, they are only referring to two-thirds of reality. (But, remember, two-thirds of reality is all ordinary consciousness can ever address, can ever see.)
For now I'll use the word "nexological" to include every possible aspect. It covers the entirety of humanity believing that they have a psychological aspect and a separate physical aspect. The nexological physical which I am referring to now (as opposed to the nonphysical) would be three-thirds of reality. It would incorporate the nexological side that consciousness believes it is referring to by dividing things up into a physical and a nonphysical, such as, "I can physically get on my knees when I take the form that my culture or religion uses for prayer, but now, prayer itself, it is something else. There I am, physically on my knees. My culture says get on your knees, and drop your forehead to the floor. I am physically in the position to pray, but prayer itself is not physical."
What I am telling you is that everything is physical. Remember though, I mean more by using the word "physical" than humanity does. Verbally we are left with the two choices that consciousness can conceive of, the physical versus the nonphysical. But given those two choices, everything is physical. There is no such thing as "nonphysical". There is nowhere for it to exist. There is nowhere for it to come from. There is no purpose for it, and it cannot exist.
Everything that is assumed to be nonphysical is physical, including thoughts, feelings, everything that is invisible, everything that cannot be weighed. This may not do much for you verbally, but with the proper Neuralization this can get dangerous. Verbally, it sounds either simplistic or self-contradictory. But note, and this is another one of those big steps, part of what you can immediately learn from this map is that consciousness just absolutely rejects this at the ordinary level. It makes no sense. You may feel as though, even now, you are getting a glimpse of something; you might even think you will remember it, even while I'm telling you that it makes no sense to ordinary consciousness. Observe how hard it is to even remember what I have just told you, that there is no such thing as nonphysical. As compared with how easy it is to remember something your system is already tied into, such as your favorite performer's latest album, the top speed of the fastest sports car from Europe, or the new world high jump record. It is much more difficult, at the ordinary level, to remember that there is no such thing as nonphysical, than to remember the year that your favorite player retired from playing baseball. You should find that very interesting, (although, perhaps, not interesting enough to be a hobby for the rest of your life).
To get you beyond the binary reality, I drag in, with varying degrees of success, that which does not even exist to ordinary consciousness, then put clothes and words on it. It even sounds as though it makes some sort of sense, at least verbally, especially when I put in a couple of self serving sentences. When some of this comes together in a certain way, and you can get a taste of what I am pointing to. It becomes quite difficult to even remember, while that which seems to be nonessential, almost frivolous, that which is ordinary is not only easy to remember, you cannot forget it if you wanted to.
Neuralize that the past does not exist. It is dead. It is gone. Just forget it. I'll take that a bit further, and add that things cannot be destroyed. This is beyond the so-called physical scientific dictum that energy or mass cannot either be destroyed nor created. Take it into the realm that consciousness would say is "nonphysical". Remember, there is no such thing as the nonphysical. When you put that all together, you may think that I have tripped up somewhere. But, try and Neuralize this: Time is physically omnipresent. If you look at the apparent past as being dead and gone, you are left with the question, "Where did it go?" If it has nowhere to go, it must still be alive in a different form. I ask you, is it not still alive when you think about it? Don't fall into the trap of thinking, "Well, it's just a memory." A memory is a something. A memory is physical. Energy is being transmitted, being transformed. Can you see human memory as being a transforming device?
The past, as ordinary consciousness describes it, is dead and gone. Whatever happened, is no longer happening now. "The argument that me and so-and-so had, we are not having it now. The time I thought he insulted me years ago, when he really went too far, is not happening now. I have not seen him since then. We are not standing here arguing now, and he is not insulting me now." That is how ordinary consciousness views the past as being, "dead and gone". But if it is dead and gone, how can you still remember it? If it was dead and gone you could not remember it. Or, if it were dead and gone, where did it go? Who took it? Where is it hiding? Now try and Neuralize the other side I presented. Everything which is the apparent past, everything that has apparently happened is still alive, but it is now in a different form. Things do not actually get destroyed, but they can change clothes and change address. You can arguably state that that which is apparently dead and gone must still be alive and in a different form by virtue of the fact that you can think about it.
Man has a memory. No other creature that you can be aware of on this planet has a memory like Man's. The body has a certain kind of memory that is very mechanical, but only Man has any memory of that which is apparently "nonphysical". Can you conceive of memory as a different kind of a transforming device? You consumed part of a past event, part of whatever happened between you and so-and-so. You extracted it, passed it along. The memory of it is almost like being able to retrieve garbage. Do not take that just as a negative statement. There is nothing to be done about the past. Once you find out for yourself by doing This, that nothing can be done about what happened to you, you can just forget about it.
But, at the ordinary level of consciousness, memory serves a purpose. People may say, "You know, it is funny you mentioned so-and-so, because I was sitting there thinking about my mother and when she died ten years ago. It still just breaks my heart every time I think about her". From one viewpoint you could say to them, "Well, your mother is dead. There is nothing to be done about it. All you do is talk about when your mother died, how she looked in the grave, all the times you insulted her, and the times you argued. You are just driving yourself crazy, and it is useless".
There is no such thing as useless. Can you conceive of the unique human memory as being a kind of transforming device? You can look at the past as being either, truly dead and gone, irretrievable, untouchable, or as being quite real, regardless of what you think about it. It is real. It now exists in a different form, but it hasn't gone anywhere. It may have gone down the street, changed clothes, or moved to a new motel. It may have gotten a nose job. It may have aged and put on weight to the point that you no longer recognize it, but it's somewhere. Remembering the past makes it as real, right now, as when it seemed to be physically happening. Ordinary consciousness would say that it is happening nonphysically, but your heart may be racing, your hands sweaty, and your stomach fluttering. Is it physical or nonphysical?
Let's skate around some more before I get to the dangerous part. Picture a scenario, where things are part of a grid. People are not free individuals, but simply juncture points, drafted players in a great team. No one even knows the purpose of the sport, nor can they get off the field. Such is my great machine -- the Magnus Machina. Yet, within the machine, the gears cannot fit perfectly. There must be a certain tolerance, or the machine would not work. If you could make gears that fit perfectly, there would be no need to have two separate gears. One piece would work just as well. If they fit perfectly, there can't be movement between them. What I am saying is that,in a sense, Life is an absolute machine, yet it is not an absolute machine. Which one is it? Ignore the inclination of ordinary consciousness to demand that it has to be one or the other, and let me expand this picture in another direction.
When you begin to see, you can relate this tolerance in the machine to that first level I mentioned, wherein you restate the problem of Man's terrible condition. It is both true and not true that the whole thing is just one big machine. It is both true and not true that there is no such thing as free will. Now, I want to paint a scenario closer to that which would appear to be the more human, "psychological" terms of people as animate creatures. An expansion of the picture that a machine must have tolerance in its parts, is that there is a kind of loose confederation of immediate possibilities.
We could say it is a typical Friday afternoon, and isolating reality, like we always have to, telescope in and focus on a little apartment complex. Here comes a guy on his way home in a pickup truck. He enters his apartment, looks in the icebox, and discovers he's out of beer. So, he gets into his truck and drives down to the Seven-Eleven store to get more beer.
We could conjure up and inject all kinds of scenes into this story such as: the guy pulls up to a four way intersection and some drunk driver runs a red light and kills him. If the wreck kills him, it kind of ruins the story, so let's say he is severely bruised and contused.
Ordinary consciousness wants to pin a cause on the accident. "It was my wife's fault because as I was leaving the house to go down to the Seven-Eleven to get the beer, she said 'Listen, would you get a loaf of bread, and whatever you do, don't get that awful white bread.' And I said, 'I never get white bread'; and she said, 'Yes, you do, the last time I sent you out, I reminded you to be sure and get rye or whole wheat, not white bread, you brought back white bread!', and I said, 'I did not, I have never bought white bread in my life!" And she said 'Yes, you have.' She stood there, I don't know where she gets these kinds of insane ideas because I have never in my life bought white bread, but do you realize that if she had not done that I would have been at that intersection at least thirty seconds earlier, and thirty seconds earlier I would not have been hit by that car, right?"
Another example would be the kind of story you might read of a famous rock musician finding the gods and deciding that rock-n-roll is the work of demons. His story might run like this. He was coming back from a trip to a foreign country, flying back to the United States, and while he was at the airport, He felt a little sick to his stomach, and went into the bathroom, thereby missing his plane. At the time it seemed a very grave inconvenience. But the plane he missed ends up crashing in the ocean killing everyone on board. He would say something such as, "Something struck me, as soon as they released the news about the crash. It was as if the gods had spoken to me, whispered to me, and showed me that I must give up the world of sin and the devil's music." Of course, the fact that the gods just killed two hundred and seventy people to speak to him is completely ignored. The question of what the gods were telling the two hundred and seventy people they killed, is completely ignored.
Something is going on. Individual people feel that things can happen and be a direct message to them personally. Yet, my dear confederates, there is no such thing going on in Life. Unless you can touch the level of Life's consciousness itself, nothing else is a specific message to you. That which is interpreted as a message is Life's digestion working. It is Life's circulatory system running. There are no individual messages going out to ordinary people, yet it serves a purpose for people to believe that the gods are talking to them. Take that and run with it.
Let's return to my original example. We have this scenario of a guy going out to get some beer. As though such were possible, we are singling this guy out to observe. He just came home, drank one beer, had a talk with his friends, took off his shirt and threw some beer on his face. Now he finds out he is out of beer; he is getting in the truck, and going down to the Seven-Eleven store. We see that it's just a couple of blocks away, check our watch and say, "Okay, he is going to be there at five-fifty". That is not necessarily true. And it is not necessary that it be so. He may be there at five forty-five. He may get there at six ten. It is not absolutely predictable in the realm where humans can be profitably conscious right now, exactly what time he will get there.
Let us assume that I could tell you, "He is definitely going to end up at that Seven Eleven store, and he is going to get some more beer. He is going to get drunk, get in a fight, and hit his wife before the night is out. But at the very least, he is going to be down at that Seven Eleven store, and get some beer very shortly." But no one, including Life, can say that that man is going to be at that one store, at five fifty or six ten. That is not absolutely predictable. If it were, then the rock musician's idea would also be true -- that the gods downed this plane, killing two hundred and seventy people, just to give him a lesson. If it was absolutely predictable that the man would be at that Seven Eleven store at five fifty on the dot, than the other scenario would be also true.
I am describing a local envelope of possibilities, a loose confederation; loose, but loose within certain limits. Let's assume that it is absolutely correct that this man is going down to the Seven Eleven store to get more beer. If he lives, if he does not die, that's what he'll do, within the next twenty minutes, perhaps the next twenty five minutes. There are, literally, innumerable possibilities that can affect whether he gets there at five fifty or five fifty two, five fifty two and a half, or six ten. People might stop him on the way. One of the neighbors might stop him and say "Hey, where you goin'? Get me some beer, too." And the timing depends on whether the neighbor has the money right there in his pocket and says, "Well, get me a six-pack," or he says, "Wait a minute, I'll get some money from inside." You would then have to go back and consider all the possibilities the neighbor is subject to. Why was he there when our man went out to get beer? What are the possibilities that he'll have the money on him, or that he'll even have enough money? Do you understand the complexity when just two people are involved?
The whole body of Life is interacting. To say that one man is going to be at a Seven Eleven store at five fifty is not possible. Not only is it not possible, it is not necessary, and it is not even true. However, there is a loose confederation, a local envelope that limits the possibilities.
Listen quick. There are possibilities, and then there is this kind of local envelope of limits. For instance, with the man under our observation and discussion, there is no possibility, no matter what time he gets to the Seven Eleven, that he will drive two more blocks and get champagne instead. There is no possibility that tonight he is going to go to the opera. None whatsoever. Even if he gets his beer and comes back and talks to his friends about what to do later on, there is no possibility of anyone in that crowd suggesting, "Hey, let's all go to the opera". If anyone did make such a suggestion, there is no possibility of our man saying "Great, what a splendid idea, wait while I dress!" NONE! Under no circumstances will they have a few beers, talk about what they can do for fun that night, and come up with the idea of going over to the local church to hear the guest minister. No possibility whatsoever. Many, many things are beyond the realm of the possible, but what is available, is a loose confederation of possibilities.
Now, we are just isolating that one man, but we can expand it to his immediate environs. Not only is there no possibility that he'll buy champagne instead of beer, or of his dressing up, and going to the opera, there is no possibility that his immediate environment will be conducive to that. His environment will not be freed from that immediate loose confederation of possibilities. None of his friends, the people he associates with at that local level, the people in close connection with him in the grid system, are even going to suggest the opera. If anyone did, no one would agree to go.
There is a loose confederation of possibilities. He may drink six beers. He may drink twenty beers. He may end up at his neighbor's house listening to the radio. There are many scenarios I could propose. He could end up at someone's apartment two buildings away. They could end up at the swimming pool, standing around and having fun.
It almost belies the fact that there is an absolute machine. As ordinary consciousness sees it, this guy comes home with some money, and he can do what he wants to. I tell you that he cannot. Yet he is not locked in to the point where he will absolutely be somewhere at five fifty. Not only is it not true, it is not even required.
Life knows where he won't be, but it doesn't even know that consciously. Consider that you do not have to know where each and every blood cell is going to be at any given moment. You do not have to know about your process of inhaling and exhaling so that you check your watch, inhaling on odd seconds and exhaling on even ones. You do not know where your mind, at the ordinary level, will be an hour from now. Needless to say, you do not know where it will be, at the ordinary level, a second from now unless you are ready to tell me what you are going to say next.
Life can be seen as being almost an absolute machine, but it can also be seen as having degrees of tolerance. There has to be tolerance, even in a machine. Yet, if the machine is turning out three inch gears, every time you turn the machine on you have to assume it is going to put out three inch gears, and not a rubber washer. A machine has to be dependable, predictable. There is a local, immediate confederation, a loose confederation, that operates within certain limits. It is a loose confederation of possibilities. But, if you really want to go too far, you might realize that even my words concerning a local envelope of possibilities are artificial. To say that, is to separate something from everything else, and there is no everything else. The whole thing is tied together, and there is a tolerance to it. It is predictable, but not in any way that ordinary consciousness would call predictable. You cannot say that a man will get in his truck and be at the Seven Eleven store at precisely five fifty. You can say that he will be there, and you can say that there are limits. You can conjure up all kinds of other possibilities such as people coming to visit, or his truck not starting. His truck might not start, and that could throw him off, but within the realm of immediate local possibility, I assure you, he will be at that Seven Eleven store getting beer by six thirty, even if he has to crawl down there on his hands and knees. The truck may not start. Several people might come up to him and ask him to get them some beer, or lend them money. He may put up with all that, but within the certain limits of this loose confederation of possibilities, it is going to come to him suddenly saying, "Forget all this! I am going down there right now! You people can come on down and get your own beer. You can borrow money somewhere else, I'm trying to be nice, but I want a beer, now!" And he'll go, and that's that.
I'll hint one further time. There is much more to pursue than my simply pointing out that Life can be seen as being almost inflexibly mechanical, and that it can be seen also as perforce requiring tolerances. There are always possibilities. Until you can see it better, consider that there are no immutable laws that require one man to be at the Seven Eleven store buying beer at five fifty. It is not necessary, nor possible. But, within this local envelope, this loose confederation of possibilities, there are limits of things that will be done, by him, her, and the environment (which are all the same). There is also that which cannot be done, which will not be done. It goes much further than that, but then again, so does everything, now that I think about it.
There is a kind of environmental fog that is native to our time and place and let's see if I can sneak back and push you towards seeing something. There is now an increased, more specific, more influential feeling that Man is separate, that there is a specific psychology to man. It is perceived of as a nonphysical aspect to humanity that is not only of importance, but probably of supreme importance. It is almost an accepted fact for a large portion of humanity, that there is some nonphysical aspect, a "psychology" of man, that is even more important than the body. To ordinary consciousness, the body can be directly influenced. Medicine can patch things up if you are not suffering from something terminal, set bones and replace organs. But the prospect of psychology straightening out "traumas and neurosis" is a mystifying task.
Another piece of what I am pointing to is the perception of "hidden motivations". There are an accepted, unanalyzed aspect of the human condition commonly seen in run of the mill literature, movies, and everyday conversation. At the ordinary level of consciousness, the sense of "hidden motivations" passes through everyone and is expressed as a statement of reality. A statement of something you understand. If you were at a movie, or a party, listening to people speak about another person, you might hear them saying something such as, "She keeps marrying and getting divorced. We love her and think the world of her, but look at the way she is. She's had three husbands who were good providers and didn't beat her up, but she just can't be satisfied with one man. What kind of hidden motivations are running through her to cause her to keep leading such an unproductive, unsatisfying life?"
Conversation like that vibrates in everyone. No one thinks of it as silly conversation. Now, humanity is not wrong, and psychologists are not idiots. People believe in the subconscious, the unconscious. People believe that there is an individual psychology of Man, and they are not crazy. Life is talking about something, Life is doing something, and it is verbalized through humanity. Remember that nothing is ever permanent, unless Life dies (and if it does, you can forget all of this, because we won't be here to talk about it). But Neuralize the possible purpose, physically, (because it is all physical) being served by humanity being made to believe that there are hidden forces allowed to work on and through individuals. Consciousness just accepts that there are hidden motivations going on inside all people, and I ask you why? If that were true, would everything in the world be set up that way?
You could crudely compare Man with other creatures, and see that he seems to be much more complex -- he can manipulate the environment, and do things no other creature here can. Why then, if that be true, should there be hidden motivations, forces, and drives allowed to work on and through humanity?
There is a phrase, "If you do not feel the need to act in a situation, then there is no need to act." I have seen that playing a part out in Life as an excuse. I have seen it as a hidden kind of Eastern wisdom. I have seen it, (and I mean all sorts of things when I say I have seen it -- I can feel and smell the different purposes of how it is used in Life) being used to rationalize a lack of involvement, or to justify one's apparent inability to confront some unpleasant situation. I could describe it in numerous ways, but let us stay with the condensed version of, "If you do not feel the need to act, then there is no need to act." All of you, at times, suffer from what seems to be ordinary guilt and self-condemnation. You feel you should have done something, spoken up, taken some kind of action. You might have voices that say that you should not have let someone get away with something. And yet something in you knows that without additional strength and understanding, given the same situation, the outcome would be no different. Why is it that you can tell yourself, "I should have done so and so," yet something tells you that if you had it to do over again you could not do anything differently?
Neuralize, that there is a certain kind of justice afoot. Picture the great grid, the "Vivus Machina," and picture that the observer, the person making such a statement, is either tied or not tied to that particular grid situation in a negative, positive, or neutral manner, at the time the occurrence arises (which is primarily when occurrences happen). The justice I am referring to could be defined, temporarily, as Life's immediate local growth needs. Whatever fits those conditions is justice being served. It is justice regardless of the individual observer who feels he should have done so-and-so, feels guilty, or believes he should have acted in a given situation, when he did not.
Justice is always served. In any situation some may act, and some may not act. But they all serve justice, whether they say "I did act, here's what I did...", or "I did not act because it was not required that I act," or those who say, "I did not act and now I wish I had acted," to those who would say, "I acted, and now I regret that I acted." It all serves justice, that is, Life's immediate, localized needs for growth. Remember that Life's immediate growth needs are served by both action and inaction. Although ordinary consciousness cannot see the need for it, both serve the cause of justice in any particular occurrence.
Now let's watch this swallow its own tail, by jumping back to the beginning of this discussion. If you do not feel the need to act, there is no need to act. You have to Understand that. You also have to Understand how it is that people believe the four possibilities I just gave you: acting and believing it was proper; acting and believing it was improper; not acting and believing it was proper; and not acting and believing it was improper. It is all serving the cause of justice in any single so-called observable occurrence. Do you see the kind of three-thirds reality to the original statement? If you do not feel the need to act, there is no need to act. Part of the purpose of justice at the ordinary level, is that you may, via that statement, find inaction satisfying and later find it to be cheap justification, because you should have acted.
I am going to try and string out, expand, and perhaps explode a little bit of what I have described as C, D and E, -- the three Flows at work in everything. Let's start out pretending. Pretend that there are pure forces such as C and D, that exist in a singular, pure form. We'll pretend that C force is good and D force is evil. Assume that your forefathers' (fore-mothers' and fore-uncles') descriptions of knowledge and understanding, refer to something that really exists, purely exists, and not just in some vague, relative manner.
Are you still pretending? (Since you are back having fun pretending, notice that at the ordinary level there is great relief experienced when I say there is good and evil. It explains everything.
Now let us sidestep to another area of pretending while not forgetting, or losing track of the area I just sketched. You should take note, there are always at least two views of any so-called situation. Take the arrival of the Europeans in America. To the native Indians, the Europeans were D force. "They came in and took everything, killed people on a whim. Their law, their culture has no resemblance to ours. They have these magical, physical weapons, and they outnumber us." From the European viewpoint though, just the opposite is true. They were trying to expand civilization for decent, religious, spiritual, humane reasons. The Europeans arrived in the New World risking life, limb, liberty, their happiness, and their families, by sailing uncharted waters, to find themselves confronted with people they would describe as savages, people worshipping trees. People who never heard of toilet paper. Totally unreasonable people, barbarians. And, from the European viewpoint, demonic messengers, handymen to all evil spirits.
Do not forget, we now have two stages of pretending. First we are pretending there is a pure reality to force C and force D -- that they are separate, singular states that can come into conflict with each other. The second stage, that there are two different views of a so-called "situation". Remember that you have to be able to pretend that you could see either side, and to see that regardless of which view you took, the other party would absolutely appear to be D, and you, C. Again, we're using the arrival of the European settlers and their subsequent conflict with the native Americans as an example.
Are you ready? Very quickly, try and pull this far enough to see that if there is a pure good and a pure evil, and that either viewpoint in any situation could be true, according to which side you are on, that "E" might be the outcome? No, no, no, an outcome is something that comes later...right? Almost by its own definition. But what about the reality behind my descriptions of a trilateral existence of Flows? They are not singular. In a vague and complex manner, they have to be existing simultaneously. Right? What if "E" is what would seem to be the outcome? What if what seems to be an outcome now, the two things in conflict, preparing for an outcome, exist simultaneously with that which would seem to be the causal effects?
Naw, it couldn't be. What if it is? What if "C" and "D" did exist singularly? What if there was an absolute good, and an absolute evil (I am not saying there is, we are pretending). What if "E" is what consciousness calls the outcome? But consciousness cannot see that what it calls the outcome can exist simultaneously with "C" and "D". Have you already forgotten the physical, omnipresence of time, or the question I asked you about how the past can be gone and forgotten, but when you remember, it reappears under a different guise? The past is simultaneous with the present. How about the future? You might object, "Well, wait, we have good and evil, we have the Indians and the settlers, but we cannot say what the outcome will be for a while. It may take five years or twenty. We have to judge it historically. It took seventy-five years for the Europeans to finally get the Indians to the point where they were no longer a "problem". That was the apparent outcome of the conflict between the Europeans and the Indians. The outcome was "Indians: zero, Europeans: the ball game". That was the outcome, apparently. Certainly that cannot exist simultaneously with the apparent conflict between "C" and "D", which resulted in the outcome, because the outcome was seventy-five years later. I ask you, why not? If you can remember something that happened five years ago, why can't it go in the other direction?
We are still pretending -- sort of. What if the difficulty is in conceiving of "E". If we say there is a "C" and "D", that which wants to move, and that which resists. I can say that "E" is everything else. But, it all must be going on simultaneously, because the flows interact with each other. What if this is all impossible to look at, in local time, which vibrates at the same speed as the consciousness tempo of the observer? What if, in local time, you could not pick out which is "C" and which is "D" force? What if this could only be judged by the outcome -- that which is conducive to Life's health and growth? You could not tell whether the Indians were going to win and drive off the settlers, or whether the settlers were going to win. The only way you can know which force is "C", and which is "D", is to later see the outcome. Only then can you tell which is conducive to Life's continued health and growth. Only by knowing the outcome could you ever say that one thing is "C", and another "D".
Alright. Well, alright except for the fact that that is impossible -- because the outcome appears later, and if these forces are working in unison, they must simultaneously be in existence. Righto! But, what if that which seems to be non-simultaneous, is simultaneous in another dimension? I am still not telling you this is true -- remember we are pretending. Are you prepared to Neuralize that it is impossible to be aware of any apparent thing, process, or occurrence as it happens, and to determine whether it is "C" or "D", until the outcome is known? What if the outcome is intermingling simultaneously with what seems to be the conflict between either "C" or "D"?
There is a conflict going on. There is an impetus for change, met by an obvious resistance to the change and we do not know which will prevail. The one which does prevail, supportive to Life's continued good health, is "C". That which does not win is "D". But, you can never say which is which, until the outcome is known. What if we say that the outcome is "E"; and that "E" is the defining factor as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, which is "C" and which is "D"? Again, it cannot be true, since in order to have an outcome, you have to wait for these two to reconcile themselves. You have to wait for one to triumph over the other. Therefore, the outcome cannot be simultaneous. What if it is? What if you cannot see it?
The Indians would "know" who was right, and who was the "D" force, as would the Europeans. I guess you suspect that their views are somewhat in conflict. Only those involved, only those operating at that level of binary consciousness, "know" which is good and which is bad, which is "C" and which is "D". Any one who Understands the process would know (recall, we are pretending) that neither one of them is "C", and neither one is "D". One will prove to be "C" and one will prove to be "D", but only in relationship to "E" force, and "E" force is the outcome. Only when the outcome is known, when the outcome proves to be conducive to Life's continued good health and expansion, can you look back and identify "C". Identifying the "C" and "D" forces would be, without any doubt, as clear as your forefathers' and foreuncles' belief that there is goodness on this earth, and there is evil. It would be that obvious. You can see that the one which is beneficial to Life's continued health, would have to prevail. But, (and we are still pretending) the only way that that can ever be known is to know what the outcome is. The outcome cannot be simultaneous to that which produces the outcome, right? I would not bet on that, (as far as pretending goes). Remember, the forces operate in unison, simultaneously.
Can you see the ramifications of that? Of course, verbally, as us philosophers might say, "It don't hardly explain nothin', because it don't make sense." But, if you can get right past the edge, it explains almost everything. It at least explains why it is so difficult, if not impossible, for you to see "E" flow right now. It explains how no one is singularly "right" or "wrong", in a way that goes beyond the magnanimous, humane sound of such a statement. I am not even pretending that that is not true. But what if that is not untrue? There is no way to know which is wrong or right, because neither exists as either "C" or "D" flow, right now. The "E", the outcome, absolutely defines which was "C", and which was "D". Yet, what if the outcome was simultaneous? But the words say, by their own definitions, that outcomes cannot be simultaneous. What if that is not a deficiency in words, but rather a deficiency in the awareness of another dimension?
Well, if you think that you cannot pretend, I want to know why the past can still affect you and everybody else? How can it still be alive? That is the outcome, in reverse. You may think there is a difference between the past being alive, and saying an outcome is simultaneous with what seems to be producing it. You can walk to the edge of a new map, if you can follow the connection between looking at the past as indeed being dead and gone, and also looking at it as being alive. All you have to do is just shift pretending one step sideways. How else could it possibly affect people? Why can it make you cry or laugh? Why can it "physically", as ordinary people would say, alter what is going on in you, internally, when you remember something?
If you stagger out a little bit further to the edge, you may see that everything is relative, but you can also see that things are not relative. At the heart of everything, are the three flows, forces, persuasions, channels, circulatory systems, necessary to support any triad, which is the only thing alive in this dimension.
It does not take an "enlightened master", much less a man with a high school diploma, to see that conflict is the nature of apparent everyday existence. There has been conflict since the beginning of recorded history, at every level: economically, politically, nationalistically, sexually, and socially. It is the nature of Life. You can easily see two sides of the conflict. It is easy to see that it's all relative, but in our pretending game there is more to it. It may even be the apparent opposite. Perhaps there are absolute good guys and bad guys, good forces and bad forces that can be named and singled out. What if that were true, except that you cannot tell, at the time, because you cannot see "E" force, because "E" force is the outcome, and it will dictate which is which.
Am I telling you a lot more than you are hearing?
There is another aspect of the "monk syndrome", the attempt to withdraw from the grid of Life. Why do people who want to withdraw, believe that they'll find happiness if they avoid energy transfers between themselves and others? It could be found in a hillbilly song where the guy is saying, "I got a new road under my wheels, and I am happy to be off traveling alone." What he is saying is, "If I could cut myself off, then I would be happy." How about some variations on an old cliche: "No energy for me, thanks, I'm driving;" "No energy for me, thanks, I am searching for happiness;" "Would you please not pay any attention to me. If you don't I might be able to be, maybe, happy." Are you sure being a rotund, quiet, asexual little monk is the means to a happy, satisfying existence? "No energy for me thanks, I'm driving." Although everything serves a purpose, aren't you glad you do not have to serve them all? Or at least some of them?
Here is another little example of how things are increasing in tempo, not linearly, but in all possible directions. Yesterday is shrinking. This manifests itself in a particular way. For anyone so inclined, you have got to be famous now, or forget it. Not too long ago, you could be famous for hundreds, thousands of years; you could get famous after you died, like painters and musicians did. If you apply this to contemporary music, it becomes obvious that whereas a Beethoven, Brahms, or Schubert could be famous for fifty years; and the Beatles could be famous for about twenty years, of all the groups that are famous now, who will remember them in six months? It has nothing to do with their talent. Things are getting to the point of, "Be famous right now, or forget it." And if you do become famous, it might be for six months, and then it's over. Yesterday is shrinking more and more.
There is even more to it than that. Don't get the blues, but what if it's too late to be famous?
One final remark about what appears to be "personal problems" and from whence they come. Do you know what the word "problem" is? It is simply a word to hide the complexity of change. Can you see how an Understanding of that would almost ruin everything?
