Video = None
Audio = Stream from the bar below or download from the blue link.
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0122 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = pending
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 122, Aug 23, 1984, runtime 2:00
[Reading of Kyroot Said papers.]
[Appearance that an external god is trying to reveal itself to man. Life is attempting to reveal itself through man. Man believes there is knowledge that I am not privy to--the great secret. What if Jan says there is no secret knowledge but there may be secret numbers? ]
[No words describing life ever equal 100%. 33.3% is lacking. Never get satisfaction, no answer, no conclusion. ]
[Neuralize: why are things divided into numbers and words. Why numbers at all? ]
[If everything has a number, alcohol has a known number. When taking someone's mood and alcohol = the type of intoxication. ]
[Nothing mechanical can move until intentions have been verbalized. ]
[Wonder at the divisions of life: 4 seasons, 24 hours/ day, 12 months/year etc. etc. Numerical enquiry. ]
[Why a box? A water hose, how did Life force it out this way? Is this the only way? How are designs arrived at?
Transcript
MATHEMATICAL SECRETS AND NONVERBAL INQUIRY
Document: 122, August 23, 1984
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1984
I am going to touch a little more on the mathematical aspects of Life. There is a shift in alignment that happens in Life, where a seemingly creative (C-aligned) form changes to a less creative -- or destructive -- (D) form, over a period of horizontal time. A good example can be found in the types of design changes that take place in the automobile industry. For instance, the Datsun 240-Z in time evolved into the 280-Z and, from the viewpoint of some car aficionados, the Datsun was a less attractive car three years after it was originally designed. Looking at that car, you can see a living validity to me saying that the original form became engorged, bloated -- it became almost a perverse caricature of itself.
Let me point your attention to how this shift in alignment can be observed in Man's institutions. Some energies flowing through Life through Man have a certain widespread appeal. The energy emerges as a cohesive element; people are drawn together and a new institution is formed. Consider the various religious institutions of the world and how they originate. One prophet becomes a channel for creative energy. He steps forward and says, "Here is tomorrow; here is what we are moving towards; here is a glimpse into the future of Life!" and people are attracted to this new energy. But when the prophet is gone, what do his original teachings turn into? How could you explain the changes that occur after the originator of a new religion dies? Consider a teaching based on the concept that Man should rise above the level of Red Circuit passion; that he should become civilized and be more attuned to the reality of Love. Five thousand years later, a group still claiming to be of that religion is waging war against another country in the name of "love." How could you explain such a shift?
Attempt to See something here: "C" Force does not actually exist; you can't really put your hands on the "creative" force. Yet, you can observe in Life a certain alignment in the direction of C Force -- a type of affinity for what is creative, constructive and positive -- whether this affinity is expressed in the design of a car or the formulation of an idea, a philosophy or a political movement.
Witnessing a particular shift, your internal voices may say, "That might be change, but it's not a change for the better." Remember that you have to move past the point of criticizing or denying change in order to See it. A certain shift may not magnetically touch you; you might be indifferent to it or have voices that tell you it's a step backwards. But once you get past criticism or indifference, you can feel when the energy involved in a particular change is aligned with C Force. And you can also observe how this alignment shifts over time. Before long, what seemed to be a C-aligned form becomes a gross, almost obscene satire of itself. It may still have the same name, and almost the same body -- like the Datsun. You might still recognize the form -- "That's a Datsun all right" -- but you can feel how it has become something other. The alignment has shifted.
Anyone who has lived long enough in horizontal time has had the experience of encountering some man or woman -- a teacher or leader -- who seems to have very creative ideas. The notion strikes you that, "This is splendid. If we could all just do as s/he says, things would move in a more efficient manner." Then, many years later, you see people being arrested or killed under the auspices of that person's teachings. You might try to find similar situations within you. What were some of the strong, positive voices you can remember from childhood? What original plans did you have? What became of those voices as you matured and solidified?
In relation to this, Consider the religious and mythological tales about extrinsic gods -- some external power or force -- attempting to reveal themselves to Man. This revelation is interpreted as, "I had a vision. I had a dream about what to do." That is Life talking. Life is attempting to reveal itself -- not to Man but through Man. Life is attempting to discover its future self, and the faculty being used is Man.
Consider that whatever faculty in you allows you to do This Thing -- whatever that is -- Life has the same faculty and you're it. Of course, you must also realize that profitable revelations do not occur at the ordinary level of consciousness. The revelations of one ordinary man are of no great consequence. History books are full of people saying, "The gods talked to me." But the question is, which gods? Where are the particular voices speaking aligned? Some gods -- or, parts of the whole -- are talking to everybody. Some "god" is talking to a man on the street about committing murder. Another "god" is talking to a minister down the same street about salvation.
Back to mathematics. Mathematics is just a word, yet behind it is a magical reality. Ordinary people always have the feeling that something is missing. This can come out as dissatisfaction with your job, your husband or wife, or with your life in general. Some people go to church because of this feeling: "Well, there are some things we'll just never understand, but we have to have faith." Yellow Circuit oriented people often believe that what is missing is some hidden knowledge: "If I could just find the right book." Some of you felt an immediate disappointment when you met me and realized I was not about to tell you, "All right, here is The Secret." Because everyone is convinced that such a Secret exists and somebody can tell it to them. But does it strike any of you as peculiar that after seven or eight thousand years of searching, humanity has never found The Secret?
Man never seems to get any closer to Understanding; he never moves closer to the basis of this alleged secret knowledge. Yet, people still feel that a Secret exists, and somebody must know it. Maybe some god knows it, or maybe a mystical teacher or some great thinker knows. The Secret could be one word, one sentence, or it might be a whole book. But it exists.
Does anyone find it interesting that all of humanity believes there is a missing something -- that can be verbally described -- yet nobody can find it? Neuralize: What if that something is a missing number? Or a missing group of numbers? I've always denied the existence of any secret knowledge. But what if I altered that a bit, and said, "A type of secret something does exist, but I would not call it knowledge." If I was pressed to say whether The Secret was a word or a number, I'd have to deny the existence of any secret at all. But, aside from that, Consider that there could be some secret numbers.
Keep in mind that this discussion of mathematics has nothing to do with anything you've heard before about numbers. It has nothing to do with numerology -- which, by the way, uses words. This is a reflection of something you have never imagined.
Consider that what seem to be problems and situations may actually be equations. Ordinary consciousness is binary; it sees by dividing everything into two. So in any situation, consciousness sees two forces at work. But what if the real nature of reality is triaxial? A triaxial -- not diadal -- flow runs through everything. Ordinary consciousness splits the flow into "this" and "that", what is "true" and what is "not true". But no matter how consciousness splits a situation, only two flows are seen. So consciousness sees only two-thirds of the equation.
So something always seems to be missing. The equation will never add up; it will never equal l00 percent. You can name the situation or problem; you can describe it in a new way, using religious or psychological terms. But all the words put together will never add up. Because all verbal descriptions are based on limited perception. As long as one-third of the equation is missing, you can never find an answer to apparent conflicts and problems in Life. Whatever you can verbally describe only adds up to two-thirds of reality. People can argue, change their words, change their verbal position, even agree with each other temporarily. But they will never solve the equation. The mathematics involved is that thirty-three and a third of l00 percent is lacking. That means you will never be satisfied with what seems to be the answer -- something is missing.
No real solution or complete conclusion exists in a verbal form. Yet ordinary consciousness just assumes that the terms it uses to describe a situation are correct. Nobody ever questions the use of verbiage. Somebody might disagree about the way a problem or conflict is being described: "It might be helpful and might facilitate reaching an agreement if we could just change this word in the contract." "What we have here is a difference of opinion, two conflicting theories." But such questions are always on the basis of questioning the particular words used. No one questions the use of words.
Suppose you told a friend, "Listen, this problem can't be solved because you're not describing the situation correctly. You're not taking all the factors into account." They ask, "What factors?" And you answer, "Uh -- l47." Can you imagine the kind of response you would get? At best, the other person might say, "No, no, give me a human description. I want you to tell me what psychological factors you say we're overlooking."
"It's l47 you're overlooking." That answer won't fly, ordinarily. Yet if you describe all possible "psychological factors" in all possible combinations, what is the most you will ever get? Two-thirds. The words never add up to l00 percent, in any combination, and the so-called problem can't be verbally solved.
Why are some things are described in words, and some things in numbers? To insinuate that those terms might be interchangeable is verging on insanity. Most people believe, "You're just wasting your time to question the obvious, practical, necessary division of things into words, and into numbers." But the question of why things are so arranged should constantly strike you. Forget finding an "answer." You don't need to concern yourself with the history of language or the theory of linguistics, but you must be able to ask this kind of question. Neuralize: Why are there numbers and why are there words? And why does that seem so right?
For example, look at the specific use of words to describe so-called emotions. Why must words be used to describe them? What if we assigned numbers to "love," "hate," "friendship," and other such concepts? Tell all of humanity that, "From now on, 'love' will be 20; 'hate' will be 22; 'I like you as a friend' will be 40." Try it: "I 20 you." How would that not work? Or angrily yell, "22! So there!" Then Consider: "What's wrong with that? How won't it work?"
What if you could describe certain vague, illusive and ever-shifting aspects of this flowing system with something other than words. Take the word "love" for instance. The way people talk about "love" and "friendship" is very nebulous, and the experience of "love" is continually shifting. A few dollars can easily turn a friendship into an argument. And how can you possibly describe something so ephemeral that one minute it's, "I love you darling," and the next minute, "Why the hell isn't supper ready!"? What if it were possible to apply what I am calling mathematics -- numbers -- to emotion? What would that do to "love"? Why does it sound so odd to say, "I 20 you," and what would be the effect if you could actually apply a number to every human action?
Assume that I know a specific, non-vague, overly descriptive number that could be used to identify any human experience. Assume everything has a number: objects have numbers; substances have numbers; people's so-called emotions and "moods" have specific numbers. Now, let's talk about things that seem to have an external effect on an individual, using alcohol as an example. Remember that "alcohol" -- or the process of "drinking" -- has a known number. Rather than discussing the medical or psychological ramifications of drinking and how alcohol tends to affect people of certain types and various backgrounds, you would simply put together an equation. You could take the number for alcohol, correlate it to the specific number for the "mood" of the alcohol consumer, and have an accurate mathematical description of the situation. The factors would add up to a particular type of intoxication. Verbally, the description cannot be that specific. Sometimes you have a drink and enjoy the sensation. Sometimes you drink and feel like getting into a fight, or like going in the closet to cry. Medicine and psychology can find no real answer or explanation for such discrepancies, and people spend years in analysis, trying to understand their "drinking" problems. What if such things could be absolutely explained, mathematically? Could ordinary people deal with that?
How would mathematics change everything? Would descriptive numbers ever be accepted? Humanity seems driven to fight for the right to suffer: "Yeah, sometimes I do have a few drinks and get into fights, but you're not going to take that away from me. My problems can't be solved -- not by some equation. If all my suffering is going to be taken away, that would have to happen through some secret revelation, some real knowledge, that could explain everything to me." But have words ever been adequate to explain the so-called emotional processes?
Everything is connected, so let's go back to some considerations about words. Have you ever heard anyone say that the more he attempted to explain his ideas, the more he saw how they might work? On a certain level, that is correct. That concept is correct enough to be familiar to almost everyone. Someone said it; someone else heard it; someone wrote it down and passed it along. Can you see that, at Line-level consciousness, an idea is not fully formed or plotted until it is spoken? If that is true, what about Man's inability to answer the question, "What am I going to say next?" How is anything ever accomplished? Man is part of a greater system -- Life. Maybe Life, too, needs to talk about ideas in order to see how they might work. That could have great significance to anyone attempting to sense the alignment of things and the direction they are headed. Life does not move without first announcing its intentions.
Speaking of where things are headed, have you ever thought about how language evolves? What about the phenomenon of dictionaries. People are paid to write tomes outlining the proper use of language, the definitions of words. You might be playing Scrabble with a friend, or working a crossword puzzle, and you pick up a dictionary to verify whether something is really a word. A new dictionary is published each year, and everyone assumes that, "Here are the words of this language. If you hear a word that is not in here, it isn't a real word."
Let's assume two or three people are in charge of editing The Dictionary each year. Does anyone ever ask, "Who do these guys think they are? How did it happen that they are in charge of deciding what's a word and what's not?"
For that matter, "Who's in charge here?" Life is a closed loop. All of Life is connected, and no one or two people are in charge of anything. To you it might seem that the editors of The Dictionary have absolute dictatorial power to decide where the language is going. If you approach them and say, "Here's a word some of the younger generation is using in the Badlands of Dakota. The word's very descriptive and seems to be in wide usage out there," the editors can decide, "Well, there may be dozens of people using this term to describe something, but it's still slang and is not going in our dictionary." Still, who's really in charge here? You don't believe it's the editors, do you? They have a partner, and their partner is everybody else. They are part of the total equation of Life.
Expand this a little further. There the two editors sit, world famous. It took years for them to get in the position of being editors of The Dictionary. But do they really have any power? Are they indeed in charge? Suppose the two of them get bored one day, and they decide to make up a new word. Maybe they like the word they come up with so much they decide to put it in The Dictionary. As soon as the new Dictionary was published and someone discovered that word, the reputation of the editors would be ruined because they had added it. They would be outcasts. Everything they had worked to accomplish would be lost because they put in just one word of their own. Scholars all over the world would be saying, "What is this word? We never heard of it!" The editors might say, "Well, we had been using that word and we kind of liked it." Forget that. That would be the end of them. So, even they are not quite in charge.
This example plays with justice, because someone who would include a made up word in The Dictionary would never get into the position of editor. Never. Likewise, any reporter for the BBC who is covering the wedding of Prince Charles in London is never going to interview someone on the street who would say, "This is a bunch of foolishness. They're wasting our money on all this pageantry." Like any good city, London has its share of crackpots and cynics. But the reporter is not going to stop one of them for an interview. He doesn't plot out who he will ask, but -- unerringly -- he talks to someone who says, "This is England's finest hour!" That's just the way things are arranged.
There are some people who, if you made them reporters and put a microphone in their hands, would unerringly walk up to someone who would yell, "I can't stand royalty! Blow up the palace and get rid of them all!" But would that type of person ever choose to be a reporter? No. Would they ever get a job interviewing? No. Does anyone know why? No. I suggest to you that equations are at work. A mathematical certainty exists, as long as Life is alive and growing.
Jump back to the idea of how it came about that certain things are named, and other things are numbered. What if this had something to do with the fact that Life is a closed system, so far as consciousness can perceive. If you accept that we are living in a closed system, that denies the possibility of numbers ever having a stable beginning, does it not? Because where are you doing to find the first number?
Anybody can make up a word. What is the first thing that comes out of the Yellow Circuit, once it matures to the point of being able to communicate? Is a baby going to say, "l2," or is it going to say, "Da-da"? This is not simply a cultural phenomenon; it is not a matter of parents not teaching their children how to say "l2."
But where did the first number come from? Remember, we're not talking about ordinary mathematics; I am pointing to something else. Consider that a closed system might deny a stable beginning for numbers. You can produce a word -- a transfer of energy -- what seems to be a human reaction to .pasomething. But you cannot mathematically produce even the number 1 from nothing.
If there were a stable beginning -- if mathematical certainty was possible in Life -- Consider what would happen to the growth process. Change occurs through a continual confrontation between energies; a kind of friction keeps everything growing. Would there be any friction in a perfect equation? When you deal in words, the topic is always open for further discussion and each man is entitled to his own wordy opinion. Needless to say, there is no such thing as a numerical opinion. Can there be any expansion of ideas numerically? Can numbers compromise? Recall how inopportune the expression of "love" as "20" seems. The word can be expanded; "20" is finite.
What if everything could add up to l00 percent? Imagine a living System that started off with a stable certainty, and grew by developing a specific numerical vocabulary as the means of description. In such a System, precise numbers rather than vague words would be used to transfer information/energy. Would there not be a danger that such continual mathematical calculations could reveal the absolute nature of the System? What if the purpose of words is to help hide and "vague-i-fy" the Life process going on? Maybe numbers are too dangerously descriptive. Surely that cannot be the extent of it? These are just words, and none of this can be approached directly. But Neuralize what could be the purpose of "vague-i-fying" anything.
I once said that if the gods suddenly appeared in Cleveland and announced they would tell The Secret Truth at 2 p.m., and actually did tell everyone The Truth at the appointed time, then everything would stop at 2 p.m. Everyone would hear The Truth, and The Truth would kill them. What if numbers are the truth, and mathematical certainty would kill you? Can you see the connection? Can you see how far removed these ideas are from everyone's dreams of a prophet in white robes appearing to enlighten them? No ordinary person wants -- or could stand -- to lose the mystery of it all.
Think back to the first topic I mentioned. At times, you can become aware of what seems to be C-alignment -- a creative flow -- at work. Other things seem to be obviously aligned with D: One of my favorite examples is sad songs; people singing, "Life stepped on my toes," over and over again. But do not assume, even in apparently obvious cases, that you can clearly differentiate C from D.
The way that the Three Forces manifest in a circuit is relative to the age of that circuit in a nonimaginary, two-thirds of reality, way. Each circuit came of age as the Line of humanity's consciousness moved upward. People living today who are serving the older circuitry may still listen to Hillbilly music and practice fundamental religion. From a more Yellow Circuit perspective, you might hear a song about, "My heart is broken again," and think, "Well, that's a great example of D alignment." But, for an older-circuit level of consciousness, that song approaches C alignment. At that level, people talk about leaving home and breaking their mother's heart; how they quit going to church like she taught them, and never visited her. Years later they come home for the first time to go to church, but for Mom's funeral. At that level those who sing the songs, who buy the records, and who listen to that music are aligning with a hoped-for creative force. They are serving C Force at their level. Something else would be D: to them, D is death.
All of you can Understand this, because you can feel the Red Circuitry vibrating within you. You may never listen to Hillbilly music, but you have your own version of it. The Red Circuit is the same everywhere in the world, no matter what language it speaks. You must have a fully-functioning Red Circuit in order to do This Thing, but that is not the level where This Thing operates. The types of behaviors appropriate at that level are not profitable for one attempting to do This Thing. What is C Force at the Red Circuit level becomes D Force to the higher areas of the nervous system.
A person beginning to strain at the very limits of the circuitry will See that even what was C to you six month ago has now become almost a gross caricature of itself; it is now a hindrance -- a D -- to you. The thing has not changed; the idea, the hobby, the love affair hasn't apparently changed, and even still goes by the same name. But the mathematics of the situation have changed.
Once the alignment has shifted in this manner, what seemed constructive, beneficial, pleasant, and inspiring to you can feel like an albatross. To ignite higher areas of the nervous system, more and more energy is required. You can't stop growing. The very things that are C today will be D tomorrow, if you continue to grow. Remember, though, that the very things which become D to you can be C to someone else; they can represent the creative force in large numbers of people. One-third of humanity, to give a figure, could be receiving C energy off of the very things that are now D to you.
At first, some of you may have difficulty approaching the mathematical ideas I have given. But most of you have already experienced what I'm talking about on a different level, though you don't immediately recognize that from these descriptions. For example, have you ever nonverbally wondered why certain things are divided up in a particular way? Why has Life divided the year into four seasons? Factual information like, "It is based on the time zones of the world and how the sun..." does not answer that question.
How are there four seasons? Could there have been five? Four seems just right, doesn't it? And don't tell me there just are four seasons. They could have been divided into two: Warm and Cold. Or eight: Early Fall, Late Fall, Early Winter, etc. Why are there four? Variations of this might be: Why twelve hours in a day? You can hardly imagine suddenly measuring by seven or thirteen hours; twelve hours seems just right. It's as if you have picked up an orange, peeled it, and the fruit just falls into a dozen perfect sections. And you never question this.
The process of mathematical consideration is also a kind of spatial inquiry. Have you ever really looked at a box, a little cardboard box? A box has six sides -- four sides and a bottom and top -- it opens on one side -- a perfectly efficient container...just right. When you begin to look at things this way, you can suddenly have the feeling you are no longer just walking around on Earth. I don't mean this in any pseudo-mystical way -- you just suddenly experience the magic of wondering, spatially, mathematically, "Why a box?" Or go out in the yard and look at a water hose, hooked up to a faucet. The hose does exactly what it was intended to do; transports water. How was this hose invented? (Remember, no one person is in charge of inventing anything.) How did this form come about? Then carry the consideration further: Is this the most efficient form? Could this happen another way?
Remember we are not talking about boxes and hoses. But how did forms come to be the way they are? What is a design and how does a design become a design. Again, I am not talking about how humans apparently invent such forms. The process of creating a plastic garden hose is as complex, in a certain sense, as the process of creating a man.
Right now Man is perfect for the needs that Life has. He thinks of himself as imperfect; at least, he believes everybody around him to be imperfect. Yet Man, and what he is doing, is perfect. Like the twelve hours in the day -- the box, the garden hose -- Man is just right.
