Stream Audio from the video 

Audio Download= DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0145 from Cassette
AKS/News Items= None
Summary= See Below
Diagram = See Below #040
Transcript = see Below

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk # 145, Feb 14, 1985, runtime 1:55

  To consider what a paratopological universe is you must be able to locate where the micro world and macro world are conjoined. The present investigations of quantum physics are the completion of a loop of the Isles of Articulation, and herald the birth of a new circuit in man. The Uncertainty Principle: strange parallel to attempting to define what "I" is; you cannot locate I and define its motion simultaneously. Corollary: one cannot define and measure the energy of an event and measure the time it takes to occur at the same time. At the macro-world level, an example is: the better educated are more open to change, but more education = change; and proclivity for change = seeking after education; both are equally true.  Two possible truth directions exist simultaneously. Consider that the Red Circuit is not open to change; bricklayers are not open to change. Another example: physical distance produces stress and suspicion (e.g. U.S. vs. Russia), but proximity also creates stress and hostility (e.g. apartment complex in NY city). Another example: in Russia the news media is suppressed; bad news is not reported (apparent exception to dictum: "all news is bad news" noted previously) in a stagnant system. Whereas, in USA, the advanced and open growth frontier, bad news is the emphasis. How can this be? Must remember how Life grows in no linear progression. News must be bad news for growth to occur. Russia is not growing as the USA is growing.]
  [Old blues song opening line: "Love ain't nothing but the first stage of the blues." Switch to: evil = good, dying its inevitable death. Relation to chord progression of C to D to E.  The progression can equally go C to E, or D to C, E to C, E to D etc. Example of  Christianity, the "religion of love" (key of C) becoming the Inquisition (key of D) and/or progression of Roman persecution of Christians to embracing of same to point where today the seat of the religion is in Rome. Basic point is: Once the Primal Flow has made its self-created tripartite division, the divisions have no names or inherent characteristics except when named and defined by human consciousness. You've got to be hard-wired limited to it to see a "C" force or a "D" force.]
  [The running static (daydreams) neural activity including ordinary memory can be seen as a way to substitute thinking of action (TOA) for action itself. It deals with the past: "what I should have said or done..." A recycling of energy = thinking of the past. With the ordinary "it's never too late" memory can always reconstitute, reconstruct, rearrange. The private voice is associated w/ this reconstruction or mulling over of the past.]
  [Blue Circuit people could be described as those whose actions can't satisfy themselves; can't act to satisfy themselves, yet whose thoughts-about-action are also equally unsatisfying.  Look upon Red Circuit- and Yellow Circuit-people as superior somehow in their dealings with life. Blue Circuit as "soap opera" life. Release from this comes by enforced RC or YC activity 
  (TASK: speak out loud to the mirror of your “woeful problems”).]
  [Diagram 40: Drawing of brain cross section: Ordinary change is taken to be 180 degree reversal of behavior, but is no real change. It is merely the activation of the mirror "personality" circuitry. E.g. drunk becomes teetotaler.]
  [Everything is a symptom. The symptom is the problem.]
  [Do not become entangled in "manifestations" or instability you cannot control. Get out and run.]
  [Comfort as a form of non-growth. If you are comfortable, something is wrong from This Thing viewpoint.]
  [Why is it that "no" has such power: why is 'yes' always desired?]
  [The difference between Red Circuit-based pain and suffering (mix of circuits): Test: does the discomfort cease when no words support it? Yellow Circuit support = suffering. Love: " I need to learn to love" has been around since time began. Sounds so right, but what is love to the ordinary mind? A reflection of something, but what?]
  [Should always have an awareness that there is a very thin veneer between stability and instability. Look at the thin line between physical life and death; death is always just a heartbeat away. Must build real, durable stability in the higher circuitry.]
  [TASK: Find your own historical examples of the chord progression in Life. Find them in your own life.

PARATOPICAL PARADOXES

Document:  145,  February 14, 1985
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1985            

         I am going to begin tonight by using apparently scientific ideas as a background.  Consider my term of a paratopical universe, a place where the micro-world and macro-world meet.  Let me remind you that the world of physics is no more involved with This Activity than religion is, but what is taking place in the world of physics is now approaching the completion of a certain loop of articulation.  This completion will not come about with a bang as the fundamentalist preachers would like to believe, rather it will gradually occur, in part, during your lifetime.

     If you will recall my diagram of the Isles of Articulation, physics is currently arriving at the point on the upper left hand side of one loop, wherein physicists believe they will be able to find the beginning of everything.  They believe they will be able to explain not only gods, but also answer questions as to where everything came from.  But, notice, I drew that completion as a series of dotted lines, and pointed out that that was what was apparently going on.  None of this will happen with an immediate bang, but it is taking place while you are alive.  What is happening is physics is about to complete a certain loop of articulation, and as I have hinted, that completion corresponds to the beginning of a new circuit in Man.

     To change pictures in mid stream, picture my merry-go-round:  as it makes a revolution the center worm screw rises slightly.  And if you were a distance from it, physically or otherwise, you could see that the merry-go-round has made a loop since you were eighteen or nineteen.  You could see that it had completed a certain loop and is now higher than it had been at that point in its circle before.  But, notice, no one on the merry-go-round feels a sudden change:  no one feels the merry-go-round "suddenly" reach a point where the worm screw at its hub took an obvious jump.  The completion of the loop is like the rising movement of the merry-go-round, and it can be seen in the way in which human consciousness gradually changes how it deals with the questions of, "Who am I?" or, "What is going on?":  the full O.A.I. perception.

     I am going to pull this into some general areas having to do with what seems to be specific maps or ideas and how they gradually change, and how they are changing in you.  Let me begin by giving you three or four confusing examples (in a quantum sense) that should clarify the matter or vice versa.

     First, how about the so-called Uncertainty Principle, wherein both the position and momentum (or velocity) of a particle cannot be simultaneously identified at the subatomic level?  The way that I attempted to get you to pursue this before was that there was a strange parallel between that and a man's attempts to find out what his "I" is.  When you have the two questions of:  "What is the particle's position?" and, "What is its motion?" the more you can apparently pinpoint and determine one, then the less you can determine the other.  Hence, as men throughout history have attempted to "know thyself" or attempted to be a continual observer of themselves -- no one can do it.  I ask you the musical question, what has anyone come up with other than the fact:  "Well, I can't do it," after five or six thousand years, give or take?

     A parallel feeling that seems to be of great importance is that you can get an immediate sensation that there is an "I" here, right now.  "No matter what you say, there is an 'I' here, right now."  Okay, and I ask you, what's its motion; what is it doing?  "Just a second and I'll tell you..."  You can't do both.  Ordinary consciousness can't hold the feeling that there is a me in here (its position) and simultaneously be aware of, "What is it doing (its motion)?"

     The corollary, I really wasn't going into, but since several of you have brought it up, is that you can determine the kind of energy involved with an event and likewise you can attempt to measure the time involved for the event to occur, but you can't do both.  Since some of you have had suspicions about apparently being able to transfer energy into time, I guess I will eventually have to go into this area.  I'm referring to a corollary to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as a map in the horizontal world.  But apparently the impossible can be done if you are dealing with very short periods of time beyond what ordinary consciousness would even conceive of as time or beyond what scientists would have the means to measure in a laboratory.  You apparently can steal from time and give it to energy and vice versa, which goes against all accepted laws of the conservation of energy and yet seems to happen.  Several of you have already begun to ask rhetorical questions such as, "Does that have any possible relationship to the attempt to Neuralize?" or my battle cry of, "Don't tell yourself what you are doing."

     It seems that none of this can be true, or might be true in theory, in some obscure, mathematical way, or in the wild and wooly world of non-observable subatomic physics, right?  Let's assume that it does.  But the scientists state outright that what seems to be true in the world of quantum physics is not necessarily directly translatable from the micro-world into the visible world.  It is like two different worlds, they say.  And yet, there is an absolute, obvious relationship between the fact that what everyone ordinarily conceives of as being themselves cannot be pinpointed both as, "Yes, I'll tell you what it is doing...yes, there is a certain kind of energy involved with this," and, "I can tell you how long it took to happen."  You can't do both.

     Before I make it a little clearer, let me give you two or three more confusing examples.  How about (jumping into the macro-world) the apparently undeniable fact that those better educated are most open to change whereas the less educated cling most dearly, even ferociously, to the status quo.  That is simply irrefutable at Line level, but if you get into a paratopical universe -- a location that operates at a higher frequency and where the light spectrum operates quicker than ordinary consciousness' time frame -- then you are in a closed system wherein it is not true that, "More education makes one more liberal."  It's not untrue, but it's not true because you also have:  a person whose nature/wiring makes him open to change would be more inclined to pursue additional education.

     From the observation that, "The better educated throughout the world are those who are more open to change," you can go in two opposite directions.  One direction is:  "More education makes one more liberal, more agreeable to change and experimentation."  But it is likewise just as true that the biochemical, genetic makeup that makes a person open to change and experimentation also makes him pursue further education.  If you go down into the older areas of the circuitry, you will find that the "bricklayers" are notoriously not open to change.

     You don't really have to look outside of you -- those older voices are still in you.  You may think you have, "opened up compared to 5 years ago," but here you are 30 or 40 years old walking down the street and you see a kid with his hair completely shaved on one side, and the other side is dyed purple, (the current style) and your circuitry just recoils.  Here you are, "a liberal, a person much more perceptive that the average," and the first time you see that which is, to some degree, new, something down in you, in your Alabama, in your lower circuits, goes, "Hey, come on."  That is the nature of the growth of humanity. That resistance is a part of Life's stability and balance that comes from the older circuits.  Speaking as if it existed in isolation, which it doesn't, it could be said that the Red Circuit is not readily open to change.

     Following ordinary 3-D logic, consciousness concludes that:  "Yes, there are certain less urbane groups of people, even in this country, unreasonably opposed to change.  What we should do, instead of sitting around, is go to the areas where those people are dropping out of schools, and educate them.  The proof is that the better educated are more open to change.  Therefore, if we could at least get those people an undergraduate degree, we would not have these prejudiced racial groups.  After all, you don't go to a klan rally and find Ph.D's..."  I am pulling apart the fabric of justice here, but I assume all of you understand that if you could grab people operating from the older, lower circuits and force them back into school, which you couldn't, then the result would not be what you'd initially expect.  The result would not be linear.  To put it more succinctly, once you reach a paratopical universe, there is no such thing as a linear chain of cause and effect.

     How about another confusing example?  Let me couch this example in terms that sound political while reminding you that I am not talking about political matters.  This is just an example.  Apparently a physical distance between groups of diverse people causes suspicion.  For thousands of years, Life has always been speaking through someone here and there saying, "Alright, if we could get the Goths and the Romans to sit down somewhere, maybe have a good banquet and orgy -- if they would learn each other's language and customs a little bit and not operate on the basis of suspicion caused by the distance between them, it would cut down on the hostility between them.  Perhaps it would even stop wars!"  Today, of course, the classic example is between Russia and the United States, with people claiming that, "We should have more people to people programs.  We should not treat the USSR as though it is on another planet.  They are still humans, etc."  So, here's the paratopical corollary:  Being in close proximity produces its own kind of stress.  If you moved all of these peoples together, you would have a new kind of hostility or stress, not better or worse, but a stress that is unforeseen.

     One more example of a paratopical universe:  I assume that all of you have some knowledge that ever since World War II there are reports about the absolute control of the press in Russia.  Specifically, there is hardly the least bit of bad news reported during their lengthy television news programs each night.  This is an accepted fact and I accept it, so let's go ahead and use it:  A station in Moscow that broadcasts throughout the rest of the country has something like a three hour news program every night, and it is a glaring exception if any sort of negative report ever makes the news.  A plane can crash in downtown Moscow, and by all reports, thousands of people will see it crash, and it is never mentioned on the news. Or, people stand in food lines every day for hours just to get a used corn cob, but the news program reports on the great success of the last Five year Farm Plan.  I haven't seen any of that in person, but for my example, let's take it as a fact.  Now you recall that I have pointed out numerous times, usually as a question, that all news seems to be bad news -- and yet, here we have on a large scale in contemporary times what would almost appear to be an exception to that.  Regardless of what is going on in their life, the news the Russians see is three hours of "good news," as opposed to what is seen in this country.  They are a systematically stagnant system, whereas we are living at the most active, expanding growth system of any peoples on this planet, but when you turn on the news...forget the three hours -- there's enough bad news in just thirty minutes.  So there seems to be this one, large-scale exception to the rule that, "All news is bad news."  And, this exception is in a large group of people that is consistently stagnant.  How can such things be correct?

     This thing about good news as opposed to bad news is not just some passing joke.  It has nothing to do with television networks or newspapers anywhere in the world.  It has to do with the way in which Life moves.  In everything from the public media to the verbal intercourse between individual people all news seems to be bad news; that's all that seems to be reported.  This is not the fault of the media and it's not a plot.

     Yet, there is a large segment of the population on this planet apparently being confronted with nothing but good news and it's almost the last place in the world that any of us would have any business being born into.  My activities certainly wouldn't be going on there.  Considering the United States as being the current cutting edge of growth, Russia is almost the antithesis -- and yet they are getting good news.  How can this be?  When a certain loop is closed, anything can be -- but not verbally, not logically and not in any way that can be explained.  Look at all the times and the numerous names and ways I kept pointing out the Three Forces.

     I named them one, two and three, and then C, D, and E.  Then I gave out a list of possible names that could fit under each of the three.  The truth is, until they split out of the Primal Flow (whatever I mean by that) into the tripartite division and into what I have been calling Forces, until they are named by human consciousness, none of them have any individual characteristics.  To get past the maps, to get to the point before the merry-go-round goes up for everyone in general, you must go beyond the maps of the Three Forces, to a point of your own nonverbal Understanding.

     Some of you have read enough to know that as far back as the offshoots of the so-called Buddha, there are translations saying that the whole object of being "enlightened" is in a direct seeing, a direct perception, of reality.  Let's assume that that translation does have some validity, even though it comes from another language and time.  How can I improve on it?

     You may have made great efforts over a long time, there is no guarantee, but suddenly one day as you were stooping to pick something up, it struck you.  What?  Never mind what, you just suddenly SAW:  "I no longer have any questions."  That is a fair description of being past the maps.  Need I point out that there is all the difference in Life's little universe between having gotten there, chewing up every extraordinary map that you could find, and just hanging around a guy who talks about C, D, and E forces?

     There is one stage where you might observe a situation and think something like, "Well, I'll bet this is C, getting into a possible D mode, or this is obviously C at work here and yet from another viewpoint, it's D. You know I'm getting to the point that I can almost see opposites existing without getting all involved with it."  That's one stage.  But, how about being able to See?  I'll carry this further.  There was an old blues song that opened with, "Love ain't nothing but the first stage of the blues."  All right, let's take love as being related to C force (if one force could exist in isolation) and take the blues as being in the D realm.  Can you begin to fathom this?  Let's change it from love and the blues to good and evil.  Could you see that evil is just good breaking down?  Can you see, just using these terms in their ordinary usage, that evil is good dying its inevitable death?  Or to be more musical, "Evil ain't nothing but either the second or third stage of good."  Can you see this song as having a chord progression from C to D to E, or from C to E to D?  Remember that we are isolating reality; it does not start at C any more that it ends at D or E.

     A sitting duck example of this is Christianity.  It is still referred to in some circles as the religion of love.  Within a period of time after its inception it went to what?  The Inquisition.  Same name, different players.  In a linear sense it became its own opposite -- from the key of C to D.  Or I can change the description and say that it went from the key of C, from the Christians viewpoint, to becoming the state religion of Rome, the key of E, at which time it was rather indifferent, almost impotent.  Then it seemed to get revived again and eventually it played its role in the Inquisition.

     For those of you who are fleet of circuit, I'll jump back and point out that had we been good, dyed in the wool Romans, our view of Christianity would not have been, "Hey, I'm in favor of that."  To the Romans it was very dangerous.  They were talking about the gods attacking the economic basis of the Roman Empire, which already had a world of problems.  They didn't need this.  So, had we been Romans at the time, we would have perceived Christianity as absolute D.  Then something seemed to happen. Christianity seemed to become more accommodating.  Later, the Christians are paying their taxes and running for offices.  They are marrying some of the senators.  They began to come into the mainstream. So, as Romans, we may have seen D as going directly into C.  "Hey, they're okay.  Our religions and institutions are falling apart and they're going to help stabilize our crumbling empire."  That was after some years, of course.  The general point is:  The Primal Flow divides into the three basic areas, and produces the circuitry in Man to enable Life to grow in the visual, sensual spectrum in which we live.  But, in truth, those Three Forces have no name.

     I have spent several years pointing one way and then jumping around behind you to point out that how you view a particular force depends on whether you were one of the European settlers or an Indian.  "Yeah, it's obvious."  It's a matter of whether you lost the money or found it.  "Oh yeah, I see that."  Now I'll tell you that you can't see it, because there is nothing to see.  Those forces have no such individual characteristics.  There have to be three of them, but once you see it, you can't say, "Here are the particular characteristics of that force."  They have no characteristics until they are named by consciousness.  Then, they are serving the purpose of producing apparent divisions, conflicts and strife between people and within you.  What is going on, is simply what is going on.  Then, there is nothing else to talk about, except there is something else to talk about as long as you've got a question, and the only way that I could have produced enough people of the right type to be able to continue This is to have had people who are not only filled with questions, but had an ability to begin to suspect that they might be answerable.  So, I gave you answers.  But, the answers are irrelevant.  There is no such thing as individual forces.  There is the matter that love is the first stage of the blues and evil is the second or third stage of love and disappointment is simply the second or third stage of fulfillment.

     Ordinary consciousness is not constructed to see this movement, of course:  "I am in love.  I am now pleased.  I am happy with my new job and my new mate."  Five months later, "I am no longer happy with my car.  This woman is driving me nuts."  Well, surprise, surprise.  It just shows how many people did not listen when they were young, and their peers said there was no Santa Claus.  You have already forgotten that. Everyone does.  Of course, Santa Claus is synonymous with straight line theorems.

     I have been asked several questions lately regarding acting or thinking of action.  So, I will run back over a general area that some of your questions touched on.  It should be glaringly obvious, once I point it out, that the running static that our fellow planet dwellers call daydreaming as well as ordinary memory can be seen as a way of substituting thinking about acting for acting.  What else is the running static serving? The nervous system of Man cannot think about thinking -- it thinks about acting.  It runs constantly, and it is never living in the present, so what you are left with is memory.  As it deals with the past, it attempts to reconstruct it and rearrange it.  And you're left with the time honored phrase of:  "What I should have done is..."  That covers it all.  I have often pointed out that until you know any different on your own, you should forget the past.  It doesn't exist; it's a hobby -- a hobby for ordinary people.  But the past does exist, it is going on all the time.  People are thinking about it; energy is being recycled.

     Now, try to picture the certain way in which I am pointing at a small crack.  Memory is part of your running static; you never think about right now.  You are always thinking about the past, even when you try to project it into the apparent future.  It can all be said in that one sentence:  "What I should have done was..."

     Thinking about acting is attempting to reconstruct memory.  You at first recall, "I said so and so, and he said so and so, and I left."  After it runs through a few times (or a few hundred times) it becomes, "He said so and so, but what I should have done was say, da, da, da..."  A few more hundred times (or a few thousand more times) and it becomes:  "Well, he said so and so, and I got right up in his face and I was about to hit him."  A few more thousand times, "I did hit him.  Well, it's been so long now, I'm not sure whether I hit him, but I know I started to.  Maybe I controlled myself, but my intention was to hit that so and so."  Is that not a nice, clean substitute for action?  Plus, it's never too late.  We are not talking about psychoanalysis here, but with ordinary people, it's never too late.

     I know that many of you still see or even suspect a most tenuous connection between acting and thinking about acting and the two voices.  One of the voices is in charge of this memory reconstruction -- this substituting action, even after the fact, with thinking of action.  This kind of memory is the very thing that people think is "driving them crazy" under ordinary conditions, ranging from those locked up in homes for the criminally insane to everyday people upset and tormented by their day dreams.

     You may find it interesting to note that the basis of thinking of action is always in the past.  "Yes, I do have real emotional problems, that's why I'm under treatment."  But, if he were asked, "What is going on right now that is causing this?"  He could only reply, "Well, nothing right now, but my day dreams are driving me crazy.  My feelings about myself and my life are driving me crazy."  That's not right now.  It's still on the left side of the Xross; it's all in the past.

     To play with justice, if we had a reasonably fictitious insane psychiatrist, and to really play with justice, if we had reasonably fictitious insane patients, then the psychiatrist would grab those patients and say, "Listen, I understand emotional problems from A to Z -- from neurosis to psychosis.  I understand it fully, and let me tell you, I can cure you right now, once and for all.  You can be as crazy as you want right now, in the present, but that is all.  Limit it to that, and you will be alright."  And my fictitious reasonably insane patients would slap their foreheads and go, "Aha!" and that would be it.  You must quit being crazy in the past.  "Next!"

     Using my own three arbitrary and artificial labels of Yellow Circuit, Blue Circuit, and Red Circuit based types let me point out something about Blue Circuited people since so many of you are so interested.  Here is a temporary description of the normal position of Blue Circuit based people:  Blue Circuit based people could be described as those who cannot act to satisfy themselves and, whose thinking of action is likewise unsatisfying.

     Quickly now, try to run that description to the other extremes.  If we speak about those who would apparently be driven by the lower, older circuits, we're talking about the men of action -- the "bricklayers" -- those who might say, "Maybe I should have thought more before I acted."  Then there are those at the other extreme, driven by the higher, younger circuits, whose primary response to experience is in thinking about action.  To varying degrees, the Blue Circuited people look upon these other two as being in a superior position.  When looking at a Red Circuited man in action, the Blue Circuited individual might feel, "I wish I hadn't even gone to school.  I wish I had never started reading psychology or philosophy.  I have a cousin in Alabama, a carpenter, and I don't ever see him worry.  He gets arrested for being drunk and disorderly, two wives left him, just cleaned him out, and he just laughs about it."  Our Blue Circuit person would also view the Yellow Circuit person as being in a superior position:  "I also have a brother-in-law who teaches at M.I.T.  I've never seen that man rattled.  One time he and my cousin, the carpenter from Alabama, got together.  I just knew there was going to be trouble.  My cousin started making all kinds of prejudicial, offensive statements and I got mad.  I got confused.  I got embarrassed.  But, my brother-in-law, the liberal, just sat there and listened to it like he was going to analyze it, and started to ask my cousin questions.  I mean serious questions.  He didn't even seem to care.  If I couldn't be like my cousin, I want to be like my brother-in-law.  He didn't seem to get that involved with what's going on.  It's like he just files it all away to think about it later.  Either way, these two people are at the other end of a spectrum from me."

     By anybody's definition, by your feeling of it, what seems to be emotional disturbance (which is Blue Circuit activity) comes from the processes in that person which do not lead to any satisfactory action.  Such a person can't act in a way to satisfy themselves, while their thinking of action is equally unsatisfying.  That is a workable definition of an emotional person.

     What else can you call emotion?  Don't give me a definition out of a book.  What is it when you are feeling emotional?  Of course, by that I mean ordinary emotional, which always means bad news.  (Notice that you don't ever question feeling good, other than feeling like you better watch it -- you might have to pay this feeling back.)

     The emotional life is the soap opera.  People feel as though they are being emotional when they simply don't feel good and there is no apparent reason.  They "fear that something is going to happen."  And how can you weasel your way out?  You have two possible responses to whatever is going on internally or externally (really the same thing):  act or think of acting.  Blue Circuit activity ordinarily does not provide action that is satisfactory, nor does it provide satisfactory thinking of action.  All you can do is get a guitar and hope you can get to Nashville, or write a soap opera.  I have told you before that the blues can be cured by sufficient running.  Put on your sneakers, hit the street and run long enough.  It is simply magic. No it isn't.  It's a biochemical reaction that has taken place.

     I am going to do a quick drawing to show what seems to be change and why I keep insisting that ordinary change is no change.  In the brain there is an area that amounts to an area of "antimatter" -- the unactivated, mirrored reflection of the ignited side of your brain.  On the activated side are all of the activities that comprise "you" -- your thoughts, feelings and all possible responses.

     Let us say that in the activated portion is a configuration that makes a person drink alcohol.  Then something seems to happen to that person such as a serious car wreck that kills his child.  Over in an area that was not previously ignited there is triggered a mechanical activation of a mirror circuit.  That newly activated circuit is an absolute reflection of the original and produces a person who is a passionate teetotaler.  It is the same circuit on the other side of the brain that has been mechanically activated. Those two sides can't run simultaneously in an ordinary person.

     My use of drinker becoming a teetotaler is just an obvious example.  Apparent feelings can be another example.  People can feel that they are "almost the exact opposite of what they used to be."  That is not change.  For every opinion that an ordinary person has there is an unactivated, absolute, mirrored reflection that is, as far as words go, the opposite.  To be able to switch from one into its mirrored reflection is not real change.  To do that is to do absolutely nothing.

     I have vaguely hinted before that it is possible to live at a very high frequency (this has nothing to do with living in the "fast lane," you understand) and ordinary time and energy can be shifted.  You can steal from one and give it to the other.  I am suggesting that there is a connection between that and what I have been calling Neuralizing.  The longer you stay in one place, the less energy you have to escape that place.  Remember my older description of omnidirectional consciousness being like a searchlight:  always moving, never thinking about anything, and never staring?  Remember me saying that you could affect time and that time and ordinary consciousness are synonymous?

     I realize that some of you have at times begun to get glimpses of a paratopical universe.  Or, that at times you thought you were going "crazy."  I am going to tell you one more time.  No matter who you are, do not let yourself become entangled in anything that seems frightening to you or that you cannot produce or control at will.  If you feel weird, go outside and run.  Take a cold shower, or if it is 25 degrees outside, turn the hose on yourself.  This business of going into a "state of frightening ecstasy" and passing out and laying there for days until your family or friends want to put you away should be left for the occult book writers.  Such experiences do, by the way, happen often enough to fairly ordinary people.  If you are losing control, and begin to think, "This is the way things have to go; it is the way that I always dreamed they would go...," then you have come to the wrong place.

     Someone recently asked why the idea of unusual comfort doesn't sound as exciting as the creation of a certain kind of heat or controversy.  What seems to be comfort is by the full definition an aspect of non-growth.  This does not belie the fact that everyone must take a coffee break now and then -- maybe everyone needs a vacation -- but if you are comfortable, something is wrong.  To say that producing comfort does not sound exciting is a gross understatement.  From This Viewpoint, when you are comfortable you are either taking a short break or you are back fulfilling your old position.

     I received several queries concerning the maps I mentioned regarding the two voices.  I will stress again that there is a real, valid attempt to be made once you can feel or hear that there are two voices going on within you.  Once you can feel them both, try to hear them both equally to where you have no preference.  Don't let one outweigh the other; you simply attempt to hear them both equally and simultaneously, constantly.  Now, that is a trick!

     Another query that came to me was, "Is there a difference between pain and whatever I mean by suffering?"  Yes, there is.  The way in which I was using them at the time was quite specific.  By "pain," I meant that which is Red Circuit based, whereas "suffering" would come from higher regions and would be of mixed lineage.  If you have any doubt about the difference, then stop in the midst of your melodrama, and try this (it is quite easy):  When you wonder, "Am I involved with pain or with suffering?" can your discomfort continue without words?  If it does, you are a victim of pain.  If you can stop your internal voices from talking about it and suddenly the discomfort stops, then believe me, you have another animal.  You have a demon.  If you can withdraw the verbal support and the discomfort stops, a FRIP (fictitious reasonably insane person) would have cause to go, "Hmm."  That is not pain.

     Someone noted, "I want to, or need to learn how to love."  I would like for you to take a few seconds to ponder that.  I cannot quote you any poetry, but I feel safe in stating that such as that has been said for thousands of years in some context or another.  Many believe that love is the zenith of their religion, but for now let's just address it on a sexual basis.  People say, "I just can't get really deeply involved with somebody.  It seems that my relationships are ephemeral, to say the least.  Whenever I feel passion for a particular man or woman, wouldn't you know it...it is always the kind of person that has no interest in me, And so it seems appropriate to ask how to learn to love.  This is something lacking in my total educational experience."  Take several additional seconds.  That sounds just right to say, "There is something lacking in me, and I need to learn how to love."  I am not going to dwell on this for now, but I will ask what I have asked before, "What is it you think love is -- by your own experience or your own definition?"  To help you struggle free from the barbed wire fence of the mind, I ask what does humanity mean by "love"?  What is meant by "love" when you see everything from a Grand Cardinal Inquisitor torturing somebody in the name of love, to somebody committing suicide in the name of love, to somebody drinking themselves into an early grave in the name of love?  If all of that can take place, it seems to be contradictory and ill defined. Love is a reflection of something, but what is the something?  What is actually going on here, and how is it that it sounds right to say, "I need to learn to love"?  I'll leave that for your further Neuralization.

     I remind you that there is a thin veneer between what seems to be a stable, civilized, predictable person and what would be (by horizontal accounts) a maniac.  You might feel that there is some predictability and stability in you, and that you can trust yourself, but there is a very thin veneer between the circuits, and a very thin veneer between life and death.  You are always just a heartbeat away from no heartbeat.  The kind of upper level stability that people dream of is not available to ordinary consciousness.  But the Few must have an innate lower circuit stability -- Red Circuit sane and Blue Circuit curable.  That is, you should understand the need to exercise and the need to stay away from health as a hobby.  You should understand that the by-word in our hospital here is "Fuck Health."  Just be healthy and that's the end of it.  If you are suffering from pain, you are temporarily not healthy, but it's not a worthwhile hobby.

     You have to have a lower circuit stability, and everything above that you will have to build.  There is a kind of stability that comes from another level.