Audio = Stream from the bar below

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0180 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Diagram = Diagram #059 in Transcript
Transcript = See Below

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk 180, Oct 24, 1985, runtime 1:30

  [“The Binaries, and then some..."The third force/persuasion/flow --is potentially the center piece of the public phase of This Thing. For the Few, the third flow is not out of reach. The "binary bindery" = the unavoidable division of Life into camps such as conservative and liberal, creation and destruction, hot and cold etc. Isn't it curious man has only discovered that magnetic fields have only a north and south pole? All major lived religions have an orthodoxy and a reformed branch. Primitive man's gods are more free, i.e., capricious. Compare civilized man's gods who are much less free; constricted despite man's lesser restriction to merely Red Circuit functioning, i.e., greater freedom borne of Yellow Circuit limits god's freedom and vice versa. Yellow Circuit man demands a stable god. Red Circuit man demands/tolerates capricious, unstable gods.]
  [The TREPOSE. Re: diagram 59. Diagram of how 2 elements can be based on 3. Cover top half of figure = 3 legs. Cover bottom half = 2 legs. The binary bindery limits man to top half. The Few can see whole figure. E flow can be seen in the TREPOSE as intermediate/connection area of C and D. ]
  [To see the third flow, E, must change your focus from C or D fixation to include E-verything else; the apparently E-relevant. Replace C or D with E.]
  [The multiplicity of all human voices raised in conflict = the multiplicity of conflict of the internal voice I's.]
  [No one can profitably play with anything they don't understand, which includes what they can't control or produce at will. "It is man's duty to worry." --- is absolutely true if you live in a binary world where conflict is continually, necessarily, the only menu.]
  [The Few must be in agreement with Life --not in agreement with the D actions of individual men.

Transcript

PLUG IN "E"

Document:  180,  October 24, 1985
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1985  

      One of the most common questions I receive is, "How might it be possible to understand the triaxial nature of everything?  How can you see in threes, and conceive that there are three kinds of events, eventualities, persuasions or currents going on?"  People ask me, very seriously, "How can I see this third possibility?"

     Among the many ways I could present what is behind This Thing, my mapping of the three forces is a prime one -- it meets all the contemporary qualifications.  You must be able to see in threes to activate higher parts of your nervous system, to expand the circuits in a lateral manner and to reach a point where there are no untouched, strange and exotic areas within yourself.  Until you can achieve such expansion, everything else is really just theory, philosophy, a teaching, and not an experience.

     As long as you are stuck in a binary bind, as most of humanity is, you are fulfilling your correct function -- being ordinary.  Any question you could ask me, from your ordinary position, would always be on the basis of, "It's me against a problem."  All you would be stating is two forces.  The only thing that is possible when you are limited to the binary connection is to switch around the names of the two parts.  To say, "My sexual partner mistreats me," is no different than to say, "Evil spirits are after me."  As long as there is a binary struggle, there is no way out on an individual level, and your struggles to change will not lead to any sort of understanding.

     You might say, "Since I went into therapy, my sexual partner does not push me around as much," but you are still dealing with a binary problem.  Likewise, if you say, "Since I have taken up with religion x, I feel a little better about the possible eventualities of eternity.  I do not feel I have the same kind of outrageous, frightening nightmares I had, about my fellow man and the forces in the universe."  You are playing with a binary problem.  You can change the names; you could say, "Hey, the good guys are winning...uh...no, the bad guys are winning."  Or you might say, "Today my girlfriend is okay, but yesterday she was driving me crazy," or, "I get along with my family, until they come to visit."

     These binary "struggles" and "problems" are a part of the dance between the Three forces, eventualities, or persuasions.  As long as the Yellow Circuit has been operating and man has been playing with the idea of philosophy, his perception has not changed:  throughout Life, as far as he can conceive of it, man sees a binary struggle.  Even in the highest branches of the ordinarily produced and wired up Yellow Circuit, in science, philosophy, and logic, you always have a matter of the good guys winning for a decade, and then the bad guys winning.  One group of philosophers seems to take over in one part of Life's body, saying, "Life is awful."  Then, a decade later, the predominant philosophy is, "Life is beautiful."

     Nothing has changed.  You are still dealing with two blanks:  I just call them C and D.  Put C, and then put a blank, and fill it in with anything you want:  "my girlfriend," "the good guys," "the bad guys," "the weather," "opportunities," "talent," "birth," "financial situation."  But whatever you put in the C blank, there is always a D with it.  You cannot find a C without a D, and of course, you cannot find a D without a C.  It is not possible for you to conceive of them individually.  If they did occur separately, Life would not bring it to your attention.

     As long as you are operating with binary blinders, nothing changes.  Take these two blanks, fill them in with your own description, and you have a dance.  C leads and then D leads.  This dance is not some kind of philosophical idea, not something I conjured up -- it is what This Thing is about.  If you are seriously interested in This, you are mistaken to think this dance is beyond your ability to see.

     All of Life can be filed into the C or D blank.  You should be exploring these blanks in many directions, pulling your attention away from where it might be stuck.  (Every time I point out the forces I probably step on some virgin areas of your foot).  To man's consciousness, from the perspective of bricklayers to that of priests, to philosophers to physicists, psychologists, economists, political observers, artists and musicians -- all of Life has been arranged into two camps.  There is this dance, a kind of struggle for the lead position.  It is described by man politically, as the liberal versus the conservative.  And I could illustrate almost any other area, without even changing those terms.  As far back as the Yellow Circuit has been going, as far back as men have been recording history, you have had, in every area of human endeavor, from the arts to politics, these two, armed camps (armed figuratively or otherwise).

     In every form of politics I have ever run across there are the conservatives and the liberals.  People argue over exactly what each term means, but I will give you a description of what they mean, based upon the triad.  In the C and D struggle, conservatives are those who are in charge of defending the status quo. No matter what they claim or what else is going on in the encompassing civilization, conservatives are the ones who say, "Hey, things are fine."  Actually, anything above the Red level, in Life's great corporation, begins to stretch into what the Red Circuit would consider liberal.  Conservatives could be seen as cool -- all the way from cool, to cold, to old.  Conservatism is often described in more intellectually appealing tones, such as, "If it's not broke, don't fix it."  Conservatives describe liberals as wanting "change for the sake of change."  (By the way, their observation is not a bad attack, not much of a misfiring on their part.) If you are caught up into the binary bindery you have to take sides:  one of them has to make sense to you, and the other must be complete nonsense.

     This binary bind is a struggle between something losing heat and something attempting to produce new heat.  Don't fall into the childish trap of believing that the people involved, are the people involved.  It's Life involved, and people are the employees.  In Life's corporation, humans do what they are told, and have nothing to do with making policy.

     If you begin to read any book, by the time you get half way through the preface you can see its binary basis:  "My friends I am going to tell you, based upon my expertise, something about the history of economics, (or whatever the subject of the book is.)  The first thing to keep in mind is that economics has two main schools."  If you have enough mechanical interest to be drawn to the book and begin to read it seriously, you would also be drawn to immediately take sides.  Just as soon as you read that preface, even if you are a novice to the subject, you would immediately recognize one of the camps as being valid and the other as misleading.

     Is it not curious that everything is arranged into these C and D camps, and that those who are interested, immediately find their niche?  You may know nothing about economics, but as soon as you read the first page, even if you never heard of the two main schools of economics before, you immediately choose one to be reasonable and profitable, and label the other as fallacious.

     Is it not curious that anybody who is interested in anything, be it art, the history of art, or the history of literature -- if he is interested enough to look into something, he is immediately going to see a proper course, as outlined by some stranger that wrote a book or a pamphlet.  It will strike the person that one group is taking the proper course and the other is made up of a bunch of idiots.  You should find that curious.

     No one finds it curious that electricity and magnetism always have a North and South pole, a positive and a negative charge.  After thousands of years, no one is sick of that situation.  No one wonders why we have made no further progress:  "We discovered two and that's it."  Are you sure?

     Note that all religions that last more than one lifetime, one generation, end up with an orthodox and a reformed branch.  Different religious branches are merely "conservatives and liberals" taken into the church pews and out of the halls of the politicians.

     Especially common in western religions, is the notion, "Our god is the same today, yesterday and forever.  He is a god you can depend on."  Yet, in other parts of the world, where the circuitry of man is less developed, or even back down the nervous system into earlier history, the gods do not quite fit the description of being so dependable.  Consider ancient mythology, or some of the less ritualistic religions in the world today.  You do not hear their leaders stand up and say, "Boy, one thing I like about our god, is that he's the same today as he was yesterday, and he will be the same forever."  On the contrary, their gods are usually capricious and undependable.  Their gods might come in and seduce your wife one night, or get drunk and start up inter-family fights.  Even though some historians take the ancient mythologies with a grain of salt, the people in ancient times seemed to take their religions quite seriously. Every week there would be a new story of how one god beat up another god, for no reason.  "Up until now he's been a pretty decent god and never started any trouble."

     I am pointing you towards a kind of complexity.  (Complexity isn't even the correct word, but there is no word that goes into the fourth dimension.  I would have to make up a word and then I would have to describe it using three dimensional words, so it is a waste of time.  But you can see something here -- Life's masterstroke with a twist on it.  The people in ancient cultures, or in less developed parts of the world today, have less of a dependence on the Yellow Circuit than do those in the western world.  And the less developed they are in the higher circuits, the more free their gods were, the more unpredictable.  Yet, those who live at the edge of contemporary humanity, where there is, in a sense, a greater amount of freedom for individuals -- they can control the environment more, they live longer -- the gods of these apparently freer people are less free than the ones from the earlier religions.  The more contemporary a religion is, the more it cries out that its god is stagnant, its god is unchanging.  The more contemporary religious people tell you that the ancient gods were a dream, a delusion of the unsophisticated.  There is only one dependable person -- a dead person.  So, if indeed contemporary religion speaks of an unchanging god, a god the same today as when he created the world, and who will be the same a billion years from now, it is talking about a dead god.

     Notice this complexity, to say the very least, within the simultaneous body of Life.  In one area, right now, there are people who have an apparently great amount of freedom.  It is those who have the greatest development in the Yellow Circuit, that cry for a stable, dependable god.  Yet over in another hemisphere you find a tribe worshipping a god that lives with the porpoises, that is undependable.  You can pray to him and sometimes he will come up and spit water in your face.  Sometimes, you might pray for one thing, and just as a joke, he will send you the opposite.  Sometimes he just swims away and is gone for twenty years. An ordinary person, in this part of the world, would say, "Well, what beautiful and simplistic fairy tales. These people are out of touch with this century, but I guess it's not doing them any harm."  But, at the other extreme, are the missionaries who want to get in there and make the people see the light and convert to their religion.  All of this is going on simultaneously in Life's body.  The less centralization there is in the Yellow Circuitry, in a particular area of Life's body, the more the gods are capricious, unpredictable and unstable.

     Can you See that, using binary reasoning, such a description is absolutely backwards?  The apparently less sophisticated people are right at home with unpredictable gods, while those who are more educated and who have more freedom in the Yellow Circuit, need a dependable god.  The more developed, free and activated the Yellow Circuit is, the more people insist on a god that is not capricious, a god that is absolutely stable, a god that, for all intents and purposes, would be a dead god.  The only way a god could be unchanging is for him to be dead.  Why would Life be set up in this way?  Ask yourself, "Why can't I see beyond that?"  Here is a picturization which illustrates why those who are bi-wired can never see the third entity, the Third force. 

     Towards the top of my diagram you only see two figures, yet on the bottom, you can see three.  The diagram is all drawn with one line, yet it appears to be two supported by three if you split it up.  You can also see three legs -- one on each side and one in the middle, which is created by the other two over lapping.  If you let your attention run up and down you can see that the third leg becomes a part of either one side or the other, depending on your viewpoint.  At the top, the diagram appears to be a two-pronged object.  At its bottom, the diagram appears to have three legs, yet it's all drawn with one continuous line. The third leg does not really exist because each side of the third leg is a side of one of the other two legs. If you call one leg C and the other leg D, can you begin to understand why it is so hard to see E?

     I have sometimes referred to E as being that which seems to be irrelevant in any specific situation.  I referred to it as everything which does not fall into what you perceived to be C and D.  You can easily see two things, two partners dancing, but you ask, "How can I consider everything else, if everything else is irrelevant to start with?"  Yet, I assure you, anything which seems to you, to be either C or D, is absolutely irrelevant to someone else.  I should really call this third possibility the E-relevant, because "irrelevant" is not exactly the correct word to describe E.  E is not irrelevant, it is E-relevant.

     At the ordinary level you can always find some group trying to create change, and another that is defending what the first group is trying to change.  As long as you are limited to such binary wiring -- as long as you are binarily blinded -- all you can ever do, all that the participants can ever do, is shift places. Even if one of the two apparently wins, the winner would immediately have its own opposition.  D would become C, and immediately acquire it's own D.

     As soon as one of the warring factions in some country takes over, absorbing whoever they were fighting against, a new opposition immediately arises.  No sooner do they get their little uniforms made, put themselves in office, and draw lots to see who is the excellency and the supreme excellency, then the opposition begins to form.  No sooner does the new government get the banquet hall set up and bring the leader out, with his hat and all the braid, then a group of people out in the woods begins to say, "Down with the government."

     This new opposition will not be connected with the losing group that was just beaten down and absorbed.  A new faction, with a new name, will be in opposition, even before the apparent winners of the previous conflict can celebrate their victory, and pay homage to the new excellency.  You make a grave mistake to think I am talking philosophically.  Do not leave it at the Yellow Circuit level, by saying, "I have heard what you said and read what you have written, and I see the three forces, in theory; but, as far as I am concerned, the irrelevant is impossible to see.  How can you see the irrelevant?  How can you call something irrelevant and then say I must see it?  I can see how you cannot get anywhere dealing with good guys versus bad guys.  I was filled with great hope when I heard you say there is a third area to consider.  Then you told me what I was, I almost heard what you said.  But it just cannot be true.  Or, if it is, I will never see it."

     At Line-level consciousness you are correct:  at that level, you will never see it.  Your partner in crime, your partner in the Yellow Circuit has told you the truth.  Your ordinary consciousness will tell you it cannot get past seeing only two forces:  "Alright, I can see that there are two forces; and when you say to consider everything else in the world, I know what you mean -- you're talking about the World Series, other nations, whales, oak trees, busted TV sets and kangaroos that are not house trained -- but I am not going to get anywhere with that.  Even if you are correct, it's impossible to see the Third force."  When your voices speak that way, they are telling you the truth.

     Ordinary consciousness is not equipped to see a third element.  The Yellow Circuit can hear what the Third force is, in theory, but cannot actively see this third element in operation.  If ordinary consciousness could easily see in threes, you could buy a book or take a short course and you would understand.  You are not wired up to see in threes; however, you make a grave mistake to say that it cannot be done.

     It seems easy enough to identify two Forces, and say, "Anyone not involved in one of those two groups is part of 'E'."  Your partner in Yellow Circuit crime and stupidity tells you, "I hear the theory, but actually seeing 'E' is impossible."  For you to stop there is the ultimate crime.  You can shake yourself from being hypnotized; you can shake your focus from the magnetic hold of ordinary consciousness.  Even when your Yellow Circuit is telling you that you cannot see the Third force, you can see it.  You can see in threes not only in situations where you have no particular interest, but also where you have a great deal of interest, such as a disagreement with your sexual partner.  You can see three forces in what seems to be a conflict between you and someone at work.  You can change the focus throughout all the circuits.  The Yellow Circuit is the one which says you cannot see in threes:  however, the binary bind is not limited to the Yellow Circuit.  The lower down the circuitry you go, the better the binary system works.  (In the lower circuitry you have no business messing with the binary system -- it works quite well.  In order to do This Thing, you must have already had some sanity in the Red Circuit before ever being exposed to This).

     The further up the Nervous System you go, the more the binary limitations result in a feeling of deprivation.  Everyone feels starved for information.  Hence, the old idea of secret knowledge:  "Something is driving me cuckoo.  I am starving to death in my mind and someone knows it and will not tell me.  They are hiding somewhere."

     You can change your focus.  You are only supposed to focus on "C" and "D" -- no matter what "C" and "D" are.  No matter what the situation appears to be to you personally, you ordinarily focus only on "C" and "D".  Change the focus, take "E", the E-relevant, and force one of the other two out.  Take either "D" or "C" out of the picture and try to focus your attention only on the remaining force, "C" or "D" and everything else, namely "E".

     You should have no problem identifying the "C" and "D" -- those are identified as soon as you are aware of the situation.  Anything you are interested in has two armed camps.  There must be two armed camps in order for it to be alive, whether it is a school of art, an area of music, literature, politics, economics or a religion.  The conflict may involve only a low level of hostility, but there are still two armed camps.

     If you are wired up to have any interest in a particular situation, just as soon as you are aware of your interest, as soon as you read the first half page of the preface in the book, "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Economics", you will see the two camps, "C" and "D".  Take one of those two forces that you can identify, remove it, and plug in "E".

     You cannot stop at the point where you identify two forces.  If you stay engaged with just two of the forces, nothing will ever move.  You cannot simply try to figure out a solution to the problem or hope for a blinding flash to come to you.  You cannot continue to see the third force as just a theory.  If you go the rest of your life crying, "Hey, I can see two but I will never see the third", you will be absolutely right, but that is not what This Thing is about.

     Any situation can easily be narrowed down to two-thirds.  You can then attempt to remove one of those two areas, one of those forces, whether it be a person, a group or an idea, toss it aside and plug in "E".

     When you are at the ordinary level, you see your so-called problems from a binary viewpoint:  "I have been having the same argument with my mother for fifty years and I still cannot deal with her."  Or "I have been arguing with my sexual partner for five years and I can't seem to leave him.  I've got a whole list of complaints and this person is probably not good for my spiritual development, but I can't seem to leave. Do you think I should stay and try to work things out?"

     You have identified two forces -- you and her, you and him.  Take one of you out, just intellectually, in the Yellow Circuit.  If you try doing that, your focus will change.  When you take one of the forces out and plug in "E", you are setting up a situation that is conducive to glimpsing the invisible leg, inseparably tied to the other two legs, in my Trepose drawing.  The third leg is not separate.

     Take out one of the two you can identify and plug the "E", the E-relevant, everything that is not one of the two, the third possibility, into the would-be equation you have been attempting to solve.

     You ordinarily attempt to solve an equation with only two elements, unaware that you are dealing with two thirds of reality.  You simply cannot arrive at a satisfying answer with only two thirds of the equation.  If you are looking for an answer of one hundred, you could rearrange the two thirds anyway you want, but two thirds will never equal one hundred.  Two thirds will never lead you to a satisfying conclusion.  You can play with the problem the rest of your life on a binary basis, but from the viewpoint of This Thing, it would ultimately be a waste.  You will not benefit from This Thing if you continue to believe you cannot get beyond seeing only two possibilities.

     Remember, Line-level consciousness is telling you the truth -- there is no sense arguing with the binary nature of your partner.  When your partner hears about three forces, it says, "Alright, the irrelevant...everything that is not part of the two opposing factors I can always see in any problem...hmmm...I can't see it."  Your partner is telling you the truth, but you must get beyond the partner, beyond what you have been dealing with all of your life.  Your partner is no smarter than you are.  He is speaking the truth from his limited point of view.  The partner says, "It is impossible to see all three and even if the third possibility does exist, you can't do anything with it."  Again, the partner is telling you the truth.  He can't do anything with the third possibility and neither can you at Line level.  You aren't any better than your partner, and remember, neither one is in charge.  But, you can take what you immediately identify as "C" and "D", set either one aside and attempt to plug in the E-relevant.  That will set up better conditions to get a glimpse of an area wherein you would not be limited to binary binders -- binary blinders.

     You can identify apparent contradictory aims in Life -- between nations, groups of people, and individuals.  You can also identify apparent conflicts within yourself.  The multiplicity of contradictory voices in humanity, in another dimension, are equal to the multiple "I's" within an individual person.  Life develops industries that seem quite promising, but five years later another part of Life's body cries out, "You're choking us to death -- you are destroying the planet."

     The same thing is going on within you.  You may feel that you have all these uncontrollable people within you.  It feels like you can't decide anything.  Every time you decide to lose weight, another voice in you says, "Ooooh.  You picked one heck of a time to lose weight -- there is a brand new chocolate chip cookie out, that my friends tell me, borders on being devilish."  No matter what you do, there seems to be some kind of internal conflict in you.

     You do not have to be very mystical to see that when you are a critic of Life, when you see in a binary fashion, Life seems to be running amuck.  Or, if you do not think Life is running amuck, you see people who are trying to change Life and you think that those people are running amuck.

     Instead of seeing these opposing forces through binary eyes, instead of labeling one correct and the other insane, try to see that Life has its own multiplicity of I's and you are one of them.  (Don't get carried away though -- you are one of Life's I's, but you don't really amount to much.  Whatever group you agree with, even if it numbers ten million, only amounts to one passing voice in Life).

     Life is not that much different than you are:  it just operates on another scale.  An ordinary person would describe themself by saying, "It's as though I am filled with a multitude of different people in here, more or less answering to my name."  Do you think Life is much different?  Do you think Life is free from you or that you are free from Life?  Life is not just a mass of contradictory opinions, be they economic philosophies, political persuasions or religious adventures.  Life is not simply filled with the reasonably sane and enlightened and the crude, feral barbarians.  Life is not a struggle between sanity and insanity or goodness and evil.  Within the body of Life is a multiplicity of necessary voices which facilitate a lateral expansion.

     One very interesting group of voices in Life's body are the so-called leaders of the world.  If you have ever seen world leaders get up and make speeches at important political gatherings, you can see that those leaders must be intelligent, in a certain sense, in order to gain the position they have gained.  World leaders serve a very particular purpose in Life:  anyone who ends up as a spokesman for an entire group of people is in a unique position, and Life thinks very highly of such people.  Life brings them up very high and then cuts them down like dogs overnight.  That is why Life invented coups.  Life will let an important political leader gain apparent horizontal power over hundreds and thousands of people.  But Life also invented coups, along with secret foreign bank accounts.

     Every so often, these world leaders get together and make speeches, in many different languages, one right after the other.  They point out how much progress humanity has made since the last series of wars. They herald the great strides of humanity.  But then they will always conclude that the world remains in a sorry state.  They point out how large and lethal the weapons of the day are or how technological improvements are ecologically disastrous and most of the time the speech will end on the note, "It is our duty to work on these problems, it is our duty to try and fulfill the aims of our world organization."  No matter what country the speaker is from, the essence of the speech is the same -- "It is humanity's duty to worry."  You can dress up the message any way you like, you can close with a prayer, an appeal to the gods or an appeal to humanitarian instincts.  You can leave your audience with a joke or do a two-step before you go, but the message is always, "It is our duty to worry."

     If you are living in a binary world, the duty to worry is a literal fact.  As long as you have two armed camps, you will always have something to worry about.  As long as you are wired up to have the slightest interest in something, you are wired up to worry about it.

     The duty to worry is certainly not limited to worldwide problems.  You have a duty to worry about your personal life:  "You know, I'm worried.  My girlfriend has been driving me crazy the last couple of weeks and she sure has been doing a lot of late night shopping!"

     As long as you are ordinary and are dealing with what seems to be a "C" and a "D", and are entangled in a binary situation, there will be a conflict and you are going to worry.  If you are not worrying about a particular situation, you are not wired up to have an interest in it.  You may never keep up with politics and you may never worry that humanity is going to destroy itself; but you will worry about something.  You will worry, perhaps, about when the price is going to come down on used sport cars.  "I looked at the price of those four year old models and I still can't afford one.  I'm going to draftsman school at night and when I graduate I'll earn much more than I am as a mud boy for a bricklayer -- I should be able to buy one."

     Everyone worries over conflict.  Everyone worries over "C" and "D".  As long as you are left with worry, as long as you are in the binary bind, you cannot figure anything out.  Your duty is to worry and that is not just a theory.  Whether the apparent conflict is immediately personal or global in nature, whether it is low level or engrossing to you, all you can ever do on the binary level is worry -- your duty -- 'til the day you die.

     Occasionally I am asked about stress and anxiety.  People involved in This sometimes wonder if they should avoid stress or arrange their lives so as not to have excessive outside pressures.  What people are really asking me is whether they would be able to function and get any work done if there were no anxiety and pressures in life.  Some feel that they receive real benefit from working under pressure, that the quality of what they do is better, under such conditions.  There is a feeling that if anxiety and stress were taken away, their life might fall apart.

     The question of whether you should avoid stress is really a variation of the question, "What would I be like if I was more evolved, more enlightened?  Tell me, tell me!"  If I told you that it was not proper to be under stress, your understanding would be, "Well, wait, I hear what you are saying, but if that was suddenly imposed on my life, if there was no stress, if suddenly I had the internal connections of a great religious master and I was still me..."  You would correctly suspect the worst.  If you were suddenly a great enlightened master and were still "you", you would be most correct to worry.  You should be correct to be very concerned, because I would not want to even be in the same hemisphere as you.  I can only assure you of the continuing justice of it all -- that cannot happen.  If you were suddenly struck with so-called "enlightenment", I assure you, you would no longer be as you are now.

     You cannot simply decide you don't like your supervisor at work and just shrug off a difficult situation:  it has nothing to do with This Thing, if you go out and get yourself fired, because you decided that pressure stinks and you don't want to put up with it.  There is a justice involved here, because if you are properly attracted to This Thing, you will not get yourself into trouble on an ordinary level.  There is nothing wrong with getting fired, but it has nothing to do with This Thing.

     There is no profit in playing the game of, "What if?"  "What if all the routine anxiety and pressure that I have experienced all my life was taken away from me?  I am not sure I could function out in the ordinary world."  That is correct.  You would not function as you do now.  You cannot profitably play with anything that you do not understand.  Ignore, for the time being, what you cannot control.  Realize, too, that nothing in This Thing can harm you.  If you blame any so-called mishap in your life on your involvement with This Thing, you should question very seriously your involvement with This.  You should just leave and forget you even heard any of This.

     Although your ordinary life is your starting point when you become involved with This, it is of almost no importance.  Yet, there are certain things you should be aware of in your day-to-day contact with other people.  One is that you should not fool around with people who are employees of the D Force.  You should not be in agreement with anyone that is so far down the evolutionary scale that they do such things as hunt animals and beat up people.

     When you begin to taste the reality of igniting a new circuit, above and beyond the three presently operating within you, the totality of that expanded circuitry is greater than any of its parts.  It is greater than the sum of the three ordinary circuits, even at their most developed point in your day and time.  That expansion is an understanding of the trilateral/triaxial basis of reality and it produces an agreement with Life, beyond any ordinary agreement with the actions of individual men.

     You cannot cut yourself off from humanity; but you should not sit around and fool with someone who has a hobby so far down the evolutionary scale as to be below ordinary Line-level consciousness.  You do not have to be insulting.  Just do not fool with people like that.

     When you begin to have real  Understanding, it produces a total agreement with Life.  You have no choice, once you See what is going on.  It is almost too ridiculous to mention.  There is literally nothing to disagree with.  You must agree with Life, but it is not an agreement with the individual actions of humanity.

     Life has its own built-in contradictory voices, a multiplicity of different personalities.  Life itself is growing.  But if it had a body similar to the human body, would you want to live in the lower intestines? Would you not prefer to live uptown?  Who would want to live in the kidneys?  Personally, I would not.  I have never cared for damp climates.

     In your attempts to expand your Nervous System it is not a matter, once you Understand, of agreeing with the individual actions of every human on this planet.  It could be said that every third person is working for "D", but you do not have to take them as serious companions.  It is necessary for people to be killing other people or it would not be going on.  It is still necessary for there to be people starving to death on this planet or it would not be happening.  But there is no profit in you fooling with "D" employees, until you Understand more.  And you should not sit around and fool with "D" in the privacy of your own head, such as thinking, "How can it be that people would kill somebody else in the name of religion?"  When you do that, you are back to worrying.  You are back to fulfilling your duty and you are limited to a binary world.