Audio = Stream from the Bar below.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0181 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
iagram = Diagram #060 in transcript below
Transcript = See Below

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk 181, Oct 31, 1985, runtime 1:30

  [Re: diagram 60. The O-middle ground, "E" area, is not correctly characterized in words by "irrelevant" or "indifferent". It is not passive. It is dynamic but unseen. Everything you have ever done about your "problems" in your life were of absolutely no account. True, you worried about them --but that is your duty as an ordinary human being. Only way to truly, really account for a problem, you must include the "E-area" of your circuitry; you must substitute E for either C or D extremes you ordinarily take into account. Yellow Circuit is not wired for this however.]
  [More on "The Partnership" (TPS). There have always been two of you internally (Neuralize the "public vs. private voice" picturization invented). One partner always believes it can control the other, but is always oblivious to the motivating circumstances affecting its own acting, i.e., its own context. There is always a heat exchange going on between the two partners internally, as well as the one always in progress between individual units of Life outwardly.]
  [You can never attract another to This Thing that is as passionate and perceptive (relates to extraordinary intelligence or ability to become activated above the line) as you are. You have an unmatched ability and interest to entertain the E-relevant. This is the mathematical reality behind why everything seems to go downhill after its passionate beginning. Thermodynamics: heat loss is inevitable with the first exchange and every following one. This produces interesting difficulties for This Thing. The guru-followers syndrome as Life's compensation for this forgone, inevitable heat loss. Relation to the performer on stage and audience all gaining energy somehow.]
  ["The better jobs in Life are involved with attacking rather than defending." ]
  

Transcript

THE E-RELEVANT

Document:  181,  October 31, 1985
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1985       

      See if you can perceive any connection between such apparently unrelated ideas as, 1.) the Three Forces that comprise every phenomenon; and, 2.) the unrecognized partnership into which everyone is born.

     The Three Forces can be represented, by this diagram:

     As the symbols indicate, one might ordinarily refer to the three parts of the circle as positive, neutral, and negative, but I will refer to them as C, E, and D, respectively.  Everyone believes he already understands C and D.  Be assured, nobody does.  But at least everyone knows of the existence of those two forces.  I want to draw your attention to the part we have called E. Although I have referred to it as being somewhat neutral, there is really no word for what it represents.  No ordinary consciousness is equipped to perceive what I'm labeling "E".

     Ordinary consciousness would immediately try to construe the middle section of my diagram as some kind of indifference.  It might even relate it to some imagined ancient eastern teaching of a "middle path", some state where a person is not completely subject to the ebbs and flows of carnal life.  Such teachings, once they reach the common level of Life, cease to be seminal; but those who are attracted to them, expect great benefit if only they could understand and experience this "indifference".  They desire immunity from fear of impending death, or freedom from a fear of humiliation and disrespect.  No matter how they might doctor it up, their thoughts would hinge on "indifference"; but what I am talking about, no words adequately represent.  Any word that exists already has its own connotation derived from Line-level consciousness.  So I am left with either using one of those or playing an endless game of making-up-words.  But, the fact remains, I'm not talking about "indifference" or anything else you ever heard of.  "It" is an unplotted dynamic!

     When ordinary consciousness looks at anything alive, it sees only two possibilities:  the processes of growth, or the process of decay.  Whether consciousness is looking at a business, a political party or a biological phenomenon, it is always limited in its perception to one of those two possibilities.  (Consciousness vaguely senses a third possibility, but usually labels it "stagnant".)

     A hypothetical business will serve as an illustration.  We plot this business on a chart.  It's very dynamic and grows strongly for three years and then, almost overnight, it almost drops off the chart.  Foreign competition undersells it.  Stock in the company is suddenly worthless. Apparently, there are two possibilities:  Either business is booming, or you're facing Chapter 11 and you're "belly-up".

     Alternately, picture a biologist, analyzing the behavior of a particular virus.  Perhaps he keeps it alive for a while and suddenly it begins to multiply, to reproduce, to grow.  He plots the growth for a few days and then unaccountably, one morning, the virus abruptly dies.

     Whatever ordinary consciousness is observing, is immediately perceived to exist in a growing or a dying mode.  "We're losing the business, the gross production is declining", or "we'd better study this virus while we can, because it will soon be dead".

     If the chart for our hypothetical business showed, for the last six months, unchanging stock values, little trading, and no increase or decrease in gross production, ordinary consciousness would barely be cognizant of its existence.  If the virus just seems to sit there without reproducing itself, without dying, it effectively ceases to exist for whoever is observing it.  It no longer generates any interest, any passion: e.g. "This company hasn't moved for six months, and I can't tell whether to buy or sell.  There is just nothing I can make of it"; or, "The virus is stagnant.  I don't know what experiment to run on it.  If I poke it, it displays life, but I can't learn anything about it".

     I am trying to get you to see, through my examples, that everyone at Line level, becomes indifferent to anything that is not apparently dynamic.  When there is no dynamic energy transfer between the observer and the observed, the ordinary mind has nothing to say.

     But what ordinary consciousness perceives as irrelevant is not so.  What you call irrelevant is in fact dynamic; it is alive.  In terms of your own development you make a grave error to simply accept what's irrelevant to you as indifferent and inconsequential.  None of you here would profit by trying to experience your imagination of "indifference".  The E-rrelevant has nothing to do with ordinary notions of irrelevance.  If the middle part of my little diagram were truly indifference, truly irrelevant, then nothing would ever happen, and nothing would ever grow.

     When people begin to try to study themselves, whether it be through This, or under some other guise -- a cult, a religion, or some book -- they never devote any attention to the E-rrelevant position.  Consequently, no freedom from the habit-of-I is ever earned.  And they never get to the starting line of what I'm talking about.

     Consider a problem you might confront at your workplace:  you feel as if another person does not understand your position.  You have no doubt that "I've got a problem".  Intellectually, you might think that the rational thing to do is to sit down with this other person, identify the problem, and work it out.  "The players are known.  The problem is obvious.  Surely our collective, rational effort can resolve this conflict."  But, unbeknownst to the players involved, there is a continual, triaxial dance of C, D, and E; and, if you haven't noticed, every "problem" always works out -- miraculously it seems, to ordinary consciousness.  Of course, the resolution may not meet your personal standard of "the best possible solution".  You might not even call the outcome a solution.  Getting fired will pretty effectively resolve a workplace conflict, though that may not have been what you had in mind.

     Try to recall the "horrendous personal problems" you've had to face throughout your life.  Everyone, with some effort, can recall some past "problem" or "conflict", that, at the time, seemed absolutely unresolvable.  You may have thought, "This is going to break me.  This insurmountable obstacle is going to be the last gasp for me.  If I were a weaker person, I would probably have had a nervous breakdown already -- if I could have afforded it.  I may even have to take up serious drinking."  It seemed to you that the "problem" was going to require every ounce of fortitude, intelligence and spiritual hope to overcome.  You said, "I can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.  I see the problem.  I see the combatants.  I'm going to have to apply my best efforts and count on the other parties doing the same.  We will all have to display intelligence and integrity to resolve this."  If you have by now cultivated a kind of non-personal memory, you could look back and see that all your imagined efforts in the past were only uncontrollable suffering.  During the "crisis", you always felt like you had to do something.  But ordinary memory cannot look back and see that you did nothing -- except worry, which was your duty.  Now you can't even remember those earthshaking "problems".

     Everything on the ordinary level simply "works out", and does so just enough to allow most people a good sixty years or so on this planet.  They get through pretty much intact, with most of their eyes, noses, limbs and partial hearing; yet each individual lifetime is a continuous series of "insurmountable conflicts", which, if people happen to recall them, "were always resolved by great personal fortitude".

     Life uses Man's ordinary memory in a miraculous fashion.  Suppose an old acquaintance reminded you, "The last time I saw you, your life was a wreck, your love life was about to turn you under, but you look fine now."  You might say, "Oh yeah.  You know, you can't let those things get you down.  I worked on it, worked it out.  It took a while, but you have to be strong about such matters."  To ordinary memory that would be true.  But in reality, you did nothing.  The problem just resolved itself.  All you did was worry, because worrying is humanity's holy and bound duty.

     But for those involved with This Thing, worrying is not a solution to anything.  If you are ordinary, you perform your duty of worrying, and problems come and go, working themselves out without you even seeing the reality of the process.

     These are verbal pointings toward a non-ordinary perception, and you much approach what I am describing by Neuralizing your own E-rrelevant.  Remember it without thinking about it, or letting it fall into the hands of ordinary, Yellow Circuit intelligence and Blue Circuit feeling.

     No freedom, no understanding, will derive from any study of only C and D, or pro and con, in any situation.  If that is the extent of what you perceive, you are operating at the ordinary level. Everyone already sees those two, and nobody has ever gotten anywhere new with a pair of opposites.

     To the ordinary, everything I am saying regarding the E-rrelevant is absolute insanity, because they can see only two factors in any equation.  So a third sounds crazy -- because it does not fit the limits of the ordinary.  But if you are not to be limited to that, you must begin to take full account of the E-rrelevant, the big "E", and to study it within yourself.  Only through such study can you affect what appear to be "problems".

     I am going to point out a specific, practical means to apply what I have described, but you must listen quick, because at the ordinary level what I am about to describe is complete insanity.

     In any situation or "problem" you are confronted with, delineate C and D, the positive and negative, or the combatants.  After you have so identified C and D, anything that does not fall into either of those two is your E-rrelevant, or "E".  Disregard one of the combatants and replace it with "E".  Simply do it mentally -- take C or D out and plug "E" in its place.  The Yellow Circuit is not wired up to do this; but it IS possible.  Doing this will begin to put the breath of Life into your attempts at Neuralizing, giving you a complete overview of what's going on in Life.

     The "Eureka" syndrome, often expounded historically, is parallel to what I am describing. Some scientist might say, "I'd been up all night, thinking about this problem, this equation I'd been working on.  I dreamed and thought about it, but I just couldn't work it out.  Then, I was walking along a street, and a car passed by -- a purple Cadillac with tail fins -- and I looked at it, thinking "tail fins".  Suddenly, I knew the solution, the answer to the equation I'd been working on."  To the person involved, it seemed his mind suddenly popped off on a tangent having nothing to do with any immediate context; but I am telling you -- it is very close to the E-rrelevant entering what appeared to be a precise, isolated,  question or problem.

     Remember, on the ordinary level, no amount of rationalization, shifting of positions, or figuring, will yield a satisfying resolution of the apparent conflicts.  The "conflicts and problems" simply change names and forms.  In order to change energy instead of form, you must remove one of the combatants, in any situation, and replace it with "E", with the E-rrelevant.  Do that, and bring the Yellow Circuit to bear on it.  Then you will begin to See something new.

     I want you to consider the fact that you were born into a Partnership.  Everybody was so born. You and this Partner are in business together.  You answer to one name; but there is not just one of you; there are two, and always have been.  This has nothing to do with ordinary ideas of a conscious and an unconscious mind, or a good and a bad side.  It is a Partnership.

     This Partnership has been in business as far back as you can recall.  (In fact, memory itself is tied to the existence of this Partnership.)  You have always felt, "There's someone else in here besides me."  All of the apparently inexplicable aspects of Man, which he has attempted to analyze since the origin of the Yellow Circuit, can be summed up in terms of this Partnership. Historically Man has attempted various explanations to account for his unaccountable thoughts and actions -- ranging from spirits to mythological gods to (more recently) psychological schisms within people; the conscious and the unconscious.  Actually, what Life has had humanity attempt to explain is that one of the Partners believes he can affect the behavior of the other partner, while remaining oblivious to his own behavior.  And if this were not murky enough, the partnership is further muddied by the partners continually changing places.  First you think, "Well, I am myself, and I know what he is referring to -- this partner I have.  There is no doubt about it.  I have a partner".  Then, five seconds later, the "you" has become the Partner, and what five seconds ago was the Partner is now speaking as if it were "you".

     In a sense, the heart of all religions, attempts at self-help, and part of the very energy of evolution each are efforts to unravel this:  One Partner believes it can affect the behavior of the other without taking into account its own motivation.

     I'll give you a prime example of this unseen, desultory Partnership:  "A man cannot affect the weather, but he can sure affect his own disposition."  That is a classic statement, and you've all heard variations of it.  It is a restatement of the binary division of the Partnership.  Someone says, "All right, it's raining so hard today that it's dark at noon.  You would be well within your rights to get blues-ey and moody.  But we're sophisticated humans.  We may not be able to affect the weather, but we, at least, can affect our dispositions."  What I am describing to you, in a certain sense, wraps up the whole of human history.  One of the Partners says, "Whatever the weather happens to be doesn't matter, because I can affect my own disposition."  (That is, he can affect the other Partner.)  "There's no sense in getting the blues.  Into each life some rain is going to fall.  There are going to be overcast days.  I can't affect it, but I can affect my disposition."  The Partner speaking is not even conscious of the fact that the weather itself caused the "disposition", as well as his desire to affect it.  The Partnership operates in a locked-in, binary system:  It cannot even conceive of what I am describing.  The question, "Well, what is making me believe that I can affect my partner?"  does not arise.

     (I am telling you something that is almost too simple to Hear.)

     Ordinary consciousness is not talking about a unified "something" when it declares, "I've been eating too much lately", or "I need to get more exercise".  Instead, one Partner is referring to the other.  "I know that I should not drink too much.  It's my Partner's fault anyway."  "I know that I should get more exercise.  It's not me.  It's my Partner."  The person speaking may not be wired up to get exercise, or to abstain from alcohol;  i.e. you may say to the drunk, or the four hundred pound couch-potato, "Hey, you ought to shape up".  But they are still going to tell you to "get lost", because the Partners within them will agree, "You have no business saying that to me. Pass the chips and shut up".

     But whenever one Partner says, overtly or silently, "Something should be done about my such-and-such", that Partner is not talking about itself.  Apparently, people are simply saying, "I drink too much.  I don't know ... it's just become sort of a habit for me.  You know, I just sit around after work and have four or five drinks."  People say "I", but they're not really saying "I". Whatever they label a conflict or problem is, in fact, a fingering of the other Partner:  If anything in them says, "I should make a change.  I should start doing something, or cease doing something," they are referring to the other Partner.  It has to be somebody else; because the person speaking knows better, "It's not me who's drinking too much, it's that other."

     This arrangement is invisible to the partnership.  Whichever Partner is speaking is in no way wired up to entertain any question about, "What is making me say that my Partner drinks too much?"  The speaking Partner operates as though it were floating a great cosmic limbo, as if it were untouchable, and that nothing but its own innate intelligence and wisdom affects it.  The partner says, "I know I've been drinking too much.  I just know it.  Any intelligent person would know that."  The question of what is motivating him to say that cannot even be entertained.

     From one viewpoint, This Thing is about forcing the Partner speaking about change to See that it is NOT floating in limbo; to See that everything is connected and heat is always being exchanged.  The internal conflicts an ordinary Man continually attempts to unravel are actually friction between the two Partners.  Whatever people may casually discuss, from sports to the nature of reality, is only a veiled attempt to resolve the conflict between the two Partners; and one of the Partners is always trying to educate and rectify the other.

     Integral to the constant heat exchange within the partnership, is the fact that one partner CANNOT persuade the other.  The Partnership is an alive, absolutely dynamic process, perpetually generating the necessary heat within each person.  This heat exchange is the reality behind Man's universal drive to "do better"; and it's manifest in every person alive, from a wino in the gutter to the president.  The only time one Partner quits picking on the other is when they're both replaced with embalming fluid.

     I will now apparently change the subject, while not actually doing so.  Everything in the binary world seems to run downhill.  For example, in the area of spiritual or political organizations, usually one originator -- of an idea or discovery -- attracts followers who immediately flock to him: a group of dedicated, passionate people who have some understanding of the "new information".  Their lives become dedicated to the ideas, and they begin to spread like the proverbial "ripples on the pond".  But the process is already going downhill, because the originator of the information cannot attract anyone as passionate and perceptive as himself.  As soon as the head disciples show up, heat has already been lost; and as more and more people are attracted, the passion and perceptiveness of those attracted drops off even more.

     It is true throughout Life that any process of heat exchange is actually a process of heat loss, but there are mechanical structures which partially compensate and alleviate this heat loss; i.e., "loving the teacher", calling him "Master", carrying his picture around, paying homage and kissing his hand or his feet.  You may be wired up to assume a critical view of such "disciple devotion", and think, "Well, that is simply a hokey ritual.  The teacher likes it because it makes him feel like a big shot."  But you should be able to see another process beyond the scope of cynicism.

     Perhaps a garbage collector, with an IQ of 20, manages to get elected to the board of aldermen in some town.  Suddenly, notwithstanding his recent employment as a garbage collector, his letters are now addressed, "The Honorable so-and-so".  Although it is mechanical, this "homage" is forestalling the prearranged heat loss, which tends to move from top to bottom within a structure.

     You may despise the current leader of your nation, but something within you will limit how far you verbalize that feeling.  In ordinary people, this homage, this "cultural respect for institutions", is always expected; and the reality behind that is the automatic insulation against heat loss.  (It is not a stoppage, for it cannot be stopped.)

     Here is another glaring example of this heat loss/heat exchange:  Apparently, an entertainer can perform before a large audience, expending great amounts of energy, and assuming he is received with great applause and fanfare, he leaves the stage bursting with excitement, so that he can't even sleep for some time.  Simultaneously, the audience, having paid to see the show, and having given two standing ovations to the performer, leaves, also more excited than it was upon arrival.  How can both parties, performer AND audience, benefit in this way?  Under binary conditions, you cannot have a "win-win game".  (This is one of the most efficient descriptions I could use of the heat-loss occurring in Life.  The transfer of heat is still a transfer of energy; but the term "heat" suggests possibilities you might otherwise consider irrelevant.)

     Give Real consideration to this scenario.  The entertainer will swear, "This is what I live for.  They don't have to pay me.  I'd do it for free."  And it's true, because it takes half a quart of Quaaludes to get him to sleep within ten hours of his performance.  So obviously, he derived new energy from the audience; but the audience is excited as well.  They are saying, "I won't be able to sleep tonight:  That was a greatest performance I ever witnessed.  Let's go somewhere for coffee, and talk about it!"  How could they also leave the performance with new energy?  Everyone overlooks one aspect of this scenario -- there is one person on the stage and four or five thousand in the audience.

     Throughout humanity, continual attacks are issued against existing institutions.  Voices always proclaim, "Let us have classless societies, societies without economic structures!"  But, you surely have noted, this cry has never been heeded, and is not heeded now.  A "Honcho" is always in charge, even if it is only the village witch doctor.  If a group simply gets together to form a bridge club, the first order of business is to elect a hierarchy.  Somebody must be in charge.

     In religions too, there is a structure, a hierarchy; and right behind it there is a struggle of people attempting to elevate themselves within that hierarchy:  And wherever you find a hierarchy with somebody in charge, you should be able to observe a heat loss, proceeding from top to bottom.  And you will also always find some mechanical means of slowing (insulating) the loss of heat.

     It should become obvious to you that within your own wiring you feel all of Life winding down.  "They haven't made any good music since I was young."  There is a continual heat loss within any mortal structure you can identify.  By "mortal structure" I mean everything apparently unique to Man, as opposed to (as the sciences would put it), "out in the natural world".  To the binary mind, all human structures, and institutions are winding down.  But they are not simply dying: There is a dance, a progression, moving from C to D to E, in many different configurations.

     After its energized origin, any structure tends to lose heat.  The people involved become less passionate and perceptive.  And the original intensity is never repeated.  The repayment, the compensation, through "homage", is Life attempting to keep the structure equalized enough to continue for a while, so that it may continue to serve Life's purposes.

     Every time your Partner begins to see things winding down, remind yourself of a great axiom of mine:  The better jobs are to be had in attacking, not defending.  Ponder ... How many good jobs are there to be had in the world, defending the Life of Man, the behavior of Man?  The better jobs are in the attack.  Who is here to defend the music that l7 year old kids are playing in their basements?  Where is the job defending artists that are not accepted on any level?  Who defends the firebrands, the hotheads -- not only now, but throughout history?  Don't let the simplicity of what I am indicating throw you:  There is something here that you ordinarily overlook.

     The jobs of attacking are everywhere.  The world of literature is full of them.  But what magazine has a column defending the latest piece of art, of music?  None.  All the good jobs are in the attack.  Now -- how might that apply to one's internal Partnership?

     In my increasingly passionate attempt to become less and less specific, I would like to leave you with the direct encouragement to really consider anything that appears to be happening, whether it be on the personal level, or the level of humanity as a whole.  Everything you see is going downhill, ordinarily.  And that is not a pessimistic statement.  The heat exchange between the two combatants, between the two parties, is going to be a continuing waltz; and it is going to wind down, because there is no escape from that under ordinary conditions.

     In a sexual relationship, in the structure of a religion or of a company -- from the point of its creation, immediately a winding down commences; a continual heat loss.  And if you can See that, you learn a very practical lesson.  Much of what seemed inexplicable to you will no longer be so.  Only someone who believes he will effectively combat the Partner accepts the inexplicable.

     When you are playing with the combatants, playing with binary consciousness, you're bent over the street map, trying to see whether a particular street goes North or South, and where it comes out on another street.  As long as you study like that, you'll always be at a disadvantage and you'll always be ordinary.  But once you See the whole town layout, the whole grid, you Understand that all the roads lead to another somewhere, and they all connect; and the particular directions, names and neighborhoods become truly irrelevant.