Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts.
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0184 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
Summary by TK
Jan Cox Talk 184, Nov 21, 1985, runtime 1:48
[The Partner (TP). Some are more aware of him than others --lower circuit types less; Yellow Circuit types more. The Partner is a counterbalance to evolutionary growth. All making excuses, explaining oneself, etc. is a manifestation of awareness of The Partner. Rationalized, labeled today as: the unconscious, childhood traumas, complexes etc. --psychological motivation, i.e., an excuse for untoward behavior. In reality The Partner is a counterbalance or stabilizer --a flywheel --for the speed that Life's evolutionary growth thru man takes place. Men see The Partner as a "deserving enemy" to be subdued. For The Few it is simply irrelevant --to be ignored. The Partner is a mimic with a multiplicity of voices, or myriad twins, whereas humanity perceives it to be singular, of a piece, integral rather than the multiplicity that it is.]
[More on the objective humor of grown people seriously posing: there is a kind of posing that goes beyond mere "photo opportunity" types such as religious (the pope); or military (generals), where there is an attempt to mimic the real conveyance of Passion or evocation of real Understanding in Life. Posing is necessary at Red Circuit level. Posing produces biochemical change in the organism. The Few cannot fall into such posing. There is a qualitative difference between Red Circuit posing (sex almost impossible without it) and higher circuit posing.]
[To be ordinary you must be continually working on your "autobiography". "Oh, how I've suffered..." Can anyone be interesting who hasn't suffered? Can the un-suffering even be useful? Can they even exist???]
[Can you see that internally a leader will arise to realize and say "I am surrounded by fear, indecision and stupidity" --this is The Partner.]
[Isn't it interesting that mankind cannot invent in imagination a truly superior man. They concoct BEHAVIOR binarily perceived to be superior (i.e., no one can do it). Science Fiction writers as example of this genre --but they cannot describe in any way the internal reality, state of an evolved, superior being. Yet this behavioral extension of ordinary man is nevertheless accepted as truly superior.]
[The "revelation" syndrome producing a "new man"--i.e., something otherwise suppressed is allowed release. Tearing away the veils of filth to lay bare the pure and chaste essence. But nothing is hidden or suppressed in/for man. "Revelation" is an extremely poor description/definition of the process of activation above the line. If you have not seen by now that the facade of consciousness is all there is --paper thin --no depth--biochemical alterations--you haven't seen anything. You've seen absolutely nothing in This Thing. There can be no revelations --it must be a conscious, willful production on your part internally. How can there be revelation when there is nothing to be uncovered? YOU HAVE GOT TO PRODUCE IT FROM NOTHING. ]
[Isn't the knot in the end of a drawstring (say, for pants) an absolutely beautiful invention? If not for the knot the drawstring would constantly fail its purpose. Question: how might it be possible to tie a knot in yourself??? ]
[TASK: get a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince. Read it at random for a few minutes. Make up your own little version of it while remembering The Partner as your own little kingdom to be dealt with.
Transcript
THE PARTNER
Document: 184, November 21, 1985
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1985
I want to mention more about The Partner. Everyone, to some degree, is born with the sensation that they have an internal partner, although it is not referred to as such. Whenever someone excuses or explains him or herself, that person is unknowingly giving an account of this unrecognized partnership. It is the feeling that people have inside themselves of a "me", and "me" plus someone or something else.
There exists over a spectrum of types of people, varying degrees of such a sensation. There are exceptions, but generally we can say that there is a difference in the amount of such a sensation between those who are centered in the higher circuits of the nervous system and those who are centered in the lower circuits. Lower circuited, physically oriented people generally feel the sensation of The Partner less than others can. On the other extreme of the spectrum, for those who are very intellectually oriented, there can also be less of this sensation. The feeling of having a Partner is most strong in those from the middle of the spectrum.
What I am calling The Partner is something that is referred to by humanity at large using other words, such as, "the subconscious mind". Religions refer to it as "one's baser self". It has also been referred to as "psychological traumas" and "evil spirits". Regardless of what it is called, there is an unrecognized, unspecified realization that everybody seems to have "someone else" with them internally. An example of such a realization is the insanity plea; for example, when someone says that they did not have control over their actions. The implication is that someone else took over. It is a universal explanation for untoward, unexpected behavior.
Speaking in a greater sense, The Partner is Life's own counterweight for the speed of evolutionary growth. If Life were to be looked at as a great machine, then the biochemical behavior of the brain that I have described as The Partner would be a flywheel or counterweight. This counterweight is what maintains equilibrium and movement in the greater, growing system called Life. People believe that they personally, and the world as a whole, would be better off without the internal, personal struggle against The Partner. Hence, they seek analysis and other means to rid them of The Partner. If The Partner truly could be eradicated, however, there would be nothing to stabilize the forward surge of evolutionary power. It would be like putting an enormous engine in a car with no flywheel or governor. The thing would shake itself apart. This would be a very dangerous situation for humanity and Life in general.
For humanity as a whole, the Partnership cannot be severed. It cannot even be suppressed. The feeling that it needs to be struggled against or overcome is a necessary part of the functioning of this ingenious biochemical device. For the Few who are attempting This, The Partner is nothing to be struggled against. Such would be a waste of time, since it is so necessary for Life's continued growth. Struggling against The Partner is simply irrelevant; you have got to rise above it.
As a final note, I should mention that although I have been referring to The Partner as singular, it is not necessarily so. People are wired up to think of their other side, their undesirable aspects, as a single thing, such as the "subconscious mind". Without an unnatural view of it, this appears to be so. But there is more to it than that. Here are two ways to look at this; one is that The Partner is a mimic and has a large repertoire of voices. The other is that there is not just one Partner; there are many of them and they all look very much alike. It is as if The Partner had many, many relatives, all with an astounding family resemblance to one another. The sensation remains, for most people, of a single, unified, opposing force internally, even in the face of diverse behavior. There is a practical aspect to attempting to look at "The Partner" as plural and it cannot be over stressed.
Previously I mentioned that there was a test as to whether you were making any progress in this great struggle. That test was: can you See that there is nothing funnier than people seriously posing, and grown people seriously complaining? It is easy enough to see the humor in famous figures posing, as in magazines and newspapers, but that is not the only kind of posing. Serious posing is the attempt to portray some kind of passion, with no understanding of the passion involved. You can see that religious leaders are constantly engaged in posing: hand gestures, facial expressions, etc. They are fulfilling the minimal requirements for being a religious leader, and they are always "on". Military leaders also pose. Although their repertoire is somewhat more limited; there is not a great deal of difference between them and heads of religions. These figures do not goof around or step out of their expected roles and they do not learn this behavior any place in particular. Life is making them project the appearance of a particular passion. This is the basis of serious posing.
The specific kind of posing will change from one culture to another, but it is always appropriate to the time and place. If a question were to be put to the head of a religion, they will respond with an appropriate pose; for instance, they will appear to ponder the question seriously. They will appear to weigh the matter. This is expected, and for those who are magnetically part of that particular scheme, it appears correct. Famous figures who are engaged in this kind of serious posing are not putting their public on. There is no subterfuge. They are as caught up in it as the audience is. The audience seems to be taking things in passively, yet an exchange of energy and information is occurring. There is a purpose to the posing.
Serious posing, for example, being magnetically bound in the attempt to convey a kind of passion, is proper for Life as a whole, but improper for someone attempting to do This. Serious posing is not limited to famous figures such as politicians, generals, and religious leaders. At Line-level consciousness, everyone is seriously posing. Ordinarily, if you are in a social situation, going to a bar for instance, you're posing seriously. Attracting a sexual partner almost always involves posing. Even animals such as peacocks, dogs, frogs, must pose as part of the sexual ritual. In terms of doing This Thing, however, there is more to be struggled against when the posing occurs in higher areas than sex, such as the posing relating to so-called spiritual problems.
Even if there is no overt audience, as there was in the example of going out to the bar, a person poses just sitting alone, watching television and becoming involved with, let us say, stories of tragedy. I am referring to easily observable, physical posing. Assuming a certain pose produces a biochemical change in a person. Religions make use of this phenomenon. Many religions have certain poses established as part of prayer or meditation. These practices are not a sham, for they bring about actual chemical changes in the practitioner, but since it is a chemical change, the same kind of effect can be obtained by consuming alcohol, or other drugs. There is no difference between the two. The biochemical change affects consciousness. What people involved with meditation and the like describe as "feeling differently, feeling better" as a result of their activity is not simply their imagination. (Remember, I told you there is no such thing as imagination.) What they are describing is an actual internal, biochemical alteration, but it is not the product of vague spiritual agencies. It is also not the product of the spiritual teacher or religious leader's understanding, because they don't understand what happens any more than their followers do.
Serious posing, to the Few people who are attempting to do This, is a serious problem. Once you truly see it and understand it for what it is, it is one of the major funny things. It is humor with no hostility, because it is not laughing at someone. It is funny on the basis that Life is still using this posing to such a degree, and you see it so clearly.
That is the kind of thing that should be ripe for you to plug into the question of, "What is going on here? How could Life possibly be using this?" You should be ever ready to question everything and anything that you observe. Make it a unending rhetorical question: "What is going on, here?" Ask yourselves this in a nonverbal manner, because this is more than a linear, or even a three dimensional question. Find your own way to ask this without having the words involved with the question get in the way of any additional knowing. You can't get anywhere with answers that come to you via The Partner. This kind of questioning is an example of what I have described to you as Neuralizing.
Here's something for you to Neuralize using the question of, "What is going on?" Ordinary people are constantly working on their autobiography. They have to do this, to be a member in good standing on Life's team. People are constantly describing themselves, whether they actually write it down or not. And it doesn't matter if they're famous or unknown.
There are people in the public eye who would appear to have led relatively uninteresting, untroubled lives, that give accounts of their suffering and how they've been misunderstood. Even people that no one has ever heard of have written their autobiography and it's about to be published. Or, it already has been -- "Originally published at $14.95, now only $0.99!" Everyone is writing their life story, in one way or another.
People are engaging in a form of subtle suicide by describing themselves. Everyone's partner is continually working on that autobiography. In order to be a part of Life's regular team, a person must be constantly working on it. Everybody on this planet is working on it -- except the Few. From our viewpoint, this constant self-confession is indeed a form of suicide, yet it is necessary for Life. What is going on here? As a hint, I might remind you of what I said before concerning The Partner as being a kind of stabilizer or counterbalance to the speed, temperature and tempo at which Life's evolutionary growth through man operates.
Could anyone be interesting if they had not suffered? If you decided to write an autobiography, and you related all of the things of interest that had happened to you, but did not include any description of how you had suffered, would you be able to find a publisher? Assuming that you could lead an interesting life without suffering, would a publisher contract a book that had no ups and downs? Would you sit and listen to someone who did not self-confess or had no tale of suffering? For the ordinary, are there heroes that do not describe their suffering? Here's a question that's even worse: Can the unsuffering even be useful? The unsuffering would at least have to say that they suffered. They would say that although it appears that they have lead a rather uninteresting, untroubled life, the truth is different. In the political or religious realms, can you think of any figure, dead or alive, that has not suffered? Has the real guru that your partner dreams of never suffered? Any political leader that has made any impact upon horizontal history has a story of suffering. If it were otherwise, would anyone want to speak to them or read about them? Who would remember them? Finally, there is the question: Could they even exist?
Picture a religious leader or guru confiding, complaining, or proclaiming, "I am surrounded by fear, indecision and stupidity." If you look out in the world, you could find a great deal of reality to that. All known religious books have a story in them somewhere of the leader claiming to the people that after all he has gone through, he is surrounded by fear, indecision, and downright stupidity. Of course, they cannot see that no one forced the leader or his audience to do this dance together. Look internally now, and see that there is sometimes a voice (often under the guise of being exceptional and insightful) that arises within you that says the same thing in relation to The Partner and his relatives. This voice says, "but, it ain't all me". The feeling is that The Partner and his relatives, the stupidity and indecision, "is just going to be the death of me".
Here's something else for your Consideration. Just to use certain types of science fiction as an extension of religion, can you understand that writers of science fiction cannot adequately concoct a "superior being" or "superior man"? You've probably read or seen enough science fiction to get what I'm saying. In the stories, a being from an advanced civilization comes down to earth in a flying saucer, or appears from humanity's future in a time machine. They create the character's superiority on the basis of behavior alone. The behavior of these beings of fiction falls into three categories. The first of these areas is the Red Circuit level. They perform physical feats such as teleportation, or flying unaided. The writers also make their characters portray emotional superiority in the area of the Blue Circuit. These beings are sans hostility. They travel from a distant world to inform humanity that they must quit fighting (although humanity hears this every day). On their own planets, wars have been eradicated. When some rash earth ling shoots the being, he looks shocked, as if he had never imagined such could happen. In the area of the Yellow Circuit, beings are created with behavior that indicates that they know everything. Their ships and their machines are beyond anything that humanity imagines; they are telepathic, etc. As an aside, a common thread that seems to run through the stories is that the beings seem to be beyond sex.
Science fiction writers, as being exemplary of Life's voices that speak of the future, can only describe superior beings in terms of behavior in those three areas which I have just described. They cannot even begin to describe how someone would be superior internally. It is not limited to science fiction. Past cultures, in attempting to describe their gods, fail to concoct a superior being. No religion can do that. It is mathematically impossible. People are wired up in such a way that they must continually try, however, and there is always an audience for such an attempt.
Ordinary humanity responds to these stories of superior beings without realizing that only overt behavior is being described. All of the tales that writers come up with are just variations in the three areas of the circuits I have described, and no one realizes it; no one questions it. These abilities are just extensions of what humanity can already do, and yet, they are taken as being absolute proof of a superior condition. No one ever says, "Okay, the being can do all of this stuff, but what is going on with him internally?" No one has ever thought to try to describe the internal condition of some well-known religious teacher, for example. They might say, "The spirit was in him," or, "The gods made him do it." But quite simply, an ordinary person cannot describe a superior man.
Religions of all forms -- mystical systems, cults, and even your own partner -- talk of a new man or mind being revealed. The moment of epiphany that is spoken of, whether it comes about through spirits, or drugs, or new-age thought, is always synonymous with, "It was revealed." But there is nothing hidden in man, nor has there ever been. Nevertheless the feeling exists that somewhere there is some secret, some method that would bring about a revelation in you, where you would become a new person. The unstated part is that there is something being suppressed in man. It is supposed that there was an original state of goodness that was overtly extant or at least a living potential, and man has fallen from grace through sinning, or living an unnatural life. From many different times and places comes a cry that man can somehow be taken from this bad state and that his eyes would open.
To say that something could be revealed in man is, at the very least an unbecoming description. It is ill-conceived. If you have any consciousness Above the Line at all, you can see that description for what it is. There is nothing being hidden in man. What seems to be an individual person is a fragile, ephemeral, and shallow thing, yet many people throughout the world believe that there is something behind it. They believe that, "There is an original spark of the gods within, but that through sinning it has been blanketed over and is now just smoldering." Anyone who believes that has no knowledge of what they are or what humanity is, or what This Thing is.
It seems that there is something in you behind this great whirlpool of contradictory emotions and personal blemishes just waiting to be revealed in a blinding flash of holy cosmic insight. Yet there is nothing hidden behind you and your dreams, fears, hesitations, thoughts, or feelings. All of that is the person just as it should be. Built into each person also is the feeling that there is something more. This is the reason why I cannot directly state This and have many people Hear it. A few people are wired up to hear it, and once they do, they can See that it is no theory. All that is required to see it is to get above Line-level consciousness and away from The Partner and look. It is not something that must be just accepted or taken on faith. It is obvious. There is no subconscious mind, and no smoldering flame to be uncovered, and nothing to be revealed.
Ordinary persons are well within their rights to feel that they are about to come apart, because ordinary life is like a very fragile, almost transparent membrane. A fairly insubstantial blow to the head can make you go away. I don't mean physically dead. All of the deep emotions and the great unplumbed depth that is you can disappear with a brain accident in the right place. The biochemical phenomenon that is "I" is simply no more, although the person can still walk around and apparently still function normally. Where did it go? Medicine and psychiatry can almost make some comment on this question, but ordinary consciousness generally cannot even listen to it.
All you have to do is look to see what a facade the ordinary sense of "I" is. Pull yourself away from The Partner, away from the inner voices, and just look. And you will See: the thing that is trying to look, added to what it is looking at, equals nothing more than the surface of water. Beyond that, there is nothing but the electrical noise of the nervous system physically operating. There is nothing but the workings of the organs. There is nowhere for you and The Partner to go with this idea. Consciousness will insist that it is a complex thing, having suffered and worried deeply. It will insist that it wants very much to be expanded (by someone else), and stripped of this great burden. To the Few who can see it, this is a joke. To them, there is no possibility that there could be something better beyond this surface. What a disappointment lies, at some point, for those in the heat of metaphysical fervor.
It is a minimal point of intelligence to see that there is nothing to be revealed. If you can't see that, all of this has strictly been entertainment. It is not a mystical experience to see it, nor is it a matter of simply taking my word for it on some kind of faith. To see it is not something complex that will take all of your life. You can read religious books, or listen to me talk forever and not see it. All that is required is for you to get above the Line of consciousness, and away from the inner voices of The Partner, in order for you to see that it is simplicity itself. There is no, "better self" that is going to reveal itself; it is all just molecular activity.
The feeling that the process of revealing a new "me" occurs is true for those involved with such pursuits, as far as they're concerned. It is not an illusion that there is a spiritual history of humanity, and that certain people were given prophetic powers. They had the truth revealed to them. For them, the way that they described it is the way that it occurred. It has served a purpose for them to have seen and described it that way. For them, it actually did occur that way; and yet, it did not. There was no Real Something revealed to those who say that there was. For those involved with ordinary pursuits, Real Understanding is not possible. Yet, when they describe their revelation, they are not mistaken; for them, it occurred as they described it.
For the Few, there is something new, but it is not a matter of something being revealed passively. It is not something that comes about from passively suffering and praying and waiting. You can listen to me talk forever, mix it up with everything that The Partner has imagined that this new self will be (it seems you know exactly what it will be like), and wait. You can hang on and attend meetings and think good thoughts, but it will not happen to you. It has got to come about through an active, willful production of one's new self. In a sense, you have got to produce it from nothing. In that sense I am acting as a generalized sperm, impregnating, or attempting to impregnate, everybody. It is not totally from nothing, because we are all living in a greater living thing. A sculptor must obtain clay from somewhere.
Those of you that have any potential will have some understanding of what I say, whether you like the words or not, because it is you who are producing this new self. You will understand that you could have waited around and listened to others and me talk till you died and not understood anything. There is a new person that is produced. It is not something vague and spiritual, but a biochemical reality. You become different than what you were born to be, and what you would have died as. You will realize that this new you is something that you willfully, purposefully, created. This is true even though most of you think that you don't know what you're doing. You are still making it happen. You are not in some way assisting in a revelation. If you don't realize this, you haven't realized anything, and you are still a sitting duck. Life will forget your name like the phone number of an ugly date. You will realize this at a very acute time and it will be too late. If you are waiting for a revelation, you are waiting for a train that doesn't even have a track.
Here is one final thing for you to Consider: Is not a knot in a drawstring a wonderful idea and invention? A drawstring for a nice pair of lounging pajamas, or the bottom half of a running suit allows for the pants to fit a variety of sizes and yet still stay on. I wonder who finally came up with the idea of putting a knot in the drawstring, so that it doesn't get lost by slipping into the pants? How long did it take for them to think of that? Now, it is possible to untie the drawstring and not worry about having to spend two hours with a coat hanger to get it out. Nobody ever thinks about this. However, as beautiful an invention as a drawstring is, were it not for the knot, it would fail in its function. It begins to fall down on its duties. Its original purpose gets lost. Now, let me ask you this: How is it that you might be able to tie a knot in yourself?
