Audio = Stream from the bars below in two parts

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0197 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagram = See Below in transcript Diagram #072
Transcript = See Below

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk # 197, Feb 20, 1986, runtime 1:35

  [More under the "ultimate incest/nepotism" of one batch of chemicals apparently internal trying to control the identical chemicals apparently external. One circuit can never comprehend the basic nexus of everything. However it can achieve a certain minimum gain toward such comprehension. Example of Red Circuit learning to juggle or do handstands. But all 3 circuits are necessary to truly comprehend This Thing. The ordinary believe they can be successful in understanding anything completely thru single circuit efforts only --this is related to the binary "god-line" of "you either do or you don't". The Yellow Circuit however, can operate in a trinary, 3-D mode although it always uses binary concepts at the ordinary level. If it did not contain a triadal structure there would be no conclusions possible; no logic, no science. The Yellow Circuit must include the irrelevant or mental processes would lock up at the impasse of C vs. 0 --nothing new could enter/develop. The Yellow Circuit operates in a "world of but": states the problem and then includes/concludes with `but'. `But' is the expected edge of the verbal map under consideration --it is always an expected conclusion stable and binary. This thing is a "hot dangerous crack" in the Juncture Box --no boundaries, no stable binary conclusion. This thing is not "boundary dynamic". It is the antithesis of boundaries. Maps function by establishing boundaries --the "far wall" limit. Example of "I'm OK, you're OK" seeming to be non-boundary dynamic in its non-judgmental character --but it is the binary stable conclusion, the extreme of the "not OK" judgment. Expansion of the I + Not-I = Everything equation to: EYD v. YD = All Possible Humans and their Behavior (WAAITST), {viz., "Either you do or you don't = all possible humans and their behavior (Which After All Is The Same Thing)}. You can't see the far walls of the universe --all stable equations identify a far wall. "But" is the pointer to the far wall. ]
  [Reference to Diagram 6 (the Xross): horizontal line = genetic recycling ("furrows planted with genes"): everything's continually recombined, rearranged --no new energy. The vertical line = "environment" --energy of the sun input from a vertical world/dimension. You must be able to produce your own pristine sunshine. Sun as rejuvenation and driving force of horizontal recombinatory world. ]
  [The practical use of This thing for Life is essentially nil. This is very interesting. This is not true for the Few however. ]
  [More on 3 circuit attraction between people. ]
  [More on genetics vs. environment controversy. ]
  [The relationship between complaining about vs. controlling a situation: gained authority = reduced complaining. ]
  [TASK: 2 weeks to come up with a reasonable outline of topics; useful vade mecum/ bible topics if such were to be developed for This thing. Must keep on 8.5" X 11" sheet.

Transcript

SWALLOW YOUR OWN HEAD

Document:  197,  February 20, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986   

     Always remember that whenever I use examples such as politics, religion, or any other ordinary human institution, no matter how elaborate my picturization, I am not speaking of the external world of politics or religion.  The elements, molecules, and so-called physical laws governing the movement of the planets are the same elements, molecules and so-called physical laws which govern the operation of that which thinks and speaks about elements, molecules, and the movement of the planets -- the Yellow Circuit.  As difficult as this is to remember, there is no "out there" and tonight I am going to attempt to push you closer to Seeing the reality behind this.

     If you are a fully functional human being, all three circuits are operational, and as such, one circuit cannot operate separately or in isolation of the other two.  Only in the context of a very ephemeral map is it profitable to speak of a single circuit doing anything.  And, in the context of this ephemeral map, I will point out to you how each circuit can apparently learn something.  What you must simultaneously remember is that one circuit, alone, cannot comprehend the connectedness of everything.

     Assuming a person has the basic ability to finally learn to stand on their hands, their Red Circuit can watch another Red Circuit stand on its hands and mimic the action.  One circuit, in this example the Red Circuit, apparently learned something on its own.  However, this "learning" is always on the binary basis of, "I am either doing this right, or I am not doing this right."  If the Red Circuit could talk, it would say, "The object of this is to get in a position upside down on my hands."  Then every time the person fell over, the Red Circuit would say, "That is not the way to do it."

     If you attempted to understand a quadratic equation, or anything apparently falling into the domain of the Yellow Circuit, the process would still operate on the binary basis of either the Yellow Circuit is succeeding at its plan or it is not.  And this same binary reality holds true for the Blue Circuit.  All apparent learning on this one circuit level is accomplished without any real understanding beyond, "I am now standing on my hands." or, "I am not standing on my hands."  " I understand this quadratic equation." or, "I still do not understand this equation."

     The reality of This Thing cannot be learned on such a binary basis.  You cannot seemingly isolate any circuit and fully understand anything because Understanding requires the use of all three circuits.  And, this trinary approach, an approach which is not normally available, is what is required to do This.

     Part of the masterstroke of Life is Life, for its own reasons, driving humanity to continually attempt (and as far as humanity can tell, succeed) to fully understand something.  But you must remember, such understanding is always incomplete and one-sided as this learning occurred primarily through one circuit. For example:  a person could say, "I'm going to understand the gods and the nature of good and evil.  I will read and study every well known book on theology even if it takes me three years of nonstop research."

     One circuit can apparently learn about or learn to do something.  What one circuit cannot do is look back upon what it has learned and in any way comprehend how that knowledge is connected to everything else.  One circuit cannot perceive the basic nexus of everything because one circuit can only learn on the binary basis of, "I am either doing it or I am not."

     At Line level the Yellow Circuit deals only in binary concepts because it cannot perceive, hence remember, any importance to that which does not fall within its binary limitations.  Simply put, the irrelevant is not taken into consideration.  Yet, the Yellow Circuit does have a trinary potential because without this potential even the mind's binary operations would be impossible.  Without the Third Force, there could be no difference of opinions.  Without E, C and D would freeze up.  Without, among other things, the mind's 3-D potential, no elasticity or flexibility could exist in the life of Man and people would be on the level of boulders at best.

     Do not fault the mind's binary operation.  Binary mentation is essential to the every day world.  If at Line level, the Yellow Circuit continually operated on a trinary basis people could never reach any conclusions. And without conclusions, no facts would exist in the world.  The field of science could not exist.  At Line level you couldn't learn anything.  Without binary restraints, if you asked a professor of chemistry, "What will happen if I put these two chemicals together?", the professor might answer, "That particular combination of chemicals will either produce table salt, or it will not produce table salt, or it will cause you to call your great aunt."  And you'd be left thinking, "The first two possibilities I can understand, but calling my great aunt, that's irrelevant...that's silly, and this professor must be insane."  The potential for trinary mentation exists, but at Line level the Yellow Circuit does not operate on this trinary basis.

     Many people believe that religion and philosophy are areas which are, or at least should be, close to This Thing.  What goes unrecognized is that religions -- of all forms -- and philosophy deal in the world of "but".  That is, they apparently state the problems then they offer a "but" with no analysis of what "but" truly is.  "But" is the expected edge of their map.  "But" prefaces the necessary, stable, binary conclusion to the stated problem.  Religions state the problem, "We are all suffering because of our weaknesses, our stupidity, our greed, our pride.", then follow this with the mandatory, "but, the gods understand our weaknesses and everything will be alright.  We'll quit suffering at some later time."  Philosophers may say, "We don't understand this and we don't understand that, but we're getting somewhere.  Just look at the progress we've made over the last 2,000 years."  "But" connects you to the expected edge of the map, the stable ending everyone waits for at Line level.  You will not walk into a lecture hall and hear a philosopher say, "Here are all the things humanity does not know, but I don't know the answers either.  Good night." Such things do not happen.  After the problem is stated, be it spiritual, environmental, or economic, there is a "but" followed by a stable, binary conclusion:  an either/or proposition.

     Ordinary maps are useful only if they are boundary dynamic, whereas the maps of This Thing are the antithesis of such binary boundaried maps.  This Thing can only address a few in Life's body who can deal with non-boundaried maps; people who can apparently make some alteration, some movement without the benefit of a stable, binary conclusion.

     When you first encounter This, your expectation is, of course, otherwise.  You expect This, too, to be boundary dynamic.  For example, you may think, "I am really going to apply myself to this area you are speaking about until I know as much about this subject as you know."  But, if you understand as much as I do, you forget it.  Once you understand something, it just goes away.  It explodes.  It blows up.  It's like chewing gum.  You place a stick of gum in your mouth, and after you've chewed it for a while the gum looses all possible flavor, and once the flavor is gone you spit the gum out, or you swallow it.  You just forget about the gum.  You don't even remember what you did with it.  It's gone.

     A part of what maps do is define limits.  Maps establish absolute boundaries.  In order to discuss anything in Life, be it science, mathematics, linguistics requires some established boundaries.  Down has to mean down, or people could not even communicate on the most basic of levels.

     Taken from a single circuit point of view, the perception of Line level, the maps of This are useless because they are not boundary dynamic and possess no stable, binary conclusions.  Every time I lead you to where it feels just right for there to be an edge to the map, the edge isn't there, and you either find yourself somewhere else entirely, or else you simply find there is no edge.

     Some of you hearing or reading this may have voices popping up and saying, "Wait a minute.  There are philosophies and pop-philosophies around today presenting a non-judgmental attitude and telling people it's all right if you want to dress up like a pumpkin and mate with a stork.  These people are presenting some kind of open end philosophy."  And they are not.  A non-judgmental attitude is still a judgmental attitude because it is a stable, binary conclusion.  Every idea they present has an opposite and the edge of their map is whether you agree with their idea or whether you disagree with it.

     This Thing, properly conceived and properly experienced has no edge to it.  I remind you again, This Thing is not the only thing of any value going on in the world.  Everything is necessary.  Everything from the world's great religions to the latest swami is here because it is necessary to Life.  The religions and the swamis have no choice but to be here.  And, they all offer a stable equation.  But, This goes on in a level different from what Line-level consciousness ever experiences.  In the Western world, This is going on at a level which is the antithesis of the derriere guard, to say the least.

     A variation of my old equation I+Not I=Everything is:   EYD v YD = All Possible Humans And Their  Behaviors

Either you do or you don't equals all possible humans and their behaviors. (Which, after all, is the same thing.)  I am pushing the edge of my original map, I+Not I = Everything and telling you either you do or you don't.  It's one or the other.  And these two possibilities encompass all possible human wiring systems and their appropriate behaviors.  To be able to understand that this is true, not the words, although this is the best verbal description I have given you, is ultimately liberating.  You understand the words are never the true reality just as This has no real name.  But, if I were to give This a real name it would be Swallow Your Own Head.

     To understand the reality of either you do or you don't equals all possible humans and their behaviors, you must be able to perceive of the fact, we are all living in a universal room and you must perceive everything in this room.  Assuming this universe is a closed system, what I'm trying to get you to see is that, even if there are any walls, you can't see them.

     All stable equations, all explanations of Life, all attempted forms of religions, everything outside of This always attempts to show you the far wall of the room.  The far wall is what always follows "but".  Humanity finds far wall explanations tolerable and Life finds them useful on a large scale.  It doesn't matter that humanity grumbles about how, "I don't particularly believe everything my religious leader says."  In the end people go, "Well, this is the only system I've got," or, "By and large this book has changed my life."  What the book or the religion has apparently done for the people involved (and apparently is all that matters because apparently is reality to them) is identify a far wall.  And, to all individuals at Line level, the identified far wall is THE far wall.  "Life is in terrible shape, but if I follow the religion or this system somehow I'll survive and the gods will come down and take me from my misery."  Or, "Everything seems so insane, so un-understandable, but if I'm good, when I die all of this insanity will be explained."  The proponent's, the leader's of whatever system, job is to detail man's problems, then tack on the obligatory "but" and proceed to tell you if you endeavor to follow his system you will have a nice stable equation.  His job is to identify a far wall.

     In your lifetime you will never encounter anything as evasive, as irrational, as insane as This Thing, and yet, it strikes the few of you involved with This as undeniably true.  To do This, you must deal with unstable equations.  Of course, once you See what the equations point toward, you See they are, in truth, the ultimate stability.  But to get to that point, you must first confront the difficulty of literally trying to Swallow Your Own Head.

     Can you see how the universal room we all live in is fueled by recycled energy?  Heat, food, everything is recycled.  Plants, animals, and humans die, and fertilize the ground potatoes are planted in to be consumed by other humans.  When anything dies, it becomes a part of something else alive.  Throughout Life, throughout the consciousness of Man the idea that energy can't be created is accepted as a basic reality.  Whatever Man creates is simply a putting together of what was already present.  He may try to destroy something, but he can't.  That something simply turns into something else.  Yet, how can this be? In Man, the idea, "We cannot simply keep recycling everything." also vibrates as correct.  Where does new energy come from?

     Let me refer you back to my strange Xross of the horizontal and vertical lines -- the horizontal line apparently being the ordinary flow of human life and the vertical line apparently being each individual. From a certain view, you could look upon the horizontal world as being a world of recycled genetics and the vertical world as the "environment".  Following this picturization, the horizontal world, that which appears to be "out there", could be seen as furrows of genes, furrows for genes, and the vertical world as being food from the sun.

     To answer my question of how can it be that this universal room we live in is running entirely off recycled energy, you must expand your conception of this universal room beyond our planet.  To be obvious, our planet is not truly running exclusively on recycled energy.  There is an input, the sun. Connecting this to my picturization of the horizontal and vertical worlds of the Xross, the vertical world, the sunshine -- at least at this level -- provides the only input of external energy, fuel and information.  Thus, can you realize that to do This you must either be able to pull down or produce your own pristine sunshine?

     Many of you ask, "How do I get energy to do This when I know that This is what I want to do? Sometimes it seems I have the energy and sometimes I don't.  Sometimes I wish there was somebody to pray to?"  Are you going to pray to the furrows, the horizontal world?  Are you, by chance, going to pray to the vertical world?  If you'll notice, everyone at Line level is always looking for salvation and from our view they always look upward.  And, physically what do they see when they gaze toward the heavens?  They see the sun, and I assure you without the sun's continued rejuvenation of this planet, each and every one of us would buy the farm, that would be the end of it.

     You can look upon the horizontal world, the world of "out there", as the world of genetics, and the vertical world as what Line level calls the environment.  In this mapping, the environment is in some way feeding the world of genetics and recycling everything over and over.  This description is not far removed (although it's off in another direction) from the concept of survival of the fittest.  But, my attempt is to point you in a direction far beyond the world of binary, evolutionary concepts.  To understand what I point towards you must exercise your 3-D potential because there is something else involved beyond the binary.  And that something else is The Swallowing Of One's Own Head.

     I didn't give you a big preface about what you could get out of what I am saying tonight, because this is getting out to the very edge of all the maps humanly possible.  Listening to me, doing whatever you think might be the zenith of attempted individual spiritual or intellectual efforts ordinarily involves a separation, a believing that you can perceive the far wall.  And all far walls are based upon the premise that there is a difference between "in here" and "out there".  At Line level the observation might be made, "It's wonderful the strides pharmaceutical medicine has made in the area of emotional and mental disorders.  Now we have pills that apparently make people feel better without devastatingly addictive side effects."  To Line-level consciousness there are people and then there is an "out there".  Instilled in Line-level consciousness is the notion, "I am in some way separate from everything else."  But, what consciousness cannot ask itself, nor even perceive, without swallowing its own head, is that there is no way out of this body, this universal room, and what Life is doing is not curing itself, but rather continually rearranging itself.

     At Line level, consciousness can not conceive or perceive of this universal room without also seeing walls.  Using quite ordinary terms, I'll point out to you, people have suffered with depression for thousands of years.  Depression has been attributed to demons, evil vapors, malalignment of the stars, and, of course, in this day and time, to psychological traumas.  Then it reached a point where enough people, enough cells in Life's body were afflicted by this thing called depression and the appearance to Line level is that almost overnight pharmaceutical labs produce a cure.  But, people didn't produce a cure, Life transferred energy.  Things reached the point where too many of Life's cells were not growing in a way appropriate to the needs of Life, and thus, Life produced a pill to feed these cells.  Life instituted a corrective measure and it all happened within this closed system.

     At Line level, consciousness is tied to the belief that Man is continually searching for and finding something beyond the system, beyond the universal room.  On this planet certain people are wired up to say, "How wonderful it is that so-and-so, an individual person, discovered antidepressant drugs.  A definite difference exists between this person and the people in hospitals suffering from depression."  And I am telling you there is not.  Unless you can swallow everything you know, unless you can swallow your own head, you will always see some difference between the man who apparently discovered the drug and the people who are depressed.  And there is no difference.  Where do you think the information about chemistry needed to produce the drug came from?

     Don't get hung up on this one example.  Everything Line level perceives is a search for a stable equation.  But, for the Few involved with This, the only equations which are of any value are those, that if properly understood, have no edges and no stable conclusions.

     I've referred to This as being a hot, dangerous place in Life's own junction box.  What practical use Life makes of This in anyone's life time I find fairly questionable, and I understand This as well as anyone on this planet.  Except to the few of you, individually, This is almost beyond any practical value, and I'll tell you I find it a little curious.  If you were to go out in public and say, "I have the map of all maps; a teaching which will swallow all teachings; something that encompasses every other teaching and then some." everybody might say, "Hey, great."  But as soon as they realize the map you possess offers no boundaries, you'll lose your audience.  Because a map with no boundaries, whether it be a religious map or the plat to a piece of land you're buying, is a useless map.  The only useful map is one with a firm, stable line somewhere on it indicating where the boundaries lie.

     Let me jar your memory back to my earlier comment and remind you that I'm not talking about religions, philosophies, political parties, swami X, or any other human institution, particular person, or event because the molecules which make up these people, the molecular, chemical/electrical processes Life uses to drive such organizations are the same processes occurring in you when you listen to these words and believe they mean something.  Of course, verbally the words do mean something -- they define the limits.  And without firm limits, how could I talk and you be able to apparently get some information?

     The difference with This is in your individual efforts:  in what happens beyond merely hearing the words.  Every time, through your own experience, you Understand something, what you Understand goes beyond the boundaries of a binary, stable map.  You expand yourself beyond the limits of "you".  And, when you reach the point where the limits are expanded, you simply forget about the boundary lines.  And, this is when you experience the salvation and wisdom other people dream of.  The only problem is, if you want to call it a problem, once you Understand anything you realize you can't tell anybody what you now Understand.

     Assume for the sake of the hypothetical that someone from your past showed up and said to you, "Do you remember when we used to talk about some kind of spiritual, some kind of emotional and intellectual development, and you used to believe that...Well, I sense that you don't believe that anymore.  How did you get out of that trap?"  If you tried to talk to your old friend (remembering this is purely a hypothetical situation) you would agree, "Yea, you're right, I'm out of that trap.  All those old beliefs are just meaningless to me.  But, to tell you about it would be to lie to you.  Let me put that another way.  If I tell you about what I understand, it will become meaningful and that is why I would be lying to you because now that I understand anything I know that what I know is meaningless.  It's not just me personally, we're all in this.  As far as I can see, we're all in this almost infinite room where nothing comes in and nothing goes out.  So I'll tell you everything I know, except I can't tell you."

     So-called human consciousness continually operates on the basis of a great separation existing between people, as in the one discovering the cure and those with the illness.  And there is no separation. The appearance is otherwise, but what apparently happens is not what is really going on.  To accept the appearance as reality is to fail to understand how everything is connected:  how everything, looked at from one level, is recycled.  No new information gets into the universal room.  No new elements, no new chemical reactions, nothing new happens.  Life has simply rearranged things.  Humans didn't Do anything. People are not plucking inventions, new formulas, new equations, new philosophies out of thin air.  You are not doing it.  I am not doing it.  No one is.  Everything is a product of recycling, except that it can't be.

     The only map which appears useful to Line-level consciousness is one with an edge, one that presents stable boundaries.  To Line level a map sans boundaries is not a map at all, it is a joke.  Such a map is simply useless.  But, on the contrary, to Understand This you must Understand that a map with boundaries is useless to what you undertake.  Any equation that is stable is misdirecting.  It is incorrect.  Oh, the equation is perhaps correct on its own level.  Two and two is four; blessed are the poor; and as you sow so shall you reap, may be true on the binary level, but on the level of understanding anything, no equation is true because every equation is incomplete.

     When you are first exposed to This, even if you are apparently  correctly interested in This, the tendency is to become so excited by what This offers that you want to go out and talk to others about me and about what you think This is.  And, just as dangerous a trap, you want to talk to yourself about who I might be, or analyze something I've said, or take some idea I present and try to relate it to something you've previously read, heard, or thought about.  If you fall into this trap, you do yourself a very real potential harm.  When you Understand this, you will understand this, but for now I am just telling you, you do yourself harm.

     Recently I mentioned the attraction between people, and I want to be a little more specific about this.  I was inferring that at Line level, using sexual attraction as an example, the ultimate kind of attraction would be one where all three circuits were involved.  If a man and a woman were sexually attracted to each other and all three circuits were involved in this attraction as opposed to what amounts to the common one circuit attraction (remembering that there can't be a one circuit anything because there is no one circuit by itself) the relationship would still never be what you might now want to call perfect or complete.  Before commenting on this further, I repeat, none of the maps I give you are sacrosanct.  If you think they are, then the maps don't apply.  As long as you think there is an edge to anything I say, any map I present you, you've missed it again.

     Sexual attractions do exist which are less than three circuited.  In fact, such attractions are quite common.  An extreme form would be the "one night stand".  You meet someone in a bar and after having a few drinks, you see that nothing else is happening that night, and you both end up in bed together.  And the next morning, you wake up, or maybe the relationship goes on for a while longer, but eventually you hear your own voices saying, "How did I ever get involved with this person, we have nothing in common?" Everyone has been involved in relationships they would describe as being based on a strong, romantic attraction and in others where the attraction was less strong.  If you employed a rating system of 1 - 10, you might score some relationships an 8 while others get no more than a 2 or a 3.

     What I was pointing towards is that what you and everyone at Line level dream of as a perfect 10 is mythical.  If any of you think, "If I could just get involved with someone and have it be a three circuited attraction then everything would be perfect.", you've missed it again.  A relationship between two people, unless you want to get involved with your own twin, unless you want to get involved with your own partnership (and that's not really two people), can not mesh perfectly.  When a tri-circuited attraction does exist, you are closer to what Life has people say they've been looking for in a partner, that is, not only a lover, but a best friend.  But, if you're looking for some kind of absolute perfection in a relationship, if you're looking for a perfect fit, forget it because such a fit is impossible.

     Someone asked me recently if what people typically refer to as the environment could simply be the parameters within which our biochemical systems operate with reasonable safety.  While I'm not going to specifically respond to that question, the basis of the question comes up again and again, and I want you to Hear this.  The question itself is a prime example of the limitations of Line-level consciousness.  The question reflects the idea that there must be two things, heredity and environment.  A child is born and you can get most people to agree that his hair color, his height, his bone structure are determined genetically. But at Line level people are still wont to believe that the child's father abusing him, or his mother being a drunk are environmental factors influencing the child's so-called personality and development.  I ask you, can you see that originally all of this so-called environment was produced non-environmentally?  There was no environment to produce the environment.

     I'm not playing word games.  Ideas of genetics and environment lie right at the heart of Line-level consciousness' continued belief that a difference exists between "in here" and "out there"; that there is a difference in what people are and what people say that they should and could be.  At Line level people say, "That little fellow is neurotic because of his parent's actions and we must educate his parents."  At Line level everyone believes his parents actions are his environment.  No one takes the scenario far enough back to ask the question.  "Why does his mother drink, and what makes his father beat him?"  The answer lies in their genes.  The answer is recycled energy.  There is nowhere for you to look for an environment unless you can tell me what environment produced the environment.  And you can't tell me because none exists.

     The idea of an environment somehow separate and distinct from heredity is a part of the masterstroke of Life.  If in some way I could instantly make several million people See that what they call the environment was created non-environmentally what I would have on my hands would be several million people driven mad.  Plus, Life would have a very strong talk with me, because right now Life uses this idea (the distinction between heredity and environment) to grow.  But, you must See beyond the edges of Life's map.  You must See that what people are actually doing when they try to change the environment is to swallow their own head while not even knowing where their head is.

     Someone shared an interesting observation they'd made with me that I want to pass on to all of you. They observed that the amount of complaining an employee does concerning his job seemed to be in direct proportion to his position in the hierarchy of the company.  Employees working in the stockroom seem to stand around complaining about the company much of the time, but if one of these same employees is promoted to president of the company, you will not find him standing around whining and talking about other people.  He might institute changes if he doesn't like something, but you won't hear him whining about it.  What's the difference?  Once obvious answer is that once the employee became president, he apparently gained authority.  If you apparently have any authority, any control over anything, do you complain about that which you control?  Do you and your partner spend time worrying about the ill effects of smoking if you don't smoke?

     The president of a company does not spend his time complaining about the inefficiency of his secretary.  He fires her and then forgets about the whole matter.  The more you are given to complaining the less authority you have and I'm not talking about authority over someone or something external to you. And this should give some would-be people who go to church or other institutions of that ilk cause to ponder:  "I have not necessarily fallen within a den of thieves, but I've fallen within the major league of complainers.  Who's in charge here?  Who has any authority?"  And then all would-be people wait for someone to point out the far wall.