The video does not include the 52 minutes of reading the AKS ( and Kyroot Said...)

Audio= Stream the audio in two parts from the bars below. Part 1 has 52 minutes of various members of a group reading the AKS ( and Kyroot said...),  If you start the audio and then open the AKS/News in a new window in your browser - you can follow along as they read.

Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0253 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = Yes, click here and then scroll vertically to read in the Gallery
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = none
Transcript = See Below

Summary by TK

Jan Cox Talk #253 Mar 26, 1987 - 1:50

  [Reading of Kyroot to 0:53]
  [A spectrum spectacle description:One purpose of human talk is to adjust oneself to the inevitable. Every attempt to explain oneself is just accommodation to inevitability of being yourself. Without this safety valve people would explode, go crazy; would be unable to adjust to upcoming inevitability. Analogy to lubrication of an engine.]
  [ A flippant philosophical question: what kind of truth is it that is variable? Answer: the only truth. The natural, ordinary, cynical observation about a variable truth being the only possible truth, is rampant; therefore This Thing is never taken seriously as truth.]
  [ Regarding an observation by a Group member: there are no answers--but this is not exactly right. There are no answers for the ordinary, true, but there are answers--however they are not the cul-de-sac Yellow Circuit conclusions accepted as common currency.]
  [Consider: why would any truly intelligent person own anything they didn't find to be useful or beautiful? Does this apply to you? Why not? Consider this internally; habits, desires etc. Can you get rid of same? Dictum: Buy everything or give up shopping altogether. No halfway ground; no middle ground for The Few. The motivating edge of guilt cannot exist for The Few; must cease disruptive actions or thinking about stopping--one or other.]
  [There is a place for conclusions--willed, artificial ones applicable only to a private, internal universe. The Few must willfully conclude. There is an unnatural efficiency in this; invocation of responsibility.]
  [ 1:48 TASK: Find/hear 8 examples of other people's talk as an adjustment to their own upcoming, inevitable reality.

Transcript

TALK -- ADJUSTING ONESELF TO THE INEVITABLE,  AND

IS IT USEFUL OR BEAUTIFUL?

Document:  253,   March 26, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987                          

     I now offer you a temporary explanation to account for much of what is criticized in the body of humanity; much of what is cynically laughed at; as well as the basis of many so-called psychological feelings about the inexplicable areas of human speech, and here it is:  one purpose of talk is to adjust oneself to the inevitable.  The numerous attacks that have been made religiously, socially, politically, psychologically, against "too much talk" -- such as its condemnation as being mechanical, useless, frivolous, self-serving, irresponsible -- are true from various ordinary viewpoints.  However, any possible accusation directed at all those viewpoints are just a small part of this correct statement:  one of the real purposes of talk is to adjust oneself to the inevitable.  The condemnation your own partnership engages in and directs toward other people, your daily performance as critic on Life's Daily Planet newspaper, talking about what can't be changed or understood, these behaviors are all correctly described by this particular prescription of spectrum spectacles.  Furthermore, all forms of explaining oneself are also attempts to accommodate the inevitability of ordinary people continuing to be themselves.  Even the seemingly innocuous, "Hey, I'm not that kind of guy!" is a perfect example of somebody trying to defend the borders of "who he is."  He's just outlining the inevitability that he will always be "who he is."

     Taking it into another area, people state conclusions about themselves in this manner:  "Well, I'm not like that."  It operates like a pre-opened valve to relieve inevitable pressure generated by the friction of the ordinary being who they are in life.  For those of you that heard this right away, you can find it applies to everything that every other human can say.  Your partnership is very likely to comment about what a waste of time it is when people talk like that.  At the ordinary level, it's not a waste of time.  You've got to see that it's as important as oil to an internal combustion engine.  That person, that molecule in the Body of Life, is adjusting itself, accommodating itself once again, to what every human knows is the upcoming inevitability of it all.  And what is that unspeakable inevitability?  That the life you now live is the life you'll always live.

     I suggest to you (although this becomes a 4-D mobius strip that I'm not going into) that without the ability to talk, people could not arrange and adjust themselves to the inevitability of no change, they would go mad.  But the 4-D part is:  were it not for the ability to be able to think about such as this they could not, of course, think about the inevitability of change, and, of course, they could not talk.  If they could not talk, they could not think of this, and you've got to be able to think about this to talk to start with.

     Let me remind you once more that this question is outside the realm of the ordinarily conceived and defined psychological areas in Life.  But it is as physical, material, and molecular as the operations of the respiratory system.  It is a kind of gasping for reasonable oxygen, for reasonable Yellow Circuit breath, for people to say, "I don't believe I deserve any better, things just aren't going to change," or even the contrary, such as, "Yeah, I've been knocked down, but you just have to get up and press on."  There is no difference between those two apparent opposites.  Once you Hear this, it is beyond any possible debate as to whether or not people can change.  Just listen to the sound of Life itself coming out through Man:  it is people admitting that they are part of the inevitable, though "admitting" is not the right word.  There is no word on this planet for what I mean.  The total area I'm talking about is simply the oral manifestation of the reality that it is inevitable.  And that's what people are saying when they state conclusions regarding themselves or other people.  Can you Hear it?

     Can any of you see any possible connection between this and my erstwhile suggestion, cum strong, strong suggestion, that if you are really going to attempt to change, do not tell yourself?  Nor tell yourself what you have changed for the last two weeks:  Do not spill this information into the partnership.  Can you see any connection with the one purpose of talk being to adjust oneself to the inevitable?

     What if you could refrain from talking?  It would be easy enough, of course, if you think I just meant "to hush."  Almost anybody can stop talking.  But what if you could actually stop talking?

     And now to apparently change the subject, how about this:  someone once asked the cynically philosophical question, "What kind of truth is it that varies from village to village, and changes from time to time?"  If all of you were completely in the hands of Line-level consciousness, that's the kind of question that would intrigue you.  I'll answer it for you.  It's the REAL truth, the ONLY permanent truth.  And yet at the ordinary level the intention of question/statement is obviously, "Well, that's no kind of truth!  Something is wrong with consciousness if in one village something is true, and you go right over the mountain, around the curve to another village, and what they call truth is different."  So the part of Life's body asking these questions sneers, (if not with lips, then with pen) "What kind of truth is that!"  The tacit part of the statement, of course, is that real truth would be the same anywhere at any time.  And I tell you:  that is not true.  That being the case, do you understand why this sort of activity, no matter where and when, is never mentioned by ordinary people in the same breath as motherhood, Flag Day, or the Fourth of July.  Ordinary consciousness can not perceive the threads of connection between the many forms of this activity even if people suspect in different villages, at different times, that "something" is going on.  They never mistake This Thing for some serious door to the great truths.  This kind of activity cannot fit the binary criteria contained in the statement that I started out with:  what kind of truth is it that varies from village to village and changes from time to time?  This kind of activity cannot fit the binary limits of the question.

     Some time ago I had everyone write down what they considered to be some serious verbal answer that they believed they had discovered since being involved with This, and we laid them all out and everybody chose a different one to preface with a question.  Here is one that I brought.  The person wrote down the answer, "There are no answers."  Another person picked this up and wrote, "What is the answer?" as the question.  Now that sounds verbally reasonable.  And if we didn't stretch it much further than that some people out in the ordinary world would go, "Yeah, that's the right question for the answer."  But this needs to be pursued a little further with you people.  There's more to it that you've yet to See.

     Let's put it this way:  there are no quote "answers" in the verbal currency ordinarily used; oh, there are "answers," but they are not the cul-de-sac Yellow Circuit conclusions ordinarily accepted.  If you can glimpse that, you should see within your own living nervous system, you could observe the molecular process level and reasonably conclude, "Well, there are no answers."  There are some answers.  There may be THE answer, but it is not in the realm of Yellow Circuit conclusions, which is the realm where such questions arise.  The answers are not found in the same area that can make such a statement as:  "There are no answers."  That is one dirty truth.  That is when you have to go from a three dimensional mobius strip into whatever a four dimensional mobius strip would be.

     I have a question:  Why would any reasonably intelligent person own anything that they didn't find to be either useful or beautiful?  Another way I've heard that Man's uniqueness has been characterized is that he is the only animal that collects stuff.  Chimpanzees, dogs, they don't collect anything, and it doesn't matter how civilized or how feral the man in question seems to be.  He may be collecting the skulls of his enemies, moths, stamps, or clothes.  Everybody collects something, everybody has possessions that aren't needed to sustain life.

     Why would a truly intelligent and unusual person like yourself own anything neither useful nor beautiful?  Let's all just think just for a few seconds.  Do you own things that you can't really say are useful, that is, you never have used them, and you don't plan on using them -- but when you look at them are you glad you have them?  Now everybody think right quick, try real hard to think of anything that you own that does not fit into my classification of being either useful or beautiful.  OK, here we go.  Alright, that's enough time.  Do you find that interesting?  Those of you who don't, you didn't understand it, you didn't hear me, and/or you don't believe that you've got stuff that's not useful or beautiful.  Why would anybody own such things?  Now let's take that marvelous jump from what apparently had to do with some kind of clothes, books, or china, and let's jump from that foolish, silly, obvious world into the real one. What possible application could that have to one's so-called inner life, that great personal inner world?  How about applying it to your own habits, your own desires?  You could certainly throw away un-useful and un-beautiful habits -- if you really bit your tongue.  Perhaps it might even serve a purpose.  You make a mistake if you do not see that everything that passes for desires, habits, wants, needs, fears, are things you own.

     Now jumping back and forth, forget that silly speed of light, but jumping back and forth from what might be the unreal into the allegorical, from the paradigmatic into the impossible, here again is a place for even extraordinary people like you to consider a binary course of action, because this one is so far removed from lateral reality that it should be a sub category of its own.  You could take this as a dictum, and it would be:  Either buy it all or give up shopping.  But you keep piddling around and keep acquiring these things (maybe you haven't acquired any in a while) that are neither useful nor beautiful.  And sometimes you suffer over it, such as those random moments of looking at your stuff and thinking, "Look how much I got tied up in this crap.  I'd die if something happened to it.  Yet, I don't use it and it's not beautiful."  That's piddling around, unless you'll buy it all, whether it be records, little velvet paintings, gardening tools, or whatever -- that is, take every cent you don't spend on food, rent, and clothes and buy it all.  Spend it all there or give up shopping.  Any middle ground is for the middle aged.  Only the weak, the indecisive, the ordinary worry about giving up a habit.  And the ordinary you will suffer in such a manner.  But if you can learn how to do it, if you understand that it doesn't much matter if you own what seems to be some bad habits, that the trick is to get beyond the ordinary, three dimensional, motivating edge of guilt.  You've got to see that the outcome of guilt is never change.  Nay, nay, the guilt, the suffering over it, is a purpose within itself, an end within itself.  Stop the suffering or stop thinking about it:  they're almost the same thing.  Remember, the ordinary can't change and they can't stop thinking about changing.  So there you have it.

     I want to say a final thing about conclusions.  As much as you believe you have heard me ripping apart conclusions, let's get into serious business.  There is a place for conclusions, for the few people.  You can learn to generate a kind of willful, induced, forced (artificial if you will) conclusion.  Private conclusions in your own private world of personal affairs.  In any of your personal relationships; sexual, friendship, family, it doesn't matter; you may perceive some sort of conflict and there comes a time you need to simply turn to somebody and take responsibility for whatever is under discussion.  You say, "Hey, it was my doing, I take responsibility, forget it."  Anytime an imbalance arises between you and another person, where energy is being transferred the way it should be in the ordinary world, you are trying not simply to be powerful, but trying to be efficient.  There is no need to go into specifics.  It is simply, we are disagreeing, we are arguing; it is a conflict of some kind over whose fault it is, who should have done what, and you need to conclude it, willfully and intentionally.  From a certain view, it is artificial because you could say you don't mean it, but it's beyond any point of meaning it.  The only people that mean things are those people who are tied up in the mechanical flow of the ordinary nexus of Life.  "Listen, I did tell you to do so-and-so, now don't tell me I didn't."  Now, if you're ordinary you mean it all, if you have the kind of energy to do something extraordinary, you have to stop it as soon as you hear it.  Say it directly, "I am taking responsibility for it."  I'm just hesitating to tell you people to tell somebody it is your fault or for you to say the words, "I'm sorry," even to ordinary civilians.  Whatever it was that made you say, "I'm sorry," is the kind of thing that will kill you, and keep you right where you are.  I've already told you that you shouldn't be doing that to each other, and not for any mystical or verbal reasons.  It is just another way of explaining yourself, and to waste your time on that is to live in the past.