Either You Do or You Don’t
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Diagrams = See Below in transcript # 069
Transcript = See Below
Keywords = ACBI, Apparently Correct but Impossible
Jan Cox Talk # 193, Jan 23, 1986, runtime 00:55
Notes by TK
The Partner: a teletype machine reporting on your own impressions; reporting you to you. But it’s not The Partner that is of critical importance, it is The Partnership (The Partnership), the interaction that is everything.
Reference Diagram 69: The three circuits and consciousness. Is consciousness other than the 3 circuits? Is there anything other than consciousness and the circuits? Consciousness tries to effect change in the circuits but then what motivates it to do this?
You must operate via The Partnership –the partners do not operate independently but always in tandem. No matter the activity of one, it must always take the other into consideration. There is a whole spectrum from concordance to discordance between the partners in every activity, but there is always relationship –they are never absent to one another.
THE ABSOLUTE BASIC LAW (with a wink) OF LIFE’S GUIDANCE (direction, arrangement, template for functioning) FOR MAN: You either do, or you don’t. You either are or you’re not. That’s it. Period. End of song. But beware the off-putting overweening simplicity and limpidity of this statement. It seems obvious and unimportant or stupid and untrue because …you either do or you don’t. You’re either religious or you aren’t. Everything is either this or that. If too many men saw beyond this basic law-for-man the organ in Life’s body that is Man would begin to die.
Memory: a hardwired forgone conclusion. The acronym ACBI (Re: Diagram 69) = Apparently Correct But Impossible. The definition of memory is more the reverse: AIBC = Apparently Impossible But Correct. Consider the ACBI:”Fire prevention is everyone’s business”. What about pyromaniacs? Consider the AIBC: “there’s no such thing as an absolute fact (or statement)”. Remember that the opposite of any fact/statement must first exist for the contrary statement to arise in any human consciousness.
How is it that man can create machines that are more dependable than men? Example of computer diagnostic machine in medicine. Consider that the programmer of such machines in effect compresses mortal time to eliminate human error. The machines can work as fast as they do because their time has been compressed and relieved of all the human frailty.
Only the height of efficiency and clarity are captured in the machines’ program of an otherwise extended more or less inefficient time the programmer spends daydreaming and wrestling with complexities of programming. There is a distillation of excellence.
Find your own ACBI’s. This is not to just find clever ways of looking at old sayings and truisms, but when your Aha! happens, to simultaneously be aware that any statement of fact must contain its own opposite to exist.
EITHER YOU DO OR YOU DON’T
Document: 193, January 23, 1986
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986
You can look at the partner in everyone as being a teletype machine. This teletype machine is running nonstop. When you are in bed at night with your eyes closed it is running. When you are driving your car, jogging a mile, even when it appears that you have nothing particular on your mind — the teletype machine, (the partner) is running. And like any good teletype machine with one of the wire services, this machine has but one job, the reporting of events. Ostensibly it is reporting on both internal and external events; however, a closer examination of the situation reveals that it does not really report on events out there. Instead it reports on your impression of those events, which is almost synonymous with reporting on you. The teletype machine (the partner) is reporting on the internal condition of you.
It is not the partner, but the Partnership that is running man’s ordinary world of action and thinking about action. For anything to occur, whether it be ordinary action or ordinary thinking of action, it must operate via the Partnership.
Consider the symbols of the circuits and then consciousness in relationship to these questions: Is there anything within a person other than consciousness and the circuits? Is there a difference? Is consciousness in the circuits? Is consciousness simply in the Yellow Circuit? Since ordinary consciousness can be temporarily and even permanently eradicated by physical damage to the brain, then is consciousness nothing but a Yellow Circuit activity? If that were true, how can you see the teletype machine? How do you have any notion of me talking about a partner in someone? Why didn’t everyone get up and leave when I first pointed out that everyone has a partner? So I ask you again: Is there anything other than consciousness and the circuits?
Here’s another one to Consider: When people say that they have changed or that they desire to change, they are talking about consciousness affecting the circuitry. When someone feels, “I need a change. I am too overweight, too lazy. I should go back to school,” this is consciousness attempting, if not succeeding, in it’s opinion, to affect something in the circuits. Now if you Hear that as simply as I put it, then we come to another question: what is motivating consciousness to desire change? And this question is located in the same small neighborhood as my question, ” What are you going to say next?”
On the ordinary level, it appears that people do change. Drunks quit drinking, evil people become repentant, obese people lose weight, thin people put on muscles, etc. But look at your own partnership as being consciousness and the teletype machine, and you will see that the desire for change is based on consciousness disapproving of something coming over the teletype machine, or based on consciousness disapproving of something in the circuitry. Everyone disapproves of themselves in some way. And so apparently, at just an ordinary level, people want to change. They attempt change and in many cases they apparently do change. People quit smoking, lose weight and stop drinking coffee and proclaim, “I made this change. I did it.” But it is consciousness talking about what it did to the circuits. The question that consciousness cannot comprehend is this: What motivated the “I” that is talking to disapprove of the circuits and affect this change?
You must confront this question: What is motivating consciousness and where can I get off? Even at a very simplistic verbal level, consciousness cannot abide such a question because it would reveal, if it were possible, the true nature of what man is up to — other than what consciousness and the circuits believe they are up to. Not only is there no answer forthcoming, consciousness cannot ask the question. It can barely tolerate my asking the question. For anything to occur on the ordinary level, which is synonymous with consciousness, it must operate via the Partnership, whether you seem to be in temporary agreement with the partner or otherwise. It is the same thing.
Here’s an example, your secretary hands you a note at the office. The note says that one of your clients has just reneged on some agreement with you. Your Yellow Circuit looks, then reads the note. For this information to become processed into action or thinking about action, you have got to operate via the Partnership. Yes, you and the teletype have now got to operate together. But that doesn’t mean that you and the teletype machine are going to agree. In fact, you can be diametrically opposed.
That is fine; no problem. The fact remains that you and the teletype, consciousness and the circuits, you and the partner, have got to operate as a team. That is the only way anything gets done on this level, including thinking of “doing”.
I am going to give you one of the basic hard wired guide lines that Life has for humanity. This is even stronger than laws of quantum physics for those you can hear it:
EITHER YOU DO, OR YOU DON’T
This can be rephrased into, either you are, or you aren’t, but the basic guideline is, either you do or you don’t.
All of life at Line level seems to require that there be a continuous discussion going on between people and within each person (the Partnership). This running dialogue is necessary to circulate the energy in Life’s body, to keep it growing. All the raging debates, all the arguments which are spread throughout mankind in the form of differing opinions about religion, politics, morals, etc., are necessary at Line level. And yet humanity has always been asking, “Why is there so much conflict? Why can’t everyone agree on our political system, a proper religious pursuit, etc.? “The whole point has been missed until now. It is not that the subjects under discussion have any innate significance. What has been missing is the guideline I just gave you. Quite simply, either you do or you don’t.
One person says, “Wow, there is nothing like good sex.” Another person says, “I don’t know, I’ve tried it in all kinds of positions, every day of the week. I’ve tried it with all kinds of people. Something must be wrong with me.” YOU EITHER DO OR YOU DON’T. “I like it.” “I don’t care for it.” You either do, or you don’t. One person claims, “I am religious,” and another says, “I’m not.” You either are or you aren’t.
By now you should be able to see that whatever are the ostensible aims of any activity, those aims are never met. Religion does not accomplish what it purports to do; neither does politics, exercise, etc. If politics or religion could fulfill what they claim to offer, we would all be extinct. That would be the end of it. You either do or you don’t. That is the beginning and that is the end of one very basic guideline — a guideline with a wink.
The Partnership cannot hold an awareness of this guideline because it remains in a continual debate, a continual argument. There seems to be no harmony; instead, there is always a kind of duplicity: “Well, I’ve got to lose some weight,” and simultaneously wondering, “Is there still a piece of cake left in the icebox?” Or at the very moment you loosen your belt, prop your feet on the couch, turn on the TV, and reach for more potato chips, you are thinking, “I should be out running.” This internal debate appears to be an almost insurmountable problem to people. Everyone thinks it would take years of analysis or some great kiss from the gods saying, “Hey, calm down, Bunky,” or some bolt of enlightenment from the gods to remove this raging ambivalence. However, those proposed methods to squash the continual debate are in the wrong direction for the Few attempting to do This. The answer is, either you do or you don’t, and that is it. There is nothing else.
At line level, that is the name of that song. Although it has gone under other names, and you can change the key, you can change the tempo, you can change the mode from major to minor, but the name of the song is, “You either do or you don’t,” Coda. End of song. That’s it. There are no other measures, no alternative verses. You either do or you don’t.
This raging ambivalence is not the problem. The problem is that humanity does not yet know the guideline, that either you do or you don’t. And yet the partnership, the process prevails. Energy gets transferred. Food, information, heat are circulated within Life’s body because not enough people know that either you do or you don’t. If too many cells within Life’s body knew that, then the organism of Life would slowly die; humanity would cease transforming and transferring energy until humanity as a whole served no purpose.
Diagram # 069 photo
Can anyone begin to See that memory is a hard wired, foregone conclusion. How about that for an absolutely insane notion? That is an example of a statement which is apparently impossible, but correct. Consider statements that are the inverse variety: those that are Apparently Correct, But Impossible. Here is a new term for you, an acronym ACBI, refers to a statement that is Apparently Correct, But Impossible. An example would be the statement, “Fire prevention is everyone’s business.” At first blush, this statement appears to be true, but then the obvious flaw appears: fire prevention is not a pyromaniac’s business. In ordinaryville there can be no absolute statement of fact, since for any statement to occur, its opposite must likewise exist.
How about this? How can man-programmed machines be more dependable than the men who programmed them? What I wanted to point you toward was more than just an interesting question. Can you See that this may be due to squeezing out human error time. A computerized diagnostic machine may be much more accurate than the actual physician, but then the machine did not have to work in the midst of fatigue, horniness, or anger. It is as though time has been condensed and what has been squeezed out is all the little places wherein humans could act uniquely human.