Jan Cox Talk 0381

Great Overlap Containing the 3-D Secret Lies at Life’s Frontiers

PREVNEXT


August 19, 1988
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1988-08-17 (0381)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below


Summary

8/19/88 0381
Notes by WB

People think they have to match what they think and say. Consider what This Thing has to do with that.
Real Revolutionist doesn’t want to be someone else or a different form of themselves. They want to be part of the Great Overlap- it’s in the overlap where the 3-D secret lies. In the overlap there is no problem. The secret lies where everybody else feels there’s a frontier: therein lies the gap between, “What I am and what I should be,” and between, “What I think and then what I say.” Overlap is not part of enforced arbitrary contours that define frontiers of everything.
Jazz thought–no problems about what you say and think. Where things overlap is tomorrow. Where they turn the corner.



And Kyroot Said…

The only useful struggles are always in real time.

***

All up-to-the-minute, sophisticated City stuff can be
recognized as renovations of older, lower circuitry hungers.

***

Once you properly realize how Life treats you, a lower
collection of cells, unmercifully in its own larger, impersonal
drama, you can then begin to deal with your own inner, lesser
entities in a like manner.

***

A Real Revolutionist can view Life as a kind of warfare, but
a dramatized one in which successes are simply willful roles
played to a pleasurable perfection.

***

One of the more dangerous City dances is one in which you
will smugly accept a label.

***

Ran across this notice in the City paper’s wedding section:
“The betrothal was announced today between Alphonso ‘I-Won’t-
Take-It-Anymore’ Johnson and Annabell “Oh-Yes-You-Will” Smith.

***

Those who love to sing about, “No where to run to, no where
to hide” must not have any place to run to, and no place to hide.

***

Some crackerjack City pundits proclaim a distinction between
“fame,” and “achievement,” but being famous IS the achievement
they actually seek.

***

So long as you believe there is anyone who knows more than
you, there is. As long as you believe there are people better
than you… I think you can take it from here.

***

Overheard on a busy City street corner, “My main concern is
HOW this digital revolution is going to impact overnight,
interstate bus travel.”
***

The primary romantic technique in the City seems to be
whining, followed shortly by abuse.

***

If it WEREN’T for his unconscious mind, what WOULD an
ordinary person have?

***

Never condemn anything for doing its job.

***

A Revolutionist works not for applause, approval, or
acceptance, but for results.

***

Anything that stimulates consciousness is itself alive.

***

Never trust a god who gets mad.

***

A Revolutionist should have every feeling possible about any
event, and yet, coevally, have no particular personal feeling
about it at all.

***

It is not unseemly for a Revolutionist to become thoroughly
sick of the past, and equally weary of the future as it is
described.

***

Although at times it seems inescapable, and he knows Life
couldn’t survive without it, still, the Revolutionist hates to
dance backwards, just HATES it.

***

All talk is self-incriminating.

***


Transcript

IS IT MAN’S JOB TO LEARN HOW TO

THINK AND SAY THE SAME THING?

Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988

Document: 381, GSIBM, August 19, 1988

Tonight I’ll start by trying to push you a little further on something I’ve talked about before. Is it man’s job or duty to learn how to think and say the same thing? People know that they do not automatically or naturally do this, yet that inability is disturbing to everyone. So I ask again, is it a person’s job to somehow learn to think and say the same thing? All the major religions had this as one of their purported aims; or looked at conversely, you were not being a good Buddhist, Christian, or Jew if you thought one thing and said something else. Anybody with any religious inclination feels that there would be something drastically wrong if a person thought one thing and said another — if not, then one’s god would have the right to do that. NOBODY wants a god like that.

Now go beyond the religious paradigm and look into your own nervous system at the kinds of common wisdom you’ve heard, or the metaphysical ideas you pursued, and there you’ll also find some goal related to the ability to think and say the same thing. Is that man’s job? Could that be a fair description of humanity’s purpose? I’m not saying it is, but could you see that as a fair question? Each person has a few years on this planet and in those few years is it their duty to learn, through whatever methods, how to simultaneously think what they say so that whatever they said was actually what they were thinking?

Just as an aside, here’s a little something I never pointed out before. As opposed to regular public speaking in which the speaker is working more or less from a prepared text, there is a form of jazz-speak. Jazz musicians will sight read a piece of music and stay several notes ahead of what is actually scored continually improvising on the text. Even beyond that is jazz talk, seen occasionally in politicians, preachers and comedians throughout history and today. I’m referring to that person who could rise up in the Roman senate and speak extemporaneously for thirty minutes on a particular issue and have his audience laughing, crying, wondering, and enraptured. It’s almost as if he was conducting a symphony and the rest of the senate were musicians. A handful of television evangelists can do this with a crowd when they’re good; they can apparently talk about godly stuff, wave their bibles, pace the stage and get everyone worked up. But the specific content really doesn’t matter: when they’re good they can jazz speak around a very general topic (like godly stuff) and it doesn’t matter whether they’re in a building called church, a storefront called comedy club, or at a political rally. They’re people who can play a crowd and were you to ask them, after they finished, if they planned what they were going to say they’d reply, if they thought about it at all, “No, not really. I have most of the bible memorized so even when I don’t plan anything I can just walk out and start talking. I guess the bible covers every darn thing in the world so I just pick on anything and go with it. I could see a pickup truck and then remember a part of the old testament about taking care of the vessels given to you and how that will carry you to glory. If I ever get stuck I just thumb through the bible.” Give these people any topic and on a “good night” they can extemporaneously speak for hours; you’ve seen that with several contemporary comedians and you’ve heard tales throughout history of great orators.

These people have a particular talent for jazz speak. It’s not of some great metaphysical benefit to them, but it is a talent you should find interesting. Like any talent it’s not something they have to particularly practise; it’s the way they were born, their nervous system is plugged into a different place and they have no way to explain it. As with all talents, it is those outside of it who seriously attempt to explain, criticize and define it. The explanations and definitions can never be wholly satisfying because those seriously explaining something are not mechanically wired up to be able to do that very thing; the explanation, perforce, is a form of criticism which will never bring satisfaction. A jazz musician could not even begin to tell you what he does and he really has no interest in sweating over figuring it out. As one great jazz trumpeter once said, “If you gotta ask, you’ll never know.” That’s the City accidentally telling the truth as best it can. And people who can jazz talk are born that way, their nervous system is plugged in in such a way that what they say can apparently have no necessary connection with their thought. The preacher on a roll will say the spirit moved him just like the jazz musician will say, “Sometimes I just pick up that horn and it’s like I’m somebody else.” If you catch them at the right time and ask how they do it, the best explanation they can give is that they don’t know.

Jump back to what I began with tonight: people feeling the desire, the need to be able to think and say the same thing without a disparity between the two. Yet here are people right in the midst of Life’s body (because what could be more in the midst of Life’s body than politics and religion) who can entertain extemporaneously on the spot, with no needed connection between their thought and speech, and not know what they are doing. This is one end of the continuum as opposed to people who can only function with a script. Some of the world’s greatest actors are notorious for being, offstage or off screen, about as interesting as a cement block. They never appear for interviews, they have nothing to say without a script. If interviewed and asked, “I hear you have a new movie?” the actor will respond, “No, not now.” The interviewer might ask, “Then let’s talk about your personal life. Anything new in your life?” The guy suddenly looks like a possum with a light in his face. He can’t operate without a script although on stage he leaves his audience breathless. We’re left with a third area: What is it that happens in ordinary life? How long have I been asking you what you’re going to say next? I haven’t asked lately because it’s so potent and you’d become too accustomed to it. The truth is, at the City level, you don’t know what you’re going to say next; and yet nobody can deal with that because it seems that just can’t be true. You’re sure everything would just fall apart. Everyone thinks that people must know what they’re going to say next. Well, do you? “No. But that must be a trick question. And even if it isn’t a trick question I might be the only person in the world who doesn’t know what he’s going to say next. Surely my parents knew; they raised me. The President must know. The great thinkers of our time definitely know.” If the question persists much longer consciousness will just tune it out.

Is all this related, is there a script in your life or are you a non-jazz musician suddenly pushed out in the spotlight with all the charts pulled away from you? Does this sound familiar? Well it shouldn’t, because what have you been looking for all your life? Everybody is looking for their script, their bible, their music, something they can look at and go ahhh, okay. Then if something, anything, came up you could look it up! If an embarrassing situation arose, you could look it up, cross reference it, and it would give you recommendations, help you stall for time and then you could deliver the old one-two punch. Better yet, what about having the entire book in you internally, so that when something happens, you look it up and respond — is that not what everybody’s looking for? Would that not short circuit this apparent need to think and say the same thing? Then you don’t even have to be worried about what you think, it’s no longer a problem, you need only look it up.

Do any of you see the joy inherent in becoming a fanatical follower of a good, fanatical leader? By and large such fringe behavior is looked at condescendingly and often condemned: “My daughter’s gone nuts. She’s taken up with a fanatic, talks like a robot and if I ask her something it sounds like she’s reading her answer out of a book.” The mother doesn’t realize it, but if she ever had the desire to become a true Catholic or Jew, it’s the same biochemical need that her daughter’s following; it just didn’t work out for the mother. Everybody wants to be a fanatic, to be in a position of not even having to fool with what they think, except they usually can’t find the right fanatical leaders. Those who condemn fanatical followers are just jealous and don’t know it. They are still burdened by the illusionary weight of, “I gotta match up what I say with what I think, and I don’t like any of it.” (I could ask you what possible relationship This activity has with everything I’ve been discussing, but I won’t.)

Next subject. Do you realize that in the City you can’t feel fully successful no matter how much money you have or how famous you are. You eat a meal and then what? You worry about your weight, or the cost of the meal, or your cholesterol level, or where your next meal will come from. Our furry friends, dogs for example, eat just as fast as they can, fall down on the floor totally unconcerned, and in many cases fall asleep within minutes. The ability to be totally unconcerned, to fall down on the floor, to wag your tail and kick your feet is just not possible in the City. And that’s just one example. No one feels fully successful in the City, which is connected to almost everyone in the City wishing they were someone else. They may not volunteer that information verbally, or even think of it in this manner, but it should come as no great surprise. It’s Life again misdirecting and distracting man, and it’s a form of support for the arbitrary contours that make you feel you are “a thing” to be dissatisfied with, and if you could just extend your contours you could be somebody else.

Let me also tie in something I’ve said before, that a Real Revolutionist would have no heroes. Not one. It’s not that they’re unworthy of being your hero; rather, it’s a matter of turning a corner into another dimension so that you’re no longer dissatisfied with what Life wired you up to be originally. Then you’re no longer interested in heroes or in being anybody else, because at City level if you were anybody else you would still be the same thing. It doesn’t help in the City to be anyone else. Even closer to what I’m pointing; a Real Revolutionist not only does not want to be somebody else, he doesn’t want to be a different form of himself. The City will say that I’ve gone too far, that such a statement is dumb, that it’s not possible and makes no sense. But it’s true and if you think not, it shows how far you’ve got to go; you just took a litmus test and graded yourself. A Real Revolutionist doesn’t want to be himself reupholstered and refinished; yet in the beginning you’ve got nothing else to compare it to. You think, “What else am I going to do? I’m going to fix myself up!”

The real step is not to become some new version of you. A Real Revolutionist does not want to be a “changed” anything. The strange part is that this kind of information has been floating around in religious and philosophical ideas about being reborn, etc. City scientists point out that a large portion of the human brain is seemingly inactive. (Just as a humorous aside, I keep reading that brain cells do not regenerate and everyone has read how one ounce of alcohol kills hundreds or thousands of brain cells which can’t be replaced. Why is everyone so concerned? To me, it’s like shooting the unemployed.) It’s a known fact in the City that much of the brain is inactive. Religions talk about spiritual rebirth, but what if it is much closer to a physical reality — that you give birth to something new, but you don’t give birth to a “reformed Fred the Muslim.” Religions say you will be born into a new person and what they’re saying is that you’ll get to be someone else. And if you get to be somebody else, then surely you’ll come closer to thinking and saying the same thing than you currently do. Because you think that surely everyone else must do that or the world would fall apart. If you were somebody else it would be a load off your mind, right? But in the City, to be something else you’ve simply got to take a new name, like you found the ultimate summer camp and they take all your underwear, cut out the name your mother sewed in and replace it with a new one. Then every time you think about it, you check your underwear, and go, “Oh yes. Now I’m Fred the refurbished Muslim.” A Real Revolutionist is not a reformed anything, he’s got no new name; he’s not a glorified or reformed version of what he was.

Swapping one name for another doesn’t satisfy those who want to be satisfied — it doesn’t satisfy the mutants. A rebirth for a Real Revolutionist is to move into a new area of the nervous system not City born. For those of you who like to play with ideas, I’ll point out that all the major religions have some version of an immaculate conception tale — that someone is suddenly born who does not have human parents. “I knew his parents, they live just down the road. But they can’t be his parents, look at what this guy knows.” What they’re saying is that it’s a miracle because their nervous systems had no established precedent to explain the exceptional capabilities of their offspring.

The Real Revolutionist is not interested in becoming anybody else or in becoming a magnified, glorified or refried version of himself. To put it in a more positive, active sense: the Real Revolutionist is interested in becoming a willful part of the great overlapping. That’s it. Someone doing This is trying to get to the place where all that’s known overlaps with all that’s not known, the stable with the dangerous, the gyrostatic with the chaotic. But everyone else is trying, in tiny and very weak ways, to devote their lives to some great quest, to go in one major direction down the road to truth. To do This, to get your nervous system to produce a bastard birth, you must willfully become a part of where things overlap, or you remain subject to the City’s enforced arbitrary contours that separate you from everything else.

A Real Revolutionist is not interested in being part of those contours which separate him from everybody else, and separate him internally from what he is and what he feels he should be, and separate him from what he feels he should be and what he feels he should be doing about it. How might he go about this? Every dichotomy is not just two different roads. The Revolutionist must bring it inside and see that it’s not two different directions because they overlap, and what he’s looking for resides in the overlap. The particular dichotomy I’ve been mentioning between what people think and what they say appears to be two different things with contours between them. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be the two different words, “thinking” and “speaking.” If there weren’t a contour, people wouldn’t be concerned about not saying what they think, or their inability to express what they feel or mean what they say. But all apparently different things overlap if you can see it from another level.

Do you see any connection between that and not having a script? Do you see any connection between that and being able to engage in jazz thought or jazz talk. It’s not a problem of whether there’s a difference between what you think and what you say — there is no problem if you can find the place where what you think and what you say overlap. Only if you have two separated choices do you think there is a problem.

In the 3-D world, even at a very minimal level, everything that has a name has a frontier/contour. There is a frontier between any two letters of the alphabet, between any two words and between the cup of coffee and your hand holding it. Even if they do not appear to be in conflict you’re talking about one thing “over here” and another “over there”: hand here and cup over there, thought here and speech over there. But everything overlaps. Where any two things come in contact, even though there seems to be a frontier, there is an overlapping. And it’s in the overlap where the 3-D secret lies. In the overlap there is no problem. The secret lies where everybody else feels there’s a frontier: therein lies the gap between, “What I am and what I should be,” and between, “What I think and then what I say.”

The Real Revolutionist is not trying to redefine himself or any of his current beliefs. He is trying to become part of the great overlapping which can be seen as the place where the 3-D world turns a corner, and goes into, not just the fourth, but the fifth dimension. The great overlap is tomorrow. When people have moments of accidental “enlightenment,” although they couldn’t describe it this way, they experience a reflection of some reality they are not normally aware of and it is as real as the 3-D world ordinarily is. They’ll tell you how staggering and wondrous it was; but they can’t describe it after the fact and they can’t reproduce it. Such experiences are a momentary overlapping of everything which at this level seems ordinarily fragmented, if not in direct opposition.