March 8, 1989
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = Kneededit before posting
#467 ** Mar 8, 1989 ** 1:04
Notes by TK
A practical method/tool for This Thing: Reverse your attitude/behavior towards something. Life does this; e.g., retail emporiums (Macy’s etc.) used to be central, with people surrounding, vs. shopping malls where people are surrounded by stores. Thus shopping experience has been turned inside out, giving the taste of the new, progress. More examples: Columbus reversed the known direction to India; the Greek ideal of concealing flaws vs. the Christian ideal of confession of sins. Reversing-inversing your attitude personally will effect instant change.
The arising of arguments, debates, discussions—any form of disagreement or doubt—requires two entities, which have never been properly identified: one who doesn’t know and one who doesn’t know he will never know. Anything less than this makes for no real disagreement. Relates to The Dialogue (TD)—your ambivalence—being similarly based: one aspect which doesn’t know, the other which cannot know. (Relation to someone you don’t like initially, you will never like.) Consider reversing the two aspects of TD; nothing will change but it will bring you to attention and allow the potential of new direction for energy flow.
There are things a Real Revolutionist should never say. Never tell yourself what your real pretenses are; never identify your real passions. Never allow both aspects of TD to agree and state “what kind of guy you are”, for this is the essence of TD: “I think”, “I feel”, “I believe”.
The roman-a-clef life: living a fictitious life based on a real one. This feeling, along with and related to that of deja vu, comes to everybody; the Real Revolutionist can willfully use same, can willfully live out the enforced existence.
To What End (TWE) does everyone believe in “two worlds”?: 1. the mundane, dull, disappointing everyday one; 2. greater reality of justice, right, and improved possibilities. (There is a rarefied group of ordinary men who are not subject to this; they are at the extremes of power and dominance.)
Excursion query for NP to ponder: How would you like it (what would you think) if J. ceased his internal mappings of man, for external ones of “out there” exclusively? Would it make a difference? Could you even tell?