Jan Cox Talk 0117

Triads, Energy Transfer, and the Three Forces


Video = None
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.

AKS/News Items = none
Summary =  See Below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Diagram = #047
Transcript = See Below

 Diagram # 047 illustration
Diagram # 047 illustration


Jan Cox Talk 117, July 12, 1984, runtime 1:55
Notes by TK

Below the line perception of the world is that it appears to be destructive series of events. Move awareness–continuing: hear the internal voices continually providing destructive perceptions.

“Words explain everything but themselves”.

If god exists then how could he let evil happen? Ordinary consciousness stops here.

Everything that is happening is moving energy of Life. Sending nourishment. When seen clearly this movement of nourishment can be taken from past present and future. Below the line there is no choice of the individual: the kind of energies transferred is beyond his control. Symbiotic relationship within the body of Life.

Energies that cannot pass from one type of person to another. Life will force you to seek those people where energies can be passed. Nourishment is a matter of continual imbalance. No matter what position you take, there is imbalance from each individual’s perspective.

The higher up the circuits the more the specific the nourishment must be. Red Circuit  people: physical, mechanical, random, boisterous. Blue Circuit and Yellow Circuit people regard Red Circuit people as unsophisticated.

Random talk–our own battlefield. Should be able to feel a battleground –common ground between all people. Potential to be any type of person required: red, yellow, blue.

Below the line–transfer of nourishment. Everyone is limited observable relationship between everyone. Look for another choice when you think you see a “cause” of any interaction. Look for “another source”.

Desire to return hostility –transfer of energy–no choice: body, feelings, goals, prejudices, etc. all are accidental.

What if you could separate “I” from “I want + resistance” to “I want.”  Separate “my desire-I” from attaching itself to energy. What if the first circle is two things to start with? “I” stands on the 3rd force and therefore can only see two other forces.

The ordinary cannot resist wanting to know what others think about them. The normal flow of energies is not necessarily good for you. What possible purpose is served in this wanting to know what the critics have to say.

Open-ended nonverbal dictionary: specifically try to Neuralize: what is the reality behind worry; what nourishment for oneself?


Go into a bowling alley wearing a white tee shirt and pack of cigarettes rolled up in sleeve. Feel and be aware of how ill at ease you are.



Document: 117,   July 12, 1984
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1984

I could easily present all this as a continuing string of rules, or as explanations which have been previously unavailable.  To do so would appear to be, on one level, a more succinct way of putting things — for example I could say, “Here is a new law; now go off and chew on it, or use it as a new flashlight with which to look at things”.  Yet, I increasingly speak in terms of rhetorical questions and possibilities.  It might appear to be slower, but is not necessarily so, for you must find and establish your own internal connections with This Thing.  Bear this in mind as I continue.

You should be able to hold a constant awareness that all human activity and behavior, including speech and apparent imagination, is a means of moving nourishment.  It is a transferring  of energy.  This physical moving of nourishment extends into the Yellow Circuit, into that which appears to be nonphysical, such as your thoughts. (Although, given the two choices of something being physical or nonphysical, I could say that there is no such thing as nonphysical.  All that Man considers to be non-physical, such as psychology, thought processes, and emotions, are as physical as a table.)

Everything humanity does moves nourishment from one place to another.  When you try to be continually aware of that, however, you should note that everything in you rebels against such a notion.  Everyone in their ordinary state feels that there is human activity which is wasteful, foolish and self-destructive.  Yet there is not.  In every situation it is easy to perceive two elements, yet there are three flows at work.  Only in the world of the two-legged situation do things appear to be  destructive.  In three-legged reality there is no such thing as a destructive situation; no such thing as “the Indians vs. the European settlers — who was right and who was wrong?”  Everything is interchangeable from one position to the other and no one “side” can be labeled “destructive”.

You can become aware of this within yourself.  All you have to do is relax, in a sense, and you can hear your internal voices quite clearly.  They are continually criticizing and making snide remarks, voicing their belief that they are seeing behavior, speech and ideas which are self-destructive.  Once you see that, if you are my “fictitious reasonably insane man”, you might come to the conclusion that words explain almost everything except themselves.  Words can describe “the gods and how good and wise they are”, yet words can also demand “if that is so, how do the gods allow things to go on that are not good and wise?”.  Can you conceive of the possibility that ordinary consciousness is like a fence?  If you told the fence that it was a fence, it might run around all of its perimeter and come back and tell you that it looked and could find no fence.  It would not be able to see itself.  With words, at a certain point you become stopped.

Everything moves nourishment:  a simple nod to someone you pass on the street, petting your dog at home, or on a larger scale, whole groups of people sending nourishment across thousands of miles.  When you get really good at it, you might even see that nourishment is taken from the past and even the future.  But you cannot see this at your ordinary level of consciousness.  Also, at the ordinary level of consciousness there is no choice regarding the kinds of energies that an individual person moves and handles.  It would appear that people are relatively free to do this and that, yet they are not.

In this movement of nourishment there is a symbiotic relationship, on the human level, similar to the way in which the term is used in biology.  That is, that there are organisms that are dependent on one another.  It is like a bird on a hippopotamus’ back.  The bird picks the fleas and bugs off the hippo and the hippo protects the bird.  In the same way, there is a symbiotic relationship between you and every other person in the world.  It is tied to the fact that ordinarily you can have no effect upon the kind of nourishment and energy that you move within the body of Life.

To start  off with a low-end example, no pertinent nourishment can be passed between a human and a snake.  You cannot pet a snake.  But notice that justice prevails in that no one seems to have any great inclination to go around petting snakes or to pick up worms and talk to them like a dog.  (As an aside, I might point out that domesticated animals do have a kind of lateral access to humans.  There are certain energies you can pass along to a dog, and to a lesser degree a cat.  Once a dog is domesticated he will seek out what you call petting.  But it is not simply petting and scratching his itchy skin.  Dogs can revert back to the wild and get along without humans, but once they have been domesticated there is a low-level symbiotic relationship from which both parties seem to get some enjoyment.)

A higher example, would be the kind of feeling you get when you are placed in an unusual situation.  If you are inclined to be a conservative dresser who goes to the opera once a week and you suddenly dress up in white socks, roll up a pack of Camels in your T-shirt sleeve and hang around the bowling alley, it will make you feel ill at ease to say the least.  It is not a part of the energy transfer scenarios into which you have been routinely led by Life.  The kind of nourishment that you are supposed to transfer is only possible between you and certain other kinds of people.  Left to your own devices with what seems to be your “I”, your Life-constructed personality, there is no way to affect this.  But you can begin to See it.

If people at bowling alleys are not your sort, you might attribute it to psychological bias.  It could appear that your environment made you that way.   Your family and friends never associated with people in bowling alleys so you don’t feel comfortable there.  But it is not a matter of psychological or environmental ramifications, or of whether or not the people at bowling alleys are decent people.  It is a physical fact that there are energies and forms of nourishment that cannot pass from you to particular other persons.  Life forces you to find those people to whom you can transfer a certain nourishment and energy.

There has always been talk about people being exploited.  Almost everyone’s voices say they have been mistreated or misunderstood.  Well, everyone is exploited, just not in the way they believe.  Everyone is exploited in a different sense.  People have the sensation of being misunderstood because within the symbiotic relationship it is never a 50/50 proposition.  There is no such thing as an even trade when  you are passing and receiving nourishment.  In the commerce of the body of Life, for which Man is the prime broker, there is no such thing as an even trade.  I chose the word “exploited” in particular  because it sounds prejudicial and explosive.  Every time you are engaged in a transaction such as nodding to someone on the street, or wondering if the person you are passing knows you, there is an exploitation going on. The trade is not “even steven”.  If it were an even trade, no energy would be transferred.  If it were 50/50 then it would be useless — nothing would happen.  It would be like giving a man fifty cents and getting back two quarters.  There has to be a continual imbalance through which you are always, in a sense, being potentially exploited and just as often you are exploiting someone else.  (A small reflection of this would be my suggestion that you should always be the first to say “hello” and “goodbye”.)

No one has any knowledge of this unbalanced exchange; it is not unfair and it is not as prejudicial as the word “exploited” is to most people.  It has to do with there being more weight felt by one party:  the party who believes they have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.  It is an absolute, unique symbiotic relationship between everyone.  It is part of a great Grid system by which everyone and everything is connected.  In the Grid of symbiotic relationships, you cannot say who is benefiting the most.  The hippo is not getting the most just because he is bigger. There is an imbalance, and no matter what position you take, the hippo’s or the bird’s, the situation will appear to be exploitative.

There is another aspect to this movement of nourishment.  The higher up the circuits you go, the more that nourishment is in a form that is energy/information, and the more specific it must be.  Down in the lower circuits you find energy transfer going on in a rather random fashion.  Bricklayers hollering to carpenters:  physical people, good Red Circuit people out playing softball or on the job.  They talk in a kind of random, boisterous manner which from a more Blue and Yellow Circuit viewpoint would seem irrelevant, foolish, and childish.  They might drive by their friends yard and yell out “Hey Bubba, what’s happening?”.  “Hey you got it, boy you’re getting fat!”.  A Blue or Yellow Circuit person would observe that, and think all manner of things, such as, “It’s uncivilized, unsophisticated — those guys running off at the mouth”.  But it is not right or wrong, it is just that the higher up in the circuits a person’s center of gravity is, the more defined and specific becomes their transfer of nourishment.

It happens not only on the social front, but on the job.  One guy will holler “hand me something”.  It seems random and unspecific.  “Need some help over here”. “Be there in a sec”.  That is much less specific than the more detailed discussions you would hear from a physicist.  Can you imagine walking into a meeting of physicists and one of them is standing in a corner hollering “Hey Bubba, did you hear about so and so’s new theory?”  “Yeah, yeah, ….”  Your ordinary viewpoint would want to explain it in environmental terms like, “After all, bricklayers and carpenters probably didn’t get to finish the 10th or 11th grade and they live a rough and hardy life.  Look at the way they dress and act, they live in mobile homes and the like, whereas physicists spent at least 12 or 15 years in school.  They have learned social etiquette and have been exposed to a certain peer pressure, so it’s no surprise”.  But that is no explanation at all.  Everything is connected in all possible ways and the further up the nervous system you go, the further up the circuits you go or any group goes in the body of Life, the more is it necessary that energy/nourishment must be detailed and specifically transferred.

Another way to describe this is to say that Yellow Circuit men meet at the conference table, whereas Red Circuit people meet on the battlefield.  If you look at the Nervous System as the history of Man you can learn something.  Look at the kings, the leaders of nations and tribes, people who in their time were at the cutting edge of the Yellow Circuit in Europe.  Their conference table was on the battlefield.  A king would send his messenger over to the enemy’s field and arrange a meeting on the field to work things out. They would get together, push each other around a bit and shout some, and demand that the other guy surrender.  To a modern Yellow Circuit person it would sound like babble or random talk.  “If they really want to get something accomplished they should set up some committees, pick out a neutral ground, plan some nice menus with wine and cheese and dinner, and meet in a few months when their assistants work out the agenda.  Then they would be able to hash it out.”  Of course, if you are real sharp you might see that the conference table is the battlefield within you.

You should be able to go past my examples of kings and carpenters and physicists and see something of profit.  Within yourself, you cannot be estranged from anyone and do This .  You should be able to be in a 7-11 store and not be disturbed when some carpenters who have had several beers stumble in behind you.  Maybe in the past you would have thought yourself in danger.  You might have been offended by these people with beer guts spitting on the floor and talking real loud in a public place about sex and fighting — the kind of stuff that would make you want to disappear.  You should be able to feel a common ground between you and them.  You don’t have to say anything or take them home with you and adopt them, it is just that their behavior should not seem foreign to you.  To be involved with This Thing you have to have had the potential to have been anyone.  You should have some feeling that you could have just as well ended up a carpenter.  You might feel that you would never have actually been the kind of person to get drunk five nights a week in your mobile home and have a 50-inch waist at the age of thirty.  But you have to be able to sense that, “Yeah, I could have done that.”  Likewise, if you are the type that feels distant from so-called intellectuals — if it was all you could do to get through Algebra 101 — you should have some feeling that you could just as well have been a physicist as a carpenter.

Nourishment is moved in the body of Life in what seems to be interaction among people:  in feelings, conversations, things people have in common and things that estrange them.  At the ordinary level of consciousness, it cannot be affected, and should not be affected.  To do so would be like deciding to have your liver take over the job of your spleen for an hour just for fun.  You do not want that kind of power.  It is not within the best interests of Life, to put it mildly, for people to have the ability to, in some way, affect the nourishment they move.  Each person serves the particular function of taking in nourishment within a very limited area.  I am not exaggerating:  it is a very limited area.  If you took away all of the efforts you have made in This and dropped back to where you were — you were sorely limited, as you were supposed to be. But justice does prevail in that confronted with such a statement, your ordinary consciousness would emphatically herald the fact that it is limited.  “Any reasonable, intelligent, sophisticated person is that way. I am not going to associate with drunken bricklayers and political revolutionaries.  I will not pursue crackpot schemes.  I will only do what’s self-fulfilling”.  But then all the bricklayers, revolutionaries and crackpots believe the same thing.  Drunks in the gutter believe that.  Everyone is limited, absolutely, and there is an observable, symbiotic relationship between you and every other person, between you as part of a group, part of a race, part of  everything.

Once you begin to See this on a larger scale, you can get past one of the cul-de-sacs of humanity. Humanity is never able to understand why people kill each other in the name of religion.  Once you See it correctly you Understand that there is no explanation.  There is a transfer of energy which is going in a particular way.  It is not wasteful.

From the bird’s point of view the hippo is getting out of hand.  The bird may wish “Why does the hippo have to go under water two or three times a day, because then I have to fly off.  Sometimes he catches me unawares and I almost drown.”  The hippo might say to himself, if a hippo could think, “You know, I haven’t been bothered by fleas lately, in fact I’ve been feeling pretty good.  My main problem now is getting this bird off my back.  He is getting to be a real annoyance!”

How about a more specific example of what appears to be people passing hostility among one another. It will probably strike men more then women, but everyone should be able to hear it.  In general, humanity feels an urge to respond to threats.  You could be sitting in your car stopped at a traffic light and notice the guy in the car next to you move his mouth like he was cursing at you, or he looks off and makes some gesture.  Regardless of the energy you would normally be responsible for transferring, there would be now a general feeling of wanting to respond, that is, respond with hostility towards hostility.  There is this feeling that you should roll down your window and holler back at him; if you do not, there is a feeling of guilt, a sensation that  you should have responded.  There is an undeniable urge to respond.

People would generally refer to this urge as a psychological flaw.  After all, the guy could be deranged or drunk, maybe he did not know what he was doing.  You are not even sure he said anything.  Yet you feel you should have acted and you might even want to chase the stranger down just so you can holler back at him.  Your ordinary consciousness  would be likely to classify this feeling, of wanting to respond to a nonspecific potential threat, as a psychological flaw.  But you should always look for another source. Many many years ago, men would have said the guy was demonically possessed.  Today you just figure the guy has got problems.  But whatever ordinary consciousness comes up with, whether it be spiritual or psychological, whatever “I” standing at the center of the situation can apparently come up with — you should always look for another source.

The desire to return hostility is not a spiritual weakness, nor is it a psychological flaw.  So what does that leave you with?  Everything in you is set up to view this as some sort of psychological situation:  all your decisions, beliefs, reading and thinking.  You might even remember the guys back at elementary school, some little fat guy with freckles who pushed you down on your birthday in front of all the girls and broke your brand new airplane.  You might even remember his name and the look on his face when he just laughed and walk off.  Plus you would still have that feeling that you should have gotten up and beaten him to a pulp, but you didn’t and now you have always been a coward.  You would consider it a psychological situation.  But to look there would not give you any more answers than if you said “the gods have done this, but if they are so good and wise, why are they making me feel like a snivelling coward?”  I tell you there is another source, another place to look.

Another area I would propose you look is an area you can see clearly in yourself.  In your life there is no question about the degree of choice you had in what you became.  Nowhere in your life, absolutely nowhere, did you ever decide what you were going to believe or what you were going to do.  You did not decide how you would walk.  You did not choose your political persuasion or your fiscal outlook.  You did not stop and say to yourself “I will try to be broad minded, within certain limitations, to this group of people or these races or nationalities.  Let’s see, I will like — not real classical music — just light classical to middle of the road”.  Forget it.  You did not do that.  You cannot even tell me what you are going to say next.

On a good day you might be able to get a glimpse of this.  You can simply look back down your nervous system and See that if you are going to have to put a word on it, it was just an accident.  Nowhere did you ever decide what you were going to do.  “I think I’ll like music.  Someday I will buy a stereo and listen to music.  Let’s see, what kind of sexual partner would I like, tall?, short?”   Nowhere did you ever make such a decision.  There is no question or possibility of that.  You did not make choices about what you were going to do.  You did not say “the rest of my life when I am daydreaming, I think I’ll spend about 20-25% of the time dreaming about sex up until I’m about 45, then maybe 32-40% of the time I will dream about making lots of money”.  Once you See it, it is just as clear as day.  It is not mystical, it is an absolute fact. Yet everyone, including you at the routine level of consciousness has no awareness of this.

Try to Neuralize, to remember without thinking about it, “What purpose could possibly be served within Life for men to be constructed to absolutely forget or to ignore that they had no choice whatsoever anywhere along the line?”  No one has any awareness of this, yet everyone should be aware of it.  You ask someone how they became an engineer and they will tell you “As I was growing up…” and they begin to talk about what happened.  But it is not just that.  None of that is true.  Well it is true, but once you see that there was no choice in the matter it is self-evident that it is not true.  Notice I gave you a choice:  you ignored it, were blind to it, or you forgot it.  To See this is like being slapped in the face.  An interrogator says “Admit it, you didn’t choose anything”, and perhaps he slaps you in just the right place that you didn’t know existed and you suddenly have to agree.  Because it is just as clear as can be and it is not open to any discussion.  There is simply nowhere along the line at “I” level that anybody had any choice.

Forget the obvious case of your physical being, take a look at other areas that seem to be uniquely mortal.  The way you feel, the way you react, your goals and aims, what you believe, what you hold to be sacred, what you hold to be of no value.  Once you See, it is almost as though you had forgotten that you made no choices.  Look back at your teen years, the time that seems to be the most involved in producing what you seem to be.  When did you ever decide what you were going to feel and believe in any area whatsoever?  When you see it, it’s as though you forgot.  It is not that you were blind, because at the time you were not going around saying that you were adopting beliefs.  It was not a situation where you decided you needed a political attitude so you came up with one you can live with.  That simply did not happen. Why would ordinary people, from physicists to bricklayers, think this was some crackpot idea, some allegorical attempt to state that something is missing?  What possible purpose is being served by Man being constructed so as to have no recollection of this?  On the contrary, when people are asked to support their beliefs they can give you a short lesson in history.  They start talking and energy gets transferred.  Nourishment moves through the system.

Why is Man forced to forget he had no choice in what seemed to have produced him, and why, when questioned about it, will he be oblivious to that fact and even insist otherwise?  Come up with anything you can come up with, but remember do not put a period on the end or it.  There is no answer with a period, just an ever burning eternal comma.

Regarding that other source at which to look, I am going to present a diagram referring to triads and “I”. Before I present that particular one, let me refer you to my Xross with the long horizontal and the short vertical line.

Consider this to be a time diagram.  The horizontal line represents the apparent past to the left of the vertical line.  To the right of the vertical line it represents the imagined future.  Picture the little vertical line as in some way representing the level of instant awareness.  But even though you are moving in space-and-time, as it is called, in a sense, in relationship, that Xross within you stays the same.  It just moves with you.  The purpose of what seems to be “I” is to cut up this time Xross, and “I” cuts it up in a particular way.

In this  new map, there are two circles.  The first one I shall call “I want” which would apparently be one of the Three Forces.  Then there is always an observable resistance to what “I want”; this is the second circle.  It is not difficult to see two of the Three flows, that which “I want”, and the resistance to what “I want”.  You can always see two legs of a triad.  Everything that can be conceived of by human consciousness must be supported by a triad; it must be on a three-legged platform.  But you can ordinarily only see two.  The third element is elusive, at the very least — to be most charitable about it.  The two forces you can see are a desire and then its resistance.  You can see this personally and on a larger level among groups of people, from theoretical movements to political persuasions.  It is easy to get two of them down; the problem is always in finding the third.  Maybe you expect that there should be a third circle in my diagram with a question mark in it.  I could call it everything else that is not relevant to the first two, to what “I” want and the resistance.

But what if you could separate what seems to be the desire into two flows?  What if you could remove “I” from the circle of “I want” so you just had “want” and the “resistance” to want.  What if “I want” is not one thing?  What if there are at least two realities existing within that one circle?  You would then have something left over which, at first glance, would appear to be “I”.  But if we separated it, I suggest you try to look for what “I” was standing on.  What if you could see that there is almost a blind, like a hunter’s blind or a false front on a theater set?

It is easy to identify the two forces of “I want” and its “resistance”, but the Third force is always difficult to identify.  What I propose to you is that the First force, the “I want” might be separable.  That which seems to be the constructive force, to be “my desires” is actually two forces at work.  What if you could separate them?  It appears that your desires are one thing.  What if they are not?  What if the thing “I” was standing on in the first circle were removed?  Perhaps you would find something else.

So now we have got it down to “Want” in one circle and “Resistance” in the other.  Then we have something left over.  What if that were the E flow?  What if that something left over is where “I” was standing?  On my time Xross it appears that the vertical line is “I”, but what if it were not?  Can you make an attempt to Neuralize, or even just remember, that there could be a difference between every feeling, belief, motivation, and combination of desires and the energy that fuels them?  What if it were not one thing?  What if it is two things we are talking about?

I have not changed the subject from earlier on.  (But of course, I have not changed the subject for years.)  There is a nourishment, there is a kind of energy, and then there is this thing attaching itself to the energy that calls itself “I”.  In this map I have drawn, “my desire” is First force.  And then anything that opposes it, be it right or wrong, is the Second force.  Where is Third force?  What I propose to you is to examine the question of what if number one was actually two things to start with?

I will not attempt to tell you much more in words, but I shall hint one more time.  If you could divide up what would seem to be one of the flows, the “I want”, “I believe”, or anything having to do with “I”, if you could cut the “I” loose and still preserve the existence of the other part, you would then have three possible legs to the triad.  But than the third circle is no longer necessarily vacant; it is no longer necessarily just lumped into “everything else”.  What if “everything else” and one of these elements is one and the same thing?  What if “everything else” is the Vertical line?  What if “everything else” is the apparent observer, this commentator?  What if “everything else” is somewhat like a great pipeline and as the oil flows through, a gauge measures it.  What if instead of just being calibrated in numbers, it is calibrated in what seems to be human thought, human feeling, human desire, human belief, human imagination?

It is as though everyone is a little gauge on one particular spot of an infinite pipeline.  It does not matter where, you are just there.  The gauge is affected by what flows through it;  that is the only way it can measure the flow.  There has to be something from the gauge up at the Vertical line connected to the pipeline itself so that the passing of the flow registers.  As far as the gauge can tell, the gauge is the same thing as the flow.  If the flow stopped, the gauge would just fall over.  If you walked by and looked at it, as far as you could be concerned, the gauge would be dead.  You could hit it and bang on it, but it would be like a dead person, an empty whiskey bottle.  As long as the gauge is connected with the flow going on inside the pipeline, can you see that it would be within reason to say that the gauge feels as though the gauge and the flow are one thing?

Can you see any connection between the gauge and the flow of oil that it is measuring?  Can you see any connection between that and “I believe”,  “I want”?

If you can, I suggest to you for the fourth time that you have three things, not two.  It starts out with the gauge and the flow of oil through the pipeline.  The gauge feels as though the gauge and the flow are one thing.  We will assume for the time being that the oil has no consciousness, which of course is not true.  Compared to the consciousness of the oil, the gauge is a playground fence climber.  But, switching allegories in mid-flow again, it would start off that the gauge and the flow of oil feel like one thing, one force, one leg of a triad.  The second leg is anything that might interfere with the flow such as debris getting in there, a moose crashing into it, a loose seam or an earthquake.  Anything that would hinder the flow would be resistance.  To the gauge, and the gauge feeling as though the gauge and the flow are one, anything that would interfere with the “I want”, the “I desire” would be number two.  But it cannot find number three.  What if the fallacy of this viewpoint were that the gauge and the flow of the oil are two separate things?  If you divide it up and add the resistance, you then have Three flows.  (If you were a renowned philosopher you might comment that it is a big jump from that to human consciousness, but I tell you, this is no place for reason.)  Can you spot any sort of connection between this and my telling you that “I” serves a particular purpose in a triad?

I will switch this back and forth a few times, but remember that I am talking about the same thing.  You could look upon the time Xross as being a triad containing the past and the future.  This is similar to my saying  hat you did not choose what you are, in any way, anywhere along that horizontal line.  In the same way, when you look in a certain manner, there is no “now”.  The feeling that there is a “now” is not open to any sort of neural investigation because you cannot find any “now”.  The best you are left with is the sensation that there is something dividing the past and the future.  Ordinary consciousness experiences the present, as that which is between the past and the future, as what is left between what has already happened and what is yet to be.  Can you make any connection between that and my map of the gauge and the flow of oil and anything that would impair it?

At the ordinary level if I insisted to you that there is a triadal situation supporting anything that is observable or conceivable by human consciousness, you would easily be able to see two legs:  the past and the future.  You would be left with having to guess about “now”:  it would be a vague thing, about as vague as “E” force.  What if there is a third leg there which you don’t see?  What if it were the “I” that seems to be observing the past and the future?  That is the gauge measuring the flow of oil going through the pipeline, but taking the flow and its measurement of it as the same thing, as being one.  That is “I” saying “I believe” and taking that as being one force when it might be two.  What if the “I” that observes the past and the future  is an unseen commentator — is one of the legs?  But you can never see that as long as you are standing on it.  As long as the commentator seems to be you, all you will ever see is the First and Second forces.

I can describe it in a few more ways.  I could ask you a question such as “Do deeds or commentaries on deeds come first?”.  I will give you a quick example but do not get caught in it.  Look at the development of “New Wave” music.  The reviewers wrote it up as a new generation reactionary movement against the kind of bland corporate so-called rock and roll that popped up in the 1970’s.  A new generation apparently came along and started just playing one chord over and over on a $15 guitar they picked up in a hock shop, and proceeded to just scream and holler.  At the time it appeared, it was written up seriously in all kinds of magazines and newspapers as a new phenomenon.  Now listen quick, because there is no profit to staying on this kind of thing forever — it is like a shot flying through a room.  Did the deed of New Wave music happen first and then people observed it or is it possible that it was commented upon, in a sense, before it actually happened?

Now, I am playing with reality by dragging this down onto a two and sometimes three dimensional level.  But, could it be that a columnist heard some kids playing in London somewhere and since he did not have anything to write that day, wrote it up as a new kind of music that he heard in a club on an off night?  He could talk about how “They did not know what they were doing, but yet it had a certain kind of raw vitality to it as opposed to the kind of junk that plays on the radio under the guise of rock and roll.  I guess it serves a purpose, but it is almost as though they are trying to rebel and go back to the kind of passion and young energy that used to be rock and roll.  It is just like a whole new wave coming through.”  What if some critic wrote that and the guys in the band read it and got all excited about making the papers?  They would go around telling everyone how they are part of that New Wave movement.

If we were  left with those kinds of possibilities of reality operating in a two or three dimensional world, in a sense, the commentary could have started before the deed started.  Can you conceive that that is possible?  It is harder, but it is just as possible and just as true as the deed happening and then somebody commenting.  Of course, the Yellow Circuit, left to its binary course of thinking cannot see that as being true.  “You cannot comment on something until it happens”, but wait a minute.  If you did not have “I” at the center of this time Xross and you were confronted with questions of which came first, new wave music or the commentary on it, it would not be so easy to give the immediate response that, “Certainly the deed came first.”  What if you could remove “I” and you were not left with the time triad of which came first?  If one was first, then one had to be second, right?  It is just two legs of a time triad.  What if you removed the observer?  What if you removed “I” saying “All right, I know that one had to come first, and if one came first, then the other one had to come second.”  What if you could remove “I” from that kind of time Xross? What would you have?  Would there be a first or a second?

Now expand that and let us go from time to space.  Do the movements that crop up in this great human drama grow from the bottom to the top, or from the top to the bottom?  Does the movement produce the leader or does the leader produce the movement?  Do the causes of political or spiritual movements arise and produce leaders?  Or does the leader suddenly show up and figure he needs people to follow his ideas, and go out and collect a bunch of followers who support him and develop into a “force” in society? It has got to be one or the other, right?  What if the “I” that can comment on the situation is one leg of it. What if that “I” was removed from its position of saying that it has to either grow from the top down or the bottom up?  If you removed “I” are you sure that there would be a top or a bottom?

This is not science fiction nor is it a clever word game.  It has to do with the possibility of getting yourself outside of binary consciousness.  It is an area wherein expansion of what you can perceive is beyond anything that is describable.  It is beyond that which can even be theoretically described as being three and even four dimensional, including what humanity now calls time.  Humanity is still left with always having an “I”, an observer, which always cuts up everything into two pieces.  Everyone mechanically accepts that things are divided into two.  “Things are either good or bad, I like it or I do not like it, a fact is either true or false”.  You hear that over and over.  What if the thing that apparently is commenting, the “I”, were standing on the Third force?  What if the “I” were included in all such observations of First and Second, or top and bottom?  The thing commenting on Life, the thing that seems to be your consciousness is standing on Third force and that is why everything is divided into two.  Now I haven’t said that this is true; if you will remember I am presenting this all as a possibility.  Instead of giving you sets of laws I just ask you the question “could that possibly be true?”.  You could call it a dirty trick because you do know it is not a completely unbiased question, don’t you?

Since I am so full of questions, let me ask you this:  what possible purpose is served by people wanting to explain themselves?  Let us say the authorities gather sufficient evidence and arrest some guy, and charge him with murdering 14 people over the last six weeks.  He’s just some quiet Red Circuit person, perhaps, but within a short period of time he will want to explain himself to somebody.  From one viewpoint you could say he’d already explained himself sufficiently in a very straightforward way to at least 14 people that they know of.  But now he is caught and no amount of legal trickery will get him out because there he sits and they have all the evidence.  What is the purpose of that man wanting to explain himself?  Forget any notion you may have about his conscience, he will just turn to someone and begin to explain himself. The majority of humanity does not go around killing other people, so how is he going to explain how he killed 14 people in any satisfactory way?  The explanation is going to be meaningless — so why bother.

For no apparent reason — nobody has to prod him — he will finally just talk about how it all started.  Within the greater body of Life itself, what possible purpose could be being served that everyone wants to explain themselves and what they did?  What is going on?  Now, you have to look again to another source. There is no psychological answer, although there are psychological answers aplenty.  There is no spiritual answer, but there is another source to which you can look.  It is not any individual’s fault.  What possible service could humanity be performing in wanting to explain itself.

Now, that example concerns a man doing something inexplicable from almost any ordinary viewpoint.  Here is a variation.  Why does everyone, at the ordinary level, want to hear what their accusers have to say?  If you had a showing of paintings, or you were in a band and you had just played in public and someone told you your work was negatively reviewed in the paper, would you want to read the review? There would be no profit in even looking at it.  But, what is the possibility at the ordinary level of you not being interested in reading it, besides nil?

If a friend of yours told you he had run into your old girlfriend or boyfriend at a party and was shocked to hear what they had said about you, could you resist asking what they said about you?  At the routine level, who could resist?  Who can resist wanting to know what their accusers say?  It should not take any great amount of metaphysical digging on your part to realize that at the ordinary level, the ordinary cannot refrain from wanting to hear what their accusers, their reviewers, and critics have to say.  Unless you want to go back and join the ranks of the ordinary, you should not ever want to know what your accusers say.  Forget the voices, forget the automatic urge, you should never want to know what your accusers have to say.  Remember, just because something is a normal flow of energy through humanity does not mean it is profitable for you.    If you insist, if you give in and want to know what your accusers, or critics have to say, you might as well pull out a card saying “I’m ordinary”. You could not be more ordinary if you tried.  Consider, try and Neuralize what possible purpose is being served by everyone, all of humanity wanting to hear what their accusers have to say?  To carry it even one step further, I will add one more thing.  You can willfully resist the urge to hear any criticism, but you can also have a feel for how natural it is to want to listen to it, and how tasty it is to resist.  It is better than ice cream or beer on a hot July day.  It is not allowing yourself to hear what your accusers say.  Don’t get too metaphysical about this:  it is just on the basis of someone saying something about you.  If you insist on hearing it, just pull out your ordinary card.  Say,  “Pardon me, I am as asleep and as foolish as the person who accused me”.

In observing yourself, it is also possible to fall into listening to your own internal accusers over again. You have to lay all of that to mute rest.  Do not go back to making psychological or spiritual analyses of yourself.  If this were a religion I could say the only sin is in repetition.  “I” has made every possible comment and observation on itself long ago, before you ever came in contact with This Thing.  Give “I” a break.  Give yourself a break.  Try and lay it in a nice bed or sit it in a corner.  Tell “I” it does not have to do that any more.  You are not going to kill it, you cannot kill it. Just tell it “Shhhhh”.  It is like a dog getting rid of all its fleas.  He loses a hobby and just lays there.  Just lay anything “I” has to say about itself to mute rest.  There is nothing else for it to say.

When you start accusing yourself, you are not talking to This Thing.  It  is “I” talking to itself again, taking the voices as being itself.  It is reading the meter of energy flowing.  But, remember, it is the same energy that has always flowed at Line level; “I” cannot change it.  “I” has no direct access to influencing the flow.  You may be 20 or 30 years older, more financially secure, and married, but no matter that you were not all those things 15 years ago, it is the same energy.  It feels as though the way the gauge is working is new, but it still takes the calibration and the flow as being one thing and it begins to talk about itself.  But what it is talking about is the flow of oil and it is the same flow of oil that it was measuring when it was 15.  It was measuring the same amount when it was born, if you could ever begin to See this.  You can go back even further than that, but I have already given you enough to stop all reasonable thought have I not?

As a possible alternative to the unprofitable hobby of accusing yourself, you should begin, or even continue, to build an open-ended nonverbal dictionary of questions and things to Neuralize.  One such word to Neuralize would be habit.  By and large, the ordinary connotation of the word “habit” is negative. But one way to Neuralize habit would be as a kind of enforced sanity.  Another aspect of seeing the dynamics of why humanity came up with such a word as habit is that habit is the energies of Life taking their proper established course.   That is the enforced sanity, and at “I” level, habit is an aspect of the stability of Life itself.  It is quite limited to have a feeling that habit is in some way negative.  Always remember, there is nothing wrong with ordinary life — if you are ordinary.

I want to leave you with a couple of things.  Try to picture the Three Forces, these three possible systems that are concourses for the transfer of nourishment.  You can use an ephemeral description of the C, D and E forces as positive/constructive, resisting/destructive, and then the Third one, whatever you can Understand it to be.  Consider that there would be a special kind of terror if you found D with a smiling face.  I will  leave it that obtuse.  But why not pile obliqueness onto obtuseness?  Can you connect that with what would appear to be horizontal freedom, political freedom, and the development of the Yellow Circuit?  In areas where there is apparently horizontal freedom, civil, individual freedom and liberty, it is almost beyond comprehension that people elsewhere put up with oppression.  Yet there are three forces going on all the time, and I have asked you the question of “what if the observer is covering up the third possibility?”  You do notice that we are here on a part of the planet that is relatively free compared with the rest of the world.

Continuing along the lines of a nonverbal, open-ended dictionary, Neuralize what purpose is being served by worry, real worry, just at the ordinary level — if you have to have root canal next week, or a tax audit that you are afraid of — just ordinary worry.  You just can’t get that dentist out of your mind.  Over and over the same picture of how it hurt last time will run through your head.  No one ever notes how unprofitable it is, how there is nothing you can do except just  forget it.  It would be considered reasonable and logical to forget that which you can do nothing about, yet look how common worry is.  What is it? What purpose does it serve to worry about that which apparently cannot be changed?  Worry serves a purpose. What is the reality behind worry?

You could also Neuralize the term “another source” as like a hidden leg to a triad, to all triads.  Specifically try and Neuralize that there is something there connected to what I have been talking about.  Of course, it is connected to what I was talking about four years ago on October 27th.