OAI and SDR
Audio = Stream from the bar below or download from the blue link.
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Diagram = See Below # 063, 064, 050
Transcript = See Below
Jan Cox Talk 119, Aug 2, 1984, runtime 2:20
Notes by TK
Note: please listen to tape or read Transcript below for more details.
OAI consciousness = Observation, Analysis, I; SDR = Separation, Division, Remembering
Scenario of 3 drivers on freeway at accident site with three different reactions depending on OAI and SDR.
Not-I = Everything
I divided into Not-I = the ordinary or (Not I/ I) = the ordinary
I x 3 attempted (I x This Thing Attempted) = Neuralizing
Not I + (I x 3) = This Thing
Limitation of language = limitation of consciousness.
There is a mathematical formula to calculating the growth of Life, the growth of humanity. Consider: is your “I” a noun or verb?
The growth of humanity is a process, not a thing.
Consciousness is a process with three parts which are the minimal aspects a person needs to be aware of anything: O. A. I.
The first part, observing, amounts to a mechanical magnetic attraction to an unavoidably small part of the whole seamless reality.
The second part, analyzation, is the comparison of two systems or forces, which division is necessary to perceive anything at all, such as right or wrong, and the reasonable or unreasonable.
The “I” part is the method of division to facilitate observation and analyzation.
There is a kind of mathematics to O.A.I. The attempt to Neuralize is taking not-I, and instead of dividing it by I, you multiply it by the factor of I x 3 attempted.
O.A.I. also divides apparent sequences in time for the sake of memory and manipulation.
Everything that someone remembers is an event only because of the process of separate, divide and remember: S. D. R. An event is an isolation from the grid which happens without anyone planning it, and is created out of everything else. Division into events occurs simultaneously with remembering. Ordinary consciousness cannot conceive that events themselves do not exist, or have sequence as memory tells you they do. Separation does not cause memory anymore than memory causes separation.
The only way that what appears to be an event can be separated is that there must be a sense of time, and the only way a sense of time exists is through S.D.R. Without the S.D.R. there would be no sense that “I am something that has lived through a series of events.” You can drive right by a wreck and unless you notice it, you won’t remember it through the process of S.D.R. The O.A.I. must go through S.D.R. to separate an event from the larger seamless connectedness. The truth is, there is no distinction between events and non-events. Time itself is not the 4th-dimension, it’s part of S.D.R.
The major and minor triads unfold and expand in four directions, whose open taut ends will transmit energy and whose closed ends will no longer grow. An event is O.A.I.’s mechanical concept of the end of a line in a triad. Neuralizing is not simply being conscious of what connects within you, but of being conscious of trilateral ends that have yet to be connected.
To do This Thing, you cannot listen to your accusers. Growth is where there is the greatest amount of freedom. Everyone has a feeling that some things in me must be suppressed, but once on the right track, the most efficient is to let them loose. There can be no internal tyrannies. There is no need to act in a situation unless you feel there is a need to act.
OAI and SDR
Document: 119, August 2, 1984
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1984
The limitations of language can be seen in talking about what happens when This Thing reaches the point in Life’s internal history that it has with us. The current growth focused here is not concerned with destroying, through words or otherwise, anything that has gone before. Nor is This Activity a smooth sequence from what has occurred previously.
Normally when Life, as part of its growth, speaks to itself through man, what comes out is a form of continual criticism. It takes three forms (and if this sounds like Three Forces, pursue it on your own.) One form this apparent criticism may take is in judgments that Man is about to doom himself and destroy the planet; that Man has offended the holy powers and he is about to catch it. Secondly, there are voices which commend simply overturning everything. A prime example of this would be those who say, “Humanity has reached the point where we no longer need religion, and sooner or later, better sooner, everyone will be atheists.” And third, there is the “reasonable” approach: What we now need is to reinterpret the kernel of truth in all religions.” Yet when This Thing reaches its prime in the internal history of Life, it takes none of these forms.
At the ordinary level, the beautiful adaptability of the human process takes even the freshest, most exciting ideas and turns them into mechanical triggers. What is needed is a new language, a language necessarily based upon the yet-to-be, and thus resistant to being turned into mechanical triggers. One possible approach would be a mathematical language. With what Life has done through humanity up to this point, man can count in two ways: by numbers or by words. There is a mathematics regarding the development of humanity and Life itself. This mathematical reality is behind such pursuits as numerology. People occupy themselves by counting the words in a particular sacred book, multiplying the sum by 12 and 1/2, dividing the result by the height of the pyramids, factoring in the number of feet in the Brooklyn Bridge to arrive at the exact age of Moses’ brother-in-law — with a resulting chill and sense of achievement. Surely you realize there is no magic number to be found. But there is a crystalline construction going on; it is an unfolding of the Three Forces.
Now I want you to Consider: What seems to be one’s “I”? Is it a noun or a verb? Consciousness is a process; it is not a thing, but for the time being I am going to describe it as a triaxial thing. Until I change my description to one dealing with numbers I’m going to use words, and call the process OAI. This OAI process has three parts, and they are the minimal aspects needed for a person to be aware of something. The “O” is the Observing part — functionally, no more than the magnetic attractions of consciousness — the small parts that consciousness unavoidably pulls out of the whole, seamless totality. Anyone can immediately see that individual men can only concern themselves with extremely limited information at any one time. Right now, no matter how hard you try to be aware of your internal or external environment you might not notice the hum of the air conditioner, the person seated three seats down from you, particular odors or how comfortable your seat is. There simply are limits having to do with the mechanical, magnetic attraction of those parts that consciousness perceives within the whole. The attractions are mechanical; they are part of a general, non-personal force.
The “A” part is Analyzation — a comparison of two systems or two forces. Analyzation divides, necessarily, in order to perceive. No perception occurs without analyzation/division. For instance, the “A” part of OAI may divide incoming data into that which “I” agrees with and that which it doesn’t, or that which “I” approves of and that which it disapproves of, or what is reasonable to “I” and what is not. Consider, memory is not based upon indifference. An ordinary person might answer, “Of course, I have no indifferent memories. Why should I remember that which is boring?” And to that I’d say, “Aha!” And he’d say, “Aha to you, too.” But you should find it very interesting that there are no indifferent memories.
The “I” part of OAI is the method of division to facilitate observation and analyzation. What if this function, this division, is all that your sense of individuality amounts to? Of course, the OAI processes happen all at once; I am breaking it up for you verbally to lead you to a dangerous edge. There is a mathematics concerning the OAI. The mathematics of ordinary, Line-level consciousness could be described as Not-I divided by I (Not-I / I). Whereas the mathematics to describe an extraordinary consciousness would be:
Not-I x I.T.T.A.
(Not-I times I Times Three Attempted)
If you can pursue this beyond words it will offer you a different look at the limitations of language, which are synonymous with the limitations of consciousness. Neuralizing is the attempt to take all Not-I and instead of dividing it by I, you multiply it by the factor of I x 3. I am speaking of something impossible at Line level; to be conscious at that level, everything must be divided by I.
OAI also divides into a sequence of time. Modern man’s notion that time is the fourth dimension is specious: it is specious in that time is merely how OAI sequences apparent events for the sake of memory and manipulation. Everything someone remembers is an event. Everything you could put forward as a memory is an event. Taking OAI as a thing (although I told you that it is a process) — what it does is SDR. It Separates, Divides and Remembers, all simultaneously.
I’ll elaborate. The “O,” observation, separates something out of the whole magnetic grid. It is a kind of extrication/isolation that happens without “conscious planning.” The division necessary to perceive the event occurs simultaneously with the event, as does the remembering of the event. The very act of dividing and remembering “names” something, and thus, what seems to be an event is created out of the whole. It is only through this process that apparent events ever take place. Again, let me remind you: SDR is one process, although we must cut it up in order to talk about it. Separation does not cause memory, nor does memory cause separation. They happen at once. I won’t push you to see the possibility that you can remember something before it happens. But you do remember “events” simultaneously with their occurrence.
Ordinary consciousness cannot conceive that events themselves do not exist. Events, as you remember them, have no sequence, although memory will tell you otherwise. Events have no sense of time, but the corollary is that without that sense of time sequence, SDR could not take place. The only way an apparent event can be separated and perceived is that there must be a sense of time. And the only way a sense of time exists is through this separation.
Let us take a common event — a wreck on the highway. We will look at several people in relationship to this apparent event. The first person is in his car, late for a dinner appointment with a prospective client. Having made allowance for every conceivable contingency, nonetheless here he sits in bumper-to-bumper traffic, fuming over his potential loss of dollars. Another man, on his way home, gives only a small part of his attention to the stagnant traffic. He is accustomed to getting off work daily at 5:30 and knows that it will take him between 45 minutes and one hour and 15 minutes to get home. He prefers getting home in 45 minutes, but he is not terribly concerned with the delay because he’s well within normal, habitual parameters. He assumes that there is a wreck ahead of him, nonetheless his sense of time is quite different from our first party. Now as this commuter inches forward closer to the wreck he sees that one of the cars involved is the same model and color as his wife’s car. He also sees the same bumper sticker as on his wife’s car. Suddenly what seems to be the time sequence, what seems to be the event, has altered drastically. “That could be my wife or kids in that car! Are they all right?”
In yet another car, someone else is making his nightly commute home. He doesn’t particularly care that traffic is stalled; none of the cars involved in the wreck ring any bells of recognition for him. He glances at the accident as he goes by, but, in a sense, he is not even conscious of the wreck. For him, there is no “O” part — he never becomes a magnetized observer, thus the wreck is not even an event. In fact, when he arrives home, the TV news anchor is describing a wreck on the highway, and his wife asks excitedly, “Isn’t that the way you come home? Was it bad? It must have been terrible.” And the guy goes, “Wreck…uh, yeah, maybe.” And she says, “They said there were two people killed and two cars were on fire.” And he says, “Well, yeah, I think I saw something.” He drove right by it and had almost no awareness of it. An “event” does not exist by itself.
Events exist because of man’s absolute need to fulfill his purpose of separating, dividing and remembering. The SDR process is what gives the appearance of a sequence. Without SDR there would be no ability to remember, no sense that “I” exists and has lived through a series of events. If you were to prepare your life story for presentation, it would apparently be told in little segments of events. Yet “events” do not exist. Without your ability to remember your life in such a fashion, without consciousness’ sensation that, “events have happened to me,” you would not even be conscious.
Things are happening in all possible directions. In our example, three people started out on the highway just like they do every afternoon. Most afternoons, as with most of their life, the SDR process runs at a bare minimum. The regular drive home is usually “eventless.” But for two of our people in the previous example, the drive became memorable — they will remember it for a while. For the salesman, the wreck became an event; he certainly didn’t plan it; it just happened. When he realized he was late and helpless to prevent the possible loss of business, his OAI went through SDR — it separated the wreck from everything else — and the wreck became an event. The dividing occurred as it must or else the wreck would not be an event; it would have remained an unperceived part of the greater seamless whole. The “A” of OAI analyzed it, and in comparing the two possibilities, concluded, “I don’t like this event.”
For our second driver the SDR did not take place until he drew closer to the wreck. Once he saw the color of the car, there was a magnetic, mechanical attraction and — at the same time — the analyzation took place. In other words, he had some opinion, some feeling for what was now an event in his life: “I hope that’s not my wife.”
What about the old question: If a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one to hear it, does it make a sound? To ordinary people this is unanswerable. But the answer is yes — because at one time a man did hear and observe this phenomenon or he could not have asked the question. Ordinary consciousness would argue, “Well, that proves nothing. Just because somebody certainly at one time was in a forest and saw a tree fall and heard it crash — what does that have to do with right now, out in the forest?” But I am pointing to a place beyond what seems to be a sequence of events: a place beyond the separating, dividing and remembering process of ordinary awareness, memory and time.
Another example: It’s Sunday morning and you’re leafing through the paper. Nothing much catches your attention; you fix another cup of coffee and sit down again. You have nothing to do, there’s nothing special to read, so you start leafing through the classified ads. This for you is usually not eventful, but it’s raining outside and there’s nothing else to do. You spot an ad for a Ferrari, and a mechanical attraction starts the “O” part of the process. Simultaneously the analyzation occurs: “I wish I had $70,000. What fun it would be to have $70,000 just to spend on a car.” Soon you’re calling the number in the ad and writing down details. You continue excitedly, “Here’s a Porsche with fire damage. I could borrow $8,000, sell my old truck,” etc., etc. If you could observe yourself and ask, “What is the latest event in your life?” you’d say, “Well, for some reason I started reading sports car ads, and I’ve been thinking recently that I should trade cars, sell my truck because it’s giving me problems…” Consciousness makes it sound like it was a planned event. But do you see that the difference between what seems to be an event and a non-event is almost non-eventful itself? There is almost no distinction. I’m throwing in the word “almost” to give you a chance to let it sink in. The truth is, there is no distinction between events and non-events. But how can I tell anyone living at the ordinary level that there is no difference? Hence, trickery is necessary to point in so many different directions under different guises.
A new circuit is now being developed by Life through humanity. Those at the leading edge of subatomic physics are moving closer to what I’m speaking of (although they are fulfilling a purpose, they are not doing This Thing). Scientists are finding that particles behave in a way that contradicts their previously held assumptions. They have begun to observe that events seem to be simultaneous; they have reached a point in their investigations where there seems to be no “time” — the effects are simultaneous with the causes. Up until now, such notions have been unthinkable, but humanity is now being brought up to the point, by Life, that such ideas are not unthinkable.
What if, as indicated by current subatomic research, the past has no effect on what is happening now? I’m not posing a rhetorical question — I am suggesting to you that such a state of affairs might explain a great deal.
What I have described to you as triads actually exist. There are major and minor triads; the former seem to affect large segments of humanity, while the latter deal with minor segments such as an individual person. Triads expand and unfold; heretofore this expansion has proceeded at a certain rate. Don’t get unduly entangled in this, but as a means of rendering you at least not totally virgin in these matters, I will say that throughout a certain history, (that of the Yellow Circuit being alive in man) every twenty years, roughly every generation, triads have increased by a rate of nine. Up until now that has been the general rate. I am speaking of a tri-dimensional expansion.
This drawing represents a three-dimensional, equal sided pyramid. For three-dimensional reality to unfold, the triangles must have open lines at the vertices. These open lines unfold into more triangles, which unfold into still more, etc.
Anything that you can apparently observe — “events” — have to be connected to other events. This is part of what I mean by “unfold.” Picture the unfolding going on in three dimensions. Of course, a 3-D pyramid has four sides; to pass along energy the triad would be unfolding in four different dimensions. For now, ignore this unnamed fourth dimension.
For a triad to be connected to anything else, the lines at the vertices must be open and taut at the ends. Otherwise no energy can pass. An example of such a case where no energy is transmitted and no event takes place, is the driver on the interstate who says to his wife, “Well, now that you mention it, it seems like there was a wreck on the road today…I’m not sure, there’s wrecks every day. Pass me the TV. guide.” In this case the lines were loose. Energy did not pass through him; on the level of minor triads nothing further was produced. There must be a tautness between the event and the potential observer: “When I saw the orange car with that same bumper sticker, I almost died!” The event of seeing the accident and realizing that it might involve a loved-one unfolds into the event of getting out of the car to find out, which unfolds into the event of relief when the car belongs to someone else. After that point nothing further unfolds from the triad of the wreck. Of course, if the lines, the dividing and analyzation, had been relatively less taut, our traveler could have seen his wife’s car and thought, “Well, that saves the cost of a divorce.”
If you can picture the continuing manifestation of reality as the triads unfold, not forgetting C, D, and E flows, you can have a little exploratory fun. Picturing the triads in this way produces some interesting viewing angles. You will find that there is an operational mathematics within all phenomena — and I am not speaking of kindergarten mathematics where one thing causes another. You’ve got to get beyond the lineal, so-called physical laws that apparently govern our 3-D reality.
Here’s another way to look at events. An event is OAI’s mechanical conception of the end of a line in a triad. But what really is the event? When did it start and when will it be over? Referring again to our highway example, how about the person in the wrecked car? What was his sense of time? Did his “event” start when he glanced away from the road? What was he looking at and why? Is the event over when the police get him out of the car? When the paramedics tell him he’s O.K.? Or when his insurance premiums are increased?
The only way OAI can apparently be conscious of and remember an event is that everything finally comes to an end. It seems to OAI that a particular event finally just runs out of energy. “The insurance company finally settled.” Or, “After six months in the hospital, I can walk again…” Everyone’s memory tells them that things happened: “There was a beginning and an end; it happened to me. That’s why I remember it.” But it is just as true that one remembers it and causes it to happen. The memory and the event are simultaneous.
It’s time for a new way to consider Neuralizing: The pursuit on your own of trilateral ends that have yet to be connected. Neuralizing is an unnatural consciousness of trilateral ends within you that are as yet unconnected. They may never be connected via your habitual neural firing patterns. In another generation or so, everyone will be doing this, but then such activity will be part of another circuit. Nobody will be talking about it. Whoever has my job description will be speaking in a different direction. ITTA will be spoken of as I now speak of ordinary consciousness. It will be used as a representation of the status quo of ordinary consciousness.
Now, if you followed any of this, tell me, does OAI equal SDR? Which is the verb and which the noun? Which is the hammer and which the blow? If you saw a wreck on the highway, and your OAI did not SDR, what would you tell your spouse when you got home? She would say, “Hi honey, how are you?” and you would say, “AWGGGH, awgggd.” Either you would say everything in the world at once or you would never talk again. In some religious systems one manifestation of the evil force is his ability to say everything. But in no way would he differentiate the lies and the truth — the idea being that finally he would say something that you liked and then he had you. But enough of that.
Back to business: Do seams, in the original formless blob, equal SDR? Do seams equal events? Do events equal SDR? If numbers count events (I’m not saying they do) then would words count the sequence of events? If numbers counted sequences, then would words count the observer’s OAI regarding the sequences?
Tell me why we have words and numbers. Why both? Why could not one or the other suffice for everything? What purpose do numbers serve that could not be served by words, or vice versa?
Now for something else. You are living in the only place on this planet that can support This Thing. his has nothing to do with chauvinistic aspects of the grid. The epitome of what is developing/arriving — technology, science, the arts — everything is coming from this part of the world. You should feel, watching a film clip of downtown Peking, that you would not want to live there. Regardless of the descriptions of great social experiments, what is happening in such places is a clamping down on one of the flows.
For optimal growth to occur, there must be space for maniacs to run loose in the streets. Right here is the greatest amount of ordinary horizontal freedom in the world. You can get away with more here. Conversely, it is more dangerous than other places. There’s no chance of getting mugged in downtown Moscow.
I brought all this up for a purpose. Internally you must have the same degree of freedom. There must be a wide open democracy operating in you. But notice, heretofore everything that seems to have been some watered-down form of This Thing is based in some way upon an attempt to suppress democracy. An ordinary person assumes that if there is some way to progress as a human being, it is through a particular religion or system, wherein resides a rule book or some teacher who knows the secret. Such arrangements are an unnoticed form of tyranny: “No extramarital sex, no green socks…” And the would-be spiritual person says, “Got it, got it. I can live with that.” Or, “If you want to be a better person, not only must you refrain from killing your fellow man, you must not hate him, for that is killing him in your heart.” I am not referring simply to religions. Psychology operates the same way, for example. “What we’ve got to do, sir, is cut down on your neurotic behavior.” Such Line level attempts are considered the road to freedom. But nothing is amiss; seeking freedom through tyranny fits just right.
To do this, you cannot have a tyranny internally. You cannot listen to your accusers. Inside of you there is an insane congress — everybody standing up and yelling contradictory things, everybody telling everybody else that they are wrong. The accusers say, “I may be homosexual! I could have killed my mother! I stole money from the church poor box when I was fourteen years old…” You tell yourself you have to do away with questionable voices: “I’ve got to deal with this; these accusations are serious and must be addressed…” To do This, you must allow an Understood total freedom.
Growth occurs when internal freedom is greatest. Yet those attracted to This arrive with the expectation that they will be given a list of great rules. They want to be told exactly what to do. Their feeling is that there are things inside which must be suppressed. I’m telling you to let those fuckers loose. You must have a wide-open election going on continually. There seem to be voices that you like, and others that you want to stamp out. I’m telling you they are all the same; they are all necessary for optimum speed. Let them all loose — once you reach the right point, the wilder and woolier, the better.
Can you see that internally you can turn loose the wildest, nuttiest congress — all the fruit cakes, all the fanatics in the world yelling at each other, with you as the forum? It must be a place where one guy can get up to speak about the need for peace and another guy get up and punch him in the nose. It could become a free-for-all fist fight, with congressmen thrashing in the aisles. Or they could suddenly adjourn for the afternoon to dress up as ladies and go down to the docks…beyond these crude examples, do you get the picture? I’m talking about fostering a place internally where the potential for growth is the greatest.
Let’s throw something else in the pot. I told you recently that there is no need to act in any situation unless you feel the need to act. Additionally, I pointed out that a deed well done requires no explanation. This is tied to SDR — that is, you remember “instances” where you feel in retrospect that you should have acted, and you did not. Should I belabor the obvious and point out that such patterns of memory are wonderful sources of guilt and suffering? But let me ask you a question? Who remembers/thinks about their good deeds? That is, who remembers those situations in which they acted as they felt they should have acted? Nobody. A deed well done requires no explanations to anybody, yourself included. I am not speaking in qualitative terms about what you should do. If you feel that you should act and you do not, you’ll remember it. Not acting when it is time for you to act is a passage of improper energy. I’m suggesting to you a strong connection between this and memory.
Something else, I periodically remind everyone to pursue their apparent hobbies and interests. Can you see that after a certain point, within the milieu of This, hobbies could be the search for new seams? If there were a smart-aleck in the audience he might say, “Wait a minute, you’re saying that someone could become bored in some new way to the point that he might try to get back below Line level again?” And to that I would say, throw that man out. The way he asks questions…