Trinary
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Items=None
Summary= See below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Transcript= See Below
Summary
Tape 209, May 22, 1986, runtime 1:25
Notes by TK
More on the “Almost Correct But Impossible” (ACBI): you are what you eat. Not everything ingested is incorporated into the organism structure. But some things can “trigger” other alterations. Peoples’ hungers are very limited.
Binary world as “footprint” of a trinary heritage. The trinary as the glue for holding together the opposites of the binary.
To become an expert in any field in ordinary life is to become a pessimist. This includes spiritual fields as well. How/why is this?
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Example of being observed by another while primping in car mirror–how it affects you. Example of “self-observation” affecting that “self” studied. Part of the masterstroke: gives the illusion of change being possible. Relation to “you do or you don’t” as solution to the uncertainty principle.
You should never be more familiar with other people than with yourself. Example of borrower breaking something borrowed: “Gee, I didn’t expect to break it!” while everyone else knows you will.
Questions from Group. How does non-life-threatening fear originate in the Red Circuit? Who says fear of social embarrassment is not life threatening? Conversation as pure energy transfer–nothing more or less. There is nothing to comprehend in conversation.
Excursion
TASK: for newer people. Take two 45 minute walks in a rural environment–answer the question with each internal observation of thinking process: Is thought in words, or pictures, or both?
Transcript
NEVER BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH OTHERS
THAN YOU ARE WITH YOURSELF
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1986
Document: 209, May 22, 1986
The idea, “we are what we eat” appears at first swallow to be correct. It has been put out in various forms through religion, psychology, and the health sciences, but it is what I have labeled an ACBI — apparently correct but impossible.
Everything that takes in and uses food (energy) is wired up to use only certain kinds. All the energy to which a creature is exposed is not necessarily usable. Some of what comes to humans, at the very least, is not digested; it does not become part of them. We ignore much of what comes into us because we cannot use it as we are. The fact is, if man were what he eats, everyone would be undergoing a continual state of drastic change. Men would not be able to identify one another from one minute to the next. Your best friend would walk around the corner to get a pack of cigarettes and return in five minutes a totally different person.
If you were what you ate, then everything to which you gave your attention, or which captured your fancy, would cause you to undergo continual and drastic change. You may note, however, that the problem for man is not continual change; it is in being able to find enough room to maneuver at all: “I believe I will change my mind. I’ve lived 35 years now as somewhat of a boob… I think I’ll stop it.” Don’t bet your life savings on that.
What is going on, that we are not what we eat? You can apparently eat something (of course, by “eat” I refer to all circuits: Red, Blue, Yellow) which seems to suddenly trigger a “hidden potential” in you. Versions of this phenomenon are salient in the world of literature, arts, and movies. I will give you an example: a character in a play is engaged in a monologue with himself. He says, “My parents put me out to sea on a merchant ship when I was only fifteen years old. Trying to grow up out there at sea in the loneliness of the first few months away from my family, it struck me — I am truly alone! But then I looked around at my fellow shipmates and I realized that everybody is alone!” Apparently that character experienced a moment of epiphany. You probably know that religious literature is based upon such occurrences, but it is throughout all mundane literature as well. It is part of ordinary, walking-around common knowledge. People accept the fact that something illuminating can happen. Maybe not to them personally, but everyone accepts that this happens, which is further proof to the ordinary mind that “We are what we eat.” That experiences do make a difference, that we are the sum total of our experience. An ordinary person might allow that somewhere in the corner, genetics plays some little small part. The rest of it is obviously the influences of Life: what we eat while we are alive, the ideas we eat, the experiences we ingest, the emotions we digest, the physical ups and downs upon which we chew and gnash our teeth. You should be able to think quickly to Shakespeare, Balzac, Harold Robbins, Erskine Caldwell — any literature which catches the fancy of people for any length of time, or take movies and theatre: Somewhere in there a character has some kind of moment of enlightenment as in the example I just used. Apparently there are things people eat which trigger, through the digestion of them, a “potential”. It is so dastardly clever. But it is only a two dimensional reflection of something else going on.
The ACBI, “We are what we eat”, is backwards. (There are two things you can begin to do once you get a personal glimpse of what I mean). Simply look at your own life. Remember the mystical books you read in the past and which made such a profound impression? How it seemed at the time that book would change your life? You may talk about it and how you remember it, but it didn’t change your life — it didn’t change anything. You ate that book and it simply became you. You didn’t become it. It’s obvious once you see it.
If you do begin to see it, look at this: everything that seems to be Not-I is “out there”. You seem to have very little control over it; you don’t decide which books are published; you don’t decide which records are released; you don’t decide what your neighbors are going to do; you don’t even decide what your lover is going to act like tomorrow. Everything you eat becomes you, and when you get a grasp on this, you can begin to expand your hunger and tastes, and you can affect your digestive system.
If you pursue This Thing enough, you are going to find that there are discernible stages. When I say stages, I am talking about the profoundly physical, including what you call your mental activities, your personality, your soul; whatever foolish terms you may still be using. There are absolutely discernible biochemical stages to This wherein what you seem to feel, what seems to be your moods, actually change. And it changes permanently. But you can start by writing down the things you would like to do to expand your hunger for the new. You should find out very quickly that you keep doing the same things over and over again. And if you should by chance be thrown into a new situation with unfamiliar music or a different group of people, you can see that you simply shut out what you do not have a natural hunger for.
By being able to expand your own hunger and tastes, you can then affect the situation wherein everything you eat becomes you — and you begin to have room to maneuver. You can force feed yourself a brand new impression of a different type of person or different kind of music, for example. Ordinary people are not motivated to expand their tastes — they are not supposed to be. They are not driven to actively pursue it, they are driven to talk about it. A usable set of tenets of religion could be stated thus: “All of you people should expand your taste and your hunger, and you ought to shake up your digestive system.” That doesn’t sound very religious, but if you can get a view of this, you”ll see it is right at the heart of what seems to be the practise of all the world’s major religions.
Let’s go to the world of science. I have referred to ordinary existence as “Flatville,” the binary world where everything seems to be based upon opposites. I have also pointed out to you, allegorically and otherwise, that everything here is in actuality a triaxial dance. There are Three Forces at work. Then there is the continuing difficulty, as you would acknowledge without even being tortured, that even when you think you see them, all you have to do is take another breath and the Third force has disappeared again. As soon as you thought you saw the Third force, whatever it was that thought it saw it, suddenly was drained of energy. Whatever it was that was trying to make you look for it was once again gone.
There are ways I can try and pull your attention slightly askew from where you are. The binary world, for instance, is really a kind of footprint of our “Trinary Heritage”. The “Trinary World” is immediately behind that which is perceptible to ordinary consciousness. It is the glue holding together the apparent opposites of our ordinarily perceived binary existence. You should be able to look into your own nervous system — your mind, your personality — and see that everything in it seems to be based upon a set of opposing elements. Good and evil, right and wrong, true and false, and anything else you can come up with — yin/yang, male/female, positive/negative.
You should also be able to see that trying to study the world through the consideration of opposites leads nowhere (except possibly to fanaticism). Such an approach reinforces the wiring of your present system, and helps solidify your position in one of the armed camps. If indeed everything in the universe was divided up strictly into two camps, they would annihilate each other. Either that, or the whole machinery of Life would freeze up, which would be the same thing. You could not have all of reality divided in two, and that is that. This is an absolute scientific law of physics which has never been recognized. The opposites that seem to be are only the apparent basis of ordinary binary reality.
Let us move on. Has anyone noticed that in the great binary world of Flat City, in that great country of Horizontaldom, that to become an expert is to become a pessimist? Think about it. Anybody that seems to come to mind: is he or she apparently an expert in one field? (If they have some knowledge or wherewithal in a couple of fields, this does not apply.) I ask you, what purpose does this serve in Life? You should know that in Life you don’t find experts at the age of twenty or thirty. You can find someone with a very promising future, but to be an expert, you have to be getting long in the tooth. Perhaps a man spends ten or fifteen years in college and it strikes him he is very interested in history, and for the next five years he really applies himself. First thing you know the man is hitting fifty and he is recognized as the world’s leading expert on European History. Think of the stuff that man knows: all the anecdotes and tidbits of history he can tie together. He can weave a little tapestry in his mind of how things built up and brought the coming of the Industrial Revolution. Now ask him to tell you what we should learn in the 1980’s from the events of the 1580’s…surely you know already there’s going to be bad news when he tells you the lessons to be learned. “We haven’t learned anything — we’re repeating it all.” His lessons will be a discourse on pessimism. What is going on that someone who becomes an expert simultaneously becomes a pessimist? Was it the impact of the man’s lengthy education that allowed him to see the light? No. (At least I’m hinting to you, No.)
Let us go back into the world of physics and ordinary people. Here’s something that many should be able to ignore, although some of you may hear it right quick and not like it at all. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics? Scientists discovered that when they attempt to observe subatomic phenomena, the instruments used for observation at that level interfere with and change the reality of what is being observed. It was a revolutionary discovery, and what it means in the world of physics is still being debated.
(I periodically delve into that world to show you, or hint to you, that some of the things I am talking about have an already-known correlation in the physical world. As opposed to what you might think This Thing is about, i.e., a spiritual, religious world of some sort. But this phenomenon not only concerns the subatomic level. At the other end of the scale, it will be found to apply to observations of deep space. It will be far in the future, but scientists will be confronted with the same thing turned inside out.)
Back to the middle ground — us. Our bodies are made up of subatomic particles all put together in a nice package. So here you are driving along the freeway, singing along with the radio; traffic stops and you continue singing. You think about what you’re going to do that night. Suddenly, you look up and see someone looking at you. What happens? You shift your posture, try to look cool, etc. The mere act of observation changes that which is being observed. How about the genesis story in the bible? Adam and Eve are going along, getting into their own groove, and suddenly a voice comes down. An outside observer says, “Did you eat off that tree?” Again, suddenly, everything changed. Yet, in Quantum Physics, scientists found it strange. At any rate, the reality of it is not new. (To say the least.)
Now to the part which some of you will be able to not hear: Every attempt to change, all the way from the most mechanical, hard-wired acts to sincere efforts at going back to school, giving up alcohol or cigarettes, attending church, dressing differently — the whole range — is an attempt to “work on oneself”. That requires observation, and the mere act of observing or studying yourself immediately changes the self to be worked on. Many people who hear the things I say regarding the near impossibility of change, or how there is almost no room to maneuver, disavow it on the basis that they have tried to make some change in their life, and have felt better for it. But how long did the feeling of “betterness” last? An attempt to change does not disprove what I have said: In order to attempt to change, you have to study yourself in some way and the mere act of studying oneself affects the thing being observed. You then are in the same ballpark with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Nobody wants to take that into account. And, of course, the impression given by Life to and through people is that continual change is possible. People continually say change is taking place and surely the whole world cannot be lying.
The point is, to the same degree you attempt to pursue a desired change that attempt affects you. You cannot depend any longer on what you are looking at, because the mere act of looking at it changes it immediately. What you are seeing is not what was going on before you looked at it. Now, Professor Heisenberg never did check with me to find out one of my principles: “You either do or you don’t.” Correctly understood, in our “Trinary Heritage,” that is the solution to the Uncertainty Principle. My principle is not binary. On the contrary — it eats all binary concepts.
The next subject has general pertinence to everyone, and specific pertinence to those involved with This Thing: you should never be more familiar with other people than you are with yourself. Let me give you a good hard physical example. You borrow something from someone. When you get ready to return it, or they ask for it back, it is in three pieces. Of course, it wasn’t broken when you got it. If, when handing it back to them you say in all sincerity, “I didn’t expect to break it. I didn’t do it on purpose”, you are being more familiar with them than you would be with yourself. In any group of more than two or three people, there is going to be someone like this, and everyone catches on except the person breaking things. It is common knowledge amongst the group. If you had been as familiar with yourself as the lender was to do you a favor, you would not continue to play out your same old role in Life.
People do it with their families, that being one of the closest relationships. They continually say, “I have broken my word”, or, “I have said something to make another person feel mistreated”. You turn to your lover and just run through the ordinary hard-wired programs, and then follow through with something like, “I didn’t intend that to happen”. Again, you are being more familiar with them than you are with yourself. If you weren’t, you would never say things like that. Some of you think you are involved with such weighty, mystical matters on your quest that this could never happen to you.
Next subject, although you understand I’m really not changing the subject? Not every internal shift has its roots in the Red Circuit, but people generally think that things like fear and nervousness seem to. You could very well think embarrassment begins as a physical phenomenon and advances upward through the Blue to the Yellow Circuit. But then, why would embarrassment start in the Red Circuit under non-life-threatening circumstances? Who says being embarrassed isn’t life-threatening? Not the person it is happening to. To believe that what is going on in the higher Yellow Circuit is different from what is going on in the lower circuits, or that the mind is separate from the body, is routine thinking. It is not so. There is no difference between someone coming at you with a dagger and something happening in this nebulous world of your consciousness. The Yellow Circuit is just as biochemically and molecularly based as the Red Circuit. It is as molecularly based as feeling stage fright or worrying about what someone will say about you.
Here is a good subject that one of you recently asked about. The question said that sometimes it is difficult at the ordinary level to understand what people are saying to each other even while apparently engaged in conversation. At times it seems that there are all kinds of perceptions and opinions passing between the people and yet somehow, a bystander could make no sense of what is actually said. You can observe this by just walking down to the street corner. Get on a bus or a subway, and watch people who have been married fifty years; watch a mother and daughter, father and son, or best friends. “Did anyone understand what they were saying to each other? Am I missing something? Is it some kind of trick?” What if, in many instances, there is nothing to comprehend? This, of course, is not an attack on humanity. It is not to say that people are idiots, that people are confused — it is none of that. But the transfers of energy, the byplay between one person as entertainer and one person as audience often times has nothing to do with the verbal or even so-called emotional content of what is being said. It is strictly “mechanical” talk.
Women, heretofore, have not been exposed to this as much as men. Try going to a locker room, or go and hang out in the ballpark after you watched guys playing baseball a couple of hours. The locker room is a good place to observe this, when the game is over. Hide behind the door: there are people talking inside and there is nothing going on. There is as much talk as you would ever want to hear; ten people talking simultaneously. Yet you can listen and nothing of any importance is being said. Nobody seems to be listening to anybody else. It is a transfer of energy, and if you are looking for some observable verbal content or importance, there may be none. But rather than go to a locker room, all you have to do it listen to your own voices internally and externally. Look at what is going on every time you talk.
I recently received this question: Why is it impossible for three or more people to work together to solve a problem or get a job done? It is almost unheard of that three or more people do something in a pertinent and productive manner. One or two people will step forward and become the leaders. It is easy for two people to agree on any number of matters; you can check on one another, get progress reports, etc. If an endeavor is going to live, to be efficient at all, it is looked upon by the participants as being composed of two camps. They cannot hold onto the impression that it is three groups. If they do, the whole thing is perceived as falling apart. You would then start hearing things like, “There are too many chiefs, and not enough indians” or “I have to carry this whole thing. Those others aren’t doing their job.” How many times have you found yourself in that situation? How would this be serving Life’s purposes?