Diary Without I
The video does not include the 51 minutes of reading the AKS ( and Kyroot Said…)( the audio does)
Audio= Stream the audio in two parts from the bars below. Part 1 has 51 minutes of various members of a group reading the AKS ( and Kyroot said…), If you start the audio and then open the AKS/News in a new window in your browser – you can follow along as they read.
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1982-5-15 ( 0252)
Condensed AKS/News Items = Below Summary
Summary= See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below (Tneed edit)
Summary
Jan Cox Talk #252 Mar 19, 1987 – 1:47
Notes by TK
[Reading of Kyroot papers to 0:50.]
More on explaining yourself. A real man can keep a diary without using the word “I”. Remember:everyone keeps a constant running internal diary. If such diary w/o ‘I’ could be kept, how could it be made logically palatable? With first attempt at presentation to another the word ‘I’ must come into use.
Conclusions. The many seek to become their conclusions. The Few seek a continuing merger of ideas without conclusions. The Few must be able to abandon the desire to become a conclusion.
Question from Group: Is it profitable to ‘fake it till you make it’ sexually? Or are you just fighting against your genetic makeup? This is nearly impossible for men but more possible for women. Could be used by an Extraordinary man for extraordinary change.
Ordinary love is a form of domination without overt violence, and therefore violence is never far from the surface since imbalance must exist.
Condensed AKS
5/15/82-(1)
…and Kyroot said:
Once a Man sees
he may then embrace the meaningless illusions of life with all
apparent enthusiasm and no visible harm.
5/15/82 (2)
…and Kyroot said:
Ordinary man accepts his dissatisfaction as being other than it is.
He calls it emotional and mental problems, material difficulties, etc.,
when it all arises from the ever-unfinished upper level of his
very own nervous system.
5/15/82 (3)
…and Kyroot said:
No lateral, I-level observations are profitable since they must fit into predetermined slots, and be subjectively judgemental.
5/15/82 (4)
…and Kyroot said:
All human activity is unknowingly directed toward affecting completion.
5/15/82 (5)
…and Kyroot said:
Those who can See can peer into mens’ eyes and view the emptiness and lateral captivity.
5/15/82 (6)
…and Kyroot said:
The problems of man can never be solved in that they are his ordinary consciousness.
5/15/82 (7)
…and Kyroot said:
There is faith and there is trust.
Faith is the hopeful ignorance of the ordinary and is always tied to thought – thinking about your faith,
while trust is a non-verbal assurance silently arising from the understanding of those who Know.
5/15/82 (8)
…and Kyroot said:
The secret clue to doing This is not in finding a solution,
but in discovering the problem.
5/15/82 (9)
…and Kyroot said:
There is unknown territory at both ends of the nervous system; the musky dark of the past
and the blinding uncertainty
of the future,
and
ordinary, civilized men fear them both.
5/15/82 (10)
…and Kyroot said:
Understanding is conditionally satisfying
while ordinary knowledge is absolutely disconcerting.
5/15/82 (11)
…and Kyroot said:
The past is properly implanted in the lower levels of the nervous
system, and ordinary games such as psychiatry will not be somehow
allowed to do that which appears to be its aim,that is,
undo a man’s past which would leave him blank.
His thorny past and desperate memories are now him, and this growth process up the spine in time is not to somehow now be undone, or the man himself would
become undone.
5/15/82 (12)
…and Kyroot said:
In the struggle to do This
anything you have already thought of is useless.
5/15/82 (13)
…and Kyroot said:
To have any real potential, a person must have had the inherent wiring potential to be everyone, that is, every mortal type of nervous system transformers.
These wiring possibilities must have been biologically and genetically conceivable, and one’s psychological environment must have been so that such unlimited potential was not destroyed.
5/15/82 (14)
…and Kyroot said:
Even among those passionately discussing their notions of this Thing
there is only a need for new, unfillable prescriptions,
and no demand at all for a final
cure.
(and you can quote me on that.)
5/15/82 (15)
…and Kyroot said:
No system, including man, can conceive of itself from its own level.
And no system can be both studied as a certain object, and a continuing process.
(And the question of, “Which shall it be?”, is not even available to those who have
to ask.)
5/15/82 (16)
…and Kyroot said:
All forms of creation require the destruction of some other form, and the so-called evils of mortal life could be viewed as an intrinsic after-effect of the original creation.
(And This Thing might be seen
as certain men’s attempt to reverse creation’s original destruction.)
5/15/82 (17)
…and Kyroot said:
The mind uses words so that expectation of alternatives are offered, while the end result is just the opposite.
5/15/82 (18)
…and Kyroot said:
All news is bad news
because it is from the past
(doesn’t that give anyone a hint.)
5/15/82 (19)
…and Kyroot said:
A hobby can never be a real hobby unless its just a hobby.
5/15/82 (20)
…and Kyroot said:
Once the tricks are exposed and the methods explained and a man begins to see,
the aim of This Thing is no longer seen as the attempt to make a quickened person from a sleeping blob,
but as an enterprise to produce an extended process from
a limited system.
5/15/82 (21)
…and Kyroot said:
Since all maps are non living sketches, the cartographer must be
available to furnish the necessary breath-of-meaning, or else
the maps become but additional markers in the graveyard of
the lost.
5/15/82 (22)
…and Kyroot said:
The quicker and more explanatory is a map, the less is its attraction. Little, fragmented, piece-meal maps, apparently pointing to particular “problem areas” are always
the most welcome.
5/15/82 (23)
…and Kyroot said:
A more alert man would not have to carry about worry beads to placate nervous movement;
he knows where a better version lies in the skull.
5/15/82 (24)
…and Kyroot said:
The ordinary mind is made to be troubled.
Stilled waters are useless seas,
and the only systems at rest are undertakers on strike.
5/15/82 (25)
…and Kyroot said:
During the past peace time of the Kingdoleum Empire there arose a certain military scholar. He carefully studied the recorded and oral histories of all the world’s great battles, their generals, and their tactics. His subsequent writings and explanations of warfare raised his fame therein to an unparalleled height, and the whole empire recognized him as its greatest military theoretician.
The day came that the Northern Mongols declared war on the Empire, and the emperor immediately placed the peoples’ defense in the hands of the military scholar. A great army was raised, and the scholar, along with all his notes and knowledge, lead the forces across the Dion Plains to confront the unruly Mongols. Once over the Plains, the scholar rode up to the crest of the first mountain in the early morning hours to await the coming onslaught. The first rays of morning light found him astride his trusty steed, his notes and battle plans in hand, looking toward the opposing ridge where over the Mongols were soon expected to charge.
Suddenly, far in the distance, a rumbling sound was heard; dust began to rise over the opposing ridge, and as the mighty Mongol hordes began to crest the ridge, the scholar’s fine reputation was forever lost as he was heard to scream,
“Ga-ad-damn, where the fuck did all those guys come from?”
Transcript
252xy 3/19/87
YOUR DUTY IS NOT TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING
AND
MOLECULAR SEXUAL ATTRACTION
Someone asked me a potent question, but before I read it, I
want to say a little bit about Life insisting that people explain
themselves versus my comment to you that you should take it as
your duty not to explain anything. To put it another way, a Real
Person, a person who is attempting to ignite the higher levels of
consciousness, would be a person who could keep a diary and never
use the word “I.”
Do you realize everyone is keeping a diary? What passes for
your own private thoughts and feelings, what is absolutely the
oxygen base of this combustion that is an internally running
dialogue that you take as being your own private thoughts, your
own cynical, critical comments on the nature of everyone else and
the nature of life; that is all a diary. But who could say that
they are already man or woman enough that you could continue to
note these observations and never use the word “I.”
If you could keep such a diary, not to actually write down
anything in a little blank book from a bookstore, but if you
could allow this internal running dialogue to go on while
extracting the use of the word “I”, you would have that which is
close to the impossible. If I had to use a word that is only the
merest approximation of what I am talking about, you would have
that which is “objective” or even clinical. Your diary would be
a clinical notebook of the areas in Life’s body where you have
inexplicably found yourself from moment to moment.
If we are to insinuate that this diary without the use of
the word “I” could be any logical significance, the first thing
you would have to say to the person you were attempting to
convince, the first thing you would have to refer to is “I.” As
soon as you are about to speak to them on the basis that there
could be some lasting value in this “I-less” diary, to be
routinely conscious and then become extraordinarily routinely
conscious, you would have to first off say to the person, “I”,
and you’re no longer clinical.
You can look at it from another direction, in terms of
conclusions. Can you see that the ordinary consciousness of each
person being a diary keeper is seeking to become their own
conclusion? The way ordinary consciousness is wired up, the
molecular arrangement of humans, especially in the higher
circuits, is to come to a conclusion. It is also so in the lower
circuits, though of no great significance, for example, what’s
the point of eating — it’s to come to a conclusion, that being
expressed as, “I’m full,” or what’s the point of lying down and
resting, except to come to the conclusion at some later time that
can be expressed as, “Well, I think I’ve rested enough.” I hope
I don’t have to give you an example of this with the higher
circuits, let it suffice to say that if you examine what is your
ordinary thought process, it is nothing more than one conclusion
after another.
So you could say, the many are seeking to become their own
conclusion, whereas those attempting to extend themselves
vertically seek to become an ongoing merger. How could you keep
a diary if you came to no conclusions or made no comment? I
don’t want to detract from the inherent beauty of this, but to
draw it out a little more, what if you’re home and you begin to
note you date with Fred or Mary earlier in the evening and you
are going to fill in the diary for that day and you make no
conclusive comment about the date, you simply write, “Dear Diary,
regarding said date…,” and the page is blank. Your diary would
say, “Come on, come on, what are you trying to do, drive me nuts?
Give me a break.” But that’s it, you would note there had been a
date with Fred or Mary, and you close the book. What you are
attempting to do with this activity is to not reach a conclusion.
Furthermore, you’re not even attempting to not not reach a
conclusion. You can see verbally it is easy to run this into a
corner, but verbally what seems to be an absolutely irrational
and unsatisfactory arrangement to ordinary consciousness is, for
the few attempting this activity, at the very least just the
opposite. You do not seek to become your own conclusion in the
diary. A conclusion would be the end of Wall Street, the ticker
tape would shut down. This Activity is an attempt at ongoing
merger, not just a simple merger, such as company B buys out
company C, period, but an ongoing merger where you’re always one
step behind. It would be an ongoing merger of that which one
believes is the diary keeper with that which one believes the
diary keeper is attempting to note, to comment upon. You keep
the two from coming to a conclusion, but of course, taking this
literally you’re getting close to an area that should be
surrounded by (I guess we need a new international symbol)
“extreme hazardous irrationale”, or perhaps, “radioactive
foolishness.”
From a very real viewpoint all religion, all sex, all
business is an attempt at conclusion. The desire to go shopping
and acquire possessions, to have hobbies and collect stamps or
collect men, or women, or opinions, or anger; to be alive you are
conclusion driven. To want anything, a new car, relief from sore
feet, is to want to be a conclusion. In attempting to do this
Activity, what I’m attempting to do as best I can, being outside
your equation of I plus Not-I Equals Everything, is to try to
trick you, misdirect you to encourage you to See that the only
proper conclusion for the Few is to abandon the desire to be a
conclusion, to be able to escape the foregone conclusion that you
were going to become a conclusion. Anything that can even be
described as being fast enough is not fast enough, because you’re
already a conclusion saying, “Well, I’ve done the best I can.”
To keep this from sounding as though it is coming to any
conclusion, I’m going to read you parts of this extraordinary
note and question. “Given that it is not necessarily beneficial
to live alone for an extended period of time, and given that
sexual attraction does not seem easy to sustain, is it possible,”
and now they are quoting me, “to fake it till you make it in
regard to sexual attraction, or is one attempting to fight
against one’s own genetic makeup in such an area?” I will tell
you this much, a woman wrote the question, and the reason I point
that out is that there are two obvious directions to which one
should look, and in this case they are not simply C force and D
force. For once, it’s in the two areas of men and women. I have
received such questions before and this is the first time a woman
has written it. I’ve had men in this group ask me on numerous
occasions if there is no one in the group that interests them,
nobody that strikes their fancy, should they look outside the
group, and if so, is there any particular type to look for, or is
it all the same. And more questions on the basis that I have
already tried this, and it’s not satisfying anymore and aren’t I
pitiful, what balm can you offer me.
That, together with the heart of this question of, “Is it
possible to fake it in regards to sexual attraction or are you
fighting against your genetic makeup?” — anytime we’re talking
about faking it until you make it, or anytime we are talking
about change, you are talking about going against your genetic
makeup. This is correct across the whole range from the kind of
person who says, “I have no real desire to change,” to those who
would make the supreme sacrifices (take journeys, dance, whirl,
drugs, etc.). It is all an attempt to go against one’s genetic
makeup.
The unsaid part of this question is: is there any
significance to this? An ordinary person would discover no
significance in trying to change, but the unrecognized part is
that he can’t change, so the whole question is moot, except to
them it doesn’t appear to be moot. It cannot be proven to be of
no consequence. It’s not necessary, it’s not even proper to be
able to prove it. The ordinary mind, the Yellow Circuit, can do
nothing with the reality of not being able to change.
If I wanted to be more poetic I could say, all right,
everybody is in prison. Poor old us. Poor humanity. We’re
locked down for the night, we’re all doing at least life and a
day. The real bars of each person’s cell is the fact that they
do not know that they’re in jail. It’s invisible. It’s beyond
consciousness. Given the present makeup of man’s circuitry,
especially the higher parts of his circuitry, there is no way to
bring the higher circuitry to a conclusion that it is a captive.
It cannot reach such a conclusion, it cannot be driven or dragged
there. If we speak allegorically of a prison then it is one
where the bars are absolutely invisible. They are invisible
holographically, that is, they’re more than invisible — they’re
invisible times three.
The question as to the significance of attempting to fake a
sexual attraction — you are dealing with the invisible. You’re
dealing with that which is of no consequence to an ordinary
person. To bring it to the level of one of you in this group
asking this question brings us into the great world of men and
women. It would take and extraordinary man to willfully fake a
sexual attraction for any length of time, to fake such an
attraction to any degree towards a woman to whom he was not
sexually attracted.
There is not an exact similar situation with women. The
parameters that women are wired up to feel sexual attraction are
not the same. I even hesitate to use the same term “sexual
attraction”, it is not exactly vice versa. I’m not a woman, but
I can see and feel and understand that much of what is sexual
attraction is not vice versa. If you men indeed have been around
the block, I’ll mention this: there is every likelihood that if
you’ve been to bed with more than a handful of women, that there
have been women who have been to bed with you that under the most
routine circumstances would not have given you the day of the
month, much less the time of day. It would be similar to a woman
feeling like she had been to bed with William F. Buckley. Let me
say again that there is not an exact parallel between men’s and
women’s sexual attractions, but if you could speak to a woman and
she understood what you were asking, what you were trying to get
at, vis a vis, man’s sexual attraction, she would admit, on the
basis of whether she was actually sexually attracted to him (or
if I have to say it like the old folk, whether she “actually
loved him”) she would say, “No,” with no inference that “I
dislike him” in some way. The question would be to her, “Do you
actually love him or is there something passionate? Is that what
you are after?” But here it is, they are past the age of 25 or
30 and you might ask, “Well, is it a big deal?” And she would
respond, “No, it’s no big deal.” If women had such dreams as
kids, it would be like her saying, “Well, when I was a kid, I
always wanted a Corvette, and I ended up with a Honda. But what
the hell, it gets me back and forth to the store and to work.
I’m past the point where I have any time to fool with this
anymore; I’m just not going to worry about it.”
Don’t let this sound in the least bit mystical to you , we
are still talking about genes, about molecular makeup, and you
can’t change it. I suggest to you that this is part of the world
wide popularity of drugs and alcohol, especially with men (women
do not get together and have a few drinks and then run up to the
bar to see what’s available to them). It is very common for men
throughout the world to have a couple of drinks before they go
out to meeting places, whether it be around a campfire or an
oasis, a church social or in a little village or township
somewhere, or whether it’s a singles bar nowadays. You make a
mistake if you look at this and assume it was simply as ordinary
psychology would have it — it’s a matter of you being shy, or
being psychologically dwarfed from some childhood drama that you
got ta have a few drinks to steel your nerve, that’s a childish
explanation. It is that alcohol affects very quickly, directly,
and substantially how one reacts to all stimuli, to all sensual
information, and it can apparently make you molecularly react
differently. Put more simply, it is, “Boy, I get drunk and I can
go to bed with a cow!”, (and you have!). Women do not operate on
this basis, they don’t seem to need it, it has not been arranged
in Life’s body for that to be needed by women on that basis, but
to look at alcohol as the work of the devil or something evil is
to miss the point. Life has really used it.
But I will tell you this, a man can learn a real secret from
the experience of trying to deal with a woman with whom he has no
immediate mechanical attraction, because for one thing, if you
know how to do it you can verbally get them to tell you things
that you would ordinarily never hear. Put crudely, you can get
them to tell you the truth — to tell you things about yourself
that they don’t believe that any man wants to hear. Put crudely
as an example, after a few hours of you holding control of the
kind of relationship we are talking about here, you could ask a
woman such things as, “What do you like about me?” Clinically
she’ll say, “Nothing.” Or you ask, “Now that I’ve explained
myself to you for the last couple hours, showed you my condo, my
car, telling you where I went to school and all I’ve done, what
do you think of me?” And clinically she says, “You’re an idiot,”
or, “You’re just crazy, crazy as all get out.”
Speaking of attraction and love, what is referred to as
love, from one very real view, could be seen as a form of
domination without overt violence. This is not social
commentary. The role that humanity is playing in the Life of
Life, the transfer of energy/heat/information is constantly in an
unbalanced state. If two people know the same thing, they can’t
convey any information. There has to be an imbalance, always, in
any situation involving men and women. A great entertainer
cannot go out and impress an audience full of equally great
entertainers! Once you begin to see the inexplicable, but
always present, edge of possible violence that exists in the
ordinary love affairs of men and women, you can view the
imbalance as a case of domination without overt violence. A
large percentage of all homicides take place among the family.
Poets, lovers, and philosophers throughout history have mused,
pondered, and attempted to explain why hostility and even
homicide seems to go hand in hand with love. Love, in the
horizontal world, is a form of dominance, but initially it may
show no signs of violence. Contraire — they’re rushing into
each others arms with sweet little words and remembrances, but
even this is a form of dominance. As an example, one of them
says, “Boy, I love you,” and the other through word or deed says,
“All right, I’m available to be loved.” There is an imbalance
that can be seen in different ways as a transfer of heat, of
energy, of attention, of information, or as a transfer of blood,
not your blood, but Life’s blood. And in all cases where an
imbalance attempts to balance itself, the so called struggle is a
violent one, and it is as clinical as cold air trying to find the
correct balance with hot air in a room. All the air in the room
will eventually be the same temperature, and the process,
clinically, is a violent one. This energy transfer, the seeking
to redress an imbalance, is the unrecognized drive for everything
to come to a conclusion; the proper conclusion to ordinary
consciousness is, “I’ve got to reach a balance, I’ve got to be a
good person, an enlightened person (and I’m not yet), but the
proper conclusion to my life would be a balance, a redress of
that which I want to be and that which I am.”
I sometimes wonder…if I have attempted to extract the
apparent mystery from this to a sufficient degree (some of you
within you own partnership will think I have already gone too
far), but there is still a great mystery to This. To those of
you that ever hearken back to your original dreams of this
Activity, the real mystery should be — how in the heck do I know
all of this? Second level mystery would be, why can’t I hear
more of it? Laterally removed to a third step is how is it that
you can hear some of it so clearly and then forget that same
some?