The Need for Stability
There is 9 minutes of Kyroot reading on this audio that is not on the video above.
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1987-10-05 (0283)
Condensed AKS/News Items = Below Summary
Summary = See Below
Excursion / Task = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
UFN = Unidentified Flying Nevers at the end of the tape
#283 Oct 5, 1987 – 1:45
Notes by TK
Kyroot reading to :09.
“Odds and ends”. Commentary on the aphorism: “Men are but gods in ruin”. What possible purpose is served for Life that men view themselves as cut-rate versions of their imagined gods? What does this say about man’s imagined goal of perfection –godhood –when such gods as they imagine are not capable of more than creating cut-rate versions of themselves, who they then lead to desire to emulate them?
In the concept of “survival of the fittest” men cannot think or accept what ‘fittest’ means. There could be no common agreement on this; everyone would imagine a perfected self as fittest, and this would conflict with everyone else’s version.
4-D time sight would reveal that everything is both orderly/stable and chaotic/unpredictable. The Real Revolutionist would not be a mere intellectual who must see everything as true or false because—i.e., be time blind. The scariest experience for the ordinary man is not knowing stability. 4-D time-consciousness transcends ‘because’.
A method: attempt to find irrational connections, unrelated contingencies; attempt to ‘drag in E’. E.g., when faced with a question that must be decided, predicate the decision on an outcome of an unrelated matter. An ancillary side benefit: no foe could then predict your behavior.
The People always see their problems arrive at a critical impasse/intensity ending with the question: “What happens now?” The simple answer: Life happens now.
Among all people the Real Revolutionist knows the ultimate biochemical molecular structure of human affairs to be: lead or be led. The resolution of this question is imagined by man to be paradise; no more ambiguity.
From an expanded view all conflict/warfare is just violent reaction by one side to change, or even the threat of change by the other. All change on the part of your opposition is threatening.
Molecular Provincialism; cellular jingoism, is one of the strongest impulses in man. Formation of groups is always driven toward solidarity and allegiance to/under a logo/flag.
Consider: can all great thoughts be turned into great deeds? Are you sure?
The Real Revolutionist would recognize two methods of useful movement for the cause:
1. Action (or intent of action w/o comment) and
2. thinking of action (with comment/announcement of intent) then letting the words operate. The second is a willful discussion or questioning of reactions and intentions, coming to verbal conclusions. But with the always insertion of the “comma-prayer”: “thank you Life”.
Re: personal problems in life. The Few should attempt to ‘think’ their way out or to feel their way out of problems. One is more efficient than the other.
1:38 UFN’s ( Unidentified Flying Nevers )
New Revolutionary Rule: always smile just before speaking (or before everything).
And Kyroot Said…
The Real Revolutionist should assure the People that what is
ultimately necessary and correct will also prove to be safe and
I once heard a man mumble something to the effect that
“Disingenuous historians wrong the dead.” Which sounds like a
pretty shoddy affair until you ask yourself, “Well, how have the
dead treated me?” There.
In a certain, peculiar lateral-sense, the Real Revolutionist
doesn’t particularly “like, or dislike” anyone, but is rather
clinical, and impersonal…not unlike Life’s own stance toward
I sure hate to anytime, much less, too “oft time” sound
discouraging in my notations regarding mortal affairs, but I must
mention to you this…for your own good: You can’t tell which
way the train went by studying the tracks, and you can’t tell the
final score by looking at the ticket stubs. (Now that wasn’t so
hard, was it…)
Can there really be “reasonable” new information? —
revolutionary rhetoric radical enough to immediately attract, yet
still sounding sufficiently routine as to not seriously frighten
the children and bankers?
Limited, or controlled reaction to criticism could be seen
as one measure of a recruit’s potential value to the cause, but
the Revolutionist himself must be far beyond its very call. When
it comes down to such matters, the Real Revolutionist does not
simply have an unlisted number, he has no phone.
The Ruling Powers love to proclaim that, “The very idea of
freedom is the living strength of our People and their
government,” which is always a Top-40-Hit with tyrants and
If it’s mere decency you want then, by god, it is decency
you shall have. (But don’t ever speak to me again about getting
out of the charity ward.)
Once you realize that something is correct, it is no longer
of any consequence whether it’s true, or not. The very idea of
“truth” is but a three-dimensional, disposable yellow-diaper, and
a verbal concept the Real Revolutionist should simply abandon to
It is not simply that the Real Revolutionist is “immoral,”
rather it is that he has no time for mere “mortal sins.”
Knowledge may come and go, but ignorance is forever.
The Real Revolutionist would be he who might shout, “O.k.,
reality, do your worst.”
It is the duty of all right-thinking men and women to apply
themselves to serious physical disciplines and diets, and to take
whatever strenuous measures may be necessary to see that health-
wise, they bring themselves up to that grand level of feeling
“O.K.,” and “Pretty good.”
The Real Revolutionist’s attitude could be summed up as
being: Rule or ruin; Correct or corrupt; Deploy or destroy.
To the Real Revolutionist, the infinite health of the
bourgeoisie is a breathing example of the term, “The Calm before
the Calm.”…(the quiet just before the stupor.)
And lo, behold the very first appearance of a truly
ingenuous political creature; He cried out to the People, “Elect
me, and I will steal all I can, betray every trust, misuse every
power, abuse every foe, and stay always just out of your reach —
smiling.” He might also be the one to bring-out the power of the
bullet-over-the ballot, and point out the supremacy of “I-&-Me”
over neurological democracies. (What else is a Ruling Official-I
good for except to show the folly of trusting anyone.)
From a certain bourgeois view, the People could conclude
that Real Revolutionists are the natural adversaries of the gods,
(but note here the possibility of a most peculiar collusion
wherein one party is not even fully informed of the situation).
And the day came that a certain would-be revolutionist
decided that his knowledge was such that not only was he beyond
the hold of criticism, but that he should cease even thinking
about such things. Being pleased with this decision, later that
day he added “gods and religions” to his list of “things not to
think about.” Then as evening approached, he tacked on “politics
and business,” and even later that night he added “sex and
literature,” and the next morning He…
As one rather “plump” monarch explained, “Look at it this
way: For every gun and bomb we produce, it’s one less pound of
butter that will be available.” Hammering blenders into
bazookas, hot-plates into hand grenades. (And the regal tailor
gingerly cried out, “Better dead than dumpy.”)
One day the People found a broadside posted near the
boundary-signs which they immediately assumed was from a
Revolutionist, it said: “I do not seek victory over evil, or
triumph over ignorance, only the conquest of my own ignorance. I
do not seek the destruction of your existing structures, just
mine, so STAND BACK.”
While a member of the Military Establishment was crying out
for ever greater armament expenditures, a Social Critic countered
by declaring, “For every missile produced, and for every bomb
constructed, a hungry one goes unfed and a homeless one
unsheltered.” The surprised General pondered this interruption
for a moment, then said, “Ah, but this will all work out: we can
all be seen to. We’ll simply turn some of the new weapons on the
hungry and homeless.” (And some still wonder where our new Red
Circuit philosophers will come from.)
I once finally agreed to furnish a certain person with a
three-dimensional photograph of myself, but when they saw it they
said, “It looks like an aerial view of a mob scene, or two armies
clashing.” Then pointing intently at the photo they demanded,
“Which one is you?” “No, no,” replied I, “I’m not IN the
picture, I AM the picture.”
Amongst the legion of horrors in wartime, there is, perhaps,
no scene more frightening, more detestable, than that of enemy
frogmen in our harbor; some with mines, others with clarinets.
THE NEED FOR STABILITY / LEAD OR BE LED
Document: 283, October 5, 1987
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1987
Rather than make believe there’s a structure or form to tonight’s talk, consider that we’re going to have an evening of oleo, or the night of the living potpourri. At times it seems that there’s no structure to some of my commentaries, but tonight, it’s just odds and ends with no connection to one another. Don’t even look for connections.
Number one of the potpourri involves an ancient idea, verbalized in the West during Grecian times. The idea is: Men are gods in ruin. What possible purpose is being served by Life, by making Men think and feel that they are cut-rate versions of their own imagined gods? You could wax philosophically, if you weren’t going to be skiing later that day, about how the idea has deep, infinite validity, with no end to it’s ramifications. What is Life up to? The idea behind this isn’t really that complex; just take it at surface value. It sounds as though it’s valid for Men to believe that they are gods themselves in a ruined condition. What could be being served?
See if you can carry this a little further. What might this suggest regarding Man’s notion of the attainment of the perfected self? If you reached the end of the mystical quest, and you became as the gods, what would you be? Would you be like the gods who produce creatures which are mere cheap import versions of themselves? What kind of circle would be completed?
Let’s change the subject. One of the most unsettling, even terrifying ideas, in its full ramifications beyond the biological notion, is the idea of the survival of the fittest. For the Yellow Circuit it is a ripple causer throughout the race of Man. Life has put this idea out for a reason and it is unsettling for at least two reasons. The first reason it’s unsettling is that Men can’t think of and accept a stable definition of what the fittest is: there are too many interpretations. If we divided up the Red, Blue and Yellow Circuit centered people, each would have one specific notion of what the fittest would mean. From the view of the Red Circuit oriented person, the fittest would simply be the strongest, the healthiest, those with the most endurance. The Blue and Yellow centered people would have other general notions of what the fittest means. At the individual level, there’s an immediate chemical understanding of what it would take to complete you, to transform you from the ruined god into a completed god; to take you from the bargain basement to the department store; to be able to say, “I am no longer a second: I’m not slightly blemished. I’m the Real thing.” At the common level, there are as many pictures of the fittest as there are people. No common agreement exists concerning what the perfected self is.
I’ll give you an example of real fright. It’s being in the midst of a mob where no one appears to have a grip on three dimensional reason or reality. Each and every person has a different view of perfection, an individual wild fire; and it’s as if each person is out of control in his own unique way. There’s no way to suddenly say, “Hey, stop. Hold it. We have to pull ourselves together and come to our senses.” Everyone feels, “I’m floating in a sea of absolute ambiguity and argument over what the fittest is. I know that the prototype is me in overdrive, but it isn’t a universal definition: I would be alone. If I hold up my hand and say, ‘I know what the fittest is,’ everyone will disagree with me.”
Say someone tells you, “I can see what you’ve done, and you’ve reached your own state of perfection.” What he’s saying is that you are both the fittest: your definitions of what the fittest is agree. But, you can’t have two perfect “yous”. Two people can’t perfect themselves to their own individual levels and become the same; unless perhaps there is some form of Siamese twin ignorance. You both might be joined at the dumb. There’s no common definition for the state of completion or perfection. And, you might also take passing note that there is no one answer to anything.
There is another aspect of survival of the fittest which is also unsettling on a nonverbal, chemical level. You know that the determination of the fittest isn’t under your control. At a certain level, it’s terrifying that no one has any control over what the fittest is: and you seem to have no power in helping to produce any degree of fitness in yourself. It doesn’t matter if you can’t Hear this. It would be like announcing that tomorrow is the last day to put in your application for a Fulbright scholarship. If that information doesn’t happen to get to the frogs in that pond down the street, nothing is lost. If you don’t Hear this, or it doesn’t frighten you, you may be a frog that misses the last day of applying for a Fulbright. In other words, no harm done.
Let’s keep moving. Here’s some information on 4-D Time-Sight. 4-D Time-Sight reveals that everything is stable and orderly, and everything is unpredictable and chaotic; everything is creative and proper, destructive and disreputable, (put a “…” to complete at your leisure). Along these lines the Real Revolutionist would not be a mere intellectual. The Yellow Circuit asks such questions as, “How is everything? In what condition is everything? Is it stable and orderly, or chaotic and unpredictable?” A mere intellectual will seek answers which are either true or false, and the answers are either true or false “because” there’s an apparent reason for them. Real 4-D Time-Sight is the ability to See that which is beyond the grip of “because.” Interpretations based on cause and effect are time blind. If time is not a part of your consciousness and awareness while you’re pondering, considering, thinking, studying, trying to figure out…you’ll find answers to your logical scenarios. But Real 4-D Time-Sight shows that everything is stable and orderly, as well as chaotic and unpredictable; no stable answers or conditions, no “because,” no cause and effect.
Why does it seem that Life can’t be orderly and stable and coevally be chaotic and unpredictable? The 3-D dance of the binaries makes things appear to be stable. You can ask an authority, “I don’t have a grasp of which is correct, so tell me. Is Life orderly or chaotic? You’re the expert.” And he says, “It’s so and so,” and you feel, “Thank goodness, that’s a load off my mind. Somebody is an authority and has the answers.”
Your own Ruling Powers will act as authorities and give you answers to questions. And, you feel, “I’m glad that a part of me understands what’s going on.” This creates a feeling of stability within yourself, which completely interferes with the development of expanded vision. You must view yourself and all of Life through 4-D Time-Sight, and See all possibilities and situations at once.
One of the most fearful episodes you might experience is when you wonder if you’re losing your mind or grip of reality. You feel that everything in you is going to pieces: “I’m tossed upon a sea of indecision, wondering if I’m nuts. I look in the mirror and wonder if anyone can tell by looking at me. Maybe I’ll go to the market, ask for a loaf of bread and see if anybody notices I’m strange.” You’d feel comfort in the assurance that things are still operating in a binary manner, that some stability exists: “The gods are on the throne and the gate is either open or closed; the current is either flowing or not; things are either going uphill or downhill; goodness is either in charge or evil is winning today’s battle; my good sides are prevailing or my lesser sides are going to triumph. At least I know how I FEEL. I know where to look, even if it’s wrong, discomforting, discombobulating.”
It’s the not knowing that seems to kill the spirit of the bourgeoisie. What’s the most important thing to have, if you’re going to be middle class? It’s not the BMW, brown shoes or a sweater tied around your neck; the most important thing is some sense of surety. “I know where I live and what my position is. Being in the middle class, I know my inferiors and superiors. I know that which I aspire for and that which I hope to avoid at all cost.” 4-D Time-Sight, 4-D time consciousness transcends the full grip of “because.” And without the grip, the basis of “because,” nothing can be true or false, right or wrong, up or down, good or evil. Without “because” you can’t say, “That’s not possible,” “That’s irrational,” “That’s for certain,” or place a period after anything.
While we’re here in this nice clear-cut courtyard, with pristine precise moon beams of new information and mystical knowledge falling all about our heads and shoulders, I’ll plow right on through and offer some additional revolutionary secrets. Here is a method that absolutely defies any direct description; a method that no one has ever described.
You can find information in books or other reservoirs which seems revolutionary, yet it isn’t frightening enough to upset the bankers and the children, the bourgeoisie in you. You can throw coins or sticks, read tea leaves, or throw out the bones of your grandmother, and they’ll form a pattern; and the information that’s revealed seems revolutionary. It seems to offer, if not an absolute window, a crack in a door where you might obtain a new view of what you should do. You ponder, “Should I change jobs?” You throw the coins, look it up in the book and it says: “Wet pigs do not tap dance.” It might seem ridiculous and very radical, but the information offers some relief and comfort.
All forms of soothsaying, fortune telling, notions of trying to break through the patterns of the “established mind” are crude reflections of what’s occurring in Life. But let me point you to another dimension or in another direction which (to steal from the legal lexicon) uses an executory condition, or consideration. An executory condition is a part of a contract where two parties agree to do something if and only if another event takes place. Try to find irrational connections and unrelated contingencies, grab E force and drag it into the apparent binary dance game occurring on the field. All games have two teams and you drag in a third one.
To elaborate, say you’re faced with what appears to be a very serious problem and you can’t decide what to do. As with all serious problems, there are two possible solutions: “I should either say ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” You pull up all of your possible resources and cannot decide which seems to be the better course. You can’t logically find the winning game plan. On top of all this, you see that other people have an invested interest in your decision, but you can’t decide. Come up with an executory clause: look at the problem, and then look at some other situation that seems to have no relationship to it whatsoever.
You have to make a decision. People are looking at you to decide, though it may not seem like a burning conflict to you. You may think, “I really could say yes or no. I don’t care.” But, you have to decide, and others are depending on your decision. So, pick out another situation which you’re involved in, another contingency, and decide. I’m not telling you to say, “If such and such happens, I’ll say yes. If not, I’ll say no.” That’s not it. Try to force “E” into a current, active playing position in the “problem” or “situation.” Look at another aspect of your life and view the “problem” from a new vantage point, with this other situation in mind.
What you are doing is opening a door for new energy to enter into the game field; you add a whole new dimension. The action you take may not appear logical: there’s no way to formulate a real game plan. Ofttimes what you seem to be doing makes irrational look pretty straight forward. There’s no pattern to it, (which you might look at as being a side benefit).
Personal conflicts and problems lead the people to ask the question: “What happens now?” All situations bring people to this selfsame edge, which seems to linger forever; a kind of irritation, a conflict, a feeling of an abyss surrounding the question. A fearful impending tragedy occurs, and then the question arises, “What happens now?” And there’s a simple answer. Life happens now, kid. At Line level, consciousness cannot See, Hear, or remember that. That answer is totally unsatisfying, answers nothing, is flip, cynical, if not downright dumb. The Yellow Circuit becomes entangled with pictures of, “What if the worst scenario does occur? In fact it occurred five minutes ago.” And you sit around, pace the floor, and the death defying question is: “What happens now?” Ordinary consciousness cannot accept the answer, “What happens now kid, is Life.” What brought you to this place? It starts with an “L.” Life. What makes you fear this ever impending question; makes you feel like one tragedy after another occurs and you’re going to fall off the edge of the world; something terrible is going to happen and you can’t recover. What happens now? The same thing that happened not now; the same thing that happened pre-now. The same things that happen concurrently now. Life happens now, kid. “But Mr. Greenjeans, that’s no answer at all.” That, too, kid: Life keeps happening.
Next paragraph of odds and ends. The Real Revolutionist knows that the basic molecular structure of all human affairs can be verbally expressed as, “Lead or be led.” I’m not referring to a social, cultural or psychological phenomenon; this involves the molecular structure of human affairs, and might have some personal, internal, chemical use. Instead of the Ruling Powers saying, “We lead, you follow,” the Real Revolutionist might say to the recruits, “I lead, you follow.” If you don’t have a molecular structure, consider yourself exempt from this, but otherwise, the molecular structures of all human affairs can be correctly verbalized as “lead or be led.”
Ideas of a perfected afterlife, a completed homeland or paradise can be described as the desire for a place where this matter of “lead or be led” is totally unambiguous and forever settled. “In paradise it would just be me and all the other peons, plus the head gods. There would be no question of who’s leading.” In fact, according to one vade mecum, everything was originally paradise. Then one of the paradisers thought he might be able to be a leader. They say that mighty angel paid a hell of a price: they kicked him out of heaven. In paradise the matter of lead or be led is absolutely settled with no room for question or doubt.
In the city, the people faithfully place themselves under the great feathery arms of the ruling powers of all the institutions. Try to find a religion having more than one or two followers, which teaches that all things are relative, that you may be a leader or a follower. Or, find a religion that says, “The gods say, ‘You may or may not pay attention to us,'” or, “We have a god some days and then some days I don’t think we have one.” The institutions of Man, academia, the banks, the federal reserve system, are based upon right and wrong, true or false — and this gives the impression that they are ivory towers of stability, areas of Life where there is no ambiguity. But a Real Revolutionist can’t worry about “being manipulated by the world dominated communist press,” or whether the international banking system is arranged to keep us, the little guy and gal, financially crushed. Forget all that, even if it’s true. There’s nothing you could do about it. I’m telling you that’s a valid picture, but if you are going to do anything profitable, you have to see the useful value this has internally. You can’t fall into the arms of the apparently stable voices and powers within you.
I refer you back to my erstwhile descriptions of the partnership, of Man as a battlefield between good and evil. At Line level, you’re involved in an attempt to change, and within you exists an apparent struggle between at least two forces, and with that in mind, I suggest you raise the question of whether you’re led or a leader. The Revolutionist can’t hang out in the bushes, in the wet and the cold, not knowing what’s going on, why he’s there, when the payoff is coming. He can’t spend his time looking back at the city and wondering, “Are things as bad as I thought they were? Am I getting caught up in some other kind of imaginary reality? Maybe I should go back.” Maybe he should.
Here is another revolutionary report: All wars, conflicts, even the threat of wars and the fear of conflicts can be seen as a kind of violent reaction or fear of the other side changing. What causes wars? “Things have been pretty quiet, but now they’re suddenly moving twenty percent of their missile sites ten miles to the north. They may not be any closer to us, but any change is threatening.” Or, “The government over here used to spend 33% of their broadcast time attacking us, and now it’s dropped to zero.” Of course, at first you could say, “Well, hey, they’re no longer mad at us.” But part of you suspects devious behavior on their part.
Extend this picture to your own partnership. Why is it so hard for people to change? “I try to stop exercising this habit, but I seem to be weak. The habit is too strong. I’m addicted to it.” How about looking at this another way? There seem to be two forces inside of you; two possibilities, two directions: “It’s me and then there’s this other part of me in there. There’s the me that wants to stop this habit, and there’s the me that wants to continue this habit.” Can you See any possible use for that kind of information? One part of you is threatening to change, thinking about changing. “Tomorrow I’m going to get up and start running before I go to work,” and immediately what happens? It’s as though the weight of the universe, of all reason and logic reaches into your brain and says, “You can’t do that. You could hurt yourself. You’re out of shape, etc.” So you say, “I’ll buy a book or rent a video on running.” And then you can’t even find time to go to the store. This is an example of a kind of violent reaction to change, or even the discussion of change across your own boundary.
I’m going to talk about something really different. I have something which I’ve never found a place for — a logical segue from anything. So this is the night to bring this up. The subject heading is: Molecular Provincialism, or Cellular Jingoism. Provincialism is an abiding deep love of one’s own province. Jingoism is like a fanatical, hostile, foreign policy. Though nothing material seems to be involved, groups everywhere are driven to sketch up a logo, stitch up a flag, proclaim their nonphysical position, presence, allegiance. By nonphysical I mean spiritual, intellectual, or political matters. If a group meets more than once or twice and has a leader, one of the first orders of business is to come up with a logo, a symbol to represent them, a banner to run up, a standard to raise: they need a position to proclaim their presence, individuality, allegiance.
This Molecular Provincialism is as strong as any impulse other than Life’s desire to continue its own molecular structure, as if it were an individual. “Is there a button, a pin I can buy, or a tattoo I can have? Is there a bumper sticker?” Molecular Provincialism involves more than just a need for a name: wolves howl, hyenas pee, Men drive stakes and wave banners. Now take this internally and See if these descriptions have any relevance to your own molecular structuring.
Question: Can all great thoughts be turned into great deeds? We all know some great thoughts; the world’s full of them. But no one has ever queried whether great thoughts can be turned into great deeds. Would you not want to believe that these thoughts can be put into action; that the ideas from Marcus Aurelius, or Shakespeare, or St. Francis can be acted upon? The voices in the city believe that all thoughts can, if correct methods are used, be put into action. What if we asked the question and turned to the city people? Might the question only have pertinence if we’re talking about the mind and feelings of the Ruling Powers, or the led? Or, perhaps only those out in the bushes with the would-be revolutionists can consider whether thoughts can be turned into action. Would the answer to the question, “Can great thoughts be turned into great deeds,” vary with the apparent locale addressed?
Back to something that captures our immediate interest: The good old binary affairs. The Real Revolutionist would recognize two methods of useful movement. (Movement being steps taken toward facilitating an attack or some movement in the cause, or in your struggle.) One method would be action, or just doing what you intended to do with no comment. The second method would be thinking of action: that is, you announce your intentions, and then simply let the words operate. Now if you have ginger ears, you might believe that that flies in the face of my insisting that the Real Revolutionist does not tell himself what he is doing. But I am telling you that there is another method, for those who know how to do it. Announce your intentions. That is it. Just announce them and then let the words operate.
If that sounded confusing to you, let me up the stakes and tell you that there is an inner core secret to that method. You can personally, perhaps verbally, overtly discuss and question yourself about what you’re doing. This might sound as if it’s in complete opposition to my insistence that you don’t tell yourself what you are doing. But let me point out that willful opposition, or that which is willfully opposite, is not really opposite. Only that which is mechanically opposite, is truly opposite to something. You can actually discuss your actions with yourself, and even question yourself: “When so and so happened, you didn’t expect that we were going to do so and so, did you?” “I should say not.” “And once you didn’t do that, such and such happened. Weren’t you surprised?” “You’re damned right.” It’s almost weird, isn’t it.
I’m not talking about a kind of mechanical rambling with yourself, but a willful use of the method. You can carry it further and come to verbal conclusions, while discussing and questioning yourself, and what you have done in relationship to what happened to you. But all of your conclusions must be followed by a comma, and then a prayerful insertion: always say, “Thank you, Life.” For example you say, “I guess you got so and so from this, or you see that so and so doesn’t necessarily happen, comma, thank you, Life.”
I’ll close with a new Revolutionary rule. Though I’m not going to have the time or inclination to discuss this rule further, it may still have great pertinence. The Revolutionary rule is: Always smile just before speaking. Always. Always. Don’t give me any conditions, such as, “That wouldn’t be appropriate if I was about to deliver a eulogy, or if I were about to volunteer for frogman duty and I only had half of my clarinet.” Always smile just before speaking. And if you want even more occult levels of this, always smile just before thinking: always smile just before everything. But, I guess we should stick with the possible: always smile just before speaking.
Since this has no connection to anything, it’s a good time to throw it in. If a knowledgeable person seems to have personal difficulties or problems, problems with his position in the great scheme of things, he can attempt to either think his way out of it, or feel his way out of it. And one of these is always more immediate and efficient.