Overlapping
Audio = Stream from the arrow or download from the dots.
AKS/News Items = none
Summary = See Below
Excursion / Task = See below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below
Diagram # 168 video grab
Summary
Jan Cox Talk #355 ** Jun 17, 1988 ** – 1:00
Notes by TK
Overlapping: the 3-d reality revealed inside the overlap area of the double field of binocular vision [diagram #168]. To get the optimum in stereoscopic vision, each eye must get a slightly different view of the same thing causing a significant degree of overlap between the two fields of vision. The Real Revolutionist has got to move this overlapped area into conscious control by utilizing full binocular vision.
The ordinary see out of only one eye at a time and thus cannot see how the fields of vision overlap. It is only in the overlap that satisfying—stereoscopic-vision exists. The organism has the capability—even functions according to the design of binocular view: making two differing measurements of reality. Ordinary city conscious perception does the equivalent of covering up one eye at a time; uncovering one eye to cover the other one passes as ‘change’.
Thus ordinary consciousness does not even come up to full potential of even 3-d, let alone 4-d vision. This is why no one can be satisfied with their perception/opinion in the City. It is generated by the genetic dichotomy—the partnership of the ruling powers vs. the people; C-force vs. D-force; different measurements existing in everybody by design. The overlap area has no name but can be seen to actually exist by the Real Revolutionist.
[1:00 end.
Excursion
[Excursion for NP at 0:51. The “Wait a second” method. Interrupt an already initiated non-willful Red Circuit action. E.g., reaching for a cup…This can be multiplied upon itself; used for years. ]
Transcript
OVERLAPPING
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 355, June 17, 1988
To get the optimum in stereophonic (overlapping) vision requires that your two human eyes receive separate and slightly different perceptions of the same object. This stereophonic vision is what allows you to see three dimensionally, which is why you can easily judge sizes and distances, as you probably know. You probably also have heard that the majority of ordinary human information is derived visually rather than from the other senses.
But now look a little harder at this phenomenon. Your two eyes are picking up different perceptions of the same object — two different views of the same object, from slightly different angles. The two views overlap in your brain to produce one whole picture, in stereo-vision. Part of what the right eye is doing is taking in the same territory as the left. You can move the eyes around and change your peripheral vision, but in that primary field, there’s a significant overlapping, and the fullest possible three dimensional sight requires that you have this overlapping binocular vision.
I may seem to be the source of unusual if not unbelievable information, and you may be hearing much of it, but never forget that your own nervous system can provide you with a plethora of instant information that is usually overlooked. It’s already common knowledge in grade school that 3-D eyesight requires this overlap area, but nobody ever notices that eyesight is tied directly to consciousness itself. All the information is right there, and the body is also right there for you to observe, yet consciousness never notices this phenomenon. You could have even found this out by reading an ordinary textbook if you knew what you were looking for and how to read ordinary things in Life “between the lines.”
What the Revolutionist has to do is to literally take this very deep-rooted genetic, binary field of vision under his own conscious control. To do this properly you must put things together in your “inner vision” and observe the extra-dimensional results. You can overlap two thoughts, two so-called human emotions, two opinions, or two fears. And the two things can come from anywhere, from “outside” or within you. The trick is to gather two things together at the same time, which is not ordinarily done. Usually human consciousness can only deal with one thing at a time, so you get — one D vision. What do you think a “belief” is, for example? To get 3-D vision you need two views at the same time.
To pursue This you need to realize that any one thing you “believe” is the voice/vision of one I/eye, and the part that says, “I don’t believe that,” is another I/eye. The overlapping occurs when you see that neither one of those views by itself gives a satisfying three dimensional picture. And that’s not because I’m saying so — history and humanity say so. But despite all that, humanity is still wired up to cover one eye, look at the view and then say, “Gee, this is a pissy view.” Such limited vision is not satisfying and never has been.
You cannot get the full three dimensional effect unless you are continually, through your vision and conscious measurements, taking into account slightly different views. The most common two views are one eye saying, “This is good,” and the other saying, “This is not good.” But nobody sees that the two always overlap and that goodness would not exist were it not for the other view, non-goodness. Something can’t be good unless there’s an evil, or be true unless there’s the false. Although they don’t realize it yet, humans are just not satisfied with only one side or the other. Things are not wired up yet for Life to need humanity to have both eyes open to see something simultaneously with its apparent “opposite”: “Sometimes I love him, sometimes not. Sometimes Life is a ball, sometimes not.” These are the same — two halves of a whole vision.
Before I drag Time awareness into all this, just start with this: To have 3-D depth vision, you’ve got to use what is already inherent in your physical vision, and use it in consciousness. Anything that you have an opinion or feeling about, you’ve got another eye/I, another view, that is not far away. The molecular difference inside the brain is not even measurable, but there are two views and where they overlap is yet a third. If you can See in this way then you have gone where no one else ever does. You’ve gone beyond ordinary sight with its ordinary dissatisfactions.
You probably already realize that at a fairly elementary level you don’t have a literal physical sense of three dimensions when you look with only one eye. You know from experience and memory that a highway or railroad track gets smaller in the distance, but you need to look with both eyes to have any real sense of depth. Similarly, to have any depth-sense for human thought or feeling you can’t cover one eye (have only one view) the way everyone else does. People can talk about charity, love, hopes, or dreams, but everyone knows on a dark night in the city that everything they know and believe, they also don’t know and don’t believe. Everybody knows for a split second that both apparently “opposite” things go on simultaneously, but you must have a continuing 4-D awareness of that knowledge to profit from it at all.
Here at the outskirts, things are a bit different from what the City expects. The very things that run the City, the “pillars and foundations of human existence,” the human emotions of charity, love, compassion, and man’s ability to think are still not satisfying to someone out on the fringes. I’ll remind you again, I am not making fun of compassion, love etc. — it’s rather that all those are misnamed. You hear about love or compassion as a child and when you call it over it bites you on the ass. You hear about friendship or the duty of blood kin and when you put your hand in the bag to take some, you end up losing a finger. Only out here on the fringes might you actually get to experience what people in the City believe they are experiencing.
Here’s another way to look at binocular vision: behavior does not have a direct relationship to what people say the behavior is. Not because the behavior is wrong or because the language is wrong, or because your family or friends are wrong. The discrepancy between speech and action occurs because you and everyone else are covering one eye. Uncover the other eye and you’ve got a never before perceived overlap. And where the overlap is you’ve got two feelings or thoughts about everything. There’s no such thing as one feeling or one thought, or one fact or one word. A contrast is required for perception to even occur. If it was one word only, nothing would happen; there must be at least two samplings. Take the old idea of “In the beginning was the word,” and consider: Only one word? The gods couldn’t say “Creation,” because if there was something outside of them that was being created, this nascent creation would say, “As opposed to what?” And the gods would have to say, “Non-creation.” And, you have two.
There is no big bang without the non-big-bang. Nobody can experience love unless there’s a second emotion as a backdrop for the love to be viewed against. If you only had one view of anything you wouldn’t have reality, and you couldn’t experience it, much less talk about it.
Ordinarily there is a line drawn between good emotions and bad, between good things in Life and bad things — and the two views don’t ever get looked at together — leaving people always dissatisfied. If there was an answer to the question, “Where’s the justice in the world?” there would be one book with the answer in it, everyone would read it, and that would be that. Instead Life has consciousness divide into that which seems to be decent and that which is apparently unacceptable. History is divided into the good things humanity has done and the bad. At the Yellow Circuit level, though of less interest to the world in general, things are divided into valid theories and ideas and those that appear to be hogwash.
Binocular vision literally requires two simultaneous, slightly overlapping views of one thing. This is what makes sight possible. If you’re going to cover one eye, all you can see is one thing at a time, and a flat view at that — a less than satisfying view. If you cover one eye you don’t see the 3-D world as it could be experienced. Now take this internally and consider that when you have two viewpoints of the same thing, then you can see the overlap. This is the area I’ve referred to as “E,” a measurement of depth. Your individual, isolated views and feelings are never ordinarily validated because neither one is right or wrong. One eye/I says, “This is such and such a height,” then you cover that one, uncover the other, and it says, “No, it’s so and so wide.” Neither is right or wrong; they’re both inadequate in isolation.
True binocular vision sees the area that overlaps. Of course you can hear this with only one ear, so I’m telling you the limits, but once you can see with binocular vision, things that used to appear clear cut — like it being “right” to feed the hungry and “wrong” for children to die — begin to look like just one picture, the bigger view. If you see with both eyes, then neither notion is right or wrong. Separately they explain nothing which is why they’re unsatisfying and unachievable. They don’t even explain 3-D reality. All they explain is that right now Life doesn’t need people to see very deeply into things. Nobody finds it curious that Life keeps things this way? Here is an area for you to begin taking your own personal measurements and see what no large segment of humanity ever has: that it’s your conception that gives you your unsatisfactory feelings of “right and wrong.”
Here’s a wonderful example: Ever since recorded history began, a certain percentage of humanity has been starving. The population has changed and there’s more people, but since the time of the Greeks the same percentage has been starving. Yet nobody ever asks: “Could nature require that a certain number of people go hungry?” Need I point out that I would be truly disappointed if you had the ability to help some individual who is starving and did not do so. But on a larger scale, you should notice that even in this harsh life and death example, Life generally has not wired humanity to see something that has been extant for thousands of years. People are not wired up to perceive the fact that their perceptions are in some way lacking. Instead they’re wired up to vehemently declare that, “Something must be done right now about all these starving millions.” People said that 3,000 years ago and were unable to change it. They try to rectify it now and nothing happens. You can’t learn anything when you are looking from a viewpoint of, “Here’s what we need to do as a group…” As long as that’s all you’re seeing, things won’t change in your one little lifetime. You cannot see change as long as you only have one eye in operation. No matter what it is, you can’t perceive any change in you, and groups or nations can’t see that what they are attempting to do is having an impact, so people go to their death feeling that they’ve wasted their efforts.
Things are not wired up for any large segment of humanity to ask, “Why is it that we try to do good and can’t? Are we seeing the problem incorrectly? What if our perception of “doing good” is actually lacking?” If people could ask that question seriously, they could only take it so far and then go crazy. But they can’t ask it, because they can’t see that deeply. You see, the question not only has three dimensions, it has four. At least. If you can’t even see two, you’re already in trouble. Ordinary consciousness doesn’t even have 3-D vision.
Once again: To see three dimensionally, you take two slightly, even very slightly, different views of something. This causes an overlap, and in the overlap everything to which the human nervous system says, “No,” it also says “Yes.” People can’t see that when things make no “sense,” the effort they use to “make sense of it” includes everything except questioning their original perception. When it comes to humans starving, we’re talking about a problem that has been observed for thousands of years, and it still doesn’t strike most people that they might use the evidence of their own bodies and their own physical eyesight to solve this problem of perception.
No one has ever been satisfied with what they think or believe or feel, no matter that it seems right or that the alternative seems unconscionable. They might believe that it is good to be charitable, but they’ll admit that it’s not truly satisfying. Nobody is satisfied. The lack of full perception and its resultant dissatisfaction doesn’t normally shift within one person’s lifetime. Normally the only shift possible is between the totally unacceptable and the just kind of disappointing. For example, a religious person would consider abandoning his religion as completely unacceptable. He might go to his minister and express his doubts, and the minister’s reply might be, “There, there, we all have doubts. Don’t worry about it.” — even though the minister himself worries about it. It’s a kind of play logic, and the choice is between the unacceptable and the somewhat disquieting.
As far as the overlap is concerned, this is something for you to physically, materially, let your brain grapple with. Not just in human eyesight, but internally within the partnership, or as I’ve also called it, between the King and the People. There is a dichotomy in everybody. Modern sophisticates think of this dichotomy as the conscious versus the unconscious mind. What you call it doesn’t really matter, although the term partnership comes closer. The overlap lies right in the gap between the two “halves” of ordinary perception. It’s all but totally invisible. People trip over it, fall into it, step in and out of it. But they don’t see it because they rarely hold the two “halves” in view simultaneously. And how can you see an overlap with only one thing?
People are now beginning to fool with the overlap in certain areas. For example, in subatomic physics, up and down is now becoming meaningless. The “opposites” are beginning to lose their distinctions. But even in physics they can’t do much except play with it mathematically. They are beginning to say that the past and present, here and there etc., can’t be differentiated because particles seem to simultaneously be in two places. Scientists try to affect something going off in one direction at the speed of light and find that something going off in quite another direction has been affected. They’re grappling with the “gap” in an area of previously perceived opposites: the extremely small and the extremely large. And they’re also pushing out farther with measurements to explain where creation began, ideas of mass and energy, and the perception of time. What they are finding almost makes sense to them, except ordinary consciousness cannot use it. You can’t tell your wife about it, or tell yourself about it while looking in a mirror.
Humanity is poised on the brink of actually using 3-D consciousness or else I couldn’t even describe it to you at all. You wouldn’t be able to hear my descriptions of the Three Forces or the “E-relevant” were consciousness not on the verge of slithering around this area — almost getting it, then not getting it. What exists in the overlap area still has no name and no verbal description. In that gap, you do not choose between halves, it’s not an either/or phenomenon. What you see is that one thing doesn’t exist at the expense of the other, but rather that any one side is only a partial view. And the greater view does not yet have words.
Everything in you that passes for being intelligent says that if one thing is “right” then this other is “wrong;” if one is “good” then the other is “bad.” Then how come you don’t like whichever side you pick? How come you’re not really satisfied with what you think and believe? To see the overlap does not, in a sense, change the original two views. All it does is suddenly give you a perception that the thing you were trying to look at is no longer a flat object. It exists three dimensionally. From there I suggest it’s a short hop to the other runway where you see not only the three dimensional object, but also see that the whole thing floats in time. You are then faced with the actuality of a fourth dimension of time, in which the three dimensions exist. I leave you with this: Time apparently has three dimensions — past, present, and future. There is something in relationship to your concept of time that is the same as your concept of time is to the world of the three physical dimensions of length, width, and depth. When you’re measuring length, width or depth and the measurements run out, they run into another direction which is time. You turn another corner and apparently go into another world.