Overlaps and the Lone Gunslinger
Video = None on youtube
Audio = Stream from arrow or download from the dots
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1988-07-11 (0365)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = tbd
Transcript = see below
Summary
#365 Jul 11, 1988 – 1:55
Notes by TK
If overlap were visible to ordinary men, the Yellow Circuit could not operate as it must. TWE [to what end] is Life arranged to divert attention from its real operations on/thru man? Why is it arranged to hide the overlap? To attempt to become a ‘good Christian’ is not to become a better person—It is to further separate yourself—further define your frontier/contour/identity. The RR [Real Revolutionist] reduces his characteristics-divisions-contour and thereby truly becomes more beneficial relative to ordinary men; a benefit to them as far as finding the Revolution.
There must be a clear distinction between like and unlike in the City. The RR blurs this distinction and can believe something/one he doesn’t like. It cannot happen in a City nervous system—It would be too dangerously unpredictable. ][ Real love is unspoken love.
Note that “off the farm” and higher up the nervous system, people can less and less work alone. In contemporary conditions it is almost impossible to work alone, to work without assistants/support group. There is a fascination with any who in fact do work alone. The RR must work and travel alone.
1:07 Paradigm presents. Sara, Ben, Karen S, John Mott.
1:55 end.
And Kyroot Said…
Although there is no “one right thing,” there IS the right
combination of the things you got.
***
The Real Revolutionist is a new creature, even in a skewed
zoological, nautical sense, in that he is a kind of land-
submarine.
***
The Revolutionist must be able to abstract all of Life’s
“first stories.”
***
Anyone alive, of any age, with obvious talent IS a prodigy.
***
Remember: In the City forum, you can talk ALL you want to.
***
Even if you should ever discover how to do so, let me still
personally advise you that Life is NOT the kinda guy you wanna be
directly insulting with.
***
A Real Revolutionist doesn’t listen to ANYone…(except, of
course, that “one person.”)
***
Since it’s not actually possible to do so, the Revolutionist
wouldn’t “sacrifice” himself for anyone.
***
Information IS energy, and thus it is of some import the
kinds of info you consume.
***
The Real Revolutionist simply would not speak of anything
that actually “annoyed” him.
***
A Revolutionist doesn’t simply agree that “anything’s
possible,” he is part of the proof.
***
Everyone has a twin, but Life keeps him, or her, hidden.
***
A Real Revolutionist has memories of the future.
***
Beware, the lug bolts of the mind.
***
The Revolutionist can’t afford to be as “touchy” as even
Life is.
***
In the City, don’t pick up anything anyone else has handled.
***
While everyone else’s “wish-dreams” would be for the whole
Macy’s catalog, the Revolutionist would be thinking, “Where would
I store all that shit?”
***
Never invite someone ELSE’s god for the weekend.
***
The Revolutionist treats ordinary emotions as junk
food…eat ‘n’ run.
***
Every Revolutionist should have a nickname, but he shouldn’t
know what it is.
***
Anytime you are overcome with concern regarding the
civilized status of contemporary Man, just look in the daily
paper and compare their coverage of science, literature and art
to that of sports. Now, don’t you feel much better?
***
The Past is where EVERYbody sings flat.
***
To rhapsodize and poeticize that “nothing worthy ever truly
dies” is just a sneaky way of hoping for your own immortality.
***
More Cause For Encouragement: For those with
demonstratively low-powered brains, in the City they have this
marvelous new device, “Hi-Lite Markers.” I’m so “happy” for you.
***
There WOULD seem to be some merit in knowing when to be
“done with” something, knowing when it is finished, but even more
so, not to care.
***
In the City I recently read the following, “No proof is more
striking of modern Man’s decline than his disbelief in ‘Great
Men’.” As is often the case with my cosmopolitan experiences, I
couldn’t decide whether to laugh, cry, or have a bowl of prunes.
I later happened upon this relevant quote, “The true history of
the world is the history of Great Men.” What history books are
they reading in town?, and no wonder the People have such a
generally low opinion of “Great Men.”
***
Without any doubt, one of the most penetrating aspects of
the Revolutionist consciousness is in knowing that what everyone
else believes is not correct, AND neither is its opposite. THIS,
not dust-&-flowers, should go down in the grave with you.
***
How defensive you are reveals how conscious you are.
***
More of the curious nature-and-justice-of-it-all: Man can
be “unhappy” only because of his potential not to be.
***
Anyone who’s going to “regret the past” shouldn’t even
bother with today.
***
A Revolutionist is a dead Man in reverse.
***
OVERLAPS AND THE LONE GUNSLINGER
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 365, GSIBM, July 11, 1988
If the overlapping I have spoken of were perceptible to everyone in the City, the intellect of Man could not do its necessary job. Everything is blending with and overlapping everything else, and there is very important information in that for a few people. But if the City suddenly saw it, the Yellow Circuits would not operate as they necessarily must.
Once again, you should try to carry this beyond listening to me point something out. To what end is Life arranged like this? Why couldn’t it be arranged some other way? Apparently, Life is hollering, “Hey, look over here!”…and while you’re looking, it paints your feet green. Or picks your pocket. Everybody looks “over there” but something else is going on.
Now here is what I want you to try and see: The more one can apparently succeed at fulfilling some apparently worthwhile idea, the more one would be clearly defining and separating oneself from those who apparently would benefit from such worthwhile fulfillment. I am speaking of ideals such as being a “good father,” a “good mother,” or a “good mate.” That is, the very sorts of things which, according to the majority of humanity, humans should individually strive to be. Let us say that by becoming a better Christian or Jew, a person believes he will be a better person to his fellow man. It is not true. The more he can distinguish himself as a better Jew or Christian, the less he can bridge the apparent chasm between “I” and “not-I.” Or, take being a “good parent.” No matter what religion you subscribe to, being a “good parent” would be an apparently worthwhile endeavor. But do you hear me at all? From the viewpoint of This, the more you are a “better father,” by ordinary conception, the worse father you are. If you are clearly separate as a “good father” you are at the same time further removed from the specific ones who are supposed to benefit from your improved condition.
The clearer the distinction is, the closer you get to becoming a fanatic. What about all the low wattage methods I’ve given — about not naming yourself, not having a nickname, not even speaking your own name? In order to do This, you are striving to become somebody with very few characteristics. And the main characteristic of things in the City is that they have what? Characteristics. And some characteristics are deemed worthwhile, and some are not. But the more you can acquire apparently “good” characteristics, the less good you can actually be to others. And you think that Life is serious. You think that Life does not have a sense of humor.
To carry the example of the “good parent” a little further, one aspect of an individual’s nervous system says: “It’s time I got straightened out. I’ve been fiddling around for 30 years, but now that I’ve got a kid, I’m going to go back to church, quit yelling at the old lady, and be a better father.” It becomes a kind of idee fixe. If the child (to play with justice) had any potential to ever get involved with such as This, it’s gone if the father actually does live up to that idee fixe. The more that father is really an apparent “good father,” the worse for his child. The more a person becomes what they take to be a good Muslim, the less tolerant he is to non-Muslims. Of course, he would say he doesn’t hate non-Muslims; in fact, he “loves them.” But the more you can be clearly defined and clearly feel, in your own consciousness, that the frontier between “me” and “not me” is clear and precise, the worse it is from the viewpoint of This. Because you are then getting close to the real definition of a fanatic. That is, “My contours are the only correct contours. I’ll take my son and turn him into me.” Even if it’s not done with a two by four, it would be done by what in the City is called psychological browbeating. They don’t know why, but many people who should be benefiting from your attempted refinement of your contours will say that you have gone overboard. You are too pushy about it. But it’s worse than that, from the viewpoint of This. You are solidifying the molecular arrangement that people have to have to serve Life. The City believes there are clear distinctions. They cannot see the overlapping. But the more clearly you feel about division, the more you are a danger to the very people you should be helping. It doesn’t matter in the City; the place to go with all this is in yourself. You take religion, family, and all the City institutions very seriously.
You can say: “I must take the idea of family seriously.” Let me put it this way: Somebody must or we wouldn’t be here, right? The question is, does it have to be you? Are you going to be run strictly at that very basic, though necessary, biological level? Or, do you have some free time? Some of you may have a suspicion that there are possibilities beyond biological necessities: individual, molecular possibilities. A person can get off on a mutant branch. Remember: in the City, when a person apparently becomes more clearly defined as a worthwhile “something,” from a 4-D view he is actually doing less. He is cutting further and further any possibility of an overlap between himself and “you, my son,” or “you, my lover.”
I have pointed out to you that if you do not like something, you will not believe it. My upsetting update, if you recall, was that if you do not like someone, you will not believe them. Can you spot any connection between that and the City necessity to have clear and distinct contours between things? In this case, between that which you like and that which you don’t like. Things and people. Were it not for such a queer distinction in everyone’s mind, there would be a distinct possibility (I’m being silly, of course) that some people here and there might suddenly see or hear overlapping areas. But at the ordinary level, you cannot hear this or any idea having any importance whatsoever. That is, you cannot have any energy which might shake the limits of what you presently are. Because then you would have the unruly and unacceptable possibility of beginning to believe things that you didn’t like. And that cannot happen in the City.
The molecules of the nervous system will not arrange themselves so that something you don’t like can get in there and fall within the category of, to you, “truth.” It does not happen. The nervous system will not tolerate that. Of course, you understand we are talking about feelings. And if there were not the clear distinction between what you like and what you do not like, I repeat, you could inadvertently and dangerously hear things you did not like and realize, “Shit…that’s true.” Even if it accidentally happens, just momentarily, people will dismiss it. They wouldn’t explain it this way, but what it amounts to is a passing moment of real charity. Almost real tolerance. If that became widespread and common in the City, nothing would be predictable any longer, in the 3-D sense.
Again, to what end? Why is Life so arranged that a new thing of apparent importance to humanity — a book, a fad, an idea — immediately brings on a feeling in you of “liking it” or “not liking it”? It is one of those two responses or else you are dealing with that which you personally don’t even notice. That is, the “new thing” is in your personal E pool. But as long as you have a feeling towards a phenomenon, at the very first blush, it is either “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” Do you see the necessity? Were it not that way, there would be an unpredictable and unacceptable possibility of believing things which you do not like. And, also, of disbelieving things you had always liked.
It is not a matter of perception, and it is not some metaphysical or spiritual matter. It is way above the distinction in the lower circuits between healthy food and pig urine. It is the need for distinctions in the very realms of the human nervous system which make noise: the areas that engage, overtly or to yourself, in human speech. Such distinction was drawn in your genes before birth — “What I like, and what I don’t like.” And therein lies what humanity in the City laughingly refers to as “the truth.” That’s it. Because if you don’t like it, it’s not true. Individually, the distinct line of every human’s truth is the line itself between “what I like and what I don’t like.” And it has nothing to do, ultimately, with your culture or education. It is simply your genetic make-up.
Once you begin to get a glimpse of that how can you have any anger, surprise, sadness, or even so-called philosophical concern over humanity’s “stupidity”? How can people not see the truth! — but everybody is staring down the truth like a gun barrel. What they believe and what they don’t believe, that’s the truth.
Do you see that at the ordinary level, all talk about tolerance, understanding, and compassion is a reflection of the field where things overlap? Somebody cannot be taught to be sympathetic. From a Revolutionary view, City sympathy is meaningless. If somebody says, “I feel so sorry for you; I feel your trouble myself,” it’s a lie. Well, I shouldn’t use terms like that…it is, of course, the truth. That’s why I said it was a lie. The more someone defines himself as a “sympathetic person,” the less you should turn your back on him. In other words, he is not sympathetic. The more someone seems to define himself as tolerant, the less tolerant he is. Real sympathy and tolerance is where things overlap. You can feel it. There is no reason to say, “I sympathize with you.” Every time you do say it, you are cutting off part of your perception.
In the City, the very things that seem natural are the very things a Revolutionist should not be doing. Another example: “I love you.” To what end is Life arranged that you must tell somebody you love them? You have feelings — whatever they are — and part of the Yellow Circuit’s job is to talk about those feelings. And it must use words in a most precise manner. When the voice says, “I love you,” it has to be precise right then. Because two seconds later you may be slapping your loved one in the face. But for that moment, the dance consists in the other person hearing what they accept as a clear delineation of a contour between love and not-love. It is unmistakable at that moment; that’s all that counts. Right then, energy is transmitted in the dance and it is not ambiguous.
If you really love somebody you should not tell them. Is that not ridiculous? Is that not silly? In the City, that makes absolutely no sense.
Okay, how about this one. Have you noticed that things seem arranged in such a way that ordinary, contemporary, and sophisticated people cannot work alone? Every doctor has a receptionist. What does that have to do with being a doctor? Even hairdressers have an “appointment specialist.” It is almost impossible to find someone in contemporary conditions who can work alone. And don’t let your nervous system holler about cost efficiency. That is no answer to what I am getting at.
Why can’t an attorney or physician answer the phone himself? As I said, don’t tell me it is more cost effective to hire someone to do that for them. There is something else afoot. And there is a very “up to date and with it” fascination over those few people who do seem to be exceptions. Just the idea that there is somewhere a “sole gunslinger” — it could be a blacksmith, a doctor, a mechanic — stirs up the nervous system in a certain way. Such fascination might be referred to as “respect for real craftsmanship.” To be a sole practitioner is considered sort of romantic.
I brought this up for a particular reason: an individual reason that applies to you. The day of the lone gunslinger is about gone. In the City, contraire, people now must have help. And if it’s that way in the City, you can bet your bottom it ain’t that way in This. But there seems to be a little of it, right? Our meetings, for instance. It’s apparently me and you. It is still not working alone, right? Are you sure of that? Why is it then that I seem to be so personable?
With the proper feel and understanding of overlaps you don’t have to have somebody: you’ve got everybody. Everybody in the world is helping you make appointments, proof read, and answering your phone calls. You’ve got the whole world. It’s not “Smith and Jones”…unless you call, as a figure of speech, the rest of the world “Jones.” Then you can be Smith and they can be Jones. Which is the same thing as working alone.