Thinking and Saying
August 17, 1988
AKS/News Items Gallery = jcap 1988-08-15 (0380)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below
Diagram # 176 video grab
Diagram # 176B video grab
Notes by WB
Is there a difference between what people think/feel and what they say? Why are things arranged so you feel one way and say something else? People only take responsibility for what they said–not what they thought. Life’s message–we should say what we think. Institutions must talk.
Place above Line doesn’t use language–but understands it.
You don’t need help if you can’t ask for it. Motto–Hell, I don’t need help!
Can a person discover anything displeasing?
Life needs dichotomies and inconclusive statements, and a difference between thoughts and speech.
What if you make a connection…and didn’t like it? You can’t believe what you don’t like.
And Kyroot Said…
If something were TRULY unnatural the question wouldn’t be
whether or not to “do it,” but whether or not you COULD do it.
Don’t offer hostility when it is info that is needed.
In a vitriolic tome, I ran across the following attack-
sentence, “History is shamelessly strewn with distorted views of
Only a Revolutionist knows whether success is more than
merely doing better than someone else.
Heard another ole City sorehead aver that, “Most things in
life definitely benefit from lowered expectations.”
In the City the notion of insanity is meaningless, and in
the Bushes it would behave thusly: The belief that all NOT wired
as you are MIS-wired.
Could it just possibly be true that anything really
important can be said in three minutes, or in three words?
New, fresh data is perishable, and does not travel well in
time, or in space.
One ole City dude admitted, “Yeah, I reckon I am pretty damn
predictable; and even I know which cards I’m likely to deal with
every hand, but I’m STILL the best game in town.” (Well, I
reckon I could be a bit of a smart-ass and say a few words
regarding the benefits of travel, and getting out of your own
All that noise you hear in the City… it’s just noise.
Never trust a god who says, “I told you so.”
All organizations must change from the top down.
In the City they claim their aim is to prevail, but they’ll
settle for learning to merely cope.
Hey kids, what time is it? “It’s ‘Get Real’ time.”
School Yard Rule Number 64: If you really don’t wanna talk
about it, don’t.
Everything ordinary consciousness perceives has unseen
If it be true that “If you don’t like someone, you won’t
believe them,” what if Life doesn’t like you? What then?
Can you see all City entertainment as a temporary shift in
the dominant/submissive dance?
Episodic reality is NO reality.
Overheard, “When you call me that, smile… no, when you
call me that DON’T smile… come to think of it, just don’t CALL
THINKING AND SAYING
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 380, August 17, 1988
I’ve got a big question for you, but let’s try to slide up on it sideways. First let me ask you this: to what possible end has life arranged things that it stresses, through Man, the importance of “saying what you really feel”? You have all heard this. There are some psychologists even who opine that there should be no restraints, regardless of civility and consideration for the feelings of others. By and large, the western world now believes that for individual health, people should “say what’s on their mind.” In the health arena, there are now people who charge large sums of money to help you to do just that. Think about it a second. I haven’t gotten to the cheap laughs yet. (Of course, to me it’s always a cheap laugh that you have to pay anybody to help you do something, like having your car fixed. It’s funny. To pay somebody to help you…maybe only I enjoy it.)
It is an accepted truism in the health field that not to express one’s feelings can, on the contrary, cause ulcers, stress, and untold mental problems. Why does it seem so important? Well, let me ask you another minor question, before we slip up to the big one. Is there an operational difference between what people think/feel and what they say? You would think, at the ordinary level, there must be. Or else there would be no apparent problem with people saying what they feel. Since you can’t think without knowing language, let’s start there. What gives? Why are things arranged so that the possibility exists to feel and think one thing, and to say something else? To what possible end? (Other than, of course, the insanity of being here in all this.) Why, why, why, why? Not your mother, not traumas, not curses of the gods. No, let’s play geologist and get down into the actual mine shaft of human consciousness. Life is up to something.
The purposes which Man is serving in general require, among other things, Man’s intellect and its right hand man, language. You could not think without language, and you could not speak if you could not think. So in a sense your tongue is tied more closely to your brain than any other part of your body. And, it just so happens, it is a fairly short distance from your tongue to your brain as well. A lot closer than your duodenum, which I’m sure your tongue finds to be an agreeable situation. Just go down in the mine a little bit, where it starts getting dark, and you realize that it’s already wired into your nervous system to accept the reality of a gap between what is thought/felt and what is said. (You have to remember that both what you think and what you say is ultimately fueled by fumes coming up from the lower parts of the mine: human emotion. All of it has a similar source if you go down far enough.) City psychiatry says that you simply cannot hold back certain things, and some people (presumably licensed in California) even maintain that strong arguments are good for relationships. I forget the title of the book…I think it was “Love Through Assault and Battery.” In the City, that’s neither here nor there. But, once you start playing geologist and begin to look at what is flowing through man’s nervous system, you have to ask: what possible reason is there for everyone believing there is some importance lurking in this problem — to think one thing and say something else? People read books about it and pay hundreds of dollars an hour to talk about it.
Consider this: people are wired up to immediately take responsibility for what they say. There’s a great “one-two punch” in the City. First, you deny you said a certain thing. Then the reporters play you a videotape that actually shows you saying it. And here comes the number two punch…you then say, “Ah, but that’s not what I MEANT.” Whether they have a videotape or not, you remember what you said. The point being, you may at first deny you ever said it, but if a second party says, “Yeah you did…you stood right here and TOLD me you’d be here at 7:30,” you are suddenly dancing backwards. You’re stuck. And then notice, you’ll stop denying it. You will take responsibility for it. You don’t know why. You then have to fall into saying they understood you wrong, or to try and shift the blame. Now follow me for a second: it is a form of expressing the individual and collective belief in free will.
People, when pushed, will take human responsibility for saying something. But nobody will take responsibility for THINKING something. It never even comes up. Nobody has ever asked a human to be responsible for what they thought. In the City, there is a general crude awareness that nobody is responsible for what they think. So notice the seismological picture I’m trying to present to you. People are arranged to believe that there is a distinct and continual possibility of a gap between what someone is thinking and what they are saying. And coevally, Life has put the message in Man that such a difference is not an agreeable situation. That it is, in fact, VERY important to learn to say exactly what one thinks. Put all of that together with the fact that people ordinarily will take responsibility for what they say, but not what they think. “Heavens no! We all know that. I didn’t decide to think about strangling my mother, or about having sex with a hockey team.” (I’ll say one more time, people have never discussed this. It does not arise.)
Are you following all this? Why in the world would Life expect people to put “saying” and “thinking” together, while simultaneously making people believe that “thinking” is out of their control? Why should they reflect one another? What could be the possible connection between the two? Why would Life expect you to take something totally out of your control, the source of which is unknown, and make you put it together with something you’re responsible for? Think about it a second. There is an end to it, of course; I’m not here to point out the follies of Life. Contraire. People in the City believe they’re here to do THAT. Out in the Bushes we know better. Out in the Bushes we at least play like we know better, because if Life begins to suspect that you know better, it expects you to ACT like you know better. That’s why I’m not telling you that it’s up to you people. That’s why “Larry” personally gets a card from me on every birthday. Just in case, just in case.
All right, why not. The big question for the night. This can’t be explained, and yet some of you are going to think you hear it immediately. We’re down into a new strata of the mine now. Here it is: Would all forms of apparent human analysis — religions, psychiatry, sociology — be a total waste of time on those who could not talk? City consciousness would say, “What the hell difference would it make if they could talk or not? If religion or psychology could help someone, it would help them.” Okay, how would you be able to tell? We are not talking about an observable broken leg which can be mended and which will visibly heal. Can the mute be helped? And the crescendo: Do the mute NEED to be helped?
I’ll get down in the direct and make it even simpler. Let us say that one of your spiritual or psychological heroes could take an average person and heal their many subconscious traumas (which I’m sure we all have). Give this healer all the time they need to work on the ailing person. If that person could not talk, how would you know that they were helped? When I say they can’t talk, I mean they are not dealing with language. I didn’t say they couldn’t think. All right, I’ll answer for you. There is no way in the 3-D world that you could ever know if they’d been helped.
There is no way that a non-language person could pantomime the need for psychoanalysis or spiritual guidance. City consciousness will say, “There is a difference between not needing help, and not being able to SAY you need help.” Yeah? What the hell is it? If the Yellow Circuit ran anywhere close to what the City thinks should be logical thinking, it would have to see: “That is unbelievably weird. But it’s true. If you couldn’t say you needed help, you wouldn’t need help.”
Things are arranged in such a way that if too many people heard and understood what I have just described, Life would do this little thing to all the little ganglia down in the nervous system, like giving a twist to the heads which might have heard it. “I didn’t hear that…or if I did, it makes no sense. It’s dumb.”
I guess I’ve pirouetted around with you enough, so let me point more directly. The very things which seem to be uniquely human, and which separate you from a dog or a chimpanzee — things of the “mind” or the “spirit,” as they are normally called — have corresponding, apparently external institutions provided by Life: the religions, the philosophies, the psychiatric disciplines. And the intent of these institutions is to minister to the internal singularities of Man’s “spirit,” “mind,” or, “soul.” I mean “minister” in the full sense of the word: to feed. But do you see, none of these institutions can minister unto a non-language person? Yet the institutions themselves must do what? Talk. You cannot have a religion without language. There is no psychiatry without language. You can’t pass along family wisdom and cultural mores without language.
My question was, are you sure such a non-language person would even need to be helped? If you did not deal in language, would you ever need to be ministered unto? And you might say, “Well, yeah.” And I ask you: How would you know you needed help? Oh, all right. I’ll point this much out. You only need help if you know you need help. No, let me tell it even better. You wouldn’t need help if you couldn’t say you needed help. No? Think about it.
Should I go any further with this? Should I re-point to something I’ve said over and over, which some of you assume is one of my major impacts on you? That is, of cutting down on a whole lot of useless talk? What if just about ALL talk is useless to the Revolutionary purpose? What if you totally non-languaged all of your so-called problems — I don’t care what they are, this side of a broken leg. There would be nothing else to say. Not only would you not have a problem, you would not need help. You can’t need help, or you’d ask for it. And if you can’t ask for it, you don’t need it.
Many times I feel inclined to offer caveats to newer people, because This can sound like some form of unknown macho fascism. “Chin up, old stick.” There are people in the City who’d go for that. Heroes in the City are always the strong silent types. It’s a reflection of something. But see, people in the City cannot simply do it. And if you can’t simply do it, you’re doomed to talk about it forever. Contrarily, those who can simply do it don’t have to talk about it. And not because I said not to. And not because it will make them look better to others. .paIt’s none of that. You have non-languaged it, and taken it out of the hands of ordinary consciousness.
All right, let me see if I can slip this one in on you. Remember, this is not a critique of humanity. Some of you are inclined to forget that, no matter what I say, because the level of consciousness which hears it must hear it as a critique. All of this is pointing to a place which is not caught in that dichotomy. Down below, you are not cracked. There is no patching the ordinary level, because it is not broken. But of that area outside the normal limits of consciousness, the technical description is that the son of a bitch don’t talk. I’ll be more truthful; it does communicate, but it does not talk to people. It did not grow up in the same place. It’s that human languages are a language it doesn’t engage itself in. Consider those poor souls who had flashes of this throughout history. What do they always say besides, “I saw Life as a whole new ball game, but I can’t describe it”? They then try to express a passing realization that, “Language in some way ties up our perceptions of reality.” What they experienced was consciousness without the dichotomy of thought and speech. Simplistically put: when you are conscious in that part of the brain which is now not operating, it does not speak the human language. I’m not saying it couldn’t, but that is not the coin of its realm. And if it has any problems (I’m not saying it does) it couldn’t tell anybody.
What if that part became the dominating dance partner in your step? And it knows that the ordinary system can talk all it wants to and it takes no effort. It never took any effort. It moves and breathes with no effort at all. And it cannot call out for help unless it calls out for help. And miracle upon miracle, if you stop it from calling out for help, you realize: “Hell, I don’t NEED any help.” You finally see that. And it’s just — for you people taking notes — “What a fucking shock!”
I’m going to really change the subject. Can a person discover anything displeasing? Can a Newton, A Bacon, or an Einstein (to take the hard sciences) have a “Eureka!” followed by “Oh no, that’s terrible!”? This is not a trick question. Or think about the old spiritual heroes. Do they have an epiphany and come back to say, “I have seen the cosmic truth and boy, I don’t like it”? Never, never, never. It is not possible.
Now, can you see any possible connection between that and the apparent observable, felt difference between what people think and what they say? “Well I for one don’t see any connection.” Good, good, good. Because what if you discover some connection and you don’t like it? At City level, under ordinary conditions, Life does not arrange itself through Man so that if anybody discovers something they can later find it displeasing. I am telling you, it does not happen. Do you get any hint, then, as to why This cannot be transferred to the City at large? Part of the beauty of the way Life has arranged itself is that those things which humans would find displeasing, they cannot discover. And then, of courses, Life periodically produces people like me who can see things and then think, “Maybe I will tell somebody.” It’s so funny.
Notice, when you see something on your own, or from something I’ve said, things seem to be arranged in some peculiar way that you almost forget it as soon as you discover it. The part of you that “forgets” would have found the discovery displeasing. And if too many people saw it, Life would find it displeasing. If it goes too far, Life turns part of itself on another part and says, “Shut that stuff up.” People don’t know why; it just seems that “there are some things we shouldn’t fool around with.” A glass of wine might be all right now and then, but you don’t have to be an alcoholic, right? Consider why it’s so hard to hear any of This…why at times it sounds obvious as hell and the next minute bleak as hell. People do not discover things that are displeasing.