Things Only Partially Seen Are Always Seen as Something Else
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1988-10-05 (0402)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below
0402 video grab
#402 Oct 7, 1988 – 1:08
Notes by TK
Kyroot to :05. New scientific rule: Things only partially seen are always seen as something else. E.g., “Side-effects”. Corollary: the ordinary intellect sees what it needs to see: the division into effects (sought, expected) and side-effects (unexpected, undesirable). Thus nothing is needed to be seen in its totality. “X” seen partially is not equal to [<] or [>] , rather, seen as “Z”, green, 14, etc.—something completely different. There’s no such thing as a side-effect—only part of a total effect. ][ The feeling of irony, of outrage and futility with obviously-failed processes/institutions is the partially-seen. Everything is seen as something else—Including you. Nothing is seen in its totality—everybody is splintered and sees undesirable side-effects in themselves (“I should/could be better”).
More on man-made reason-born laws of nature. Could there be areas outside man’s mind from which “ideas” could come? An “objective reality”? This is the pickle of all philosophical inquiry: “if objective reality exists…then…”etc. To be touched by objective reality = transcendence to totality. Related to Primal Flow splintering into lesser specific flows only being true when you believe it to be so, i.e., partial view. What if there is no PF until you hear/think there is? Related to not naming yourself, not responding to yourself…to do so is to see partially. To see totally is to absolutely reject all partial descriptions/views.
And Kyroot Said…
In the City not many things work better than placebos.
When a Revolutionist hears someone say that the “greatest
influence” on their life was “Dr. So & So,” or “Professor X,” he
can barely perceive of such a situation.
Even if you’ve never noticed it with your ears, in the City
everyone talks at once.
You may care to note this of certain City situations: Some
“Know it alls” do “know it all,” (that is, they know all that
NEEDS to be known by a “know it all”).
I once heard a City ditty entitled, “You Ought To Live So
God Can Use You” and I thought how sweet it was for the religious
types to express such an idea. But later that night I awoke, and
broke out in a lukewarm sweat as I suddenly tried to picture the
Even if you’re naturally tall, still stand on your toes.
Update, Form G-124: Not only is the world “big enough for
everybody,” but the naked reality of same is funny as hell. (If
you see what I mean.)
You should not carelessly leave a loved one, or small child,
under a pile of statistics.
Around a fire, out near the near-dense Bushes one night, I
heard a Man in rebel garb say that a “Real Revolutionist is just
a person more intelligent than everyone else, who impartially
knows and accepts it without fanfare, comment, or complaint.”
(Perhaps the gentleman was sitting too close to the flames.)
In the City nothing much helps, and nothing much hinders.
Time comes when it’s “change, or BE changed.”
The desire to believe in a god is simply the wish to be
Why is it you so seldom hear a cleric shout, “Bon temps
Look, there’s simply NO NEED to sit there whining when there
is another new, perfectly good intelligence right around the
Out, a bit west, and red shifted laterally from the Bushes
is a very large, though relatively unknown mountain, on the top
of which was discovered a perfectly preserved body, and not only
has no one ever offered a plausible theory as to what the person
was doing up at that forbidding altitude, no one has ever even
mentioned the affair.
Another anonymous submission I made to the City’s contest,
seeking a slogan of its very own was this, “Small Minds Mean Good
Times.” … you like it?
How could you ever describe to a dumb person how dumb he is?
There is this air-cooled gent in Bucharest who says that
“Earth is not the correct name for this planet,” and that he
“knows the right one.”
Never attend a family reunion if YOU’RE the only attendee.
Albeit irrational by City topology, do study on this map
tip: The fastest way out is not necessarily the way you came in.
THINGS ONLY PARTIALLY SEEN ARE ALWAYS SEEN AS SOMETHING ELSE
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 402, October 7, 1988
Let me give you a new scientific rule — the likes of which you will never hear in the scientific community: Things only partially seen are always seen as something else.
Things partially seen are not seen as being what they are. Never, ever. This does not infer that they are seen partially as what they are; they are seen as something else entirely. For example, X only partially seen is seen as Z, green or 14 — but in no wise seen as X — not as X over 2, or X over 12, or X over 1002. So X is seen as something other than X. Always.
As another example, take an idea from the world of medicine, the idea that there are “side effects” — results other than the intended effects of the medication. Someone working in a lab developing a drug to treat high blood pressure finds that this same drug increases hair growth. A guy with a receding hairline might not object to the drug’s “negative side effects,” while the woman who has to put up with a new moustache feels otherwise. There is no such thing as a drug without side effects. It is a matter of ordinary intelligence seeing partially, focusing on what it needs to see. Binary eyesight must divide up all totalities into twos — in this case, into effects and side effects. And ordinary City scientists might defend themselves by saying, “The only thing we recognize as an effect is that which we were searching for in the first place. Everything extraneous (if not in opposition) to this is going to be a side effect.”
To leave the world of medicine, high blood pressure and unexpected hair growth — can you see that everything only partially seen is always seen as something else? Nothing can be seen in its totality because nothing needs to be seen in its totality. From another viewpoint, there is no such division into effects and side effects. You could say everything is an effect. What you’re dealing with is what the thing IS. But you’re also dealing with ordinary intelligence’s need to divide in order to see. There must be contours between “effects” and “side effects” if City intelligence is to describe what it sees. Yet to name something “X” is to miss seeing X altogether. You cannot see part of an X. What you see is something other than X. Things only partially seen are always seen as something else.
I might add that there is no proof of this whatsoever. Oh, the sentence may make sense within the framework of City rationale. But the mind cannot conceive of such a thing happening. City consciousness can’t conceive of any purpose to such an apparent perceptual fluke — when there is every purpose in the world! As long as everything is seen as being something else, in a sense there’s no need to worry about coming up with new forms of fuel — an alternative to nuclear power, for instance. If you could see from a more complex view, you would See controlled, astounding chaos — a kind of constant churning up of energy — which keeps things moving all the time. Everything that is partially seen is seen as being something else: not seen as being what it is; not even seen as being a part of what it is. Everything is seen as being something else.
The totality of a thing is what it is. Man wants to use only the part of a thing that seems useful to him, but you can’t “partially” use something. (Remember we’re talking about anything — apparent objects, opinions, political and economic theories, the way you feel toward people.) The part of something that you find useful has a desirable effect. The rest of the thing is an undesirable “side effect,” which you may even have difficulty seeing at all. If you could stand back from the thing (wonder drug, your spouse, whatever) and see it in totality, you would see that all parts of it — desirable, deplorable and indifferent — are one big effect.
In the City, a feeling of futility and outrage arises from the discovery that things are not as they appear to be and that institutions purported to have certain purposes do not live up to their purposes. What people call religion is not religion. What you call a dump truck is not a dump truck. Of course, don’t let this stop you from going to work if you’re a truck driver. Even if you’re a cleric, I’d say go back to work until you can find a decent job, like driving trucks, or at least to collect your last paycheck.
What an astounding discovery that is — to figure out that things don’t work the way they’re said to work. I don’t guess you’ve read any of the ancient Egyptian, or ancient Greek, or ancient Oriental writings. Maybe you’ve never read any newspapers, or never just walked into a bar and listened to the conversation. Even City people know things aren’t what they appear to be. The really astounding discovery you haven’t made yet is how mad you are about this. “I’m not mad. I’m intelligent, insightful. I could be a satirist if I was literate.”
People who believe they see irony in life — the great satirists who pass as being intelligent or having a superb sense of humor — are all up to about the sixth level of being pissed. There is no “irony.” Irony and satire are just forms of hostility, of being mad that you’re going to die, furious about how dumb you are. The unrecognized feeling a satirist has is, “I could have been somebody if I’d just been a little bit smarter.” He believes he sees other people who are just a little bit dumber than he is, and fears he’s close to living in the same neighborhood.
From a satirist’s position you cannot see ideas, beliefs and opinions for what they are; you cannot develop any new views or acquire new information. “If I was in charge, I’d stop people who claim to be religious killing other people in the name of religion.” “How would you stop them?” “I’d kill them.” And you would not even see anything ironic in what you’d just said.
In the City, things are partially seen, and things partially seen are not seen or described as what they are. What is being said is not what is being lived. Energy continues to be churned up. Things are seen as being something else. Stay with that one. Things partially seen are not seen as slightly different, askew, discolored, or distorted a bit. They are seen as SOMETHING ELSE. Assume for a second that that is the absolute rule. If that is literally true, then it has not been a matter of you just not having, up until now, the correct, full perception of such and such (of love, religion, culture, history, or yourself). Try and Consider, if this is literally true, what the implications ARE. Consider what it means to see everything as being something else. Would that not explain a lot? (I would not be dirty enough to ask you “what?” If “Everything I have seen that has been called something was not called what it actually is,” then you might be forced to admit, “X is not actually 17, X could be polka dots, for all I know.”)
If this were literally true, what would it mean about the way people see themselves? What if at one time everybody had the ability to see themselves as a whole? Perhaps as a child, when you had less intellectual capacity, you saw yourself differently. Let’s say at one time you had a feeling, an intelligence about yourself that was close to being in toto. Now, I must also suggest to you that that perception would pass very quickly. But suppose it has a certain impact on many people. You feel like something extraordinary happened at an early age in your life, but you don’t know what. I suggest to you that that was it. You didn’t know the perception was unusual; at the time, it seemed natural. Then it quickly passed and you no longer saw yourself in toto. Instead, you seemed to have the ability to split your attention, to think of two things at once, to feel, “I’m not exactly as I should be.”
Now you have your own undesirable side effects: the areas you feel you should clean up; the areas you feel aren’t developed enough. “I should lose weight.” “I should have become an artist.” “I didn’t seem too bad when I first took me, but now I have hair growing out of the bottoms of my feet!” “This medicine is not exactly what I was after. It has undesirable side effects!” Hair growing in undesirable places is not a side effect; the parts of you that you want to clean up are not a side effect. Seeing effects and side effects is the best ordinary intelligence can do. City consciousness always has some intention, some innate prejudice: “I do not want to have hair growing where it should not be growing, but my blood pressure needs to be treated.”
There is in your intelligence a frontier, a contour between “effect” and “side effect.” “There are parts of me that I don’t want.” It’s faulty vision to believe you can have one part without the others. There are no side effects to drugs; drug X is what it is. It’s not a matter of “Drug X seems to be a banquet of four things. Which one do I want?” The truth is, you’re going to get them all! But ordinary intelligence can’t see that. In fact, people will sometimes dismiss side effects as close to nonexistent. “I have no interest, that’s not what I want, that’s not what I need.” The doctor can say, “You’re probably going to suffer some diarrhea from this,” and you say, “Yeah, yeah, give it to me. I want to get my blood pressure lowered.” That is almost a denial of the so-called side effect.
Step back “in here.” Doesn’t that sound familiar? How about all the attempts — all the way from the philosophical atomists of Athens up to Freud — to describe parts of the human psyche, parts of the human soul, parts of the human spirit, parts of the human mind, that people will deny exist? Side effects!
I recently suggested that the laws of physics originate from men’s minds and that if there were going to be radical laws discovered that were closer to the fabric of reality, they might have to come from some area outside of the mind. But if such laws existed, they might be so irrational that man’s mind could never correctly see them. Consider whether there could be any area outside men’s minds from which any ideas could come? Is the possibility that there is such an area outside the mind what man has been seeking? The question, “Is there our perception of reality and then another reality that we may or may not perceive?” is the basis of all religion, all philosophy. The very question takes one form of “reality” as being a sure thing and the other as being a long shot. Does that not sound familiar?
The question reflects the basic duality in human consciousness. That you seem to be thinking about one thing — which seems certain — and there also seems to be this kind of background noise, a kind of vague memory of what you thought you were about to think about. This always goes on: there is always that which seems to be you thinking or talking, and then there seems to be the partner.
You’re Smith and you’re on the phone talking. Jones is in the background fooling around with the safe or adding up the accounts receivable, talking and making fun of you, or complaining. Finally you look around at him, and suddenly, you’re Jones! And you’re in the back and Smith is up front on the phone, and you’re thinking, “Is he talking about me? Is he trying to change our bank accounts again?” Doesn’t that sound Freudian? “Yes, I’m I, but there are strange noises in the back.” “Yeah, but you’ve got a partner, the name of the company is Smith & Jones!” “I know that, but I don’t like those noises back there. I never have trusted him.”
“Well, who am I speaking to?”
But when you call a little later you get, “Oh, this is Jones.” And neither one of the partners realizes you’re talking about the same thing. Neither one of them realizes that Smith & Jones is that original totality. Smith sees Jones as being a side effect, and vice versa.
If there was, as some scientists speculate, an area outside men’s minds that new laws of physics would come from (and remember, everything falls under the laws of physics — from your opinion of yourself to the Mets’ chance of winning next year), would not these laws be the kind that would merge, would forge together all the heretofore partialities? The answer is, “Yes.”
The answer is also this: if that happened in you, if you were privy to such laws — if that information was out there somewhere and in some way came into your being and you did not explode — you would turn a corner. You would then be in another part of town. You would be in another section of the universe where you would not be limited to 3-D intelligence. All that seemed partial before, to you would seem complete. And you would realize that everything you ever knew before is wrong — not a little bit wrong, not distorted, not needing to be straightened out somehow — simply wrong. And if everything you know is wrong, wouldn’t that explain a lot? I’d say that is the classical understatement.
Someone recently asked about the Primal Flow that everyone is wired up to believe is there somewhere. The question had to do with how this Primal Flow gets divided up into certain smaller human energies; or, how the Primal Flow becomes these three other flows. Can you See the possibility that there would be no splintering, no cutting up of the Primal Flow until you believe there is, until you think there is? This is another way of saying that you only see things partially when you think you see them. Once you name things, they are partially seen.
What if there’s not even a Primal Flow until you think there is? Until you hear there is? Until you think and believe there is? As Kyroot said one time, “What if the only ones who have a soul are those who believe they do? What if gods exist, but only for those who believe they do?” Or, what if gods do exist, but only if you don’t think about them. Because if you thought about them, you’d cut them up?
The Primal Flow, remember? What if there is no Primal Flow until you hear/think there is? What if there is no certainty, what if there is no stability, what if there is no unity, unless you think there is? Again, we see a master stroke by Life — that you can’t perceive something until you have been able to think of it, and to think of it you thought of it partially.
What if This Thing doesn’t exist until you think it does, and part of my job is to convince you This does exist — and it doesn’t exist. But This has to exist because your standing here saying it doesn’t exist is part of what This is. Not necessarily — what if you’re only partially seeing This? What if you always see This as something else?
Back to that which is of supreme importance to most people — yourself. All my many hints and exhortations about not talking about yourself — not naming yourself — were not to promote some sham form of humility, but to avoid seeing partially.
You should not answer to any name, internally. You should not talk about you to yourself (apparently). Of course, if someone says, “Who are you?” or, “Alright, you in the dump truck, pull over or we’re going to shoot!” you might have to answer. But I’m talking about you apparently talking and answering to you. If you answer to anything like the internal question, “What in hell are you doing this for?” you have responded to and accepted and reinforced a naturally existing, partial view of something. You should never say to yourself, “You shouldn’t do that!” You should treat such internal remarks with the same kind of respect an aircraft carrier gives a flea.
Remember that any response to yourself is a response to partiality. Answer your internal voices and you’re answering to side effects. When you do that, you’re yelling, “I don’t want hair on the bottom of my feet!” while swallowing as fast as you can the pills that cause hair growth.