Driven Till You Drop
December 12, 1988
AKS/News Item Gallery = jcap 1988-12-09 (0430)
Condensed AKS/News Items = See Below
Summary = needed (Sneeded )
Diagrams = None
Transcript = See Below
And Kyroot Said…
Any place with boundaries, even Valhalla, Paris, or
Paradise, is a prison.
There’s at least one path to everywhere; some are
worthwhile, some are not.
Only those phlegmatic playwrights must lean on a plot. A day
— nay, a life without a plot is like an eternal third down.
Just over the unnamed ridge lies the wonderland… always
just past the unnamed.
Hell is filled with other people’s whining… not it’s not,
that’s a joke; it’s filled with yours. Not it’s not, that’s the
REAL joke, of course, ’cause everybody else’s is SO much worse
than yours… right? And that’s no joke.
When it comes to polemic produce, even fresh IDEAS can
They recently found a Man staggering around the bushy
perimeter, gripping his temples and loudly moaning, “Wow, oh wow,
me thinks I thought too much all at once.”
Only the ordinary continue to perceive of time as a
phenomenon outside themselves.
The bigger the problem the smaller the Man. OK, Beta
Variation: The bigger the problem the smaller the intelligence.
Oh, alright, Variation Gamma: Hey, there ain’t no third version.
I am disturbed by the similarity of the words “religion” and
If you can BE seduced, you deserve to be seduced.
Why confuse staring for genius.
According to one City thinker, “Corruption comes not as a
thief in the night, but rather as anxiety in designer jeans.”
In the City there ain’t no need to even GO looking.
From a nearby crowd, a voice deftly floated, “Well, whatEVER
it is, there seems to be lots of it.”
More sound advice from the City: Never try to circumcise
yourself while changing your oil.
Question: Has anyone ever been aided by an “evil person”?
Hey, watch that stuff!
Nothing’s all THAT magnificent if they keep calling it so
every time they mention it.
Almost ALL the world’s great minds had a tendency to put on
The free don’t need secrets.
LIFE’S A MATTER OF BEING DRIVEN TILL YOU DROP
PROBLEMS TAKE TWO AND TIMING
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
Document: 430, December 12, 1988
Try to again Consider something I’ve mentioned periodically that is pertinent for everyone. Although I sometimes use the dramatic approach — talking loudly, making jokes, being boisterous — you should all remind yourselves that This is not some ordinary harangue about the nature of Life.
I’ve often asked you if there is any way to present something new — a new idea from me to you, or internally from you to you — without the idea sounding as though it’s some kind of diatribe against whatever the established order was regarding that subject. This Thing is not any sort of attack or sermon on the routine life of routine man, yet the words I say may sound that way to you. Most of the time, when you nod and say, “How true, how true,” you’re agreeing on the basis of, “Yes, aren’t things in a shameful state!” Things are NOT in a shameful state. Remember that.
After all is said and done, Life itself — regardless of whatever I say or what speakers in the City say — is actually pretty straightforward and simple. Everyone in the City is always talking as though they should be or are involved with this or that. Yet beyond that talk, Life is simple: You’re simply driven until you drop. That’s covers it — that’s Life. Lives may seem to vary greatly from person to person — but that one statement covers it.
Remember, only somebody in the City would take that pessimistically. Look objectively: You find yourself here, at the age where your intellect is functioning enough so you feel like an individual, distinctly separated from the environment. And you think and say you’re up to this or that — trying to achieve, gain, fulfill this or that. Everyone feels that way, regardless of what part of the planet they’re from. Yet the matter of Life, from the time you reach the age of maturity, is simple: You’re driven till you drop. And then they bury you. That’s it.
The only difference — the only variation among individuals as you’re driven till you drop — is that you say and think a multitude of this and that. “Should I do something differently?” “What are my goals?” “Who’s holding me back?” “What should I do next?” Those are the variations. Of course, the difference between being involved in This Thing and living an ordinary life is something other than those variations.
On to the heart of the harangue. The this and that people think and talk about is mainly based on what? Problems. Life seems to be a problem. The this and that people talk about has to do with the problems of getting more money, having sex appeal, gaining fame and recognition, moving to a higher ranking position in the death line. As you’re driven till you drop, your nervous system has to talk about something, and what you almost always talk about are the problems you have to overcome. That’s how you judge your progress in life; that’s how you can tell if you’re going somewhere. Remember, though, that “problems” are just a little speck of oil floating on the ocean of “you’re being driven till you drop.”
Here’s the first premise for tonight: A problem requires the participation of two parties. There must be two human participants for there to be any problem. (Remember, in all the major creation stories the gods first created one thing. Then they came back and thought, “I’ll create somebody (or something) else.” In the Bible story about Adam and Eve, the real initial purpose of Eve was to provide the necessary second party.) You can prove this to yourself by thinking about anything you consider a human problem — one you’ve felt or heard others talk about at City level. Think about guilt, envy, fear, greed, or anything else. Could you, alone, have that problem? Would it be possible to have that problem if there was just you?
There are certain so-called spiritual segments of Life’s body that claim there is a thing called “conscience” inherent in all people and that “conscience” can produce guilt. Nevertheless, if you were alone on this planet, it would be impossible for you to experience guilt. It would also not be possible for you, alone, to be afraid in the psychological sense. How could you fear being embarrassed, ignored, or put down without another person around? There must be two parties to establish and sustain any human problem.
Now I refer you back to another one of my sketches. Do you see how this relates to the absolute necessity for there to be a partnership in man? Do you see why the nervous system must have the ability to apparently speak in two voices?
Everybody on this planet understands what it is to “talk to yourself,” but no one wonders about this phenomenon. Don’t you find that curious? Why did Life find it necessary to make two of you? You don’t have to even be a candidate for clinical schizophrenia to have inside you two minds, two personalities, two attitudes — there are two “me’s” in there. And no one ever notices or questions this.
Dogs can take each other at face value, but humans can’t. Humans accept the fact that beyond the physical language they share with other animals, there is somebody inside who may not be communicating as directly. Humans believe that indoors there’s somebody at home — not only somebody, but TWO somebodies. There seem to be two voices in there and you never question why.
Everybody has a partnership. The partnership, as I have described it, has no qualitative aspects. There’s no “good” you and “bad” you, though many people would think of the partners in those terms. You simply have this partnership of Smith & Jones. Smith & Jones — that’s you. Sometimes Smith answers the phone, sometimes Jones does. Sometimes one’s on the phone and the other one is shouting in the background and they seem to go back and forth: “Should I have more cake?” “Don’t eat any more, you’re fat enough already!” “Just one more slice!” “You always say that, don’t eat any more!”
Smith & Jones is not good or bad. Back at the ordinary level, the partnership is inescapable. And in the binary world, there would not be two unless one was preferable. So everybody seems to have two natures within. Religious people interpret these as “good” and “evil;” psychologists talk about a “conscious” and an “unconscious” mind. What you have to See is that only at City level are there any degrees of quality in the partnership.
To return to a “political” metaphor, in the real world of politics, right is might. Whoever is in charge in you at any given time is “right.” Whoever’s on the phone (Smith or Jones) at the time seems to be on the good side. If Smith’s in charge at the moment and he wants to eat cake, well, why else would the gods have made cake?
Being able to shake yourself free of thinking the partnership is weighted in one direction will move you closer to an alternative intelligence. At the ordinary level, everyone feels that one of the voices is better, more intelligent, more propitious. Actually, the voices are interchangeable. But you have to have them both. The purpose of having two voices, each with its own agenda, in the higher end of the nervous system is so that a person CAN talk to himself, argue with himself, condemn himself. The two voices are absolutely necessary. Without them, you would not be stable, sane and civilized by City standards.
Those who apparently have no other voice in them normally end up in dire straits in the City. Past a certain point, if a person has one single voice running him he’ll be an untreatable psychopath: “He admitted to killing those people and he had no remorse!” Such a person ends up in prison, or is labeled a “psychotic” and put in a hospital. Or, if the person happens to become powerful, he may kill thousands and go down in history. After all, the only difference between a small-time criminal and a notorious historical figure is how many they kill.
In the middle of the bell curve, you have to have the partnership in people. Each person has to have somebody inside — somebody indoors — to talk to. You can’t literally talk to yourself unless there are two of you. “Talk to yourself” at first sounds like there could be one person there. But who’s listening if you’re doing the talking?
The nervous system has to be constructed in such a way that there are two voices. Ordinary people have to apparently have two natures in them, or they would not have ordinary problems. There are two aspects of the nervous system; one can talk and one can listen. So a person always has somebody to talk to. Smith & Jones can endlessly argue, debate, discuss AND — most important — one of them can condemn the other one. You must have some way to argue with, debate with, and condemn yourself. Without that — without the partnership — you could not fulfill the purpose in Life of being driven until you drop.
I can’t resist bringing up an old phrase everybody has heard and never thought about. This phrase is more than true — it’s meaningful, insightful and interesting. Though it’s a piece of local reporting that is not true outside the City, this phrase seems almost self-evident. Whenever some City person who seemed to have insight into Life said this, all of humanity in the City went, “Yeah!” Here’s the phrase: “Why shoot the messenger bringing bad news?”
Whoever is telling the story will say, “King So And So was so dumb (or stupid, or cruel, or whatever) that he would kill any messenger who brought him bad news. Can you believe that?” And, from City level, you’d think that this King who orders messengers shot is really stupid. (Remember this is a pliable metaphor –what’s true “out there” is true all over.) City people believe that killing the messenger will not stop bad news. I suggest to you it might be otherwise.
The City story says, “It’s dumb, self-defeating and a waste of time to kill the bringers of bad news.” Are you sure? Look at the state “in here” or “out there.” There is this King and he’s in charge. Somebody brings him bad news and he has that messenger killed. Then another messenger comes bringing bad news and that messenger is killed. I suggest it will not be too long — unless the state is peopled by fruitcakes — before the King asks, “How are things going?” and all the people answer, “Things could not be better!” “No bad news at all?” “Not a bit.” And there will not be one iota of bad news.
That’s unsettling and funny because it is correct. A City person couldn’t follow this line of reasoning; in the City, you can’t do away with bad news simply by killing those who bring the news. Is that really so? How can anything be bad news if you don’t hear about it? What’s a crime if you don’t know it happened? What’s going on with the partnership if you never hear from Smith again?
“Jones, do you know we’ve heard that Smith is an embezzler?”
“Really? I haven’t heard a thing about that.”
If you never count your money, how do you know somebody’s stealing from you? If you’re sitting on the throne and nobody ever brings you any bad news, where is the bad news?
“Why kill the messenger who brings bad news?” This is so simple and obvious that in the City, you could base a whole philosophical, psychological or political school on the phrase. Anybody with City intelligence would say that to kill the messenger is psychological denial — spiritual blindness — political suicide. Whatever description you want to use, in the City it’s folly to kill the messenger. Besides being a waste of human life, killing him makes no sense because what he brought was not his news — he was only a messenger.
He came from the front lines and reported, “The enemy is advancing on our troops. Half of Company C has already been destroyed!” What the hell do you accomplish by killing him? That’s not going to change the fact that Company C is being wiped out. Killing him won’t change anything, in the City.
To see another point of view, you have to be able to do what no one in the City can: hear two voices simultaneously. Then you can also see that if you do kill the messenger — or two or three messengers — pretty soon nobody’s going to bring you bad news. Within a VERY short time you can establish a condition in that state where the King never — as long as he lives and stays in power — ever hears another piece of bad news. AND — if you can listen around the corner — not hearing bad news may amount to a lot more than they would think in the City.
In the City they think, “Bad news is still happening but you’re just not hearing the reports and someday you’re going to pay the price.” Yeah, you’re going to be driven till you drop. In the City they say, “Well, if you don’t hear the bad news, the stuff could pile up on you.” Really? Well, what do you think is happening now? “You need to hear all the bad news so you can plan remedial action.” Consider what kind of success rate, up until now, you’ve had taking this remedial action?
What I’m saying is not an attack on ordinary City intelligence. Because in the City it IS true that you’re wasting your time to shoot the messenger. If that were not true — if City consciousness could see the alternative I’m describing and hear the questions I’m asking — City people might go, “Uh oh. It doesn’t really matter whether you know about the bad news or not, does it?” And that can’t be. You can’t think like that and be driven till you drop.
Think like that and you start turning around, making rude noises and stepping out of line — and Life has to keep this line straight and in order. If you have a row of dominos and knock the first one over, all it takes is one domino in the middle to stop the whole line from falling. You can’t depend on everybody being driven till they drop if you have too many people getting out of line and doing stuff like This.
“Why shoot the messenger of bad news?” Forget “out there” and Consider this internally. What if internally you had the ability to kill the messenger of bad news? What if you saw the potential in this and whenever bad news came to you, you killed the messenger (that is, the chemical, electrical messenger within the workings of your own nervous system)?
What if you could stop all the internal reports of human bad news. I don’t mean the reports that tell you your foot is on fire, or a snake in your pocket, or a tiger’s about to jump you. I’m talking about news of human problems — news of this and that — which you believe is the purpose of your life. I’m talking about how you want to get back at all the people who did you wrong and how this and that keeps you supremely occupied while you’re being driven till you drop. What if you could stop all those kinds of problems — stop the reports of problems — from reaching the highest point in your nervous system?
What if you could kill one or two messengers and that would put a stop to the bad news, internally. Not the basic reports required to keep you alive, but the ones encapsulated in the this and that you continually talk about while you’re being driven till you drop.
City consciousness says that killing the messengers will produce the ultimate self-imploding or exploding form of stress, that it’s stressful to seal bad news off from consciousness. Is that so? What if you stopped all the reports of bad news you continually receive: “Yeah, you say you’re going on a diet, but you’ve never been able to lose weight and keep it off.” “I don’t know why you even bother to take a shower and go out to bars, you never meet anyone.” What if you just stopped all that and no one could bring you bad news any more at the mortal level? Would that really be self-defeating?
To actually stop the reports of bad news, there has to be someone ruling you. We’re talking about a king. The king says, “People, is there any bad news?” And the people say, “No, your grace, things couldn’t be better!” There are no reports of bad news, not even suspicions of bad news. Because the people know what will happen if bad news turns up. In the City they’d look at that mode of operation as being, at the very least, detrimental to one’s health. Because in the City they feel you have to let your emotions out or you’ll explode or get ulcers. But what if the King had no reason to get ulcers?
Another way to look at this is: What’s the use of being King if you don’t get special privileges? Think about that. You might dream you’d like to be king or queen, but if you suddenly were the ruler and found out you didn’t have any more privileges than anyone else, you’d probably say, “Stuff this.” What’s the point in trying to be you — in trying to do This — unless there is something, some special privilege, to be gained?
One great privilege of being King, I’m suggesting, is for no one to bring you any bad news. Because if they do, what use is ever made of it? Only someone in the City would make use of bad news, because only a City person believes the purpose of life is this or that when the actual purpose is to be driven till you drop. Your main purpose in the City is to deliver and to accept bad news. But the King doesn’t have to just accept the reports.
How about another premise on problems. Can you see that all human problems — all problems — are a matter of timing. If you took any apparent problem and shifted the time involved, the problem would cease to be a problem. The supreme example of this might be a fatal illness. Imagine any illness that strikes your fancy and let’s say you have a distinct possibility of getting that illness. Now let’s say you can put off coming down with it — you can shift time — for l00 years. Then what would the illness matter to you — you’d already be dead. The illness is no longer a problem.
That’s an extreme example, but I’m talking about a literal fact. This applies to anything that would be a problem to you right now — tonight — if they call you between the hours of ll:30 and midnight. If you get that call on time, it will be bad news. But what if you don’t take any calls tonight? What happens to the bad news? Do you still have a problem?
There is no way to verbally prove this — you just have to observe the workings of the human nervous system and Life itself. If something is a problem right now — and if whatever it is doesn’t happen right now — if, instead, it happens X amount of time later — it is no longer that problem. Very likely, if enough time has passed, it’s no longer a problem at all. An ordinary person would say, “Well, even if the call doesn’t come tonight, in 48 hours this will still be a problem — in four days it will still be the same problem.” You should be able to Hear that this is simply not true, though it can’t be explained.
This gets very sticky. Anything that’s a problem is a problem within a time context and within the context of you. Remember that ordinary people take time as being external to themselves. But you can see for yourself that a problem fits into a particular time frame. If the “problem” happens later — who knows how much later — what happens won’t be that problem. You can get even ordinary people to admit this by expanding it. Say, for example, the problem is that a friend of yours is ill. Ok, what if that happens l0 years from now instead of tonight? You’d have to admit, “Who knows. In l0 years we might not be friends anymore, we might have had an argument, they might cheat me out of money. Hell, in l0 years I might be a different person…” So even a City person would admit, “You’re right, if they died l0 years from now I might not think of it as the problem I do now.” Of course, in the City, that doesn’t really prove anything.
Back to the original premise I presented: Every problem is a matter of timing. You’re only hungry when you’re hungry. If you’re stranded on a desert island, you’re starving. But you’re starving right then. Shift the time — you’re back home after being rescued, you just spent three days eating ice cream and you can’t eat another bite — you’re all full now. It’s a matter of timing. There is no problem that exists without this time element. All problems are a matter of timing.
There is a way you can internally shift time and affect the timing of the partnership messengers bringing you the bad news of problems. There is an alternative time. City time is real enough — no one seems to be able to stop it. At the level of City consciousness, you have to feel the world is on time — everything proceeds a tempo — and you have to deal with it. At that level, you can’t have any effect on this independent — “objective” as they say in the City — time.
There’s no such thing as “objective” time. If you can See that, you can shift time, internally. The messengers want to deliver a problem at a certain time. All you have to do is shift in some way: refuse delivery at this time; tell them to come back later. You don’t have to say how much later, just stall the delivery. It’s always safe to say, “Come back tomorrow.” “Come back tomorrow afternoon and I’ll accept the package, I’ll take the problem then.” Say, “You know where I live — I can’t escape — but not right now.” You have to be able to shift time that much, internally.
I’m not saying that you never receive the problem — that’s killing the messenger — I’m just trying to give you a way to ease up on this. All you have to do is refuse delivery right now. All you have to be able to do is slightly shift your conception of time. You can’t start off by saying, “I’ll never accept delivery.” But you can say, “Come back a little bit later.” Shift time a little bit — shift to where your awareness doesn’t accept the delivery of the bad news right now.
Western Union rings your bell, you peek out the door, and there’s the delivery. All you have to do is say, “Not right now!” The delivery man says, “You have to sign for this sooner or later,” and you say, “Fine, just not right now.” You don’t have to tell him why. Just smile and say, “Later this afternoon, or tomorrow morning, or the next day. Any time but right now.” Being able to say that is being able to internally shift time. And once you can shift time you’ve taken out the underpinnings of whatever seemed to be the problem.
Once you can shift time, you’ll see why I say that any problem is a matter of timing. No matter what the problem, delaying tactics — shifting time — will work. If a head-on collision is your destiny and you can postpone the accident until l00 years from now, then the accident’s no longer a problem. By then you will have weaseled out, slipped up and died anyway. No problem.