In Medias Res
February 27, 1989
AKS/News Items = None
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = See Below
Transcript = See Below
Curation = 4D Science
0463 video grab
#463 * Feb 27, 1989 – 1:18
Notes by TK
The “In Medias Res” Loop (coming in the middle of the action). All of life is in medias res. Example of TV news network loop (see diagram). Old intelligence can only move from one step of the loop to another, forward or backward, at any given time. New Intelligence (NI) must cover the entire loop at once. Connection to there being no single truth vs. a series of parallel “the” truths. The Loop is actually a sphere, where every point can be reached via any other point. New Intelligence = a continuing awareness of the multiplicity of connections. Everything is true from some view, but nothing is true from one view”.
If a matter is treated seriously in the City, it is not so for NI. The more serious it is taken, the more humorous, verging on silly it is to NI. This does not apply when the matter is of pressing immediate, clear physically life-threatening danger to you personally). The only thing serious to NI is what is pretended to be serious. A Real Revolutionist’s secret motto: what doesn’t matter to me doesn’t matter…and if it does seem to matter, to upset me, it really doesn’t matter!! Things are not serious because old intelligence cannot fathom what it is; cannot know enough to be serious. Connected to: behind everything is something else; in medias res—behind every step in the process is another step.
THE IN MEDIAS RES LOOP
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1989
Document: 463 February 27, 1989
All of Life is in medias res. The term “in medias res” was originally used as a stage direction and means to enter in the middle of the action. I have taken this term and invented something: The In Medias Res Loop. In Life, you are always entering in the middle of something or other. I could take absolutely anything and sketch out the In Medias Res Loop. Once you see it, you can too. So, let me pick out just one example to illustrate: television broadcasting.
The loop starts off with the network, the parent corporation. From there we go to the assignment editor in the news department. The editor decides which items are of interest. He or she tells the reporters what to cover. The reporters go out, get the news and relay their stories back to the producer by a specified cutoff time. The producer is then responsible for what goes on the air each night. The producer decides which stories fit and turns them over to the broadcasters, the anchormen and anchorwomen that actually read the news. Then we have the good old public, the people who watch and listen and get the news. There is the complete loop.
If we jump right into this loop in the spirit of its very name, in medias res, anywhere you want to, you can logically move in either direction. Everybody in the loop is tied together. No one works in isolation no matter how much power they seem to have. The assignment editor is connected to the network because the network hires him. The assignment editor is also connected to the reporters because he tells them what to do. The reporters are tied to the producer. The producer might not think much of the reporters, but he depends on them to provide 30 minutes of news each night. He might just hand the anchorman a script to read, but the writers had to consider the anchorman’s reading style.
Then there is the public. You might want to say the public is just passive. There they are in front of the TV set at 6 o’clock. The face comes on and if they don’t have a remote they’ll just sit there and take it, whatever network happens to be on. People think they are at the mercy of the network. They write in to their local newspaper: “Those networks have really got us by the kazoos. They have a stranglehold on the news and they slant it and twist it around. We’re helpless. We need some new antitrust laws.”
But, the public is not helpless, they are tied to the network. If the public quit watching the news the networks would really be in trouble. The whole point of news broadcasting is not to spread news, but to make a profit. Viewers write in: “I want to complain about that left wing, liberal broadcaster. If you don’t take him off the air, I’m never buying anything again from any of the sponsors on your show.” If the network gets enough letters like that the Board of Directors in their wisdom will start rolling heads like a bowling alley. “We have to turn this situation around so we can make a profit. Do whatever it takes, even if we have to fire all the liberals and hire a staunch conservative to put a new staff together.”
So now notice, back at the ordinary level of old intelligence, people plugged into this loop, discussing things in the City, will only move around one step at a time. Let us say someone puts together an academic panel to discuss the future of television journalism. The moderator brings up the first subject: “How Important Is The Power Of The Assignment Editor?” As soon as the discussion begins, the panelists fall into my loop. They might talk of the editor in relation to the reporters. They might say, “The editor is very powerful. He can purposely send a liberal reporter to cover conservative issues so the story will have a distorted view.” Then they’d start discussing the pressures of the editor’s job, how he is the first guy under the gun from the network. But, they would take it no further than one, maybe two steps at the most, along my In Medias Res Loop.
No matter how academic, qualified or intelligent people are at City level, ordinary intelligence — within a given span of time, questioning some aspect of some activity in the City — once in the loop, will only move either forward or backwards by one step. The mind, old ordinary intelligence, operates within given perimeters. It is a matter of muscle tone, of energy, just as a marathon is the apparent physical human limit to running nonstop. At any given time, during any one sitting, one person, one group of people, can only move either forward or backward one step in the loop.
Do you realize, that in the Revolutionary sense, from a new more complex view, there is no nourishing information in pursuing this loop one step in any direction? Even two or three steps. You can only pursue this profitably when you can instantly run the full loop. If you are going to understand anything about the TV news, if you are going to develop and find a new intelligence, you cannot start somewhere, go only one step and expect that to tell you anything. All that does is reinforce your old intelligence.
You can put this loop together first with the fact that there is no one truth, but parallel truths; secondly, that for any one thing there is no one conclusion, but a multiplicity of conclusions; and thirdly, that from some view everything is true, but nothing is true from only one view.
Let’s start with: there is no one truth. That is not a philosophical, theoretical or theological statement. Such a direct statement may sound corny, and I don’t really like to use it because throughout history, for eons, people have been talking about “the truth.” The thinking belief in the human nervous system is that behind every problem there is an answer, for example, the truth as to “why the news is slanted.” You could believe “they slant the news because the network knowingly hires people with political views.” And, you can walk away thinking you have the truth. But you don’t understand anything.
Take my loop and let it float out there in the 4-D world while realizing it is supported by at least a fifth dimension. Look at the words in the loop as free-floating points on a sphere that can rotate and shift in all directions. In looking for an answer you can go from any point on the sphere to any other point and then keep going. Assuming a finite number of places, after you reached the last one you would be back where you started. It would be a 4-dimensional loop. Then, you would understand there was not just one truth, it was all true. Every place you stopped and said, “Aha, that is connected!” would be a parallel truth.
To understand that there is not a truth but parallel truths going on coevally at all times in all dimensions, you would have to run through the complete loop back to where you started so that that which you started with finally, in a sense, explains itself — except, you had to go through the whole world to get there. When you get good, it takes just a second to do all that.
There is no one conclusion, but a cornucopia of conclusions. This defies all verbal logic in the City because a conclusion is supposed to be just that, a conclusion. But conclusions are not conclusive. Anyone who puts a period on anything, anyone who .pacomes to a conclusion, is dealing with old intelligence, not real understanding.
From some view everything is true, but none is from one. The first part is a fact: From some view, absolutely everything is true. That is not a City-based pseudo-Zen attempted relativist philosophy. It is a fact that old intelligence cannot perceive. No matter what anybody says, even things that the majority of people in the City say are nonsense, like, “There are flying saucers and people come down from outer space and talk to us,” everything is true from some view. I don’t say which view, because if you say which one, it is no longer true.
From some view, everything is true, comma, but none is from one. That is, if you have a single view of anything it’s not true. Things that seem irrefutable, things that are sane and true in the City: “Of course it’s the network that is slanting the news. They have the license, they have the copyright, that’s their view. Case closed.” Not so. From one view, no matter what it is, nothing is true. No matter what “nothing” is or how simple or self-evident it seems, you don’t understand or know anything about that subject if from one view, as far as you’re concerned, something is true.
It is not possible to come to one conclusion that is of any pertinence to new intelligence. Of course, you could say something like, “The sky is blue. How can you say that one view is not true?” There is a point of diminishing returns. Still, if you accept one view as a conclusion, you’re committing suicide. You are going to stand right there in the middle of old intelligence the rest of your days without any living knowledge of such things as my In Medias Res Loop. If all it took was one view everyone would know everything. They’d tell you in church, “Good people are honest,” and you’d go, “Okay, got it.” “Eat vegetables and live as long as you can.” “Got it.” “Don’t drink any mixed drink that has a slice of fruit on it.” “Got it.”
If one thing imparted all you need to know we wouldn’t be here doing This. You would have heard it all. By fifth or sixth grade there would be no more education. They’d tell you all the laws of physics and chemistry, all the rules of etiquette, just one time and you would go, “Got it, got it, got it.” Except for the fact that no one knows that everything is true from some view and none is from one.
Let’s move to a subject that might sound slightly fluffy and non-oppressive, which I must stress to you is damned deadly serious: If in the City a matter is treated seriously it is not serious. In fact, from any more complex view, to be able to operate at all at a level above City level: the more serious old intelligence treats a matter, the closer it gets to being hyper-silly.
In case you are worried, let me mention the exception: matters that are life threatening. If something, to you, is immediately life threatening, by all means, take it seriously. I assure you if they announced on the radio that after compiling 10 years of statistics they concluded that eating rutabagas will kill you, if I were in the middle of a nice plate of ’em, I would lay down my fork until I sorted the thing out. Why run the risk? If they announced on TV that a deadly swarm of locusts with tiny machine guns was headed this way, even I would go indoors for a little while, just in case.
But other than that which really could reasonably, to you, be pressingly dangerous, there is this silly, almost humorous reality that cannot be seen when you are looking just one step at a time. Politics, religion, family affairs, financial affairs — anything. I don’t care what it is: The more they treat it seriously, the closer and closer it gets to being outright silly.
Do remember I am aware that some of these ideas I put into sentences can sound so straightforward, pseudomystical, off the wall, or even innocuous as to be of no great importance. But they are important, to a Few people (not to Life, remember, as always). Also, this is by no means an ordinary encouragement for you to treat the pressing affairs of Life as silly. People can take drugs or be criminals and do that. People who have congenital brain damage can do that. Some guy in a bar can mimic a politician making a serious speech. But, the guy takes the politician seriously or he would not mock him. He has no choice.
If, in the City, they say a matter is serious it is not. The more serious they say it is, the sillier it gets if you can see it. Not sarcastically silly, not cynically silly, just that once you get a suspicion of how Life operates, you realize that both out there and in you, what they say is serious is not serious.
There is nothing that an ordinary person can do with this information. Even you knowing this is not going to change the City. But, can you imagine what knowing this would do to you? What if you could See that nothing is serious and have that as a continuing part of your intelligence, without discussion, without exception, without voices telling you, “Oh, here’s one place where this appears to break down?” My laws don’t break down. If one of my laws breaks down then you got so good you took that law around the corner and you’re on your own, unless of course I’m there to say, “Hello, you want to buy some new laws?”
There are no exceptions. I can’t talk you into this, nor would I try. If a matter is not life threatening to you personally, no matter how sacred that matter seems to be, it is not serious. It could be a discussion about how we should treat our children, the benefits of education for the coming generations, the power and use of financial wherewithal in your life, how you should share your largess with others, why you should be politically aware. I don’t attack any of those areas, I just use what is readily seen, the easy areas like religion. You might think that since religion deals with the gods, the hereafter, reward and punishment it would have to be serious. Not so. Remember, things in the City, on my In Medias Res Loop, are not just connected by one step or in one direction. Everything is connected in all directions.
The very people that old intelligence thinks of as religious heroes, the founders of religion, those thought to be divine or semi-divine incarnates — if they ever lived and if in some way you could sit down with them for a drink and just chit chat for a few minutes, you would find out they did not take religion all that seriously. They would understand that their one area, even that all of Life, is a joke. Not a sarcastic joke; they just would understand that Life is not serious. How many people have claimed to have seen the face of the gods and travelled to far off mythological places and spoke of what they saw as serious? “You say you saw Zeus, that you danced with Allah. Tell me, what kind of guys are they?” They’ll giggle and laugh.
The very people that are historically thought of as the heart of religions, I assure you did not take religion seriously. Just notice how many great figures in the hallowed history of religion — people who wrote important, serious, religious tomes — by all reports, acted like absolute fruit baskets. Does that not seem to be a slight anomaly in the middle of the bell curve of most serious religions?
There is nothing serious to a Revolutionist, except for staying alive. Assuming you are middle class sane, you would heed matters they said in the City were of serious pressing immediate danger to your health. Beyond that, if they say in the City that it is a serious matter, it is not.
The only thing besides staying alive that would be a serious matter to a Real Revolutionist is that which he pretends is serious. That is important. Even though nothing is serious, there are things you have to pretend are serious. For example, if you belong here, you understand you have to take This as a serious matter, or you won’t get anything out of it. But, the seriousness is a pretense. I take This seriously too — I don’t go around laughing at you.
Once you get your brain cranked up above that level of old intelligence, the only thing serious up there is that which you pretend is serious. You have to pretend because there is no longer any sham, illusionary information coming from the City. There is no basis for anything serious.
Up in the land of Real Revolution, nothing is serious. You’ve lived your whole life in the City. You finally escape and run out, and what you see is truly pristine and singular — and you don’t recognize anything. Do you believe you would feel very serious about it? Who can take a virgin seriously? Without memory, without the past, nothing can be serious. A matter cannot be a serious matter unless you have the foundation of the past, the baggage of memory — the trailing smoke vapors of what you already know. Without old intelligence there’s no way you can take anything seriously, not in any ordinary way. You cannot.
Let me update and give you a full version of my Revolutionist’s secret motto: If it don’t matter to me, it don’t matter. The full version would be: If it don’t matter to me, it don’t matter… and if it seems to matter to me and upsets me, it REALLY don’t matter.
The first part is: If it don’t matter to me, it don’t matter. That is not some kind of sarcastic put-off. But then, the more complex part comes about when something does seem to matter to you. All kinds of things seem to matter to you, and it doesn’t do any good to just say, “This matter which is upsetting me, okay, I’ll pretend it doesn’t matter.” You can say that, but inside you the voices still go “matter, matter, matter.”
Here’s what you can remember. “If something does seem to matter to me and it is unsettling or disturbing at all, (there’s the proof) then it REALLY doesn’t matter.” Case closed. Whatever it is, family, financial affairs, political affairs, any affair that just comes to your thinking. “Look at all the nasty things I did to my parents and now they are dead so I’m going to have to carry around this guilt sitting on my shoulder like a large deranged jackal.” If it seems to be a serious matter to you and upsets you in any way, there is your absolute, incontrovertible proof that it doesn’t matter. The fact that it really matters proves how it really doesn’t matter.
Of course, I’ll give you a way out: if it seems to matter to you and it doesn’t upset you at all, then you have found an exception to what I am saying, you have found a corner that I did not take into consideration — ha, guess again. At the ordinary level — I don’t care whether it’s about god, religion, life, death, up, down, love, hate — anything anyone finds to be a serious matter is upsetting, disquieting.
You can pull out another loop on your own with this, a loop of: serious = mistaken = upsetting = City life = serious. There is no proof of this equation. I wouldn’t try to give you a proof, because ordinary intelligence cannot use one. But I will say that if it seems to be serious, if it is treated as a serious matter by your old intelligence and the prevailing City opinion, then, it is not serious.
Anything that old intelligence takes as a serious matter is not serious. A “serious matter” is just one cause, one fact, one conclusion, one piece of evidence, one hole. Here is a hole you can look through: anything ordinary consciousness takes as serious is not a serious matter because old intelligence cannot properly fathom what it is. Now that, I’ll admit, is my definition of serious (“me” representing another concern behind me). And if you can’t fathom something, you don’t know enough to be serious or properly upset.
Can you see that behind everything on my In Medias Res Loop, there is something else? Behind wherever you put the blame, there is something else. “The network news is slanted because they hire liberal broadcasters.” Yeah, but behind that is the producer that wrote the stuff. “Well, alright.” And behind that is the reporters he had to send out. “Yeah, I guess so.” Then, the reporters have to send in stuff the producers will like or they will get fired. Behind everything is something else dot, dot, dot, ad infinitum (as far as the 3-D world is concerned). Behind everything you ever thought, behind everything you ever said, behind everything you ever heard, behind everything you ever imagined, there is something else.
Inside of each one of those little dolls is one more. But most people give up after one or two layers and they say, “Ah, that’s clever, that’s cute. What’s for dinner? I’m tired of looking at these dolls.” There’s always one more. Always. But ordinary intelligence cannot even get past one step without becoming exhausted. That’s the way Life is wired up. You think real hard and figure, “Well, alright, I bet this one thing over here is connected with so and so. Whew!” It’s as though you have suddenly run a marathon. You seem to have a conclusion, some truth that is good enough. So you stop there, exhausted.
In the City they will talk one step and one direction to death. One week they discuss “Assignment Editors: Too Powerful For The Coming Years?” Next week it may be “The Public: Is It An Unrecognized Stranglehold On the Assignment Editors?” But they can’t do both on one show, in one sitting. It’s almost as though an individual, one whole City cannot do it in one lifetime. In your one lifetime you can’t ever seem to get the energy, Life does not put the necessity in any individual to ever go past one step in this loop. But, it’s also as though the information is kind of seeping out and somebody on the news team or the committee will almost want to take it another step.
They discuss one direction for 30 minutes. Then the moderator shifts. “Well, let’s look in the other direction, the power the networks actually have over the assignment editor.” So they talk about that. Then just before the show’s going off, somebody along the way may say, “You know what, we’ve discussed the assignment editor, we discussed the influence the networks, his employers have on him, and then we discussed how he affects the reporters.” And they all go, “Yeah, yeah.” “But, you know, one thing we didn’t get into, I don’t guess we have time, but let’s carry it a little further, to the actual public. Could not the power of the purchasing dollar and the ratings actually come into play as to the kind of people they hired as reporters?”
For a split second it appears that they’re going to go another step. But trust me, the way Life is set up, the moderator will say, “That’s certainly very interesting, but we’re running out of time. We’ll put that on the agenda for next week.” That happens all the time. But it’s like going outside and feeling just one drop of rain. You go, “Oh, it might rain,” and you forget it. They may bring it up next week or they may say, “That’d be a good topic for next month’s show,” but at one sitting, at one lifetime, it will not happen.
How about this: let me rename the series to “The News Behind The News.” It’s a show about journalism. Every week, the moderator begins: “We all keep up with the news and, as many of us know, behind every news story is another story.” The kettledrums roll and they flash the name, “The News Behind The News.” And then they say: “The topic tonight is so and so.” But that’s as far as it goes, that is they’ll say, “Behind every news story is another story, that’s what we’re after.” That’s nothing. That may pass for being intelligent as opposed to “Different Strokes,” or, “My Mother The Car.” But to say, “We’re going for the story behind the story,” is nothing. Anybody can take it one step.
Everybody does that. But ordinary intelligence cannot deal with the actual possibility that behind everything is something else. If I dealt such a hand to ordinary intelligence it would go, “No, that can’t be. You’re just saying what I just said: behind every story is another story.” Yeah, but behind this other story is yet another story. “Maybe so, but that would be a matter for another show right?” If you say so.
What they’re really saying is, “Hey, that may be, but that’d be a matter for another lifetime right?” Ordinary consciousness says, “Okay, behind this story over here is another story. But you’re saying that behind that story is yet another story?” Yeah. “And behind that story’s another one?” Yeah. “Wait a minute, you ain’t going to tell me behind that?” Yeah. “No, no, I can’t take it.” People would very soon lay down their hand and say, “I got to go to the rest room.” They don’t want to play any more. They can’t. That is not the wired up basis, that is not the physical, biological basis of operation of the ordinary human brain.
This sounds simple enough. I can drag you along verbally and you’ll laugh, you’ll tingle. You know exactly what I’m saying: that behind everything in the 3-D world there is always something else. It just keeps on and on. You may even begin to see that and go, “Yeah, yeah, I know that’s true.” But then when you walk out of here you’ve sure got your hands full trying to hold onto what you saw.