Summary = None
Condensed News Items = See below
News Item Gallery = None
Condensed Transcript = See below
Key Words =
Audio of Jan Cox 27th of April 2001
Notes by CF
Suggested Title: Faulty Communication Maps
Begin: Something that struck me and hard to describe is that people who primarily observe life from the older part of the brain do not like being told what to do. They do not have much of a liking for instructions and directions. And those who observe life from the newer areas of the brain do.
The reason I like it is because it is both true and not true. Its a fact but its true and not true. Before I tell you how its true – then not true – (Any binary description of humans into this group or that group are just maps.)
Ordinarily people operate in both areas damn near simultaneously or certainly sequentially within a split second of each other. My description (how it is true) of the older areas of the brain that do not like being told what to do is played out in the prison systems of the world.
For example hard headed Bubba Jr. (you can’t tell him anything) getting arrested again for drunk driving, beating his wife, etc. His primary observation of life is from the older part of the brain.
05:00 The way its not true is when you primarily view life through the older areas of the brain the more you feel a part of the social pack of humanity, the more you are inclined to stay with the herd, and the more you are inclined to want to fit in. (For the moment we will call it on one level.)
How do you reconcile the two? It is totally beyond words. Using my cow herd metaphor there are more than six billion cows on the planet. They are split up into continents, nations, communities etc. Most of humanity observes life through the older parts of the brain.
And here they are in their communities etc. fighting, fuming, pushed and jammed up against one another. Mooing in a fairly aggressive manner. Bitching about being all jammed up against one another. Yet no one leaves.
The kind of people who observe life through the older areas of the brain (ex. bricklayer, plumbers, lower socially economically) want to stay together. And they are primarily where antisocial behavior comes from and they are the most social.
Intellectuals for the most part are not affixed to community. Loners (not necessarily deranged) are not affixed to community. For example a college professor may not socialize. After work he may just go home and eat dinner with his wife and read a book instead of going to a crowded bar.
10:00 The first group (older areas of the brain) are drawn mechanically to a crowded bar and then bitch about the bar being crowded. And if the bar becomes uncrowded they will desert it. You do not find this behavior in people who primarily observe life through the newer parts of the brain.
I assume you folks can picture that my map of observing life through the older and newer areas of the brain is by primarily observing their views, their interests, their likes and dislikes in life. What the areas of the brain are talking about and not what they are physically doing.
People who primarily observe life through the older areas of the brain can be seen when they are children. You tell them what to do and they do the opposite. The people who observe life through the older areas of the brain are mechanically drawn together.
They are the ones who support our fads, cliches, and fashions. They need to see what other people are doing and they will imitate it. But let someone step in and begin to tell them individually what to do – (ex. Why don’t you do so and so?) – They do not care for it.
15:00 The group that operates from the newer areas of the brain can operate with a greater degree of individuality. They are the most civilized. They are the least likely to break laws and they do not have the same need for that close in jammed packed faceless community collectivism as the first group.
20:00 The newer (younger) areas of the brain do not have the same dislike or aversion to authority as the older parts of the brain. So how do you reconcile the two areas? Does anyone see how it can shift the scene you are looking at? Its constantly going on. Forget circumstances. Its your view.
Sometimes sitting alone, you want to get out and mill around with the herd. (Using my cow metaphor) It may even be impersonal and you may not even get to talk to anyone. Its not that you are antisocial – you just want to be out amongst the herd. You seek the un-analyzed comfort of the herd.
I suggest it (seeking the comfort of the herd) is the operations of the brain. You have two areas of your brain in communication and its a very faulty communication. Its like one area of the brain will say something (you can’t tell which part of the brain) – then leaves the room.
Then the other area of the brain sort of hears it and says something in return and then it leaves the room. Then the area of the brain that initially said something – it comes back into the room. If you can call that communication?
Whatever you want to call waking up (ex. Being alert, ,more conscious, etc.) its still one part of the brain telling the other part what to do. (Its not necessarily the newer area telling the older area.)
You can look at the ordinary state of consciousness as adequate, natural, and the one we are born with. It could be looked at as being a victim of habit (sometimes called sleeping) and it could be better.
30:00 Folks like us try to activate the better part of consciousness. It is still one part of the brain telling the other part what to do.
But you could shift the scene by looking at it as a part of the brain in everyone – not developed – not socialized – its an older part of the brain and it does not particularly like being told what to do. (Just remember there are no two parts of the brain.)
Think about how you would like it if the liver begin to tell the kidneys what to do. Would you be enlightened by this arrangement? Would you live through it?
Jan’s Posted Daily Fresh Real News
April 27, 2001.
(Excerpt from an unpublished manual
used in an unpublicized training academy):
“The one, most crucial lesson
every would-be trainer must learn is:
If a creature is not responding to your directions —
— you’re calling it by the wrong name.
Many a trainee has washed out because of the frustration
brought on by their persistence in this error,
and if, after hearing it once mentioned,
you think it is a problem easily cured, you too will err.
All who come here have already adopted some name that
they have heard previously given to the creature
with whom we work,
and for the sake of expediency,
we initially do not herein interfere,
but allow them to think in such terms.
After all, to work with anything, it must be called something,
and in the beginning, no one is equipped to
handle the creature’s real name.
Thus it is that in the sundry, unauthorized imitation
branches of our operation spread throughout the world,
you hear the object of our training called by
many different names —
but in the end, — it is all the same.
(But sad to say, few of the trainees ever progress far enough
to discover this for themselves.)
But even here in our authentic school,
we too are faced with trainees already holding,
in their minds,
different names for the creature with which
they must contend,
and eventually know by its true name,
so we select one of the many names already in circulation,
and employ it simply as a useful, temporary compromise,
(a fact that trainees cannot yet appreciate);
they accept the name we provide for the creature
as being its ultimate one — but since it is not,
the problem of its being misnamed is not solved —
— only postponed.
The name by which we here refer to the creature
is not objectively “incorrect” any more than would be
any other we could have chosen.
The primary purpose of words is for efficiency —
— efficiency in all things,
from basic survival activities wherein one man can tell another about a more efficient way he has found to grow a certain crop without the second man having to go through that particular discovery process, physically for himself,
to the apparently opposite extreme where in one person,
tells others of his alleged discovery in an incorporeal realm, which,
since they have had no such experience,
he offers to share with them, (e.g. “I talked to god,
and here is what he said he wants you to do”)
Man could not change his physical environment to better suit him in any way as efficiently as he does now were it not for his ability to put made-up names on things which everyone then agrees to, for the sake of expediency & practicality.
However, the putting of names on things that themselves are “made-up” presents its own unique cuteness,
(a feature that few men ever come to appreciate).
The purpose of our school is to turn those involved
into trainers of a certain, “creature”,
that word itself is yet one more mental expediency,
and unavoidable misdirection).
And even though it be neither: creature; thing;
non creature, nor non thing,
it yet certainly is some thing
or we would not be here doing what we do.
But just what is it?
That is not only “THE question” — it also is, THE answer.
There was once a king who had a foe,
with whom, each day, he did battle.
Endlessly, did they meet in combat;
the full forces of both brought to bear,
and while it never seemed to the king that he had
neither did he ever feel totally defeated;
thus the result of each day’s conflict was never satisfying.
Year after year did this inconclusive face off transpire —
’til one day the king suddenly realized the problem:
he had been calling his opponent by the wrong name.
No matter how long you have been here,
as soon as you suddenly understand this —
— you’ve just graduated.