Jan Cox Talk 2750


Summary = None
Condensed News = See below
News Item Gallery = None
Transcript = None
Key Words =

Jan’s Posted Daily Fresh Real News

October 17, 2001.

Man alone appears to face two types of dangers & disasters:
natural, (earthquakes, tornados),
about which he can do nothing but protect himself,
and man made, (wars, and injustice),
about which he can surely do something — since he is their cause.

To get anything done, men must believe that they are the cause of
certain acts being accomplished,
(a man would not try to repair a screen door did he not believe that
his actions will cause the deed to get done);
men would not suffer the fears & frustrations unique to them
did they not accept that they are the cause of all non natural dangers;
If it is not a natural disaster — then it is a man made one;
and if it is a man made one — we caused it.
What could be more obvious than that?!
(The best known example of this view is the axiom:
Men start wars — men can stop wars —
a statement made by ordinary men, which only a fool would,
to such people, refute, [but who assumes ordinary people read this].)

Men do not hold natural disasters emotionally accountable;
no matter the suffering it may have caused,
no sane person takes a volcano’s eruption personally;
no rational human later stands on the crater’s rim demanding to know why it treated the decent people in the decimated village below
in such an evil fashion;
only when the disaster is seen as being caused by man
does this view and emotion appear.
It is a tragedy if your mother is killed in a hurricane,
and your suffering there over feels natural and containable,
but if she is murdered by a mugger, the emotions you feel then
go beyond that of her death (a natural life event), and into the realm of justice, and questions regarding mankind’s ability to engage in willful, though unaccountably despicable acts.

For men to realize the full benefits of the mind and civilization,
(read: all the benefits men enjoy over beasts),
they must hold one another accountable for their actions.
In civilized, mentally-oriented settings, (save for literal defect of the mind:
an area so dangerous to stability that they try their best to ignore it),
men agree through law or custom that no matter the circumstances, provocation, or persons emotional state,
there are some acts that are absolutely forbidden,
(which all amount to one: Do not take what is not yours):
such a community wide agreement is the minimum necessity for
men to live together in conditions of safety sufficient to give them time for their minds to explore its astounding potential.
Men would live no differently than animals did they not accept the idea that each man is individually responsible for what he does,
so that the result of any act he performs which they have collectively agreed is prohibited, he was the sole cause of.

This is how things must be in the overall life of mankind
for men to enjoy the superior existence they do.

There is nothing that can ever be said to the mind men are born with,
(the one inseparably connected to man’s collective mind),
that can alter its view that men are the cause of
to say that they are not,
is simply insane to any ordinary man’s thinking;
the idea runs contrary to nature — contrary to everything that men
naturally feel is, right (and that is the beginning and end of that),
but as every mind realizes, when it is the one on trial for
crimes against the community,
conditions can be such that people will commit acts which they sincerely say afterwards, that they were powerless not to.
(Men’s view of, freedom-of-will has a perspective from the defendant’s table that differs from the one from the prosecutor’s.)
But overall, men are collectively obliged to pay un-rescindable lip allegiance to the thought that says any destructive act that is not
caused by nature, is caused by man,
and that each man is the sole & personal cause of
any destructive act he commits;
those momentarily holding the wrong end of this stick don’t like it,
but when another is — he then approves-of & supports it.
This is the way life has things arranged;
this is the way life obviously wants them arranged,
and for all collective purposes, the case is closed.

But a person whose interests go beyond those of mankind’s
collective community must look further into this matter —
further into it — then through it — and finally out the other side,
where reside the facilities to satisfy his unusual hunger.

The exact same molecules that make up tornados, make up man;
the destruction of one is called natural;
the destruction of the other called unnatural;
thus is it that: tornados are natural and man is not?
Lava is composed of the exact same elements as is man,
the same elements as is an army of men,
and the atoms of which mudslides are constructed
are the same ones that construct the men who make up a government; a religion; a nation, and a solitary mugger.

Only men see a difference between themselves and nature;
a divide between themselves and their environment;
only humans via their human minds judge some destructive acts
which occur on this planet to be natural, (those caused by nature),
and others to be not natural, (those caused by man).
The exact same molecules make up men that make up tornados.
No sane man will attempt to put a tornado on trial to answer for
its heartless act of destruction,
and no man sanely in pursuit of extraordinary sight-into-things
will forever foolishly put his own mind continually on trial for
its destructive acts, (that is): its common activity which he,
in his lucid moments, clearly realizes serves no specifically useful purpose,
and indeed, as regards his special personal goal,
are an impediment in that they tend to keep his inner attention
uselessly focused on them rather than his goal.
But keeping your mental attention engaged in a never ending
indictment & prosecution of these automatic intruders posing as
your personal thoughts is ultimately but to pile uselessness on top of uselessness.

Think of the most disreputable thought you continue to have
and tell us: When did you first decide to have this thought?
And do not allow yourself to get fooled by a thought that appears and says: Okay. Well I never actually decided to have this
particular thought: I have it due to the destructive behavior of my father; he caused me to have it because then you have to tell us
what caused him to be the way he was, and so on back to stories of adams-&-jehovas; big-bangs-&-what-was-before,
or simply to the observable reality of a life-run, collective-mind-of-man from which each individual mans mind is forced fed.

The only reason the few are interested in what otherwise would
appear to be a totally inescapable cul de sac is the fact that the consciousness of the human brain has areas that are not in common use,
areas which, if somehow activated, provide a mental view of life
which is more expansive than the normal one;
instead of mentally seeing things through a pinhole,
you see them through a knot hole (then perhaps,
without even the separating interference of a fence of any kind),
but one thing for certain for the few is that
if you leave your thoughts to run merely where they want to
mechanically run in you — you will remain absolutely blind to
things going on in life & in your mind which are just on the other side of that fence in your mind which you presently do not see;
the fencing that contains mans ordinary mind is de facto
the mind he believes it defines:
the ordinary minds intelligence is its limits;
the fence that defines what you believe you know
is really the only thing that you do know;
there is no knowledge inside the fence that your knowledge surrounds;
the fence is the “knowledge;”
the limits of what you know is all you know:
under ordinary inner conditions,
a man’s mind knows nothing other than the fence — that is,
he knows nothing other than the limits of what he knows.

What the few want to know is just on the other side of the fence surrounding what your mind says you already know.
You have to look just beyond that — just a wee bit past it.