Jan Cox Talk 3109

Being of Two Minds

PREVNEXT

The following recordings are from Jan’s final years, when his voice was diminished and he spoke in a low whisper. Some listeners may find these tapes hard to listen to, or difficult to understand. Thus, as another option, read the transcript below.

Otherwise, turn up the volume and enjoy! Those who carefully listened to Jan during this period consider that he spoke plainly and directly to the matter at hand, “pulling out all the stops,” as he understood that these were to be his last messages to his groups, and to posterity.

Stream from the bar / download from the dots

Summary = See below
Edited Transcript = See Below
Condensed News = See below
News Item Gallery = None

Key Words =

Summary

2/16/04:
Notes by TK

That Life is pursuing human cloning and stem-cell research is not surprising. What is interesting and surprising is the debate by men about whether it is morally allowable, as if the advance could be terminated. There is no possibility that cloning research won’t continue and thrive. Life has a vested interest in increasing individual men’s lifespan.

Why does Life make men have doubts about this and engage in the spurious debate over cloning issues? The same dichotomy, ambivalence and debate exist in your own mind in the same way. It is a kind of meaningless diversity that Life employs purposefully but inscrutably. (52:32) #3109

Notes by DR

Jan Cox Talk 3109       Having a second doubt to whether cloning will happen is ridiculous. Life pretends the gross heaviness. It’s inevitable. It’s not a question or debate, but our consciousness is of two minds-which is being asleep-but its Life being of two minds. The only thing life is interested in is survival. Life is of two minds inside our minds. That’s what we’re contending with. All diversity regarding the intangible is meaningless.

Transcript

2-16-2004 #3109 Edited by SA

I want to continue speaking about the diversity that Life manifests in man, and particularly the intangible diversification inside your own mind. The point is that Life fell in love with man because of man’s developing consciousness, and then Life created diversity in man’s physiology, such as by making some people lighter or darker in skin color, so they could more happily live in different areas of the planet. After that, Life created non-physical diversity, which at first glance could seem to be irrational or useless. Yet it does not appear that Life does anything without a purpose, at least over a long period of time. For at least five or six thousand years, we’ve had an inner diversity over such things as believing in different religions.

Right now, there is a splendid example of another of Life’s diversities—the so-called debate over the ethics of human cloning. Another country halfway around the world has announced that they have finally done what scientists in many places had been threatening to do, and what there’s been a raging debate about here in the U.S. for at least the last two years. What’s at issue is the future of stem cell research that could lead to an individual being able to have all of his organs cloned and replaced, with the end result of indefinitely sustaining life.

I believe the president signed an executive order withholding all federal funds from stem cell research. The religious communities and even political commentators have been up in arms, claiming that human cloning is akin to some sort of twisted abortion, because it would keep new babies from coming into existence. The debate is taken so seriously that the current heart of human civilization, the United States, has as our official policy, “We’re not going to do that. Humans shouldn’t do that.” People of great repute are taking sides on television and in print, with some of them claiming that the question of whether to permit human cloning is the most serious moral and ethical debate of the 21st century.

The religious community says that we don’t have any business doing human cloning. The scientific community replies that cloning will allow us to grow new organs for people in order to cure them of terrible diseases and prolong life. The religious community counters, “Is man going truly going to try and play God?”

Despite the great diversity of opinions, any reasonable, intelligent, well-read, ordinary person with some knowledge of history and some feel for life—of which there are probably millions on this planet—should look at the question of whether stem cell research and human cloning should continue, and immediately understand, “Oh, this is going to happen.” There is absolutely no doubt that Life is going to continue this, no doubt humanity is going to continue this. No doubt. It’s laughable.

Not so laughable is the question of what is going on. When Life is so obviously going to do something, why is there any debate? Life coming up with stem cell research and human cloning doesn’t surprise me at all, because evidently, Life will do anything, just as we would, to stay alive on this planet. The only way you can look at this debate is that Life is so pleased with its manifestation through us, through conscious creatures, that it’s not satisfied with us dying.

One could wonder whether it matters if individuals die, since Life keeps replacing them. But Life obviously is trying to extend the length of individual men’s lives. Life shows no interest whatsoever in trying to extend any other creature’s life, but it appears that now Life is trying to make us immortal. With the possibility of being able to clone each of our organs individually, if you had a tumor in your lung, they could grow you a new lung that would never be rejected by your body. They’d just keep replacing damaged or diseased organs, and theoretically keep you alive forever. There’s no doubt that that’s what Life is after, for us, yet the debate has come to the point that no one in our country will admit that they’re doing any research related to cloning.

I repeat, it is laughable for anybody to think, “All we’ve got to do as right-thinking religious people, moral people, is stand together. Even non-religious people who have strong ethics will join us. It’s wrong for us to do cloning. We must make people aware of how immoral, how ungodly, how unethical, how dangerous, how despicable cloning is. With our collective wisdom, we’ll be able to do the right thing.”

That’s not going to work. The government has stopped it officially for the moment, but ultimately, this is a fait accompli, so why in the world would Life bother to have us debate the question? There is a reason that Life does this, and the cloning example is so glaring, so jarring, that I couldn’t resist examining it.

With cloning, you’ve just got two possible paths: should we do it, or should we not? This is not like picking among five religions or three political philosophies, and it’s not about an intangible, but about something physical. The payoff would be that your life could be extended. Some disease that would have been fatal to you can now be cured, and you could live another ten or twenty years, or maybe forever. The cloning question has an unparalleled physical reality to it, because it could literally be a matter of life or death.

With this issue, Life presents us with a wonderful, streamlined, unplugged, stripped-down version of diversity regarding a life-or-death subject. Life has the question right out in the public eye, at the center of many people’s attention. People are engaging in absolutely spurious debate over the issue, because there is only one possible outcome. No question, no doubt, no ifs, no maybes—but ordinary people can’t see this.

Now that you can see it, notice that Life has favored us in several ways over all other life on the planet, and now Life seems unsatisfied with the length of our genetically programmed general lifespan. Lions have a lifespan of whatever it is—let’s say twenty to twenty-three years, and that covers ninety-nine percent of the lions on the planet. The same with every other creature, and there’s no sign that Life is trying to make elephants live longer, or worms, or bees. With humans, as far back as recorded history, you can see men attempting to cure ills, to extend life.

As our technology develops, we apply increasing amounts of technological skill to keeping ourselves alive. Our effort is Life’s effort in trying to keep man individually alive. It’s true that Life keeps replacing us as individuals, but it must be that Life looks at someone, once they are grown, and feels that it has an investment in that person. That’s almost humorous when you realize that the older people get, the goofier many of them become. You might think that if Life has an overall intelligence that includes all of our individual intellects, it would be better off if it cashed that guy in twenty years ago. Why is Life letting him hang around this long?

Back to the serious issue. Life obviously does not want men dying at their current rate. A human lifespan used to average thirty years and now it is sixty or seventy years. It’s as if Life whetted its appetite for longevity, and now it’s gotten us involved. Life started us off in earnest with the genome project four or five years ago. Of course, age seems to finally kill you by just wearing you out, but there are some biologists now claiming that they are about to find the gene that causes aging. It’s almost as if Life is saying, “Forget using science and technology to extend the average lifespan an extra year every decade, or whatever it is. Let’s go for the big thing. Let’s make man’s lifespan indefinite.”

The idea that we’re not going to shoot for immortality is not worthy of even a snicker, yet the debate rages on. If we were to poll all of the world’s people, probably half of them would agree that we should put a stop to research on human cloning. That is how close to the edge of a ridiculous ledge Life has put half of humanity. Life is going to come off that ledge very shortly, as if the so-called debate never happened, because Life is going to have man pursue this.

The situation is weighty, literally a matter of life and death, and it could affect you. You could develop cancer of the pancreas, which is pretty much a death sentence. Whereas, if they’d let the research go on, they could remove some of your cells, and in a month, or whatever it takes, grow a brand-new pancreas that your body would never reject. They’d cut you open, sew in your new pancreas, and you’d be cured.

Something with that degree of gravity is important to Life—Life wanting man not to die—and yet Life, as though it can’t stop, is doing the same thing that it is doing with religion. Why does Life have five major religions whose believers make up probably ninety-nine percent of the world’s population? The only thing that we can conclude, based on everything else we know about Life, is that Life is testing these five religions. Life is letting them fight it out. These days, most religious conflict is not physical warfare, but takes place in the field of public opinion. The ideas themselves must battle it out for the hearts and the minds of humanity.

The debate over cloning is similar to the debate over religion. Life has set it up so that about fifty percent of the population have serious doubts about whether to allow cloning-related research to continue. The president of the United States said—I’ll paraphrase here—“This is not open for debate. This administration, this government, is not going to allow research that leads to human cloning, and that’s final.” I have no doubt, however, that there are people in this country engaging in stem cell research right now.

By the way, people wonder why governments, from city councils to the federal government, frequently pass laws or make declarations that they will be unable to enforce. People might say, “Not only is there no way to enforce that law, but it’s none of the government’s business.” If the law or the declaration has something to do with sex, you might think, “They’re just making asses of themselves saying someone can’t engage in this or that sexual act. How are they going to find out what you do in your bedroom?”

That kind of ridicule is missing the point. There is a very good reason for governments to pass unenforceable laws and declarations. They are Life stating part of its current thinking. Sometimes Life does this through the pronouncements of religious leaders instead of governments. The civil or religious lawmakers don’t intend to enforce the law. Their purpose is to state the supposed preferences of law-abiding, decent citizens. They are putting on record the community’s disapproval of something. In the same way, Life has made a large segment of itself, a large segment of humanity, say, “We’re not going to pursue human cloning,” when it is patently ridiculous.

I’m getting to my punchline for the night, which is about what you’re faced with inside your own brain, your own mind. Remember, the only thing important to Life is staying alive, and Life has created, with human consciousness, a way to seemingly overcome all of its own limitations. Life has already been able to overcome the physical limitations of the planet. Life can build bridges, build automobiles, it’s done all that. But now, Life has moved dramatically into the area of overcoming itself. That is, overcoming not the limitations of the planet, but the limitations of Life, because every form of life that Life has produced has a lifespan. When Life got to us, it kept trying to extend our lifespans. Life must now see the possibility of eternal life for humans, and thus for itself, or we couldn’t have come up with the idea of cloning human cells. Nothing could be of greater interest to Life, and yet Life has set up a situation in which it appears to be unsure of whether to do this.

Think about the enormity of this debate, this diversity of opinion regarding what Life should do about cloning, then pay attention to what people like us have always called “being asleep, being ignorant, living in the dark.” Another way of viewing being asleep is to face the unfathomable diversity in your own thinking. You didn’t decide to put it there. It’s just there. You’re of two minds.

You know what “I’m of two minds” means. You ask somebody, “Are you in favor of women having the right to an abortion?” And commonly, somebody will say, “The political side of me says they shouldn’t tell individuals what to do, but then the religious side says blah, blah, blah. I’m of two minds.”

People don’t decide that. Our consciousness is of two minds, and that’s what you’re faced with. “Being of two minds” is a splendid, star-studded image of what “being asleep” is. Ordinary consciousness is constantly of two minds, which is Life being of two minds. The one and only thing that actually interests Life, its own survival, Life is of two minds about. Inside your own mind, that’s what you’re contending with.

I just described the most serious issue that Life has ever confronted, and there could not be a clearer example of the fact that, despite Life currently being of two minds, there is no question of whether humanity will pursue cloning. I am saying that the “decision” that’s of most importance to Life, and that Life has people saying is the most important question that men must now “decide,” is a ridiculous sham. Obviously, Life doesn’t see it as ridiculous. Life is not making people laugh about it and go, “How silly!” People are serious in opposing human cloning, because Life seems to be of two minds. Of course, your own mind might not be interested in this particular subject, but in everything that interests man, there is a divergence of possibilities.

That is what you are faced with naturally in trying to “wake up,” trying to achieve enlightenment. It’s as if you’re trying to escape all this meaningless diversity. All diversity regarding intangibles is meaningless, and all diversity regarding anything physically significant is absurdity, because if it has to do with physical survival, and there are two beakers filled with liquid, and you are told the green one is water and the blue one is poison, you’ve got diversity, but it’s spurious. You are not going to drink the poison.

The only good thing to be said about diversity is that it has some purpose when it creates new entertainments to keep you distracted. You can listen to classical music or to rock and roll, watch a comedy or a drama, so you could say that diversity in entertainment serves a purpose by giving humans additional forms of distraction. But that diversity is still meaningless.

Ordinary people are faced with trying to come to a conclusion about human cloning. Ordinary people are constantly trying to come to conclusions. Every day there are a multitude of large and small decisions that they feel they must make. People like us are faced with being in some less-than-acceptable state. We’re asleep. We’re unenlightened. We can view that state as being a reflection of the meaningless diversities in our minds.

We can’t get away from diversity because it is in our minds. The diversity in your mind is meaningless, and yet you’re born with that diversity, and it is obviously the natural state of Life itself. I include diversity in the way that Life, through human consciousness, thinks about survival, the one subject that

is of interest to Life. Life still presents survival as a matter of diverse possibilities. Life is saying, “Should I try to live longer, or not? Hmm.”

Consider how ridiculous the human mind is when it gets into intangible subjects. Consider how ridiculous Life is—which doesn’t make sense—to continue to present a diversity of possibilities, such as, “Will I, or will I not, pursue cloning?” How can Life do that with a straight face? Not to mention what Life does in us individually.

Jan’s Daily Fresh Real News (to accompany this talk)

IF YOU HAVE TO ASK WHAT THIS IS, YOU’LL NEVER UNDERSTAND IT IS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reporting On What’s To Be Said About Things There’s Nothing To Be Said About
February 16, 2004 ©2004: JAN COX

The adventures of primary, physical-reality-men are physical;
those of second, cultural-reality-men are mythical,
while the adventures of the real-deal-man are all mental —
and fully recognized by him to be such;
realizing the nature of the playing field alters entirely your understanding
of the game really in progress.

While ordinary men define the word: myth as being:
“The link between the human and the divine” the exceptionally keen-of-eye/I
see it as the link between consciousness and its struggle to comprehend itself,
(that is): the vital step to realizing — what is going on with being a human.

Even though we must eat to live, and have sex to be satisfied with being alive,
the supreme desire in all humans is for — Freedom! — and yet —
ordinary minds do not really understand what the concept represents.

Myths are dreams the mind has when man is out of bed;
and religions are myths man uses as blankets since he came to the city.

If you are most impressed by the collective metaphors & symbols created by others, you have yet to get it.

The paramount benefit of being infinitely rich is that you don’t have to ask anybody
for anything,
and the benefit of being awake is that you don’t have to ask anyone anything.

Looking at himself a man thought:
“It’s safe to say that after you’re gone — I‘ll never see your likes again.”
(Is this his attempt to find something nice to say about himself —
or perhaps it is a satire of ordinary men’s ostensible feelings about themselves?!)

Upon hearing of a religious cult who only allowed followers beds so narrow
as to prohibit sexual activity therein, one chap mused:
“Man’s collective attitude toward the mind runs that same game.”

One day this thought came to a man:
“The notion that parents will die for their young comes from the young……hummm,
this is also an attitude the natural born part of my consciousness tries to pawn off
on my rebellious part……hummm, and now that I see it —
‘It won’t work any longer, guys!’”

Said a father to a son: “If you have to ask what the moral is to a story I tell —
you have missed the whole purpose of all my stories.
Men live the life they physically live — and also a life composed of story telling;
both are necessary to be human;
understanding their discreteness is necessary to outspread your consciousness,
and make it more useful and agreeable to the aims of the certain man.”

Just as the ache of sexual desire can only be cured by sex,
so too is the mental craving for understanding cured only by itself.
For the nervous-system-rebel there literally is no substitute for understanding —
the type that comes only from an expansion of one’s natural sized consciousness.

Being awake comes from leading your own life —
as opposed to the life of the collective — as do ordinary men.

The religious idea of hell being a condition wherein man loses his connection to god, translated into rebel terms would be: A man loses his mind.

Every normal, reasonably reflective human finds life a mystery,
but a man who wakes up to what is going on enjoys an even grander one.

“Pa pa: what is the strangest thing you’ve ever heard?”
“Some people believing that what I talk to you about is an attempted exposé of
the very matter I talk to you about.”

When it comes to liberating-ideas, the rebel practices: hospitality-overload.

Everyone is aware there is a mysterious/unknown motion and motivation behind everything we think, feel, and do;
ordinary minds insist on giving it a name, an awakened one doesn’t,
and that is their radical difference.
Not letting your mind be as conscious as it can be is what keeps you from
the direct awareness of the unknown force/energy/thing.
Wanting to awaken/be enlightened is simply the urge to let/to make
your consciousness be as large as is physically possible —
which is not man’s ordinary state;
partisan thoughts and mechanical reflections of feelings normally constrict it
by being way too busy and distracted.

One Piece Of Evidence.
If anyone else’s ideas can entertain you more than your own —
you still haven’t gotten there.

Lesson Prep.
A man who can think for himself has always (as they say) — done-his-homework.

Since the word sex has arisen:
The certain man knows but one form of deviancy:
a cessation in his struggle to awaken.

Only men of standard consciousness will let others talk to them about
what kind of person they are;
the certain man will not even allow his own mind to do such a thing.

Ordinary minds & men think that things are about what they are about,
(religion is about religion; politics about politics and so on),
while to the certain man: everything is about the same one thing.

Just as everyone knows that exposure to the sun will cure skin cancer,
so too will exposure to ordinary people’s ideas cure overly expansive consciousness.

What everyone else calls: their-life
is (to the certain man) simply what happens while he’s trying to wake up.

J

(One more thing): to ordinary people, all matters are either serious, or humorous,
while the man-who-knows finds it all funny.