Jan Cox Talk 3110

The Two Kinds of Analysis Going on in Human Reality


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.

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

Key Words = the Horse whisperer ; Ringo Kid ; analysis ; horse trainer



Notes by TK

There are two kinds if analysis going on in human reality: 1) the universe’s analysis, and 2) Life’s analysis.

1) is the scientific method and peer review, and dictated by the physical reality and laws of the universe.

2) is an analysis dictated by Life and is the de facto analysis of itself. That analysis proceeds by humans analyzing human behavior. It is conducted via the narrative assessing other narratives.

Opposing narrative conclusions are identically true—like a palindrome. Take, for example, a film of the breaking (training) of a horse w/ the voice over being from the horse’s standpoint rather than from the man’s–either way fits! (45:18) #3110


02-18-2004 #3110 Edited by SA

If you take the view that the universe and Life are two absolutely separate things, then I propose to you that there are two analyses going on in our reality. One is Life’s analysis. The other analysis is based in, controlled by, and dictated by the universe itself, and is what men call “science.” If someone is trying to understand chemistry or physics, or trying to develop new physical laws, then Life, through that person, looks at physical reality, but the universe, which is physical reality, dictates the person’s analysis.

You’re doing an analysis dictated by the universe whenever you do ordinary things such as picking up your toothbrush in the morning. The physical reality of the weight and shape of the toothbrush dictates your analysis of the toothbrush, and your analysis dictates how you handle the toothbrush. You know that you don’t have to do deep knee-bends or practice lifting weights in order to manipulate the toothbrush.

With everything you do in the physical world, you’re constantly analyzing. A toothbrush may not be the best example, since it’s a man-made object, but it is an object made out of universal stuff, out of physical materials—that is, the toothbrush is made of something beyond Life’s intangible stuff. When you pick up a pebble, or anything else that has a physical reality, the universe dictates your analysis of it, and therefore your behavior with it. Even if you’ve never seen a toothbrush, you know from experience how to handle it by looking at its size and shape. You’ve already analyzed your behavior, before you touch the pebble or the toothbrush. You’ve already engaged.

The universe—that is, the physical reality of stuff—dictates your analysis. Some types of analysis may take a long time. A study of the governing rules for some aspect of this physical reality could take generations, with different individuals analyzing the same question. A person performs experiments, does some analysis, comes up with a theory, but then somebody else comes along and realizes that the first person’s theory is pretty good, but there’s one part of physical reality that the analysis and the theory don’t explain. The second person picks it up from there, and this goes on and on.

When people try to develop theories that explain physical reality—for example, to develop an understanding of the elements—then even though they are doing something physical, the outcome, the analysis, is dictated by the physical stuff of the universe, or the people are not doing science. Somebody could come up with a theory that all elements are some combination of phlegm and blood and the sweat of the gods. There is plenty of crackpot pseudo-science: the earth is flat, or our universe is actually the inside of a small sphere. Pseudo-scientists certainly present analyses of the physical world, but the physical world has not dictated those analyses. You can say that you have invented some liquid that you can rub on a rock to make the rock impervious to gravity, but the universe will not dictate anything to support your statement. You could rub your liquid on that rock all day long, but when you pick up the rock and then drop it, your analysis will prove not to be an analysis of the universe.

When you analyze a piece of ore, other people around you can look at your analysis and then look at the piece of ore you analyzed and see if they match. The other people don’t try to make the ore match your analysis. If it’s going to be reasonable, if it’s going to be useful, your analysis is dictated by the physical properties of the object, or of the activity. Your analysis is dictated by physical reality, or it’s not science.

The other analysis going on in our reality is Life’s analysis, but it is not Life’s analysis of the universe. The other analysis is Life analyzing itself. That analysis could not be further from the scientific method. Remember that distinction.

There are two possible answers as to what controls and dictates Life’s analysis. The easy answer, the one I like, is that nothing dictates Life’s analysis. You can get fancy and say, “Life’s analysis is dictated by Life.” I’ll leave it to you as to whether that is an improvement, but the point is that Life is not arranged in human consciousness. I’ve pointed out in previous talks the purpose that human consciousness serves for Life—that Life, through human consciousness, is able not to be completely a victim of the physical reality of the universe. Life used to be overwhelmed by the same physical conditions of the universe that still overwhelm man, until, through human consciousness, human thought, Life for the first time could avoid, evade, and in some cases actually overcome the physical conditions of the planet. That’s what technology has given Life.

To sum up, Life’s analysis and the universe’s analysis meet in the following manner: when men analyze the universe, that is Life analyzing the universe. Men call that process “science,” but the physical properties of the universe dictate science’s theories, because theories are simply analyses. Men discovered that if you measure the mass of something and then drop it, you can devise a formula that lets you analyze beforehand how fast the object will fall, and lets you analyze the trajectory of a cannonball or an arrow. The physical conditions of the planet dictate how far you can shoot the cannonball, throw a rock, or shoot an arrow.

The universe dictates the analysis of all physical material. Neither Life nor human consciousness dictated the formula for the trajectory of the object. The formula is an analysis of the physical reality of the universe. Life, through human consciousness, has contributed nothing to that formula. No matter how grand and glorious, no matter how intriguing, no matter how beautiful, any formula or equation or theory that analyzes some aspect of the universe has no influence on the universe. That formula simply analyzes something that the universe has dictated.

In consciousness, in their minds, men are constantly going from one type of analysis to the other—from the analysis of the physical properties of the universe, which is dictated by the universe, to the analysis of all things intangible, which is dictated by Life. A man can go into a room with a holy book from any religion, come out days or months later, and say, “Contrary to prevailing opinions about whether there is life after death, I have now developed the correct analysis. I’ve analyzed my religion’s holy book using a variety of original formulas, and I can now tell you exactly what happens after you die.” That man might even go on to found a new religion. As you know, large segments of the world’s population appear to follow such ideas. If they’re not following some self-appointed leader’s ideas in religion, they probably are in politics, because it all amounts to the same thing. It’s Life talking about and analyzing itself, but manifests as men analyzing men.

Remember, I’m leaving out medicine and biology. We’re not talking about the physical examination of man. We’re talking about the intangibles—the spiritual, the emotional, the psychological, the sociological, the historical, the political, and all in the philosophical sense. The more civilized you are, the more such intangibles interest you, because when you’re not being pressured by the physical realities of the planet, of the universe, you have more free time. That is the point at which Life starts analyzing itself, although from a human view, it’s humans analyzing humans.

Here is an example I never used before. Humans can, without any problem, get a Ph.D. in philosophy, psychology, history or theology. They can spend ten, twelve years, the rest of their lives, studying theology, studying religion, studying psychology, and no one on this planet who passes for rational would tell someone who has spent their life that way that they are studying and analyzing nothing.

There’s another example I’ve been wanting to use for years. It’s a situation that every ordinary person believes that they understand, believes that their analysis of it, their interpretation of it, is absolutely correct—but it could be exactly the reverse. Imagine a film about breaking a horse. There are only two characters involved, a cowboy and a horse. The film opens with a view of a breaking pen. The pen is built out of split rails, and is a round, enclosed area. There’s a horse inside the pen. You hear a voice-over, which says, “We’re going to watch well-known horse trainer and champion cowboy Ringo Kidd, as he breaks that wild stallion.”

There it is, the great cosmic, eternal, metaphorical drama. Only two characters. In this case, not God and Lucifer, but Ringo Kidd and a wild stallion. The voice-over says, “The wild horse in this pen only saw a human for the first time yesterday when he was captured up in the high mountains of Utah. Watch him as he tries to break out of the pen. Entering the pen now is Ringo Kidd.”

The voice-over continues describing in detail what you see happening in the film. The actual process may have taken four or five hours, but they chop the film up, playing with time. The film shows Ringo Kidd walking slowly to the horse, the horse running away, and Ringo Kidd acting as if he’s going to run after the horse, but then stopping. The film goes on for most of an hour, with the voice-over continuing to describe what Ringo Kidd is doing. The narrator notes how Ringo moves and stands with the horse, and how the horse turns his head to follow Ringo. The voice-over says, “Mr. Kidd is backing up to the horse. He keeps moving closer to the horse’s shoulder. Mr. Kidd says that when a wild stallion lets his ears droop, and cocks his head at a forty-five-degree angle, that is a signal that it’s safer to move closer, and perhaps to touch the horse for the first time.”

What I’m about to tell you is not a joke, but a fact, and it’s just a matter of whether Life will let your consciousness see it as such. The film I just described, and the voice-over, taken as a whole, could be just as accurate if it were reversed. If that voice-over had been written and read by a horse, you could watch the same film, and it would still make sense, but the point would be to show other horses how to teach humans to ride them.

Think about a horse doing the voice-over to that film, and you’ll see that it all fits. The voice-over says, “Most humans are frightened at first by a horse.” That fits, because the man is outside the pen, looking at the horse. The voice-over says, “Horses have learned through the years that there are certain techniques that will help a human to be comfortable around us, and Flame will demonstrate those techniques today. Slowly, Flame will win the human over.” The horse is prancing around, looking at the man, and the voice-over says, “Horses have learned that if they slow their gait and come to a stop, a human will be encouraged to move toward them.” And sure enough, the horse slows down and Ringo Kidd climbs over the fence and enters the pen.

The horse narrator, breathless, says, “Will that human approach Flame?” The narrator describes the stallion subtly shifting his weight from his front to his back legs, and the human hesitantly moving toward the horse. From the original voice-over, we recall that Ringo Kidd was hesitant, because he thought the horse might throw him. The voice-over says, “Flame works hard to convince the human that he has nothing to fear.” Time passes, and Ringo finally mounts the horse. The voice-over says, “Again, a horse succeeded! In only six hours, Flame convinced a frightened human to climb onto his back! We have just witnessed the beginning of a successful relationship between Flame and the human he has trained to ride him.”

Remember, you’re a horse watching this. The film was produced by horses, a horse wrote the voice-over, and the voice-over discusses everything that we’ve already seen, but it describes all the things that the horse is doing to encourage the man. The film makes perfect sense if you listen to the horse’s analysis, which is exactly the reverse of the human’s analysis.

Life is full of similar situations, so try to replay one in your mind. Don’t replay a scene that analyzes a physical aspect of the universe. You can’t get the same reversal from inanimate objects. You can’t take the viewpoint of iron ore. Look at humans dealing with other humans, two people who are not engaged in physical activity such as fighting each other, but are involved in some ordinary but important human interaction.

I’ll throw in a few hints to get you going. Everyone’s consciousness is me-centered, I-centered, but it does no good to criticize that. That’s just the way it is. You don’t have any real interest in anything unless it happened to you, but you can analyze things that did not happen to you. Imagine a training film for attorneys, showing how a lawyer is giving a wrap-up to a jury. Let a voice-over describe what the lawyer is saying, the highlights that he’s stressing in his verbal argument, how he attacks the prosecution’s case. When the attorney starts his closing argument, the voice-over describes his body posture, saying that he’s leaning toward the jury box, looking sincere. Now reverse the voice-over, and imagine it from the jury’s view. Perhaps they’re thinking that they’re playing games with the attorney, that they’re making him behave the way he does.

That’s one man versus twelve people, rather than one man and a horse, but it might be easier to have just two people in your scenario. Think of an example of two people talking about some important matter. They might be lovers talking about their romance, or a married couple talking about their family life. Imagine that you can’t hear what they’re saying. All you can hear is a voice-over describing the action from one person’s point of view. When you’re done hearing the entire scene, replay it from the other person’s perspective.

After that, try a scene from your own memory. Imagine a voice-over of some scene that took place between you and another person. Your memory is your analysis of that incident. Now, play that film backwards, and give the voice-over as the other person’s analysis.

That voice-over that you hear in your head is the analysis that Life has put in you through your consciousness. Life does this because it is continually attempting to analyze itself. Life’s analysis manifests in humans as us continually attempting to analyze humanity. The analysis that Life puts into us, the analysis that Life has about itself through us, can be as far removed from your life as my example of breaking a horse was. Life can give you an analysis of any situation, and if you reversed that narrative, it would still make perfect sense.

Doesn’t that strike you as curious? What’s going on? Why don’t people realize that everything they think they understand can be reversed? And I’m correct. There’s not one thing in a film of a man breaking a horse that could not be reversed to take the horse’s view. There won’t be any behavior that you look at and think, “That doesn’t fit, so I’ll have to cut it out.” All you’ve got to do is reverse the names and look at the same film. You don’t have to use your imagination. You don’t have to turn a blind eye to part of the film. It all fits.

That is extremely interesting. Consider that the self-analysis Life does through everybody’s mind can be as far removed from what it’s analyzing as a man breaking a horse would be if we presented the film from the horse’s view. The very things that seem most accurate in your first understanding could be backward.

You can look at anything and realize that your general analysis of it is in line with the analysis of most other people. Remember, we’re not talking about a scientific analysis, but the analysis of things human, things spiritual, things philosophical. Your own analysis of what is stupid, insightful, or explanatory will be in line with the general analysis made by everyone else in your time and place. One definition of being asleep, being ordinary, is thinking that your analyses are actually yours. That’s why only people who are asleep say, “It’s my analysis.”

The analysis that Life puts into us can be so far removed from what is actually going on that sometimes I’m almost at a loss to describe it. What you’re seeing may seem unquestionable. You’re convinced that you understand what’s going on. It’s a man breaking a horse. Except for the fact that it could be a horse breaking a man. That’s why somebody in the past, some strange person like us, tried to come up with a description of what’s really happening. He said that everybody is half asleep, or else they couldn’t believe the stories that Life feeds them. Everybody is living in a dream—but it’s not some wild-eyed, psychedelic, incoherent, psychotic dream, because the dream is basically shared by all of humanity. We all have the human view, which is Life’s view of itself.

How can you have any faith in the view that Life has fed you? How can you believe that your mind actually knows what it claims to know? If it’s iron ore, it can be obvious, but you can’t be sure you’re right when you say, “Well, here’s what these people mean when they say such-and-such. Here’s what that religion’s really all about. Here’s what this philosophy really means.” Your mind will tell you, “There it is. It’s just obvious.” No, it’s not obvious. Not if we’re dealing with intangibles.

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Peering Into The Pure Core Of Peering
February 18, 2004 ©2004: JAN COX

Although you normally have no way of grasping it
(since you can’t get outside of it to see it for how it is):
your consciousness is like a box,
large enough to handle the everyday matters that concern ordinary humanity,
but a few people find it inadequate, and discover that all sides of it can be
pushed outward so that what it can handle is expanded:
this is the process known colloquially as:
waking up, achieving enlightenment, being liberated.

“I despise getting old,” said one man, “but not for the ordinary reasons;
what bothers me is that I cannot tell if I am becoming more awake and understanding
of life, or just automatically caring less and less about what goes on in life,”
and an acquaintance responded:
“Well, whichever it is — it wears well on you.”
“But that’s not the point; what I’m noting is just the opposite from…no! — wait:
it’s more like sideways from what you said.”
For the certain man there is no excusing: not-grasping-what-you’re-doing
even if it is something you’ve been wanting to do.
(“Well, no wonder this, waking-up thing is so popular!”)

Something ordinary consciousness never gleans is that all talk about yourself
takes up room that could be used for you actually being yourself,
and thus expanding the boundaries of your consciousness;
the words: “me & I” occupy a specific space in your consciousness wherein can be nourished an understanding that totally surpasses any available to men’s mundane “me’s & I’s” that would result in a more complete and satisfying you.
For the few: this standard trade off of: talking-about-myself
in exchange for me not investigating the potential of producing a different self
is not even close to equitable.

The sure way to tell you are in a constricted state of consciousness (a normal state)
is that whatever subject comes to mind — you instantly see the problems with it.

One man views the opinions put out by his normal state of consciousness as being: crash dummies.

A sage who was dying, but never mentioned it was asked:
“I know you’ve said that talking about an illness makes it worse,
but what harm could come from you talking about your condition now?”
“Oh! — you wouldn’t believe.”

To be of ordinary consciousness is to allow collective humanity to assist,
participate-in, if not totally dominate all your non essential decisions in life;
this gives needed comfort and security to ordinary men,
but is to the few: the very reality of: being asleep, unenlightened, captive.

Just as fighting with the cop trying to arrest you is to miss the point
(since it is collective humanity who is actually doing it),
it likewise is misdirected effort to wrestle with any of the particular thoughts
that life runs through collective humanity and the city part of your mind.

Don’t waste your time on messengers — they all work for Morpheus.
A man said: “Some things can only be understood by experiencing them,”
his half brother jumped in: “And the exceptions to this are?….”

Thank God For Something!
Imagine how good dead thinkers must feel to be quoted extensively.

Same as the stock market is just gambling embossed with an illusion of reason,
so are the stock ideas that appear in your mind;
ideas in circulation with the collective have, to routine men,
a patina of importance which the awakened eye sees as unwarranted.
The only thoughts you can be certain are not rigged are those original with you.
(The certain man’s ideas are like exclusively, in-house, IPO’s.)

A man proffers:
“One neat feature of having a multitude of ills (and thus a multitude of pills)
is that engaging in the extensive morning ritual of taking them all makes you feel like you’ve accomplished something regardless of how the rest of your day turns out,”
and his brother injected:
“Sort of like what thinking about the ideas you hear from other people
does for your everyday mind.”

Another chap says he is partially convinced of a certain notion that has come to him:
that if you never allow the idea of death into your consciousness — you will never die, (and of even greater importance):
if you never let the idea of: being-asleep into your mind — you never will be.

Two Conversations (And What Turns Out To Be): A Soliloquy.
“You will never fully awaken without forgiving man for being man.”
“But how do you accomplish that?”
“By realizing that man is man.”

“Do you regret the fact that by realizing what is going on,
you (for instance) lost the comfort that religion gives to ordinary men?”
“No, because knowing what’s going on means more to me than such comfort.”

In a musing mood one day, a son asked a father:
“Have you most informed me — or entertained me?” —
then instantly slapped himself smartly for again confusing the two.

(Pst! — what could possibly be more enlightening and amusing than
the ultimate realization that man is nothing but man.)


Noted a father to a son:
“Beyond all the metaphysical hoopla (as entertaining as that can be),
waking-up, being enlightened, liberated, etc. is simply:
making your consciousness more expansive than it would be if you were not making the effort.
(And of course from that comes: being asleep, in the dark, and normal [we should add] equals:
your consciousness not being as big as it could be at every moment.)”
The lad mentalated on this………then asked:
“So what is the purpose of all the mystical hocus pocus that has always surrounded this activity?”

The elder cocked his head — quizzically smiled and said: “You mean you don’t know?!”


A real friend never reminds you of what he’s done for you;
neither does the father part of your mind.