Deep Dramatica Theory
Certification Class
Taught
by Melanie Anne Phillips
January
7, 1995
NOTE:
The following material is an unchecked and unedited raw transcript from
the original tape. Spot checks have revealed some inaccuracies and
errors compared to the original, but for the most part this is a fairly
accurate translation.
--melanie
Today’s
discussion is on Problem Solving and Justification. First of all, do you
have any questions about problem solving or justification beyond what
you’ve already heard. Any areas that you want to know more about, or
anything that you’ve wondered about?
Q:
Are you going to talk about blind spots?
I can.
O.K., so blind spots is one of the things. Anybody else have anything
else.
Q:
For me personally, I am kind of new to the whole thing, so whatever we
touch, I’m sure will be helpful.
So, let
me start then with an overview, and then we will get down to blind
spots. We’re going to cover a lot of different ways of looking at the
same thing. And each one of the ways that we cover will be complete from
that particular perspective. But, it doesn’t really describe how the
whole mechanism works, because all of the perspectives we’ll talk
about, and many of them we won’t, are part of the process, because
they are all valid ways of looking at it. You can’t really see the
process of justification for what it is, because it’s the way the mind
works. And you can’t use the way the mind works to look at the way the
mind works. It really can’t be done. All you can do is see
after-images left by where the mind has worked. Or look at things that
are effected by the mind as it’s working. And say, we can get an idea
of what the mind is doing by it’s gravitational pull on the orbits of
other things around it. So we’ll be looking at how the mind affects a
number of different things, and from that try to get a feel for what’s
actually going on in the mind, as it tries to solve problems or creates
justifications.
First of
all, the most important thing is the definition of what do we mean by
problem-solving, or justification? Well, problem solving is when you get
rid of an inequity. And justification is when you balance an inequity. I
will show you the difference between the two. What do we mean by an
inequity? An inequity is when anything is out of balance. Anything
covers a lot of territory. But, that’s exactly what we mean. Whenever
the mind can be aware of a lack of balance, between two items or two
processes, or two places or two approaches, or coming to conclusions
between two means of evaluations. Whenever they don’t line up,
whenever things are not the same in a sense. Whenever things are
different, between the two of them, the difference that exists makes
them unequal. And that inequity between them can be seen as a positive
or a negative thing.
If there
was only one thing in the entire universe, and we saw no difference; it
was homogeneous -- well, there would be no inequity. But, it wouldn’t
necessarily be positive then, because there would nothing really. It
would just be one thing, and since there’s one thing, you couldn’t
compare it to anything. And since you can’t compare it, you can’t
measure it -- and since you can’t measure it, you can’t evaluate it.
You don’t know whether it’s good or bad, it has no meaning. It’s
only when we sub-divide and have at least two things to measure between,
that we can say, O.K. in measuring these two things, the fact that they
are different is a good thing, or the fact that they are different is a
bad thing.
When two
things being different is a good thing, you don’t want to hang a
picture to a wall with another picture, you want to hang a picture to a
wall with a nail. When there is something that you would like to have,
but you don’t have it yet, that can be a bad thing or a good thing. If
it is something you are looking forward to and the joy of anticipating
it, because you really expect to get it, and you don’t see anything
that could step in your way -- Like Christmas morning, you look forward
to it, and it becomes a joyous experience in anticipating, or perhaps a
movie that you know is opening on Friday and you want to go see it, and
you’ve been anticipating it because you’ve been hearing about it.
So, here’s something you want that you don’t yet have, and yet
that’s positive, because it’s something that you expect to get, and
it’s not causing you any negative ramifications now, because you
don’t have it.
In other
words, things now are good. Things with that would be better. You expect
to get that thing, and therefore, there’s no way that it could be seen
as negative, because you expect to get it within a reasonable amount of
time, that you would feel not like you’ve been anticipating it for so
long that it was negative, because you look forward to it and look
forward to it, and you look forward to it, like a career in the movie
business, and it never happens. Well, that begins to get negative after
a while, because you keep waiting and it doesn’t come. So, waiting for
something for a very long time can be a positive thing, like getting a
degree in college. Yes, you’d like it, but it can be very positive,
because part of the excitement is in earning it, and every time you are
making progress, you can sense that you have gotten closer to it,
because there are a certain number of requirements to achieve. It has an
optionlock, and with an optionlock, you can say that when I’ve taken
this course, and this course, then they give me the degree. So, you can
chart it off, and see your progress.
The real
key here is not just saying there is this arbitrary amount of time that
makes it positive or negative, but again, it’s another way of
measuring the difference. The difference between how big the reward is,
and how long it’s going to take to get. So, already, we have shifted
our perspective. Originally, we just said inequity is a balance between
two things when they are out of balance, or when they are different.
Inequity exists between them. It doesn’t make one better or worse than
the other, it just means they are not in equilibrium. That can be a good
thing or a bad thing.
But, now
you have to go a step farther than those two steps and say how do we
determine what’s good or bad. Well, now we have to go a step farther
than those two steps, and say how do we determine it’s good or bad.
And now we have to weigh things against each other and say here’s the
benefit I will get from it, which makes me anticipate it. Here’s the
length of time I have to wait for it, which delays it. And so, the
positive aspects of anticipating it, because of the size of it’s
rewards, and the costs I have to pay at how long it takes to get there -
to wait for it, those two are played against each other, and we see it
as a positive experience or a negative experience. So, if it’s a great
big reward, and there’s little waiting time, it’s a very positive
experience, than a great big reward, and a long waiting time, it can get
neutral or even negative. If it’s a little reward, and a little
waiting period, it can be very positive. If it’s a little reward and a
long waiting time, it can be very negative. So, it’s just a matter of
balancing the size of the reward with the time we wait.
But, if
we don’t have any way of measuring when it’s going to happen, then
we get nervous if we can’t see progress, because there’s nothing to
measure progress by. So, when we have something we’re waiting for, we
want there to be either a timelock or an optionlock which ever happens
first, which makes it even better. Because, if you have timelock, then
you are saying all I have to do is count the hours, minutes and seconds
until the film is released, and then I will see it, because I know where
the screening is going to be. A Star Trek picture comes out released
November 18th or whatever, ....then you say, O.K. well, I’m going to
count down until the movie is released and see it. What an optionlock
is, all that has to happen is I have to meet these requirements, and
these requirements could be getting pieces to something, or learning
something, or whatever it is , but it doesn’t matter how long it
takes, it’s when you get all the pieces together and every time you
get a new piece, you can see that progress has been made towards the
goal.
But,
although a time moves inexorably forward, so that it is constantly
moving at the same amount of time, the same increments, optionlocks
don’t move that way. Optionlocks can have three of them happen real
fast, and one of them takes forever, so it’s a different kind of guide
-- it seems a little more stretchy. But, wait, for a moment, lets stand
back and look at time, and say how fast does time flow for us. Are there
not times, when we are lost and daydreamy, and we go through incredible
journeys, and seems like it’s been hours, and we come back and five
minutes has passed. And other times, we take something that seems like
it’s happened very quickly, and it’s really taken a lot of time,
because we are thoroughly engrossed - how much we are involved.
And how
much we are involved is a function of how many parts of the mind, how
much of the mind percentage-wise or potential-wise becomes involved in
the considerations. So, that when we are wholly involved in something,
we lose track of time, and it goes faster, when it’s an external
thing. When we are wholly involved in an internal thing, often time will
go slower. And so the internal - external issue starts to come into play
as to how we begin to appreciate the nature of these locks that show us
progress towards resolving an inequity and determining whether it’s
positive or negative. Whether it’s outside or inside, sometimes you
see a mirror image of the effect. When you are wholly involved in
something outside, time will be something that can go by very quickly.
When you are wholly involved in something inside, time can go very, very
slowly.
Time
becomes stretchy, and you really can’t tell how long you have to wait
for something because how long it seems when you are waiting for a
doctor’s appointment versus when you are waiting in line in the
supermarket or whatever. Time can seem to change - stretchy time.
There
really is no wholly objective time. Objective time is made up of the
change in mass in it’s relationship to energy. Subjective time is made
up of the relationship between time and space, which seems like a
contradiction -- using time inside and space inside. So, you really have
two kinds of time. We label them the same thing, but one of them is time
persay, which is the movement of mass because of applied energy, which
is completely consistent and external to ourselves, whereas, inside
ourselves, it’s not time, but duration.
Time is
measured in increments. Duration is measured in speed. And the two
don’t always line up, as we’ve mentioned before. It may seem like a
lot of external time has gone by, but seem like it’s been a very short
duration or vice-versa.
Now when
we are dealing with justifications, the male perspective on
justifications, is to look at it in balance between things. And the
female way of looking at justifications is to look at the imbalance
between duration and time. Which will lead to really neat tricks that
you can use by members of the opposite sex or of the same sex, in order
to play their justifications, and get them to do exactly what you want,
or be how you want them to be; with a minimum outlay of resources on
your part.
Men
don’t have a good sense of how long something takes duration-wise. So,
all you have to do to make men justified and stay with something is tell
them maybe. Maybe leaves it open, and as long as it’s maybe, there’s
a chance it could happen. When there’s a chance it could happen,
there’s no way of measuring how long they’ve been hung on the line
with this chance of it happening, which is why whenever a woman want’s
to lean a man in any respect, all she has to do is say maybe. If she
says no, right from the beginning, no means no. If she says yes, yes
means yes. Maybe means yes, but later, to a man. And so, that’s the
way they are going to read it.
And as a
result of it, you string on guys, by just saying maybe, until finally
he’s waiting is so long, that begins to lose interest. And as he
begins to lose interest for whatever it is, then all you have to do is
show them a little progress by unbalancing the inequity between things
just a little bit. And as soon as you do, just a little bit, then they
see progress and even note it. Then you can keep on saying maybe until
they lose interest again. But, you’ve reviewed all their interest
because they’ve seen something budge.
Now for
women, women have a very good sense of what the overall balance between
things is. Meaning that it doesn’t take much leverage in the external,
real world, to make them feel that progress has occurred. In other
words, no real progress has to made and they can be fooled into thinking
that progress has been made, because women think that how long it’s
taking, before she sees progress, that’s how she measures it. How long
does it seem before I’ve seen any progress. Now, a woman is not just
looking at step progress like men are. She’s looking at acceleration
progress. She’s looking at am I getting closer to the goal, because
progress is being made faster? Like a train looming up into your face on
a railroad track. That’s what she’s measuring. It can start off
slow, but it’s got to accelerate.
Men are
looking for linear progress, where you’ve covered a certain number of
tries, and it’s more of an objective view of progress. The more
subjective view of progress which women take, is that things seem to be
looming closer and closer. So that, you get that feeling of
acceleration, even though everybody hasn’t changed speed, but has
changed speed in relationship to you. And so, it’s a doppler effect --
it’s basically a female experience. When you want to string a woman
along, all you have to do is to allow things first to accelerate a
little bit. Now, that means that if you want a woman to do anything at
all, you promise her that eventually she’s going to get something.
When you say, when this is all over, you will get something. She will
work for you without a timelock, she will work for you without an
optionlock. Eventually, she will begin to feel that she is getting
nowhere, and start to re-evaluate. As soon as you sense this happening,
you give her a bite size candy bar, and put it on her desk, or a single
carnation and put it on her desk. Now, she will say, "Oh, I’m
getting closer to nice things, and therefore, the way things are going
is accelerating, going better, because before I had nothing at all, and
now I’ve got something, which is definitely an acceleration.
So, she
will continue to work for you until she begins to sense, there’s been
no acceleration. Now, because there’s been no acceleration. Now,
because there’s been no acceleration, that means that the rose may
have died, or the candy’s been eaten. The experience has gone a little
bit behind. You cannot, and this is the mistake that men make in not
being able to manipulate women, is give her another bite size candy bar,
or another single carnation and have her feel that progress has been
made, because she got another one. From men, as long as they are getting
the treats doled out, they are going to figure O.K., I get one every so
often so that’s how I am making progress, and they are continuing to
pay me step by step as I do this job.
For a
woman it doesn’t work that way. Next time she will want a full-size
candy bar or a single rose or two carnations, because you’ve got to
show acceleration. Now that means that it’s very important for guys in
order to save their resources, when trying to get women to do things and
force them into justifications. I’ll hold out a little longer to do
the job I don’t like, because things are going O.K., and I’m getting
faster at where I want to go to. Start out small. Use the minimum
investment you can at the beginning, and give her the smallest thing
that will renew her interest, and then next time go to the minimum
increment you can that will show to her that things are better than they
were, because she got a bigger prize than she did last time. You’ll
find that the frequency with which she needs these -- Although she
should never figure out that you’ve planned it out, so always go one
day, one way, and one day another way. The frequency is roughly the
same. They are like the railroad ties. She needs to have these railroad
ties so often, but she’s not thinking that way, she’s just realizing
that it’s beginning to wear off. And then she needs a bigger prize to
be feeling like acceleration is being made.
Because
for a woman, stacked linear progress, is no progress at all. For guys,
as long as they do the steps being accomplished, they know that they
will get there eventually, because they are charting it on a straight
line. But women need to feel that it’s looming closer and closer.
Because women deal primarily with time sense, and men with space sense.
The space sense will demand that progress is measured by taking one step
after another after another of equal increments if possible, until
you’ve eaten away at the distance you have to cover, and you know
exactly how long it’s going to take you to get to your destination.
For a woman, she just has to feel that she’s getting to her
destination faster and faster, because on any chore she’s doing that
she doesn’t like, her interests are weighing faster and faster and
deeper and deeper, and the baggage she’s carrying will get heavier and
heavier, so that she has to feel that the end is closer and closer.
So,
that’s how you would use the justification between the two. Now, what
determines if one is justification, and one is problem solving? Well, as
we said balancing an inequity is justification. Resolving an inequity is
problem solving. Sometimes resolving an inequity is bad. And sometimes
balancing an inequity is good. Good and bad have nothing to do with
whether it’s problem solving or justification. It has to do with how
you approach the inequity. Look at them as extropy and entropy, when you
have extropy you’ve got building up, getting more complex; creating an
infrastructure that is more and more gossamer. It has more and more
connections to it, and eventually if you build it big enough, it will
grow too weak to support it’s own weight. And it will collapse on
itself or it’s gravity in the area is not strong enough, and it will
just float away and you won’t have it anymore because you made it so
big, that it just gets picked up by the currents of wind and taken away.
Buckminster
Ford did some research and found that you could build a geodesic dome of
a certain size that was so big that because the triangles you are
creating that increase as the area of the outside, the volume is
increasing as the cube, while the area is increasing as the square, and
you reach a point eventually where the thing can become so lightweight
compared to it’s size, that the slightest breeze could make something
a half a mile across just take off into the air, because of the breeze.
And so, that’s the physics of it, and the same thing happens mentally
as well.
But,
there’s that second force, that force of entropy that is trying to
bring it all down. Entropy is not just a destructive force, entropy is
the force that seeks unification, as opposed to complexity; instead of
variety, singularity. Entropy tries to make things more and more simple.
Simplify is what it’s really about in terms of entropy. But, that’s
not necessarily a good thing either. If you simplify enough, you get to
singularity, and as we talked about earlier, when you get to
singularity, then you have nothing to compare things to and it becomes
completely neutral. When you have complete neutrality, there is nothing
-- no life, no thought, no movement, no inertia, no change, nothing.
Look at the moment of the "big bang". Big Bang is the ultimate
singularity. Complete expansion of the universe to an infinite degree
would be complete complexity. It is my opinion that neither of these has
ever been achieved.
There’s
never been a moment like they describe in terms of the "Big
Bang". Not where things reduced to a singularity. Because that’s
a limit line that you approach. You approach and you never actually get
that limit line. Eventually something throws you to the other side of
the limit line and we’ll talk about that later too. But when it throws
you too the other side of the limit line, you’ve never actually been
at that moment of singularity, you’ve just gotten infinitely close to
it on one side, and then you are infinitely close on the other and
moving away from it, instead of close towards it. And this causes the
universe to act like an oscillation, where it expands almost to infinity
and then contracts almost to singularity, then expands on the other side
into the anti-energy. Reverse energy, reverse time, anti-energy,
negative space, non-mass ...That’s what you have when you go into the
other side of the other universe.
And in
fact, because all of them go at once, you can never tell when you are in
the positive or negative universe. Because all you have to compare
things are things that are either all positive or all negative. As long
as this happens, things are working properly -- they oscillate between
the positive and the negative, but it always seems neutral when you are
in one or the other, because all you have are all positives or all
negatives to compare it to. We are not talking about anti-matter here,
we are talking about non-matter; things that not only do they not exist,
but they strongly do not exist. In other words, their lack of existence
is an existence of it’s own. In other words, it would take more than
just transmitting energy to create mass. You’d have to overcome some
inertia, against coming into existence first. Overcome the entropy when
someone has a catalyst even to bring it to a neutrality where it could
begin to exist.
So,
existence is not just something that is there. It is a matter of how
firmly it is there. And even if it’s not there at all, that’s just
neutral, because some things have a definite tendency not to come into
existence. A lot of things have a tendency not to happen. And some of
these negative aspect, only if you’re negative can you compare them to
the positive. And in fact, even in this universe, you can easily look at
things and say -- Here is something that has a tendency to happen. Here
is something that has a tendency not to happen. On any given day there
is a great tendency not to have a plane crash. Within in the days of the
year, there is a great tendency to have at least one plane crash.
Because on any given day, most likely one is not going to happen. A lot
of things have to converge to make the plane crash happen. And because
those things don’t happen very often, there is a tendency for a plane
crash not to occur, within a period of one day. But, if you change the
way you measure it, and say now I’m going to show it within a year,
you can’t predict any given plane will crash, but you can say there
will probably be some crash of some plane within a year of a reasonable
size jet-liner. Certainly within 5 years. We’ve never had a five year
period where we haven’t had a jet-liner crash. You can almost count on
it.
Plane
crashes have a strong tendency to come into existence in the generic
sense in a five year period. But, in a generic sense, within a one day
period, they have a great tendency not to occur. Well, how can it be
that day by day, there is a great tendency not to, and yet at the end of
the year or two years, there is a great tendency to. When does it switch
over? That’s that limit line I was talking about, that you never
actually hit, but get close to. When does it change from being a
tendency not to come into existence to a tendency to come into
existence. How does that happen? When does it switch from not being to
being? It’s a magic moment. And that was the moment I was looking for
in the unified field theory, because it’s the key to understanding how
everything hangs together -- it’s that magic moment. And it turned out
that it’s not anything intrinsic to what you are looking at -- it’s
intrinsic to how you look at it. It’s all in the context, it’s all
in the perspective. It’s all in what you measure.
There is
no point at which you can stack up the number of days and say now there
is a plane crash. But, there is a way when you can go through a five
year period and say I would be very surprised if there wasn’t a plane
crash. It depends on your measurement. Where you begin measuring is
arbitrary. And how long you measure is arbitrary. It works kind of like
this...there are tendencies and there are trends. And they work in
opposition to each other. Trends are when you see something and
say....like suppose you’ve got a coin, and you are flipping a coin.
You flip this coin five times in a row and it comes up heads every
single time. What’s the trend? The trend is it’s coming up heads.
So, based on the trend, you would expect it would come up heads again.
Now, what are the actual odds on any given toss that it will come up
heads or tails? On any given toss? How can you say you expect it to come
up heads if the odds are 50/50. Because there’s been a trend that has
shown that it has done that. consistently, and one would expect maybe
that there’s some outside force at work that is affecting things so
that in and of itself, intrinsically the item under study has a 50-50
chance of coming up one way or another, in the environment in which it
is being flipped, something is apparently affecting it to come up heads,
and one could expect that that’s the inertia that it carries.
However,
there’s another force at work. The force at work is tendency. When you
have a trend that says it has come up this many times, what would you
expect for the next five, in order to make the odds come out 50-50? It
would come up tails, and that’s the tendency. Although the trends
points to coming up heads, because of something perhaps environmental.
Maybe though, there’s nothing environmental, and it’s just a matter
of chance that it’s come up heads 5 times in a row. But, for the odds
to hold true, which they eventually will have to, then you needs five
times that it will come up tails, if all you were going to do is ten
tosses. But see you would expect the tendency is pulling it towards
coming up tails on the next throw.
Now there
is the most interesting relationship between those things, because it
has to do with like Las Vegas odds. Las Vegas odds in the long run and
the longer that you measure, the more likely it will come down to the
exact odds. If you put a slot machine in a Las Vegas establishment, and
certain odds have been established on it, and it’s a brand new
machine, and you put in one coin, and you hold down the handle,
there’s no way anybody knows what it’s going to do, because the
statistical nature of it, to make sure that the odds come out to a
certain level, to a pay-off, can’t function with only one play. The
odds don’t work out. The more you play it, it’s bound to pay
anything off, assuming that it is functioning correctly. In order for
that slot machine to be working at the proper odds, eventually it’s
got to catch up. So, if it doesn’t pay off, and it doesn’t pay off,
and it doesn’t pay off, and it’s done that for ten years, and it
hasn’t paid off at this place, and it’s working properly, that has
got a lot of built up tendency. And that would be a machine you’d want
to play, because when you play that machine, then you figure eventually
it’s going to have to pay off a lot, in order just to make up for all
the ten years when it didn’t pay off. So, it doesn’t matter actually
when you begin measuring or when you stop measuring -- it’s a
subjective thing. So, that would be a way to play it at Vegas.
What is
it that prevents us from actually doing that? Because you would think
everybody could get rich from just by looking at somebody playing and
playing who ran out of money and left, and they hadn’t gotten any
wins, then that’s when you want to sit down and you will end up in the
long run even ahead of the game, because you’ve already built up a
negative potential on it. The point is it’s not even the matter of a
starting point, because that’s kind of arbitrary, because there are
many different places you could start, and any one of them to have the
odds be right from wherever you start, they’d have to be equal. But,
that’s only because you are looking at things in terms of time. How
many times it takes something to do it.
You
don’t look in terms of space, because in terms of space, you look at
the casino as whole, and if you look at the casino as a whole, there’s
going to be one machine there that just happens to pay off twice as much
as another machine there, that pays off half as much, and another
machine that hardly ever pays off at all. And yet they are all built the
same, they all have the same odds on each machine. But, in the spatial
scenario, some of them, just as a matter of chance, will not pay out
very much at all. And others will pay out quite regularly -- but
there’s no way to predict which ones will be which, because the minute
you sit down at that machine and say "this one has traditionally
paid off a lot". But, it may be that it will stop paying off, and
another machine will start paying off a lot somewhere else. So, if you
look at all the machines, and you see how much they pay off, they are
all like peaks and valleys. They are up and down like bar graphs, and
some are down negative, and some are high. But, there’s no guarantee
that this will continue.
So, when
you look at it temporally on any given machine, you can expect that the
tendency is for it to be pulled back to the odds, whatever direction the
trends happen to be momentarily. And the longer a trend goes one
direction, the greater the tendency to go to another. But, trends and
tendencies won’t tell you what it will do, because there are other
machines, and when you take them all together collectively, they do the
odds. But, collectively in that casino, one casino is going to pay off,
more than another casino, because of the fact that it just happens in
terms of chance that the machines in one casino are paying off at a
higher rate than another casino. And you can go out wider, and wider and
wider, and eventually you get to the point where the scope of the limit
of your measurement, you can see no real difference. When we see no real
difference, for all practical purposes, the odds are holding true and
right to form.
So, you
can’t win it, because whenever you look at it in terms of time only,
you can see it in terms of space, we can see space only in terms of
time, and that’s why we are trying to make other people justified.
What you want to do is give them one of those things where they seem
like they’re seeing rewards, and if they are not, look at the other
one. And because all of us have the capacity within ourselves to see
both time and space, but only one at a time as it were, or one being
foremost, and the other one being secondary, because of that, if you can
focus somebody’s primary sense, or the one they use first, and make
them see apparent progress, then you can have them lose like crazy at
the one they are not looking at and they won’t be able to notice it
because they are seeing progress where they are focusing. And that’s
the nature of focus and blind spot in a very conceptual sense is that if
you are focusing on time, your blind spot is space. If you are focusing
on space, your blind spot is time.
The only
way to protect yourself against ills, is to vacillate between the two as
frequently as you can, so that you look at it timewise, and then you
look at it spacewise, then you look at it timewise and look at it
spacewise. As you go back and forth between those very quickly, it
doesn’t allow time for a lot of things to go through. So, is that what
we have to train ourselves to do, go back and forth between time and
space? No. Because going back and forth quickly between time and space
is talking about doing it quickly which is time. And as result that
means that we are ignoring a spatial way of doing it. And the spatial
way of doing it is not to go back and forth between the two quickly, but
to go back and forth between the two on any given subject.
So that
whenever anything comes up, you make sure that you look at it spatially
and you look at it temporally. Because if you go back and forth too many
times, you don’t stick with one perspective long enough to see
anything change. So, if you are going quickly, you are losing your sense
of things changing, and then you are caught unawares when something
comes up and bites you, because it was changing very slowly. You lose
your long wave perception, and you can’t see gradual change. On the
other hand, if you look at things spatially, and you see it all in
space, and then you stop and look at it all in time, and only do those
measurements, you don’t see change either, because you don’t see two
instances of it from the temporal view and two instances of it from the
spatial view, you only see one of each. So again you don’t see change.
So, either way you’re screwed.
You can
widen your scope, but the minute you widen your scope, you also open
yourself up to more instances of trouble, so you can limit within any
given scope how many unexpected things are going to happen within it,
and how susceptible you are to them, but you do that by widening your
scope of consideration, while only being concerned with this part. But,
as soon as you open your consideration wider, then you are letting more
things into the system which can upset things out here, that can
ultimately change this thing and impact it in ways that you hadn’t
expected. So, it’s a no win situation. A losing situation is a neutral
situation, it all comes out to zero. And that’s what it really comes
down to, is the fact that there is no objective way to say that things
are good or bad, or right or wrong. But there’s plenty of subjective
ways, because each of us is one of the little machines that we have as a
slot machine. Each of us finds that in our life, we lead a charmed life
or a doomed life. And we can’t really tell between the sense of a
charmed life or a cursed life -- we can’t predict if it’s going to
continue. Some people are so lucky, one thing after another happens to
them; everything good, they die happy, never have any problems, worries
or fears. Other people suffer from the moment they are born, and live a
long suffering life and go to their graves feeling miserable. How can
you predict, how can you determine, how can you protect yourself?
Well, the
only thing you can do for a subjective viewpoint, is unlike a slot
machine, you can change your odds. You can change your odds by shifting
context. When you shift context, that’s when you justify, because then
you are balancing inequities. If you steal yourself against inequities,
and try to snuff the inequity at their source, then you are problem
solving. And here we have the beginnings of do-ers and be-ers and change
and steadfast. Where people balance and where people snuff, differs
between do-ers and be-ers. Everybody snuffs and everybody balances. If
you are a be-er, you are going to have a tendency to snuff internally,
and balance externally. For example, you have two kids and you’ve got
one piece of cake. Both of them want the piece of cake, and they are
arguing and screaming when you walk into the room. Now, a be-er will try
and balance things by saying, "O.K. who got the cake out?" or
you could say, "You get the cake this time, you’ll get the cake
next time" and balance it out that way. That would be a balance.
And when
they snuff things it would be that there’s only one thing, and they
know that only one kid can have it and not the other one; maybe
there’s an award, or something that can’t be divided or something,
and you give it to one kid or the other, because you have to make a
choice. And you realize the inequity, that you have to snuff it inside.
So, you do the work inside of trying to snuff it inside, so you do the
work inside of trying to snuff your feelings, or you do the work outside
and try to balance things off. "Oh, well here’s this jacket that
was sent to us, there’s only one jacket, and you have a jacket and
instead you get the beach ball." So, you try and balance things
off, so that you make up for it. We are making things up on the outside,
robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that’s something a be-er does.
Whereas a
do-er is somebody who is going to try and snuff the problem outside.
They would be the ones to divide the cake up. They would say, either you
each share it or nobody gets anything. They put the balance in a
different direction and they were trying to balance things inside, and
they were balanced inside by saying, "Yes, I know that it’s not
fair to this one not to get the cake or jacket, but this person needs
the jacket more because they are out in the cold more, so that’s why
they are going to get the jacket and the other one is not going to get a
jacket." So, they would balance inside. And you will see that the
approach between do-ers and be-ers is that often in terms of items that
have to be divvied up, of which there aren’t enough, do-ers will seem
to rely on an analytical external view, and inside they seem to be
heartless, in situations where there isn’t enough to go around.
Whereas, be-ers seem to miss the point, because be-ers are trying to
give oranges to satisfy a taste for apples, in external situations.
So,
anyway the one who tries to balance inside is the do-er, and snuff it
outside, just take action, precipitous action to make it work itself out
-- to resolve it. Whereas, the be-er is going to try to resolve it
inside, and then take action to balance it outside. And that doesn’t
mean change or steadfast. Change or steadfast means do you try that and
if it doesn’t work, do you keep trying it another way or do you drop
the other’s approach; shift your internal and external places where
you want to do it. That’s another way of looking at change and
steadfast.
Q:
Does Change or Steadfast always affect your approach?"
Not
necessarily -- It doesn’t have to because sometimes problems aren’t
between the inside and the outside, sometimes problems are between the
inside and itself, and problems are between the outside and itself. In
other words, when you look from a "they" perspective, you’re
not personally involved. You don’t have any feelings about it one way
or another. You are a judge sitting on a bench and you have to make
things work out between the parties, and you don’t have any favorites,
ostensibly. And then in that case, it’s a completely external inequity
you are dealing with, and so you are going to be putting all your work
out there. The whole notion of being a do-er or be-er will be applied to
the situation as to how you deal with it. But, change and steadfast will
not have anything to do with it. Change and steadfast will be "do I
try to resolve it, or do I stop trying to resolve it externally".
Whereas
for an internal situation, in which you feel a certain way, or a lack of
motivation for something, and you want to create a motivation for
something, or you have tendencies or drives that you want to get rid of,
you are working with yourself, and there really is no external
manifestation of it, it’s yourself you are trying to work with.
"I
don’t like being this kind of person, why do I say this or do
that?" . "Maybe I can change myself inside." Well,
that’s not really change in change and steadfast, that’s be-er’s
work, and be-er’s working to alter themselves inside, because they are
trying to snuff it, internally. And if they are trying to work with
themselves inside, if they eventually give up on it, then that’s
change.
And if
they stick with it, then that’s steadfast. How long do they have to
keep working with themselves before themselves change. Did they give up
too soon, because whatever was holding them back was just ready to give
because of their persistence in trying to think a certain way, in terms
of zen or in terms of controlling our emotion. Could they have broken
the back of it, if they had lasted just a little bit longer. Or is it a
useless endeavor because they really can’t change that no matter how
they try. That’s the leap of faith for a be-er, internal working
person.
Do-ers
and be-ers both have external only problems and internal only problems
and problems between the outside and the inside. And when they are
between the outside and the inside, both do-ers and be-ers can perceive
it as being this is where it ought to be resolved; externally or
internally. And then once they determine where it has to be resolved,
what makes them a be-er or do-er is when they determine whether it’s
inside or outside and has to be resolved, where they are trying to
strike a balance. So, a lot of stuff is going on in that. But, change
and steadfast is do you switch from looking from outside to inside, or
inside to outside and the other one is at the crossfire, do you stop
trying or give up on it. Or do you keep going -- inside do you keep
going or give up on it. Those are the four change and steadfast issues
in the change/steadfast quad.
Now, why
would there be such a thing as justification? Why would that even exist
in the species? Well, in fact, you can’t get away from it. The reason
you can’t get away from it is because of the fact that we have either
a spatial brain operating system or a temporal brain operating system.
We either favor space or favor time intrinsically. Men favor space and
women favor time, in terms of male and female mental sex. And why would
this be? Well, in reality, outside of our minds, there is only mass and
energy. There is no time, there is no space. They just don’t exist.
They only exist in our minds. The fact that we have bodies, the fact
that we sit in a room, the fact that we can see things and perceive them
- all that mass exists, but the space it takes up is all in our minds,
because it really takes up no space at all.
As a
matter of fact, it doesn’t take up zero space, there’s no such thing
as space. Space is when we have a relationship between space and time
that favors space. What that means is that when we have a sense of
looking at how things are arranged versus how that arrangement changes,
the fact that things had any kind of arrangement is all in our heads,
because we are putting a pattern on something and saying here are things
that are related. And all those relationships is an order that we impose
on the essential key of nature of energy and mass. So, whenever we
perceive something as being arranged in a pattern, we’ve supplied the
pattern. We projected it, we organize it that way.
Q:
We can’t argue that, because there wasn’t something to perceive the
space then there would be no way to say that there was anything. It
seems that mass a shape to it, and because mass has a mass that can be
great or small, then it inherently has something, that’s at least
related to space.
Mass has
nothing to do with size. As an example a black hole or a neutron star.
Matter can be compressed, infinitely small by the forces of gravity. So
that, it still has the same mass, but it’s being compressed, because
it’s warped space. And what do we get when it’s warped space, it’s
warped our perception of it. Which is the relationship between
mass/energy and space/time. Space and time are subliminal, and mass and
energy are awareness.
Q:
But then what is the objective of a shared space, what is the great mind
that space that we all seem to be able to share, the earth, etc..?
The best
way to describe it is that mass and energy continue to move towards
entropy. So, the external universe is the force of entropy and the force
of extropy which is the increasing complexities that force us to
self-awareness. The two of them are in conjunction and at the moment
there is a trend toward self-awareness becoming more complex. The chance
of dependency that eventually it will become less complex, or cease to
exist at all. Perhaps it is so large it will collapse under it’s own
weight or just float off somewhere, and no longer be in this universe.
If it collapses under it’s own weight, it’s like what happened
during the dark ages. Knowledge was lost, awareness was lost. The levels
of thinking were lost. Societally, but individually as well, because
there isn’t much difference between a cave person and a person of
today. You have the same essential innate capacities of mind, but our
thoughts are much more grand today because of the combined knowledge
that we have; the complexity that has happened in society.
When
different self-aware awarenesses come into being, the first one that
thinks of a concept makes that concept manifest, tuned here to reality,
just by perceiving it. In other words, instead of saying I’ll believe
when I see it, it’s I will see it when I believe it. But, all
existence comes from perception, from this perspective. Of course
because were made of material that generates our minds, all perception
comes out of existence. Remember we can never get to the heart of the
matter because we can’t see everything, because we are part of the
picture. So, we can’t step out of it, no matter where we place
ourselves, that’s a part of the picture we can’t see. So, we’ll
never get the whole deal. However, when you have a new concept, it could
very well be that for millions of years the earth was flat. It could
have very well been.
Now, why
did it not stay flat? Well, it didn’t stay flat because someone
created a larger paradigm that explained more, bordered more things.
Created patterns of understanding that were larger, that required having
a round earth. And describing those things that required a round earth,
then allowed a round earth which accomplishes much of the notion of a
flat earth, but also came with it the larger paradigm for understanding
even more stuff, that before was completely non-understandable. And as a
result of it being a larger paradigm, it shifted the perspectives of all
those who were aware of it, and changed the nature of the way the world
worked. Meaning that there’s still plenty of opportunity in terms of
thinking about nuclear science and astrophysics -- in terms of looking
at social movements. There’s plenty of opportunity for changing the
way things really are, because we come up with another explanation for
how we perceive them.
So, did
this seem any less liked a chair, because we know there are atoms in it?
But, once atoms were conceived and agreed upon, there where atoms in the
chair. Until that was agreed upon, there was no need for there to be
atoms in chair, because they’d never been thought of before, and so
the chair could exist without atoms and truly be a solid material.
Q:
And the effect of that versus making the world round,....it’s like if
the world hadn’t changed in nature, they got all this false evidence
created....
No. See
that was the thing -- any paradigm that explains things, that has to
replace one learning curve, has to explain everything the earlier
paradigm explained and more. And that’s the key. Now, guess how that
works? That’s why it becomes more and more difficult to come up with
new paradigms that shift everything around. Now that’s what we’ve
done with story. Until we came up with the notion that some of this was
psychology, it wasn’t. Our own thoughts during the psychology of
finding a way to make that explain using the psychological paradigm, yet
stories were actually a psychology of the single human mind. As soon as
we came up with it, that’s what they were. And the more people believe
it, the more firm it becomes, because then you have a lot of people from
a lot of different perspectives, a lot of different self-awarenesses,
converging on a particular conception, so that they all agree with it.
And they bring to it baggage from their own personal existences, that
isn’t shared by the general community.
Although
the concept is shared by the general societal community, the individuals
don’t share it, they have their own experience, and it’s got to
prove true to each one of those. As long as it proves true to each one
of those, it is true, and that’s what it is, but if one of them says
it doesn’t work for me because of something in my personal experience,
then what they need to do is to come up with a paradigm that explains
that everybody else’s point of view and theirs as well in a new light,
and as soon as they do that, then that’s what it was supposedly all
along, but in fact from this perspective, it only comes into being when
it is proposed.
Q:
Hmmm. That’s wild because it seems like almost contradictory -- it’s
weird.
It’s a
very big thought. And it’s the same place you get when you go to your
passionate argument, and you begin to see that all is nothing and
nothing is all. It’s as narrow as infinity. When you begin to see that
and it makes sense, then you have become a model of zen. When you get
this particular thought, you become more aware of mental relativity,
because it really is one of the central places that you have to lose the
paradox, in order to know that you are becoming one with that
perspective.
So, all
this is tied in then to our space sense and our time sense, and whether
things are right or wrong, or good or bad, or whether we should stick
with our guns or change. Or whether we should change from seeing the
problem outside, to seeing the problem inside. Or whether we should see
the problem as outside, still, but just give up on it, because it
can’t be solved. Now, that by itself is an interesting philosophy, but
it doesn’t come into existence until you actually creating a model in
our society, whereby you can explain the mechanism through which it
happens. This is really intriguing.
We are
going to start with the neurology, and work our way through
understanding justification in terms of the brains neurology about
chemistry, and then we are going to work our way through mental
relativity understanding, and then we are going to work our way through
a psychological understanding, and then we are going to work our way
into the final perspective which is external or physical justification.
So, we are going to start with the physical part of the mind, and then
go to the mental relativity part of self-awareness, and then go to the
psychological part of the mind, and then we are going to carry it
outside, and then bring it back to the body. So, we’ve gone full
circle.
Q:
Now, justification is a style of problem solving?
Well,
problem solving and justification are two means for dealing with an
inequity. When you try to get rid of the inequity, it’s problem
solving, when you try balance the inequity, that’s justification.
O.K., so
first of all, in terms of the neurology, there are a couple of models.
(ON BOARD):
We have
neural networks in the brain, and these neural networks are little
things that look like little brains. They are called ganglia. There’s
a left hemi-ganglion, and a right hemi-ganglion, and within it, maybe
four thousand neurons are all interconnecting. Then they connect one to
another and then you have all these little neural networks. That’s why
it’s not just in neurology, because they are little tiny networks,
within a larger network, with subgroups. And there’s a biochemistry
that exists outside here, that all of these ganglia are in that effects
them as a group. And there’s also a membrane of the ganglion, a little
micro-climate zone, and one side of the ganglion produces primarily the
dopamine, and the other side produces the seratonin. There is sort of a
balance between the dopamine and the seratonin in the network. This is
where our real space and time sense come from in the ganglia.
Our sense
of mass and energy are kind of dealing with the external here. There’s
this larger biochemistry and the big network. The big network has 4,000
neurons and if we look at it as a single entity, that’s like one
switching point, and this is another switching point between themselves,
so it has less resolution, than when start looking at what’s actually
going on here. This matter of resolution here is that they would each
appear to be containing our sense of mass. In other words, it’s there,
it’s not a very binary sense, all these things work together and say
yes or no. So, y ou sort of get that sense. Whereas, the biochemistry
that works outside of it, is our sense of energy. That there is either
pressure upon it or not, in a very unsophisticated way or less resolved
way. When you get down to the level of the ganglia themselves, inside,
it becomes more sophisticated, because now you are dealing with
relationships between things, instead of just binary states between
things.
And you
have the enclosed micro-climate in our biochemistry is such that you
have a neuron, and there’s something over here called the threshold.
The threshold here is an electrical difference between the outside of
the neuron, and the inside of the neuron, when you are looking at the
axon. The axon is this body of the neuron, and it has its receptors, and
it’s dendrites. And they all come up here and go to various neurons.
So, all of these connections to various different neurons.
One of
the first places we notice space and time is in the synapse, where the
two come together. There’s some neuron over here that’s firing and
when it fires, the way it works is down at the bottom, there are little
spherical containers holding the neurotransmitters, that are created
inside one of these little areas and shooting it out. And these things
migrate and are attracted to the edge of the membrane, depending upon
the degree of calcium that’s contained in this liquid inside. And the
amount of calcium has to do with how frequently this is fired. So, the
more familiar you become, the more calcium builds up. And the more
calcium that builds up, the more of these things are ionized, and
attracted to the bottom . And when enough of them are attracted to the
bottom, what they do is they sit there long enough, which is where you
get time - spatially you get a bunch of them down there. Temporally,
they have to be there long enough. And when they are there long enough,
then if you made one of these larger, with just the edge of this, with
one of these things sitting down there, you go through a series of
steps, where it begins to open up to the outside, until you end up with
something like that.
Eventually,
it just goes straight, but in the meantime what’s happened is that it
has dumped it’s neurotransmitter in here outside into the open
environment. And then your neurotransmitter is totally out, and the
membrane is closed, so there’s a real interesting way that it opens up
like that. And, if it’s there long enough, it will do this. As they
are created, it’s are they getting close to the edge, and they are
sort of like, do you have one here, and they are all lined up on the
edge, or are they pointing out in the center like this. So, that’s
going to determine how many are close to the edge, and we have how many
are close to the edge. And we have how many are close to the edge,
tendency because they are pulled there to stay there longer, and in
greater quantities. And so it adjusts how much of this stuff flows out.
It’s not just that you are going to end up with having it all flow a
certain level. We can modulate it’s affect. So, even though it fires
or doesn’t fire, if it fires, it could just be a little tiny fire, and
there could be a lot of neurotransmitter dumped out.
So, that
controls the amount of biochemical that’s going into the synapse.
Remember, the synapse is the one that comes down here, and then it’s
captured by the one that comes in. The neurotransmitters don’t just go
directly from here to here, like flaming torpedoes or something, some of
them go directly there, but they also spread out, and get into the
general mix. Various atoms of the neurotransmitters. And as they do,
they get over here, they get to work throughout the ganglia, inside it.
So that whenever anything fires, that has thought that occurs. But,
maybe they could be firing seratonin, or they could be firing dopamine.
Or a lot of other neurotransmitters, but they all have the same kind of
effect, to cause excitement or slow them down. Well, the dopamine has a
tendency to reduce the calcium inside, while the seratonin has a
tendency to increase it. So, it doesn’t just affect the receiver, it
also reflects what’s happening here. So, that while you have something
that is firing, and gives it a tendency to fire more and more
frequently, at the same time, what’s out here, could be causing it to
fire less and less frequently.
So, that
means that there could be inhibitors from the outside that inhibit a
specific signal coming from the outside. In other words, even if
something is very familiar, coming from this particular neuron, from a
sensory neuron, of which there are millions throughout your body, --
well, if one of these pathways says "fire" and the rest of the
ones have something going on that say "don’t fire" its not
going to fire, because this threshold is the difference between an inner
and outer electrical energy, in terms of the ionization , and as such,
that can be controlled by putting more ions of one kind or another
inside or outside. And because of that you can adjust the action
potential. All of a sudden the potential gets to this point, and if it
hits that threshold, it will fire. When it fires, it overboards, spikes,
and it goes down back like this and then comes just under it, and it
forms real interesting wave patterns, a typical wave pattern. So, it’s
going along underneath it., and it’s always ready to fire. Something
drives it over the edge, then it takes up it’s own inertia, goes
through the whole thing, and then after it fires it dips down, so that
it will prevent it from firing, which is what gives us our binary sense.
If it just came back down, being ready to fire, we would think analog,
instead of thinking binary.
But, the
very fact that it dips down, prevents it from doing that. Below the line
it's not existing, at the line it doesn't exist - it's at that magic
point. But, when it comes down below this line, it firmly does not
exist, so it firmly cannot fire again , until things build back up to
that level. Well, one of the reasons it does that is of course to build
up more neurotransmitters inside which takes some time, so it doesn't
completely wear itself out. And that's when you have people who are drug
users who actually over-work things to the point that no longer does it
have to sit there and it comes down like this... and as a result, it
ends up almost continuously firing and never actually dropping below the
threshold, and people just fry their brains, literally, because the
current is constantly going. So, that's with the effects of drugs. And
one of the effects of other kinds of drugs is to make this deeper, so
that it actually lowers the whole scale, and requires more stimulation
to bring it up to this point to make it fire, so you've got brain
freeze.
But,
that's what's happening at the neurological level, and it does effect
directly the neurotransmitters when you are taking drugs of one kind or
another, including coffee, smoking or breathing smog.
Q:
If you took away the tendency to not exist, then you could have more
firm beliefs in things that otherwise....
Not
really because what it does is if you fill your mind with thought, you
have no place for knowledge. And so you end up having to do a trade-off.
Right now, the optimum balance between thought and knowledge exists in
the biochemistry without external influences, unless there is something
congenitally wrong with you. As a result of it, it functions very, very
well. But, the moment that you start playing with that, one way or
another, then you're either doing it at the expense of knowledge or at
the expense of thought. They can see both effects in people who are
taking different types of drugs, depending on what they are on.
Adjusting
this threshold all the way up here are manic depressives. Depressives.
They don't call them manic-depressives anymore because that's a bad
name. But, when you have what they call a depressive disorder, it lowers
it so that effectively it would be a congenital problem, and effectively
you would have to take drugs like Prozac or Lithium or something to
handle the overload in one direction or the other. Now, when you've got
this going on, just with one neuron, all you can hold is whether it's
firing or not. That's really all you can get out of it by itself. But,
you've got something else going on, you've got the energy level that is
lifting the whole scale up or down, and that thing is lifting the whole
scale up or down is telling you that's the effect of the knowledge side
...is it there or is it not? But, it's kind of a thought part, how
familiar - a degree of familiarity that's being controlled by how it
lifts up the threshold or not or moves it toward the threshold by
changing that potential between the inside and the outside of the
neuron. So, effectively that gives you your analog sense. Your binary
sense is that firing is not, your analog sense is how close or how far
away from firing is it being carried by outside influences. So, we get
this cross-over and spill-over, and you could end up with a neuron that
would fire, even though there was no direct stimulation, because
everything around it was saying this is what's going on, and so this one
goes along with it, because of the spill-over of the neurotransmitters.
Now,
justification is happening at this level. Justification and problem
solving. Problem solving is saying does this one get any kind of a
response in from the neuron that triggers a fire. That's problem
solving. However, justification is even though something says fire, I'm
not going to fire because a bunch of other things around it have
recently said don't fire by putting out dopamine and so it's put a
damper on the whole idea, and now even though there's enough energy
coming in to make it fire all by itself, the environment won't let it
fire. That balances the inequity. The inequity is balanced because no
response was taken by the neuron to it's environmental stimulation.,
because of conditional concerns, which balance them out. This is the
smallest level that you can see justification and problem solving
happening yet. And also it's the smallest level at which you can see
mental sex happening. Because, I just labeled them problem solving and
justification from a male point of view. When you respond to a direct
stimulation from your environment, that would be problem solving for
males. But, not doing it would be justification. But, remember problem
solving and justification are neither good nor bad, their just two
different labels. One is saying you balance the inequity, that's
justification, and if you don't balance it , it's problem solving.
We talk
about male and female problem solving and justification being reversed.
One's problem solving is the other's justification. One's justification
is the other's problem solving. In fact, for a female mental sex mind
will be saying what's this level that says fire or don't fire, that's
been created? Regardless, of external stimulation, my experience has
told me that this is something I should do, or not do. I should react or
not react or react a certain degree or certain level, or in a certain
direction overall, holistically. Whereas, if in spite of the fact, that
this is putting a kibosh on it, by putting it way down there, because of
the external overflow or fall-out from the other neurons in that
biochemistry. If something hits this so strong, or so repeatedly in a
quick manner, that it makes it fire anyway, then for females, that's
justification. You went ahead and did it , because your environment said
so, even though you felt it wasn't something you should do. And for
women, problem-solving is determining whether this is something that has
a big tendency to occur, or a small tendency or a tendency not to occur.
And that's why women are constantly gauging at how things are going,
because they are measuring how close to the threshold the line is
moving. Is it getting closer or is it getting farther away. Am I having
more of a tendency to do it? Do I feel more strongly towards doing it,?
Am I getting on the verge of doing it? Or am I moving away from doing
it? That's because at that level of the problem of working towards your
pregnancy, it's going to bias it one way or another.
It's
either going to bias it up, where it comes very close to this threshold,
and makes the biochemistry have virtually no influence on the way things
fire, and yet all the information is going to be coming from here, from
the neurons. And the neurons will take over as being the first line of
defense, because they are the only ones who have any power in that kind
of a scenario for determining patterns, and responding to the
environment, which gives a tendency for them to be more externally
oriented, because they are dealing with direct stimulation from the
external environment, which is why the whole physical body of men is
more geared towards direct physical stimulation. Whereas for a woman,
it's more of a long term, holistic, wide ranging, average doubt sort of
thing. It doesn't have any linearity to it at all, because it will be
put down here, where this thing will be limited and you won't get much
firing for two weeks as with men. And instead self-awareness will grow
by watching the difference between in how close or far self-awareness is
moving which in time creates waves. So, women become much more wave
oriented, which is the emotional sense, whereas men become much more
arrangement oriented, which is the spatial sense, because they are
looking at specific things firing, as opposed to getting the overview of
how things are changing in general.
Each one
has as much detail as the other for different purposes. Now, why do we
have this bias in there at all? Because if we have it set neutral, and
you don't put that bias on to create self-awareness, self-awareness
doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. And it doesn't happen because of
the fact that there's nothing to differentiate between what this is
doing, compared to what this is doing. And in neurological firing versus
the biochemistry, each are equally weighted with the other. And because
they are equally weighted, anything that you would want to consider
space and time sense, would each have as much weight and you would stand
there mentally like a deer in the headlights, frozen because your mind
-- you intellect tells you to go there, and your emotion tells you to go
there, and you just stand there. You can't compare your reason to your
emotion, unless one of them has a bias. When one has a bias, it becomes
the yardstick, and the other becomes the one that is measured. And you
can turn that around and invert it in your own mind. And when you flip
it around and invert it, then you concentrate on the other one, but
you're vacillating between the two, back and forth, you can't do both at
the same time, or there's nothing to measure. So, your self-awareness to
exist requires that bias.
Why do we
not just have one bias? Spatial only. Because it has it's own blind
spots. You're not going to see how things are changing in it's wave
form. That's why things like culture and upbringing and cultural
indoctrination in terms of the overview, not the specific ceremonies you
go through, but the meaning of what it is to be a member of society is
carried by women, because they have a better sense of it. Whereas for
men, the immediate nature of dealing with problems and wars and solving
problems and external things, that's what they deal with because of the
neurology, and so each one of us, fills in the other's blind spot, which
ties right into the evolution of why there are two different kinds of
species on the planet, and why they require each other, and why they get
together to mate, is not so much to mate to make babies. The species
could have been created where they would create them without having the
other side, but any of those to try it, would have failed to be viable,
because they have a blind side for survival that they couldn't see into.
And only when these two different ways of looking at the universe, which
are completely different perceptions, get together and protect each
other's backs, do you have a single viable unit, in terms of survival of
the society. And so the body follows along with that, and each body
going towards what is most appropriate to that kind of mental thinking
where it sort of favors your strengths. And as it favors your strengths,
it allows you to do what you do best, because of the kind of body you
have. And then when two such bodies come together, you become a viable
unit where you are protecting your blind spots for each other. And so,
that's just dealing with a single neuron.
Q:
Does someone who wants to become strong and decide they're not tend to
be biased toward mental sex of a male person wanting to pay more
attention to the biochemistry ... it looks as though there's not enough
to pay attention to ....
Well, no
because that only lasts for two weeks, and after two weeks it goes away
and it's equal between men and women. The bias goes away. But, the
imprint has been left in the self-awareness as to which you favor as the
very foundation of your self-awareness. So, that's the thing, you could
get rid of that bias, but you'd have to lose your entire self-awareness
to do it. But, the bias is no longer biochemically supported, and as a
result of that, that's why it only becomes that 25% tendency and you
have the three other areas because then you can train yourself to be
independent of the now neutral biochemistry.
Q:
How is that biased?
Dynamically,
on your very soft patterns. And to answer your question, when you have a
single neuron, then you get multiple stimulation from different neurons,
and then you go to different neurons eventually because they don't
happen instantaneously, because neurotransmitters take a while to move
across the synapse. It's almost immediate, but not immediate, but takes
travel time. But, because it takes travel time, it takes a lot for a
signal to move itself through the brain from place to place. As a
result, it creates currents and eddies within the brain from the ganglia
and between ganglia. So that these currents and eddies then cross their
paths, and some of them undue something that said go this way and
something else comes in and blocks it, and something else comes in with
this one, and reinforces it, so it becomes stronger. So, when this kind
of thing happens, then you are beginning to create internal thoughts
that are prejudices, and that are biases and at that point you end up
with the mind having that delaying factor which creates all the variety
of currents and eddies within it. And those are all those different
points of view that are created as a result of this sort of this kind of
criss-crossing effect in the matrix, plus the delay factor.
Q:
What makes those biases continue like when the biochemicals recede and
what makes the tendency to do that, where is that 25% maintained?
Usually
it works .... when you set up the patterns that are occurring, do the
way the neurons communicate with each other,...it will then trigger
....it's sort of like this, biochemistry has this bias and there's the
threshold and the bias has been pressed down here. As a result, the
brain starts to create patterns based on it being in this direction.
When this moves back up there, because it goes back to normal, the brain
that has the patterns being created will now try to press it back down,
because the patterns were balanced when this was down here. If this
moves up, it throws this out of balance, and this tries to compensate by
coming back, like water seeking it's own level. So, the thoughts
themselves, because the thoughts themselves are what hits the neurons
and causing them to fire, causing new biochemicals to be released. And
so this will have a tendency to try and make the level go back down.
That's when you are imbalanced, which is why we are never imbalanced
from the moment we are born.
Q:
When does that rise, when does that level rise?
After the
two weeks. It says right here zero, at neutral let's say for sake of
argument. And let's say this is a dopamine brain, a female brain. So, it
takes that level, it moves it down here to a new level for two weeks.
When it does that, it creates brain patterns that rise like this. Now
this rises and so now it's up here, and when it is, if these stayed
here, they are no longer appropriate. It leaves the brain patterns up
here, and the brain patterns seem like they are out of whack, in
reference to zero. And because of that they try to drive themselves back
down to where they ought to be. And so in order to drive themselves back
down to where they ought to be, in the act of doing that, it creates the
biochemistry that tries to make this go back down again.
Q:
And that's a permanent situation ?
Always
trying to force the biochemistry in that other direction. And the same
thing for men in the reverse direction. So, the point is that by the
very nature of bringing this up, it immediately sets up an imbalance
that this tries to compensate for. And so that's the key, is that once
you've got that imbalance in there, and the self-awareness starts, at
that point, you can never get away from that because this is always
underneath it all, trying to get it back to this point. And only if you
get it back down to this point, will you be satisfied, and if you are
satisfied, you lose your mind, you lose your self-awareness. If you are
completely satisfied, you are not self-aware, you are not there. You
just become experiential, both for men and women.
Q:
So, is that what you were saying happens when you are on drugs?
That can
happen when you are on drugs, you reach complete fulfillment. Complete
fulfillment also might be someone who goes into a catatonic stupor.
Because they have lost their entire self-awareness -- it's gone, because
of chemical imbalance or because of experiences that led to chemical
imbalances. And what they've done is they've managed to drive things
back down to this point, so the brain waves are sitting right there at
neutral, and totally cancel each other out.
Q:
What I was trying to get at, my point was that I'm from the mind that
I'm trying to see what it's like to be spatially minded.
What you
do is through your experiences, even though this tendency is something
that's built into the fabric of your brain, it's filled in at one level
of resolution, and because it's built in at one level of resolution,
which is below the level of your consciousness, other levels of
resolution are available to you to be influenced completely by the
outside environment, and as a result, through your upbringing, through
your training and through your conscious choice, you can choose at any
moment to look at something spatially or temporally. For example, you
can say, let's look at what I've just said and understand the
understanding of all of this information and try and get it. Or we could
say let's go over the order in which this information was presented.
O.K. well, one's looking at it spatially, and one's looking at it
temporally. We have a choice on which way we are going to focus our
minds. That's as equal in weight to the tendency that makes us go to the
spatial or temporal because of that dopamine before birth. And the other
two are the ones we don't think about . Like, I'm over here, and maybe
something's happening there, or I happen to notice Mac over there, but I
don't really see him, he's just in the corner of my eye. That's going to
have an influence on me because it's something that I observed, and all
that goes into my subconscious.
As a sum
total of all that, when certain patterns overlap and create common
tendencies that we've seen similar things and similar contexts, then it
gives us all of our drives, and all of our desires, which could be
spatial or temporal, because of the kind of environment we are in. Plus
we can have training, where we can go in particular to learn to do
spatial tasks or temporal tasks in general. And we can pick up
conditioning training that allows us to do spatial or temporal things,
and those can be learned by men or women, and then you have the
conscious choice of at any given moment, am I going to look at the
temporal or spatial and for how long? Or which one will I always look at
first? So, in dealing with that, that's why when you train yourself for
business, it's different than training yourself, for working on a help
line or something. They are going to use temporal sense, more than the
spatial sense.
Anyway,
all those three can then combat that, but then it never goes away,
because it's self-sustaining. It's self-nurturing. It's not like the
tendency as you get older, will go away, because of your experience.
It's a self-sustaining thing, which is the other thing that we get into
when you get all this criss-crossing going on , that we've talked about.
Eventually, things can become recursive. When something chases it's own
tail, and you get a thought that's created holistically inside that this
point originally came in, and triggered this, which triggered that,
which triggered this , which triggered that, and so on. Until it gets
over here to this point, where it just keeps going around in the circle,
even though this has stopped, and becomes a black hole. That's the same
thing we give to black holes. That's how a black hole is formed
essentially is that something becomes closed and becomes recursive. So
that because there's the delay factor, it's almost like having the
equivalent of a super conductor at room temperature. Because there's the
delay factor, by the time this one has gotten around there again, this
initial 1.1, by the time you get up to number one, number one has had a
chance to re-create it's neuro-transmitters, rejuvenate itself, and be
already to fire again when it's stimulated by number eight.
So, it
becomes a little loop. Now, what does this loop do? Well, this loop,
because it's looping around there, if you look at it in a structural
sense, nothing can get out of it. Things can go into it, because extra
energy can come in and when extra energy comes in, it just adds to the
loop. But, nothing inside can get out, and nothing can actually pass
that point. That becomes an event horizon. Anything that goes on here is
a part of a mind that's lost to your self-awareness. However, until this
cycle gets broken.
Q:
Amnesia or something?
Well, not
exactly amnesia, that can be an aspect of amnesia, but the main point is
this is more like a prejudice or it's more like an assumption or it's
more like a given that you've accepted. When I'm saying these words to
you, you don't stop and try to figure out what each word means, your
looking at what the sentence means, at what the paragraph means. If you
stopped to consider each word, you wouldn't be able to follow the
conversation. So, you accept the words as given, and you accept the
words that I'm using to mean what you expect them to mean, and you don't
consider that I might mean something else by the words. You only
consider that I might mean something else by the connection of words
that you are getting from it. But , you think I mean what I mean when I
say the words. That is another question...that's one of these things
operating in your brain. And so, that little area has become closed off
to consideration. But, it has it's effect because remember, each one of
these things that's firing is not just linearly firing to the next one,
but , also creating spill-over, fall-out. And that fall-out goes up in
here, so where you have an over-abundance of one kind biochemistry from
that fall-out, if that sustains the energy to drive this, and at the
same time, the fall-out's going out here, which tends to drag other
things into it, and it's like a black hole.
Q:
What's the fall-out, because I thought you said that nothing leaves it?
The
biochemistry. Nothing leaves it in terms of the neurology, because one's
firing, and the next is firing, and the next and the next., so the
neurology becomes a closed circuit. But, the biochemistry is still
having a fall-out effect. And that biochemistry then, can effect things
on the outside, and what it does is have a tendency to taint anything
connected to this holistically. An approach to this, or a bias or a
point of view will taint anything that's associated with it. Anything
that is connected with this thing in any kind of narrow capacity will
have the biochemistry that will taint it with the same prejudice, that's
generated inside of the black hole of your mind. That's how it effects
sometimes if this is big enough, and these things grow very, very large.
It can be more than one ganglia, it can be a bunch of them that all
become part of a big circuit and they communicate one to another. That's
a higher level of justification when you can't get in to a whole area
here of other ganglia, because each ganglia connects to another one, and
therefore the biochemistry will have an even wider ranging effect,
perhaps through the whole brain.
So, you'd
end up with a complete brain bias against something, and that's fourth
level justification, because you move from just a bias of the neuron to
a bias of a single ganglia to a bias of a single group of neurons to a
bias of a ganglia, to a bias of a group of ganglia, which effects the
entire brain. And by that time, there isn't anything left inside your
head that's unaffected by the fall-out. And because there's nothing left
in your head unaffected by it, you no longer have any balance that you
can see, to compare two things to, because you only see one point of
view on that issue, because it's impact is all over your head. And
you've lost any perspective on it. Instead, all you have is a point of
view, and no perspective, because you can't compare the two sides of it,
you only see one side. And that's when you are in fourth level
justification is when you lose perspective, and all you've got left is
point of view. When it comes to psychology, in true justification.
For women
it works a little bit differently. It's a more complex model, because
it's dealing with the currents and eddies that are formed in terms of
the chemistry and the biochemistry being self-sustaining so that you end
up with the same uplifting areas in the brain of having this kind of
thought chemistry constantly generated, and that will then create or
trigger certain responses and if the entire brain becomes biochemically
biased because of a female point of view being completely accepting and
given, going to fourth level justification. Then, the entire neurology
will create soft patterns that are slanted as compared to the objective
reality, because no longer are two thoughts entertained at the same
time. Now, there is but a single thought. So, when a woman has but a
single thought, it gets behind it ...that's fourth level female
justification. Which is when a woman has to make commitments and things,
and justify. So, that's how that works.
Obviously,
there's no way to tell which is good and which is bad, because if these
are justifications that are built by these spatial and temporal
summations. We have two terms in psychology, and we talked about
connecting it to high level psychology, which are spatial summation, and
temporal summation. And they are real easy terms, because you can look
at them at a single neuron level, but they operate all those different
levels we were talking about - the neuron, group of neurons, ganglia,
and whole brain. And if you look at the spatial summation, that means
here is a single neuron that's thinking about firing, and there are
several neurons that are connected to it, and they all give it just
enough juice from their exposure to data to cause it to fire, because
enough has gotten around it from all of these sources combined, that's
why it's spatial summation.
Whereas,
looking at temporal summation, you've got a neuron, and you have a
single neuron coming into it, and then you choose repeatedly, quickly
enough that the juice from the first firing doesn't go away before the
juice from the second firing shows up, and eventually, the levels around
it build up to the degree that it fires just because of repeated
exposure - that's temporal summation, because it sums up what happens
over time, as opposed to summing up what happens over space. Good
psychological terms of neurology. Every neuron is getting both at all
times; temporal summation and spatial summation, because eventually
what's happening is there is energy that comes in, and this is as far as
current thinking goes....is that you have your sensory neurons, like in
the eye or the ear, or the skin, and that gives you information, and the
information goes by in terms of one neuron making the other fire in a
long chain, so it's linear. And that linear effect that it has that goes
down like your spinal cord and everything from the hypothalamus , and
the thalamus and gets into your brain, and when it gets into brain, then
at that point, then the biochemistry takes over, because up to this
point, it was just a linear progression from each sensory neuron to your
brain, and it carries the information, and if a lot of neurons get
together and converge in the same area and say all this information is
coming from all over, then it's a holistic effect, it is a spatial
summation. If one of them keeps repeating the same thing, it's a
temporal summation.
Q:
Now, on the temporal summation if fires before it's able to...
It
fires over and over again. It just fires over and over again, and what
happens is that when it fires, the one that's receiving the information
is getting neurotransmitter, and before all the neurotransmitter has
been used up from the first firing, the second firing adds it's dose,
and so now it's a little bit higher. And then before that can be used
up, the third firing comes in and it's even a little bit higher. So, it
constantly builds it up, until the neuron finally fires, because the
overall effort of repeatedly firing is finally built up, just with that
one neuron, and the biochemical for it to fire, from the receiver. So,
both of these are happening all the time in the brain, and when they do,
they are giving the mass and the energy effectively, that come into our
brains. But, because we have these other things going on, like these
little recursive areas that are closed off completely, and other areas
that are completely neutralized by cross currents. So, that instead of
having a closed black hole, they have no tendencies what-so-ever. They
are fully neutralized, no tendency to fire, versus a tendency not to
fire. And those are the two opposite ones. That's a completely open one.
In other words, there's a great inertia sitting there. Inertia and
change are really not opposites. Inertia means that something is going
to be stuck in whatever form it's in and has a great tendency not to
budge. If it's moving, it will stay moving. If it's stopped, it will
stay stopped. That's what inertia is; it has nothing to do with moving,
it has nothing to do with change.
Change is
something else. What you are really looking at is a volatile atmosphere
in which the slightest breeze could cause things to move. When you have
absolute neutrality, to make the whole thing go one way or the other,
requires just the touch of a breath. One little neuron firing one time
into a neutral sector, could cause the whole thing to respond. And so,
when we become sensitive to particular issues, emotionally, is when we
have an area that has become volatile, like that. So, it's absolutely
neutral, and all it takes is one little thing touching it, and we go
bezerk. We are sensitive to that area. And the ones in which we are
totally closed on, and unresponsive in are the ones with the little
prejudices for each one, that is completely a closed, heavily guarded,
gravitational little area, that won't let anything interchange it's
course. And you can eventually dislodge them, but you have to do it
holistically, and you have to do it at a larger scale. For example, if
you have a single ganglion that's got a little prejudice going in it.
And then you are going to have to come up with a circuit that deals with
several ganglia together to create all of the circuit that would cause
this one to change and flip over. And you could take that prejudice and
flip it over, by neutralizing it, and then giving it one little tap --
that's what happens at the moment of the leap of faith. The prejudice is
set with the neutrality. So, it's a volatile atmosphere that sits on the
head of a pin. So, instead of being at the base of the pyramid, it's at
the top of the pyramid. One of them, you can't dislodge, without tearing
it down from the top. The other one, has no stability until it's blown
off.
And so,
those are the two kinds of stories you have, and that deals with the
change and the steadfast, and it deals with the moment of leap of faith.
And in leap of faith stories, you have a pyramid that is sitting on it's
head in one case, ready to topple, and on the other one, sitting on it's
base, and needs to be turned down. But, if the tearing down is the focus
of it, it's a non-leap of faith story, that leads to somebody
ultimately, you can see them as having changed, or having remained
steadfast, because it tears it down to that moment. Whereas the other
one builds up to the point of the pinnacle. So, which way it will go?
That's why we talked about why it's important to surround yourself, when
you stop justifying with a bunch of people who are like the kinds of
people you like to be, because when you hit that volatile moment, what
you'll have done is you'll have neutralized all of your justifications.
In other words, you'll take all of your justifications that are the
heavy groundings -- the foundations of what you believe and work them to
the point that you've neutralized them, so they just become volatile
moments.
And those
volatile moments mean that there is no bias within you to be one kind of
a person or another kind of person. All it requires is the breadth to
push you one way or another. So, you want to make sure you are around
people who are going to influence you in the direction that you want to
go, while you still have some opinions. That's very important, because
you can easily turn from saint to monster, like that or the other way
around. In other words, you sit there, like this, and something external
effects you -- which is effectively chaos, because it's outside of your
system. And it makes you tip one way or the other, and once you are on
that side, then you continue to crawl down that side, and form another
foundation.
Every
point of view is limited because when you are taking a point of view,
you are looking from somewhere, and you are not looking where you are.
When you reach absolute non-justification, you have no point of view.
You have no ethics, you have no morals, you have no sense of
self-preservation. Everything is balanced, everything is neutral, and
you sit at the head of the pin. And because of that you see everything
-- I know, I've been there. You see everything. You see all sides of the
mountain, because you are sitting at the apex of it, and there's nothing
above you. So, everything of any concern to anyone is all down here, and
you can see into every single valley. And now the question is what
valley do you want to live in, because when you are sitting up there,
nothing happens -- nothing happens at all, you are incredibly bored,
because nothing means anything to you. There's no meaning. All meaning
is lost, nothing matters, life doesn't matter, death doesn't matter. All
is one, one is all -- it's nirvana, but you come as close to losing your
sense of self as you can, considering the bias you are still going with.
And when you sit at that point, then it's just like waiting for the wind
to blow. And eventually that will tilt you one direction and then you
will go down that mountain.
You'll be
happy to be not bored, and you will latch on to anything that makes you
not bored, because it really leaves you lost, drifting, pointless and
directionless. And you'll grab onto anything to give you a sense of
direction at that point.
Q:
Once you fall down, after having been on the mountain, does it affect
your ability?
No.
Because you have your memory of what the other valleys look like. But,
how you are going to appreciate them, will determine which valley you
are in. So, if you are in the valley of the mobster, you will appreciate
the valley of the saints as being a bunch of idiot jerks, who are not
doing anything to help themselves or really stupid. Whereas, if you fall
in the valley of the saints, you are going to take pity upon the poor
people who are there acting as mobsters, for they know not what they do.
And so, which ever valley you fall in, you will have a better
understanding of what was in the other valleys. But, it will only be an
understanding intellectually. What's actually happening is it's changing
the way you feel about them, when you fall off one direction or another.
And that's going to determine your perspective as opposed to just your
knowledge of something. It gives you a vector, instead of just a point
of reference.
The last
thing we are going to go over is physical justification. Now on to what
we said we were going to do....we took it all the way from the neurology
through the mental relativity stuff, and into the psychology and now we
are going to go into physical justification, the last step. This brings
us one level up above where we started at neurology. Physical
justification -- all the stuff we've been talking about has been only
looking at the mind, and the only reference we had to the outside world,
was in terms of what influenced the mind in sensory perception ; what
might be the jump-start factor, or what might make an inequity appear to
exist because of outside stimulation. However, that presupposes that we
don't have any control of our environment. But, we do have control of
our environment and we can change our environment. We can change
everything from our bodies to our walls to our garden to our job, to
killing somebody, or moving to another state. We can do lots of things
to change our environment. So, everything we do to change our
environment is a physical justification. Or physical problem solving.
Again, which one is which, depends on whether you are balancing
something, or whether you are eliminating something.
Here's
the way that works: Let's look at do-er's and be-ers up here. Now, in
terms of do-er, we are going to talk about how you approach an inequity.
Well, if the inequity is an internal/external inequity, and of course
the other kinds of inequities being the wholly external or the wholly
internal, the you notice we've got three things, where is the fourth?
Because sometimes it's internal/external, and sometimes it's
external/internal. It makes a difference because when it's
internal/external , then you are saying this is the problem, and when
it's external/internal, you are saying this is the problem. So, it
depends on which direction you are looking from and what you are looking
at. And when you look from one to the other it casts the problem at a
different point so you end up with four problems: the wholly external
problem, the wholly internal problem, an external problem only because
it's seen from the inside, and an internal problem, only because it's
seen from the outside. So, from these three ways of looking at internal
and external, you get four kinds of problems. The four kinds of problems
are the objective view. The three ways of looking at them are subjective
view. That's why you have the three's and four's again; this all comes
back to that.
For each
kind of view, or each kind of problem, do-er's are going to have a
particular kind of approach to deal with them. We've dealt with the ones
that were completely internal in what we've already talked about. But,
we have these two kinds left. The ones that appear as external, are
again the ones where the person has to pass judgment, or determine what
to do as a do-er about an external unbalance. There's the fulcrum,
there's the unbalance. And the question is what to do about that. Well,
if this is a problem because there is an extra heavy weight on this
side, which is bringing it down, if you are problem solving, you remove
the weight , and it goes back into a state of balance. On the other
hand, if you are balancing the inequity, the weight stays here, and you
put another weight over there. And now it goes back into balance, and
you balanced the inequity. Well, what has that done, it's created
greater pressure here, dynamically right there at the fulcrum. And if
you have to do that enough times, it will snap. It will cause an
earthquake, kind of like earthquake forecasting.
So,
that's what's happening. It's the same kind of system that happens in a
mind. It's the same kind of system whether you are consciously
considering it, or it's just the way your mind functions. So, for a do-er
dealing with external situations, those are a couple of ways that they
can go about it. Another way they can go about it would be to have a
weight like this that puts it out of balance and take this in and tie it
down. So, you pull it down and tie it here. And when it does that,
again, you've balanced the inequity. And then you have another way of
doing it. Here's a weight and what we do with that weight is we remove
the weight and we end up with this one. That's the problem solving.
Problem solving is also first level justification. Second level
justification is this one, where you just counterbalance it. And third
level justification, is when you tie it down like this, so you are
artificially holding it, balancing it again. And now you have a weight
that's like this, and you balance that weight by propping it up on this
side. And that's fourth level justification.
Now, when
you give first level and second level justification (those are the same
processes first and second level for men and women). But, for men and
women, third and fourth are reversed. That's called the twist, they are
reversed. So we all will be resolving the problem if a weight is dropped
on something and we remove a weight. There's time to build up stones,
time to cast stones -- that's what that's about -- problem solving. Each
thing is hit with it's opposite. That resolves the problem. You just
undo whatever it is that did it. You go back to the source and take care
of it. And that is first level justification or problem solving for men
and women. But, the second one is when you just counter-balance it. An
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. That's when you end up with that
kind of a thing, when it's counterbalanced. When you go to third and
fourth, that's where it gets really screwed up with a twist. With the
twist, each one will use the other one, as their third level or fourth
level justification. So, this can change again, due to training. This
one here, that's the one that is at the most intrinsic level and it's
going to be looked differently because when you are looking at it in
terms of the female ...we did this in class the other day, ....this is
all from a male perspective, including the differences between male and
female.
Well,
when you look at the female perspective, you look at the same one here,
and you have this fulcrum, and you've got a weight here. How do you put
a weight on the other side, by putting an equal weight -- that's a male
perspective. Female perspective, another way to look at that is to move
the fulcrum. And when you do that, then that's the female version of the
same thing. So, even though we are approaching dealing with an opposite
weight, one's dealing with it by putting another weight in place, which
is the male and the female we are doing the same thing, which is by
adjusting the leverage. That's dealing with third and fourth level
justification, and if I'm supposed to be trying to see into third and
fourth level female justification, that's the place where I have trouble
seeing. Chris can see those real easily, but I can't see them accurately
and easily, because they are the ones I use.
Q:
But, what is an example of how you get into fourth level, propping it
up?
In
the fourth level justification, propping it up, you have a girlfriend,
and your girlfriend gambles. She loses a lot of money, so you give her
money. Fourth level justification, props it up. Third level
justification: your girlfriend gambles and loses a lot of money, so you
make sure she never goes into casinos. It hasn't eliminated the problem,
but it's balanced it by tying her down.
Q:
So, that means the higher up you in your own justification, the further
you are away from seeing the problem?
Well,
yeah the further you are away from seeing the problem, but it doesn't
really make you further away from the problem, it just makes you further
away from seeing it., so that you are actually beginning to try to solve
problems with the solutions, instead of trying to solve the problem, you
are solving solutions. So, generally, people don't jump right into these
things, they go through their own steps. If this doesn't work, they go
to the next one, they try that, if that doesn't work they go to the
next, and on to fourth level justification. If the fourth level
justification doesn't work then they have a dilemma. What a dilemma is
to give up on the problem or look for the solution somewhere else. If
you are looking internal, why not flip it around and look external,
because that's where the problem is , or just give up and accept that
your was blown off in the war and you are not going to be able to dance.
Because, no matter how you try and do it through fourth level
justification, it ain't going to happen.
So,
physical justification is when you intentionally set up external things
that put you into a position where you have to do something somehow.
Like for example, suppose you cut off your own leg, because you were
afraid of dancing. Well, you'd never be called on to dance again, would
you? So, the point is that by doing that , you have set up a physical
situation with a physical justification. A lot of people don't like
their job. And because they don't like their job (imagine that) they
will go deeply into debt, to force them to have to work. They don't
realize that's what they are doing, because it is a physical fourth
level justification. And what they are doing is rather than not liking
their job, getting completely out of debt, so that they could take a job
they liked and earn enough money, would resolve the problem, instead,
they see the process of getting rid of all that debt they've already got
as too costly, too painful. And so they say the debt is too big,
compared to how long it will take me to get rid of it, compared to how
much I want to leave my job. I would rather just stay with the job,
compensate myself by getting some nice things and a by-product of that
is , because I now have this debt, I have to stay at this job, so I've
got a reason to go in every day, because I have to pay off my debt.
Well,
parading that debt becomes a physical justification, because after a
while, you've run your credit up as far as it can go. You can get no
more nice things. Now, you hate your job as much as you did before. But,
now, you have to stick with it, because you are carrying this big debt
that you have to pay off. But, of course there's always a way out, you
can go bankrupt., You're not going to go to jail, nobody goes to jail
from not paying bills. You can go bankrupt and lose your house, and lose
all the nice things that you have. Then you pay a bigger price, because
the problem has gotten larger and larger, while you've been justifying.
But, you can still get out of it like that. But, then people don't want
to pay that price, because they are comparing the day to day small
amount of pain they suffer doing a job they don't like, compared to the
big cost of the immediate loss of everything that they really value,
which they don't want to do. Whereas, if they added up all the pain day
by day that they had, they would find that
was a far
larger weight that they carried, than suffering the immediate
consequences, going bankrupt. That's a physical justification, and they
find themselves with external forces that they have created in their
environment that push upon them, to change the shape of what their
desires are, by balancing them out against consequences and costs that
they didn't have to be facing.
But, now
they must face because of decisions that they made, environmental
decisions they made, that now these costs and consequences are very real
and will happen to them now if they do things that they felt they might
earlier. Well, now they can't , because the price is too high. We do
this all the time. In marriages, Physical justification - when you sign
papers and you give somebody half of everything that you make and the
rights to half of everything that you make. Kids, kids are not a great
physical justification -- not that it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Physical justifications can be just as good as they are bad. It doesn't
really matter. Unfortunately, we have such power to change our
environment in this world, compared to before and we have such
converging pressures upon us, that are much more complex than they we
had in the past, that many of us get trapped at fourth level
justifications, before we realize that's not what we wanted. And by the
time we realize this it's too late, because there are things that carry
costs.
Pre-payment
penalty for early withdrawal. Now, there's a great physical
justification. As a matter of fact, lending institutions and businesses
and anybody who exchanges goods or signs contracts, unless they have
.......
Tape
ended here.