I am going to try to push you a little further in a certain direction. Regardless of all I have said about ordinary memory not being able to think of more than one thing at a time, there is a way in which ordinary intelligence can almost think of two things at once. I have often pointed out that ordinary consciousness cannot think two things simultaneously, but I could also say that consciousness is capable of thinking two things at once -- as long as one of them seems to be in memory.
Notice that in instances where you seem to be able to have two thoughts simultaneously, you can see that one of them is arising from memory. That is necessary, insofar as all routine, binary consciousness is based upon comparison. In order to think, you must have memories to continually bounce back against. Consciousness needs this background pool of memory -- for comparison.
Your brain -- that part of the nervous system circuitry that makes you human -- deals with energies in such a way that you could rightly feel, "I am thinking of two things at once." There is not one pristine voice -- one single sound -- within. Even if you can't seem to verbally grasp both voices going on, you can be aware that there is not just one voice in you. There is a voice, and then there is something else. These voices (that I have called "The Partnership") talk continually, switch places, become each other -- and there "you" are. So the brain -- almost -- has the ability to deal with two things simultaneously, but one of them must apparently be entirely locked into the operation of memory.
Have you ever wondered why I emphasized to you that there is nothing in your past life of particular value; that for someone involved in This Activity, so-called childhood traumas or great tragedies are not even worth analyzing? The operation of memory is necessary and important -- you could not think without a functional memory. But what's in your memory is unimportant. The operation of memory is one thing; the content of memory is quite another matter.
If you're going to pass as ordinarily intelligent, there is a minimum requirement as far as memory is concerned. You must have some knowledge of history, of language, to be able to converse. You must have enough memory to provide a basis for comparison in order to function as an "intelligent" human being. Even to do This, you must have enough knowledge of history, man's institutions, and so on to provide a basis for comparing what seems to be "out there" with "in here."
From a certain view, one-half of binary consciousness seems to be charged with the operations of memory. In what seems to be this inescapable Partnership, there are two sets of intellectual, Yellow Circuit awareness going on, and at any given time, one set seems taken up by the operations of memory. Consider that. Half of your intelligence is continually dealing with things suitable for a morgue. Yet, the other half couldn't operate without that happening. Or could it?
The level of intelligence I have called "Revolutionary Consciousness" would surpass ordinary intelligence. Suppose the three levels of "intelligence" were represented by spelling the word three different ways: INTELLEGENCE; INTELLIGENCE; and finally INTELLIIGENCE.
Someone at the "intelliigence" level -- someone above the Line level of consciousness -- a Real Revolutionist -- would, in all situations involving binary consciousness, be merging what seemed to be divisions to produce a new kind of "now." That is, all apparent major and minor divisions -- cause and effect, actions and consequences, the past and the present -- would be merged in revolutionary consciousness. In a sense, for the revolutionist everything would be happening Now.
Once you see that half of your intelligence is brain-locked into the operations of memory, what do you do? What if you could take that half and the other and forcibly merge them? Then the brain would not be running off of energies which seem to be in the past. What would you have then? There's no word for it, but I will go a little further with this description.
I can't say it would be possible to make the brain operate entirely without resistance, so I can't say that everything you now know would be gone. But your immediate experience would be like waking up each morning completely nude, no matter what you were wearing when you went to bed. You wouldn't wake up not knowing how you were dressed the night before -- if you went to bed wearing red pajamas, you'd wake up nude, but you'd know you were wearing red the previous night. It's not that you'd no longer have a memory, but your memory wouldn't mean anything to you.
If your mother called up and said, "Do you remember your Uncle Buzzy?" or the phone company called to ask, "When was the last time you paid your bill?" you'd remember. But the memories would not mean anything to you, personally. The content of memory doesn't matter. Whatever can't be understood doesn't matter, to a revolutionist. The horrible wreck that killed your father -- your awful experiences as a child -- the worst thing you can remember -- means nothing. That sounds harsh, but there is no other way to describe this.
If you were really "intelliigent" -- to a new level of intelligence -- you would not remember anything that was unprofitable. Think about those people you would have in the past considered to be spiritual heroes. Do you actually believe they sat around thinking about the stuff that bothered them -- the really yucky stuff like starving children and how their father died? You may laugh, but some of you might truthfully answer, "Yes," especially if you've been exposed to enough pictures of the prophet praying in the garden painted on black velvet. Probably you imagine somebody with superior insight would not only suffer, but would suffer in a superior way. You're intellegent misspelled with an "e" in the middle if you believe that -- as intelligent as anybody else in the City.
How can you believe someone with a nervous system operating at some higher level would think about anything that was annoying, sad or irritating to them? I'm not talking theoretically -- at a higher level, you simply wouldn't. All the yucky stuff would still be going on in memory, but it would become background noise.
As long as binaries exist in you, there will always be two "me's," two possibilities, a right way and a wrong way, a past and a present. Revolutionary consciousness would amount to a kind of merging of all the binaries inside you into -- Now. What you are thinking Now would not be on the basis of comparing, pushing up against memory. Revolutionary consciousness would not require memory as a counterpart, the way ordinary consciousness does.
This Thing is not a battle against binary consciousness, but a struggle to push beyond that. You couldn't think in the City sense if you only knew one word; you couldn't function without ordinary memory. Life in the 3-Dimensional world needs two to operate. At every level of 3-D existence, the minimum requirement is a division into two. If you have only one emotion, you're not emotional; if you know one word, you're not literate. If not for comparison, you could not be aware of one thing in the ordinary, 3-D world.
To move beyond the 3-D level, take all binaries and forcibly merge them. Put all contemporaneous conditions into a new matrix and force consciousness to go somewhere else, beyond 3-D. You cannot do this under ordinary conditions, so under ordinary conditions, you can't even think of what it would be like to no longer think in binaries.
What would happen if you were not limited to the binaries your ordinary brain activity requires to function? For one thing, your routine City concept of time would be affected. Everything would be all smooshed together, and your sensation of time would drastically shift. Everything would apparently be happening within your new, personal, sensation of Now. And that sense would not depend on pushing against the past.
At this new level of intelliigence with three "i's," the past no longer exists -- you have absorbed it. You still know the past is in you, like a sandwich you've been carrying around in your pocket for forty years. If necessary, you can reach down and take out the past, but your concept of Now is not based upon or limited to what's in your pocket -- you don't depend on that sandwich for nourishment.
Can you picture what that might do to your relationships with people? What if you could walk up to your mother and, with everything you know about your mother still in your pocket, treat her almost as though the two of you have just met? Remember, I said having intelliigence would be like waking up nude every morning of your life. You would treat everyone as though the past -- your's and their's -- was stripped bare. You'd be naked.
Remember I once recommended that when you want some dance between you and another person to change, the first thing to consider is what you could possibly do right now to bring about change. Before even thinking about how the other person should change, consider what's possible for you. To really do that, you have to be free of memory. Otherwise, you're back to thinking, "We've been dancing like this for years," and, "It's that other person's fault, they've always been like this," ad infinitum. You are not a Real Revolutionist if you let memory even enter the picture. Instead you simply determine: Is there anything I can do right now that will make this situation, if not profitable, at least tolerable?
As long as the nervous system is coddled by Life -- treated the way common City sense, psychology and psychiatry dictate -- the past must be dealt with, brought back into consciousness, and talked about, continually. That's the way of life in the City. But someone attempting to be more than routinely intelligent -- someone attempting intelliigence -- must deal with what seem to be the daily pressures of Life on the basis that everything is happening right Now. An intelliigent brain no longer deals with what's going on now as compared to the contours of what happened twenty-five years ago, or an hour ago, or five minutes ago.
At the ordinary level -- even at the level where "intelligence" is spelled correctly with one "i" -- what passes for the intellect deals with methods which won't work and promises that cannot be kept. That is, ordinary people -- including you, including psychiatrists, including everybody -- deal with the past. Of course, psychiatrists have to deal with people who have memory. You couldn't get a dime out of anybody without one -- you might treat them, but they'd forget to pay your fee. Memory -- the past -- could be described as the major mental illness. But after all, a person has to speak up and tell you who they are or you won't know where to send their bill.
Those who pass for intelligent in the City know nothing. Nobody can ever get smart in the City, but nobody notices; they are too busy listening to this background noise of memory. The foundation -- the building blocks -- of the brain is memory. Take that away, and you're no longer conscious in the City sense. Yet a revolutionist must learn not only not to depend on pushing against the contour of the past, but not to depend on the contour of what seems to be the future. There is more to push against apparently "up there" in the future, than there is "back there" in the past. And you have to abandon that.
Sometimes you have to pull out the old sandwich in your pocket and admit you remember Uncle Buzzy. And to live in the City, you have to make some plans. But you cannot allow the brain to operate in its usual mechanical fashion; you can't depend on episodic consciousness. Left to its own devices, if the intellect is not thinking about yesterday, it's dreaming about tomorrow. And yesterday and tomorrow are not part of what a Real Revolutionist needs to think about. Whatever won't fit here -- Now -- means nothing to a revolutionist. Once you are not continually pushing against what you've done or your dream of what you're going to do, everything can be merged into a new sense of what is going on Now.
A well-respected scientist once pointed out that all the physical laws known to man, e.g., the laws of physics and chemistry, came from man's mind. So he supposed that at some point, man might reach a limit in the laws he could come up with. The scientist further surmised that there could be extraordinary laws of the universe -- laws below quarks and semi-quarks, laws within the actual fabric of life -- radical basic laws we didn't know yet. He thought that rather than coming from the mind, these extraordinary laws might exist outside of the human mind. If this were so, said the scientist, these laws might be difficult, if not impossible to comprehend, because they would be, ultimately, irrational.
That is a reasonably intelligent (at the second level) observation. Of course, it was Life, not just some scientist, speaking. Life had this guy say that we might eventually run up against a brick wall in what we can theorize or observe. So, laws to actually describe the building blocks of reality might be beyond the limits of man's mind, and if this is so, such laws are probably hopeless anyway because they will be irrational. If they were rational, we would think of them.
That is most interesting, otherwise I would not have remembered it all these years. It is intelligent in the realm of physics and even philosophy vis a vis the world of ordinary hard science. But, as intelligent as that seems at the second level, the sentiment -- the idea that the scientist pondered -- starts off with the most basic serious flaw in intelligence of the second kind: He divides up consciousness into what goes on "in here" and what goes on "out there."
Of course, any fool realizes "in here" and "out there" are two different things, except me. If I told this scientist that the structure of consciousness is the structure of Life, he might go for that. But then if I said, "But dig it doctor, the order of reality 'out there' IS the order of consciousness." He'd go "Uhhh, I've never heard of you. What are your credentials? And by the way, I'm in a hurry."
The first part of what I just said is not that difficult to swallow. That is almost what the scientist was saying: what we now make of reality is based upon our brain's ability to make reality. I'm not simply sloughing that off. That's still an integral part of the prevailing views of quantum physics, e.g., that our observations, human consciousness affects the "laws" we come up with. Large numbers of cellular collections known as humans would agree that human consciousness in some way affects reality.
But an ordinary person wouldn't be able to turn the concept around. When I said, "Your consciousness not only reflects reality, as you call it, reality reflects consciousness," he'd go, "No, that's silly." He wouldn't even get that far, but if you could, and you saw this, you'd go, "Aha! Now I am intelligent with three 'i's!"
You need to simply see that anything you take to be a true idea you are taking as being a physical law, and these "laws" came from your mind. Not only so-called physical laws, but things like, "My ex-partner was a thief," "My mother is heartless," "The Russians are out to get us." Everything you take as being an actual reflection of reality came from your mind. And where did your mind come from? It did not come from the victory garden, or the local nursery -- you don't know where your mind came from (unless of course you're a psychiatrist and then you know that your mind came from your past and your memories).
I'm referring to all laws -- not just what you regard as scientific laws, but what you take as being the laws of reality: that up is up and down is down; that good people are good and bad people are bad and some people you just can't figure out. Everything at the middle level -- the basic level of intelligent spelled correctly, assuming you pass for being bell-curve middle class sane -- everything you believe is reality, is based upon reason. Everything is.
Now, I will tell you what "reason" is. Reason, as it is ordinarily known, is the end of one level of intelligence. That is it, literally. Here is a good old classic example that covers all of what is commonly known as "reason": All A's are B's, C is an A, and therefore C is a B. That is the beginning and the end of the operations of the human brain when it operates within this second level of intelligence -- when it functions reasonably. That is it -- from Einstein to Prince Arnold the Loud, to Pope Pious the Maybe, to you. The basis of reason is the end of one level of intelligence.
Reason is the termination of one line, one level, of intelligence. You must come to the conclusion, "therefore, C is a B," or nothing would make sense. Without reason, you couldn't order food in a restaurant, you couldn't go shopping, you couldn't do your job or comb your hair. Without reason, you couldn't put on red pajamas and go to bed every night, and you couldn't get out of bed the next morning. Every law and fact that you know is simply the point terminus in you of one line of intelligence.
On a wider scale, beyond some individual point of knowing how to get out of bed and make pancakes, is the whole range of you being intelligent with two "i's." To be intelligent you have to be reasonable. To be intelligent there has to be a whole spectrum -- a whole line of intelligence -- that came to an end. When the line came to an end is when you stood up and said, "I am now intelligent," just as everyone else in the City did.
For all humans to say, "I am now intelligent," a great Line, a whole level of intelligence, had to reach its end. That is the only way that man came to be reasonable. It is the only way that you can come to any conclusion. To be intelligent at the second level, you have to be able to say, "All A's are B's, C is an A, therefore..." Man is operating right at the end of that level; this is where everyone gets ready to say, "therefore...C is a B." Period. Conclusion. That has got to be true or Life would not work at the 3-D level. That has got to be true or man would be bad news instead of being worthwhile to Life. Humanity would be a bad meal waiting to pass on, a gallstone waiting to be removed.
Everyone starts out assuming that an extraordinary intelligence would be weird. They ask, "Will I be able to raise the dead, read minds and pick tomorrow's numbers? Will I be able to hypnotize the opposite sex so they just roll their knickers down when they see me coming?"
Real Revolutionary consciousness makes ordinary intelligence look childish, but not in some weird, mystical way. Having "intelliigence" means that you are no longer limited to the specific awareness of hard-wired intelligence. Everything that you think you don't know, you know. Everything that you think cannot be known, is known. Everything that doesn't make sense, makes sense. Everything that you don't want to think about, you don't ever think about. So what else do you want? This Activity is in no way anti-intellectual, as you should already realize. You just go from intellegence misspelled, to ordinary intelligence, to a new level of intelliigence. And, my trope for this new level is to add an extra 'i' to the word.
Someone asked me a question recently about what I have described as the Primal Flow, and how it divides itself up. The question concerned how this kind of centralized, specific energy ends up being diffused and split up into the Three Forces in human life. They recalled that I had pointed out that humans do not have a direct sensation of the Primal Flow. The person then asked how this unperceived, undifferentiated flow changes over into the different energies in humans. In other words, how does this one, centralized, stable, undifferentiated flow -- how can the Primal Flow, as I called it -- change into the various personal energies in man?
That's the question. We'll start off with a simple answer: The Primal Flow changes by being only partially known.
Now, let me ask you a question: What if there is no such thing as the Primal Flow? It would just stand to reason that there is; every ounce of your nervous system just seems to yell out that whatever you call it, there has got to be some great something somewhere from whence we all came -- the great one, the river of life, some kind of godhead. That just stands to reason. So, I ask you: What if there is no Primal Flow? And what if the human nervous system simply induces this concept of a primordial flow, from the actions of all the lesser flows in which we are all up to our armpits?
Here's a fast sidetrack: to say that a lesser level induces -- that a lesser level takes generalities and then tries to concoct and derive some more specific principle -- is backwards. It can seem that way, but it's backwards. But, as soon as you see this backwards, then go back and it's the other way around. Induction and deduction are one and the same thing.
What if you had conscious liver cells? They would induce, they would imagine, that there was some higher, more centralized knowledge than what they were exposed to daily. (I'm not playing some childish form of anthropomorphism. I just picked out the liver at random, but if you had liver cells that were conscious in some way, they would almost immediately induce with a certainty that there exists a higher, more centralized, more specific purpose and energy -- that would only stand to liver reason.) It's one step from there to ideas of a liver god, a higher liver consciousness. The liver cells would have no choice.
Being in the midst of splattered, episodic, splintered reality, the cells in Life -- and thus the cells in man -- end up inducing (or, if you prefer, deducing, which is the same thing) something "higher." Now that is really weird, that you can either derive higher specifics from generalities, or you can obtain and see splintered episodic generalities taken from one higher stable unity. On top of that, these two things are apparent opposites. Well, they are opposites if a fish can live out of water and the water can live without fish. The process of induction and deduction are the same thing.
Liver cells are born into their own poker game, just as you are. You were born in this closed game room -- nothing comes in and nothing goes out, that you can make any sense of -- and you can't just get up and leave the game. What if you could -- not just leave the table (which is hard enough), not just change positions or pass up a few hands, but get up and leave the room?
But what if the Primal Flow -- somebody or something that could get up and not only leave the poker game, but leave the room and take the room with them -- doesn't exist? What if there is no Primal Flow? What if there's just a whole bunch of stuff always happening, in your house, in your room, in the City, on the other side of the world. There's just stuff happening, happening, happening.
No matter what your particular nervous system would call it, using religious terms or not, it just stands to your nervous system's reason that somewhere all this stuff happening comes together. What should really interest you is that that doesn't stand to reason, yet everyone on this planet believes it does stand to reason. Everyone believes this regardless of their background, environment or culture. Everyone has the feeling that I'm in the midst of this splattered, splintered, segmented, episodic, chopped-up linear arrangement which goes on and on. Yet in the midst of this perceptual chaos is my belief in my Primal Flow (by whatever name) where all of this stuff comes together. Or (the same thing) in the midst of chaos is my certainty that all this stuff was once united somewhere in some Primal Flow and then it all got torn asunder, somehow.
What if that simply is not so? What if there is no Primal Flow? I didn't say there wasn't, but what if? What would that do to what passes for your certainty now? What would that do to the certainty that there is a basic unified reality somewhere? What if that's simply not true?
I can ask you, but operating at the second level of intelligence, you can't answer because you can hardly bear to think about it. If you could move up somewhere between the second and third levels of intelligence, you might even have a flash of, "Hey, wait a minute, that would mean that this is everything, that there is nothing behind any of this, that 'This is it!'"
Once again, lest you think I'm badmouthing ordinary intelligence, nay, nay. Contraire Pierre! Were it not for the great ability of ordinary intelligence, you couldn't bear the possibility that all of what I just said might be true. But, having ordinary intelligence, you can bear it. Is that not sweet? Does it not work out for the benefit of almost all of us?
You may not want to think about this, but just remember: even conscious liver cells would concoct their own idea, their own liver language, to describe a Primal Flow somewhere. They'd be certain there is a higher, centralized, flow of energy/purpose beyond the liver level. Yet no matter how literate any particular component cells were, whatever they came up with would still be simply a liver's view. Just remember that, in case any liver tries to impress you with its theories and ideas about the universe. Just remember that, in case you ever decide I wasn't just talking about liver cells. And, if you're too intelligent to think about crude stuff like this, well then, good!