THE STRANGE CASE OF THE UNEXPECTED LUBRICANT
12/26/88
Document 436N
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1988
 
In the annals of crime and investigation, there is a file which my partner and I refer to as "The Case of the Strange Lubricant." It is a functioning dynamic having to do with lubricants and the construction of engines. The strangeness I refer to, if you can hear it, is that engines are not originally designed around the need for lubricants, yet lubricants become immediately irreplaceable as soon as the engine is fired up.

 Humans also cannot function without lubrication. Man is an engine; he is an energy converter. And in order to get "cranked up," there must be a certain kind of lubrication. Such lubrication is also needed to pursue This Activity, except more so. The necessary lubrication is intelligence. At the City level, ordinary intelligence is all that's needed, but in order to do This, New Intelligence is required.

 I have said that if things do not move, they cannot turn a profit. That is an economic fact. If an engine does not move, it too cannot turn a profit. If you cannot crank yourself up, you cannot turn a profit for Life. You would otherwise perhaps be a poster child for Life's short-term memory. Now, at the City level, to crank yourself up intellectually is -- to say the very least -- a misnomer. People do not crank themselves up: they "get cranked up." For that purpose, Life produces just the right amount of lubricant. People can think just enough to serve a purpose. Some people fill Life's requirement for a 4-cylinder engine; others are 6-cylinders or come equipped with a turbo charger.

 Additional lubrication is required to do This. The engine of the intellect must be able to move energy over and above what is required at the City level, that is, for the engine to be profitable to YOU. People attempt to "think harder": frowning and stroking the chin, trying to be more intelligent. But all of you have enough experience to know that that approach is a waste of time. You can try real, real hard -- and something seems to be lacking. A book, a comment, or an idea strokes your synapses in a certain way but it doesn't...quite...do it. I suggest that what's missing is additional lubrication. Your engine cannot operate more efficiently in its present condition.

 I have previously asked: Is This Activity about actual "goods" -- that is, information as a noun -- or is it otherwise? Do you imagine that your past spiritual heroes (if you still have any) sat around trying to "think harder"? The fairy tales say that their understanding was the result of an instantaneous epiphany. That sort of thing is fairly well believed, historically. But what about those who believe it? They are the same ones who, hoping such an epiphany will happen to them, frown and try to "think harder."

 I hope that none of you ever actually drove your automobile sans oil. If you have any taste for good machinery, it is a horrible and very expensive faux pas to run an engine without lubrication. Can you catch any connection between that terrible feeling when your engine froze up, and a lifetime of stroking the chin and frowning?

 When "The Strange Case of the Unexpected Lubricant" happens, things just slide into place. There is literally a kind of chemical lubrication -- not unrelated to enriched blood -- which makes possible a kind of neural superconductivity. If you could see it, all of the historically remembered directives regarding how an individual should behave, think or feel in order to do something extraordinary can be translated thusly: "You should not run your engine any faster without additional lubrication." Conversely, what they are saying is, "If you could decrease the chemical friction in your own intelligence, you might be able to go faster." I'll say it another way for you people: you might be able to go around the bend, around the corner, neurally.

 Here is something else which has to do with my kind of impossible geometry. Let's consider the real power class in the City. The really powerful can disrupt and totally break up a much larger rebellious populace. The few in control, with only a few deft blows, can scatter the seditious ones to the wind. And that's the end of it. But the many cannot do this to the few. If the masses WERE to succeed and overthrow the ruling family, the few could take refuge with others of their kind and almost immediately regroup. Do you hear the strangeness? The few can break up the many, but the many cannot break up the few. Twenty people can dominate two million people -- and a rebellion can be disrupted in hours, with a few deft blows to a person, an idea, or even an object, like a statue or monument.

 Now: how about the internal state of YOU? That is, your people and your intelligence? When I talk about the "people" in you and in everybody else, the "people" represent the most simplistic form of human evolution. It is true "out there" in the world (which is of no great consequence) and it is true internally. The masses are always the slowest. If you took the mass of people on this planet and used them as an indication of the progress of humanity, you would have (as social critics in the City often do) some cause to be pessimistic. The populace in everybody -- that which you mainly are, and are designed to be -- under all ordinary conditions will never be able to overthrow that other part of Life which is the spark. Even in the City, that part is operating at least a little faster than the populace, because it is the part leading the dance. The "people" are dancing backwards. It is through that lesser part that Life's creative force comes out. The mass is always reactionary; it is almost a dead weight.

 There is a specific, individual use for all this. Do you not find it curious that the few can very easily break up the many, but the many cannot break up the few? As your crude forefathers would have it, "evil" cannot overcome "good." "Evil" is too simplistic to do so. The more numbers there are at the crude level, the less power and focus. The dumb can never overtake the intelligent. What I have called "D" Force can never triumph over the creative "C" Force. What could you make of that individually?

 Look at what I have called the internal partnership: the two voices in you -- the ruling family and the populace. You can feel that there has been a struggle going on in you -- the attempt to improve yourself, to improve your thinking, to make you more civilized or humane. It has all been either a cry coming out from the crowd, or statements issuing from the ruling powers. (We are now talking about your ordinary nervous-system wiring; there has been no effort involved.) The ruling powers never say, "We should do so and so." They say, "You should tighten your belts, there is a shortfall in the treasury." They never include themselves.

 You can discover something in this that is not normally thought about, if you can observe how this process has operated (and continues to WANT to operate) in you and keep in mind what I said: the many can never permanently do away with the few, whereas the few can control the populace with certain specific blows.

 Now consider New Intelligence. Consider that you developed a new kind of intelligence, that is, you now had some few rulers in you that were not native to Man. These few were not culturally produced in you, and your religion didn't cause you to think this way. This New Intelligence would be capable of acting, regardless of 20 million voices hollering, "You can't do that!" If you had that kind of internal authority, the noises that Life makes through you and everyone else would have no bearing on what you did. It is not that you would be able to run roughshod over Life. (Right..."Get out of my way, Life,"...)

 What if it is simply that you would be in touch with another stream of power? Not in some vague spiritual way, either. There is a part of Life's body that is chemically more powerful. If you don't believe that, let's look at the outside world. You do know that royalty was all related, don't you? There has been a small blood line running civilization for thousands of years. Do you think that is some kind of conspiracy? I bring this up to you in order to disavow you of the idea that I am talking about some kind of spiritual trick. There is a kind of enriched blood -- a way of lubricating the system itself -- an alternative intelligence. I can't sell this to you, I can't harangue you into believing, so I guess I'll just stop. You either have the possibility or you don't.

 There would be a kind of certainty in New Intelligence. Not a certainty based upon City-level hubris; not some egomania. It is simply that in the brain itself there would be a few little connections -- maybe just 20 -- and that constitutes your royal family. That is the royal blood line of Life. Those 20 people, when the masses say, "We can't do so and so," reply, "But, yes, you can." And you will begin to do so. For example, the few can break up some irrepressible habit you have, years of behaving in a certain manner. Habits seem to be locked-in patterns of behavior, but you can look at habitual behavior as being the madness of crowds. All you have ever been is the populace, and the populace has the IQ of road pavement, the talent of a dead oak tree. It is known, out there in the City, that committees display no intelligence. If ten people have genius IQ and you put them together, the committee will not have a genius IQ. Something happens. They become almost oatmeal. That is what you are faced with within in your own nervous system.

 The purpose of power is power. The idea that the powerful can misuse power is an illusion. The old idea that "the king can do no wrong," was potent. At the City level, of course, that's not true. But when power is executed correctly, it's not a matter of right or wrong. In the real sense, real power can do no wrong. The trick is in having real power. Having power doesn't mean that you are then amoral in some sense. But it means this: when the people in your liver, stomach, ankles and smelly glands holler, "No, we can't do that," it has no effect on the ruling powers. Conversely, if you do not exercise power, you have no power -- it's a dream.

 Power is not-telling yourself what you are doing. Real power does not consult with the populace. If you're really good, sometimes the rulers don't even have to announce a decision: the populace simply has to catch on. The cooperation of the many under the few is in no way dependent upon a discussion. Any time you discuss things with yourself, you are not exercising power.

 "Maybe I could do so and so." Forget it. "Maybe I should do so and so." Yeah. Maybe you should. "For once I thought I could, but then circumstances..." If that is the ruling family talking, they're on their way out -- inbreeding has taken over. If it is the people talking, once you see the source, you can discount the message, because it will be simplistic and aligned with "D" Force. In other words, ignore anything that comes from the crowd. It will always be somewhere between reactionary and absolute devolution.

 What rules you? What runs everybody? There is no satisfactory execution of power under the ordinary arrangement of the partnership. And if you are attempting to do This, the situation is magnified. If you COULD execute power under the ordinary arrangement, you would be doing what people in the City SAY they do already: "Make plans and pursue them -- that's all a human can do." If YOU say that, do you know where you are? Right back at home.

 I have already pointed out that "some success" is no success, but now let's play with the geometry of additional dimensions. Regardless of that, do you realize that "some success" is every success? It's all success, as success is usually understood. It is all the success that is possible in the City. This is literally true, at the ordinary level. That is, the mind cannot think otherwise. Now, I could get a City person to agree with my first statement. Any sane person would see that a war is not won by quitting just before the decisive blow. Some success is no success. But the only success possible IS some success. And yet Life runs it through one of the partners in everyone to believe that some success is actual success. People must believe that, or those waiting in line for the slaughterhouse would go tutti-frutti. People would feel as though they were wasting their time. Since some success is believed to be actual success, a person can, through intellectual or fiscal legerdemain, distract the one in front of them and move up in line. But there is a feeling of success: they apparently DID something.

 How about an example (which I like, whether you do or not) from the world of health: the slight, nonfatal malady called "a cold." I suggest that colds are so popular among humans because they are seldom fatal, they have a fairly predictable run, they are socially acceptable, and once you get over them, it's "onward to bigger and better things." For another six months you can snooze off, and then you get another cold. And you feel like you are making progress. It's some success. That is the way things work in the City, and all of you have been victim of it.

 If you could use the intellect even in the way the damn dictionary says it should be used, you would have to say to yourself (in case you would condescend enough to talk to yourself): "What kind of progress is this that I constantly drop tacks on the floor, and step on them and bleed, and get over it, until the next time I drop some more tacks and step on them again? What kind of life is that?" And of course, if you could look around objectively, you'd see that everybody else is doing the same thing. Everybody on the planet steps on tacks which THEY dropped, over and over.

 In the City there is no such thing as a satisfactory conclusion. Every success is "some success." But notice, inside individual people and humanity as a whole, this goes in two ways. One way is to believe that there ARE conclusions, and to operate on that basis; or, to operate on the basis that there are not. The other way is to operate on the basis that there are no conclusions, while believing that there should be; or, while believing that that is the way it is. It is like a four-way matrix of possibilities, and two of the possibilities are operational in the partnership of any given person. Thus, the continuing internal conflict. To believe that a problem can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion is never questioned, even though one partner says, "Some success is no success," and the other says, "Some success is all the success possible." People do not use my terms, of course, but the division is there. A semi-conclusion is the only conclusion possible. And even if a City person could see that for a second, they still cannot accept it. Nobody has ever seen that it's not true; nobody's ever seen that it IS true; nobody has ever seen that they can't SEE that it is true or not true. Do you understand?

 So, real good lubrication is needed to keep the human machinery going under these conditions. That is, ordinary intelligence.

 Try this one more way. Wouldn't it be a relief to realize that the only success that has ever been possible at the operational level of ordinary intelligence is some success? And that "some success" is not a pejorative term? It does not mean that any individual or life is not fulfilling its function. "Some success" is one word, regardless of the adjective "some." If you could see it without any intellectual prejudice, you would recognize that everything has been succeeding admirably. Always has. Some-success (all one word) is success with bells and ribbons on it, in the City. Even while observers such as you are saying, "Well, they didn't quite make it." Would you care to look at 6,000 years of recorded history and find one instance where they ever did?

 I have said that you should not dance with "D" force. You should not go past an accident and look at it. You should not even look at a picture of a wreck as you're standing in the check-out line at the grocery store. And, internally, you should not be looking at your own wrecks and accidents. I know it seems like a hard and sticky situation, but some of you still do that. You have internal accidents; there are wrecks in you and in everybody -- despicable things you think about -- from your view, very yucky things, and your idea is, "How can I stop this?"

 Don't look at it, that's how. Let me assume that all of you have this potential: you CAN refuse to look at a wreck on the road. For the majority of people, there is almost the weight of the universe forcing them to look. (Then again, it's almost a nothing thing once you are able to not do it.) If you cannot refuse to look at a wreck, there is something seriously wrong with your progress in This Activity. In the same way, you do not have to look at internal nightmares, imaginary conversations, and (as you see them) perverted daydreams. Don't look. Everything you THINK is an accident. It's just that some thoughts seem worse than others. Some of them seem to be bloody wrecks.

 You could say that not looking at wrecks won't make them go away. But in the City, they don't believe that killing the bearer of bad news does any good either, when it does all the good in the world. "If I don't look at my naughty thoughts, they're still going to be there." Well, you caught me again. Forget it. Keep looking at them. And by all means, keep asking me or yourself why you can't do better. 

homepage