WE SOCIALIZE TO ENERGIZE:
THE PERFORMER AND AUDIENCE WITHIN
1/16/89

Document 445N
Copyright (c) Jan M. Cox, 1989
 
 
I want to give a more proper introduction to something I've mentioned before. People socialize (in the widest sense of that word) to energize. In one sense, calling man a "social animal" refers to the fact that he engages in energy exchanges beyond the animal level on the food/energy chain.

 People go to concerts, plays, political rallies and religious services for one reason: to apparently come away receiving energy from the performers' emotions. This is yet another example of City people being apparently engaged in some form of misunderstanding. It seems as if the audience goes to a concert to see a talented performer, to appreciate talent or hear new material, but that is not the case.

 Here's another example: People continually attend such things as "Get Rich Quick Seminars," though it's quite common for other areas of Life's body to point at these activities in a critical manner, saying these seminars don't convey any useful information. "What they're talking about is improbable and impossible." The critics believe these courses are rip-offs -- "All they are is a giant pep rally!" -- not realizing that EVERYTHING is a giant pep rally.

 Also notice that most people (the bell curve of humanity) are not wired up to go out to a concert or lecture on the basis of, "Help placate me, help soothe me." That, as a rule, is not what makes people dress up and go out. They socialize to be energized. This is obvious at rock concerts and sports events, but observe what goes on during other activities. And remember what I said recently about conversation: The content of what is said is not the important thing going on; what's important is the energy exchange. At times, what is being said does not matter at all. At times, people will pay money to be exposed to a lecture many other people consider a waste of time or a fraud. Even during opera or classical music concerts, which appear to be more calming, the audience is being energized.

 Consider another aspect of energy exchanges: Normally, an exchange would seem to be a win/lose proposition. Someone gets the best end of the exchange because an equal exchange is not possible in the City -- if someone energizes you, that costs them. Yet, in what appears to be a closed system -- that is, in the 3-Dimensional world -- a curious phenomenon sometimes occurs. Apparently, it is possible to have equitable exchanges. At a good music concert, for example, everyone in the audience seems to go away energized. How can that happen? How can one guy get on stage and energize a thousand people and no one loses energy? How can that happen and the entertainer (or the minister, actor or lecturer) not be near death's door at the end of the performance? Very simple: The energy is there -- you don't concoct it; the entertainer doesn't send out for energy beforehand. You're not the source of energy. And the entertainer is not the source.

 All forms of entertainment seem to fall into two categories: you seem to go to see a presentation of new material, or else old known material is presented and you go to see a particular performer or performers do a new interpretation. You believe, "I'm going to see something new," or, "I love to see some new company do Shakespeare and I never get tired because each time there's a new interpretation." But people do not go out to see the material or the performer; they don't go to witness talent. Every time they go out, it's for the same reason: to be energized. You socialize to be energized.

 If you leave a performance that was NOT energizing, you say, "The play didn't make sense," "The actors were having an off night," "The dialogue was weak," or something similar. All you're actually saying is, "I did not get energized." And you consider the evening a flop.

 Think about all the things that will bring somebody out of the house. They're all expressions of the same need, no matter how that need is verbalized: "I used to like going to church, but since they got that new minister..." "I only go to concerts to support the arts..." People will pursue anything, within their own wiring limits, IF they get energized. If they are exposed to something where they are the passive dancers, they sit there with the expectation, "Enthuse me, energize me!"

 Why does anybody leave the house, other than to get food and hold down a job? When you're just going out of the house, for no particular reason -- Why? What's the point? Think about what you know of man, the "social animal." Think about why you go to the mall when you don't intend to buy anything or why you sometimes walk down to the corner store just for a piece of bubble gum. People leave the house, when they don't have to, for one reason: to be energized. And what energizes people? Something that is uniquely human; something humans can only get from other humans.

 Everybody has to go out of the house because there is a type of energy they can ONLY receive from other humans. There are some people who would swear that they are antisocial, that they have no particular affection for humanity individually or collectively. But you won't find them living in caves. (Real hermits, by the way, you don't EVER hear about.) You won't find "antisocial" people at home all the time. Even if they do stay at home all the time, they've got a television.

 Television is a cheap way to be energized. People who don't watch television, listen to radio. Or, if they don't have a radio, they read a book or magazine. It's hard to find a real hermit. Very hard. Because there is a singular need in humans that can only be filled by other humans.

 People, apparently with credentials, are always asking, "What is the purpose of Life?" And most of them feel we have nothing to go on, other than history, mythical tales, religious stories. Yet there IS something to go on, right in front of their eyes. Man is the "social animal" who engages in continual social activity. Man is gregarious, he wants to be among his fellow creatures; people need each other in some special, observable way. (Of course, from there it's just one slippery step into the mire of, "We're all god's children, we should be nice to one another...") Man serves a purpose in the food chain of Life. AND he serves another purpose around the corner -- a more complex purpose that transcends the ordinary food chain -- involving a more complex exchange of energies.

 No one ever notices this. There has never been -- biologically, psychologically -- any great interest shown in the disproportionate diversity among humans as compared to any other species of animal. Most beavers look alike. Even most dogs look alike. Ten or twenty dogs could serve as examples of the varieties evidenced by the canine species. But how many examples would you need to cover homo sapiens? Also consider how many different temperaments there are in dogs. Two? You could stretch and say four. But look around at humans and, as people in the City are wont to say, "There's almost an infinite variety of personalities." The diversity in humans is so disproportionate, once you notice, you'd think someone would come up with a theory about it. They haven't, though.

 The reason for this great diversity is that man has to produce more complex energy than any other creature. For that, great variety is required. If human beings were divided into only two religions, for example, then in areas where there are apparently religious conflicts there would be less complexity in the apparent conflicts. As things are now, you can have three or more religious groups attacking each other, literally or figuratively, simultaneously. The complexity of humanity requires a diversity that's absolutely out of proportion to what's required in any other creature. Yet no one in the City ever seems to have noticed or thought this was strange.

 If this diversity was noticed by ordinary City consciousness it could be seen as giving rise to more potential conflict: "If we could combine all the religions, we'd be progressing, because that would eliminate all this conflict." From the City view, that would be progress. But then things would be becoming more simplistic (which would mean that Life was running downhill). The diversity in man results in what is ofttimes observed in the City as conflict between races, religions, nationalities, political persuasions. From the City view, simplifying things would be a good idea.

 That may be true,

 But it won't do,

 Cause if it did,

 We'd all be through.

 To rhyming

 I now bid adieu.

 I don't think I'll say anything about what or where This Activity would have to fit into the general scheme. Instead, you consider just WHAT I'm saying has to do with This Activity, if anything? Your interest should be this: On a good night you can come here and get, not just entertained but energized, spurred on. Yet that is not the purpose or the end of This.

 If that was the end, the entire premise of This would have to be different. The premise would have to include a tacit understanding that I've got some secret and you have to follow me -- dance backward with me -- for the rest of your life. Then This Activity would fit the City definition of a "cult," and if you have any feeling for This, you've already realized what we're doing here doesn't fit that mold in any way. So what are you left with? Apparently, I can at times enthuse you. But simultaneously I'm kicking you in the shins, saying, "Stay away! I'm not going to carry you!" So what can you derive from that about being energized on the personal level?

 Look at your own nervous system, that great theater in the round: You could picture the stage as being up above the Line of ordinary consciousness, with the audience down below. Given this internal picture, who have you got to energize? How are you going to put on a performance -- do any socializing or entertaining -- energizing -- internally?

 Can one without enthusiasm enthuse others? In order to energize somebody else about a particular thing, you have to be passionate about that particular thing, right? On one level, wouldn't you believe that is correct? Suppose you love Mozart's music so much that you're a member of the semipro Mozart society. You go to a concert on the basis that the performer is very pro-Mozart. How else is he going to convey any feel for the music to you, if he doesn't passionately feel it? The fact that a performer must be enthusiastic personally in order to convey enthusiasm seems to be obviously true.

 Yet, at the ordinary level, the more apparently passionate a person is -- the more fanatical, frantic and uncontrollably enthusiastic they are about what they are doing -- the less they understand about it. This is just another example of how things in the City that seem to be "facts" can be stretched around the corner, made a little more complex. Then they are no longer "facts," and you can see something else.

 I'm pointing out that within certain parameters, the more impassioned somebody is -- the more passionate they seem -- the more they are enthused in such a way that they can convey passion to others -- the less they understand about what they're doing. In a very mechanical way, there is less likelihood that a truly impassioned performer has personal feeling for what he is saying or doing.

 Have any of you who like vocal music ever had the experience of going backstage to meet the singer who just sang an emotional song that touched your heart? Most likely, the performer's sitting back there sans any particular emotion. Or, they're almost illiterate, very simplistic. And this surprises you. You don't realize the performance was an act. You say, "That song meant so much to me," and the star says, "Thank you, thank you!" They're not at all interested in what you're saying, other than that you are praising them personally.

 People are wired up to look at a star and believe, "It must have taken that guy 60 years to live such a life that he'd be able to interpret such meaningful lyrics." But the performer leaves the stage and can't even remember the name of the last song she sang. Or think about your favorite actor making a movie. The director goes, "Cut," the actor stops crying and walks off to have lunch or smoke a cigarette.

 At a mechanical level, the more impassioned a performer is, the less personal involvement -- the less understanding -- he is likely to have. So the first part of this is the apparent "fact": A person has to be enthused to enthuse others. But take this around the corner and you see: A person would not have to be personally involved to be able to enthuse others.

 Where does This Activity fit into the description I just gave? Consider how I can apparently enthuse you and not be personally involved? How come I'm not up for an academy award?

 Now back to you: How come you're not up for an academy award? Sometimes when you hear these ideas something clicks and you get enthused and energized. You start talking enthusiastically to you, "I've heard enough, I've got to do something, right now!" Then you walk backstage and see you taking a nap. That which passes for a passionate performer -- what I have sometimes called the "ruler" in you -- is offstage, once you get up and go home. During a performance, some star in you announces, "We're going to do so and so!" passionately enough that you go, "Yeah!" Then, later, you drive home and it's like the time you walked backstage to meet your favorite star. "Gee, Mr. Star, it sure was a lot more fun when you were on stage."

 Remember, when you're thinking about the performer and the audience, that a tango takes two. What happened was not just the performer on stage -- you had to be in the audience. The star wouldn't put on a show if no one was there. A performer has to have an audience. So you're partially to blame; that is, you're dancing, too.

 When you go backstage, all these passionate performers turn out to be clowns, literally. You go in to meet the Pope and see him pulling a flask from his back pocket. You walk outside the concert and see your favorite musician being arrested or having his car impounded. All of this happens -- IN YOU. We're not talking about the Pope or some rock star or actor, we're talking about inside you. So where is the energy, the enthusiasm, to pass on to yourself? Where does it come from? Why don't you notice it this way?

 There is a certain way that a Real Revolutionist would have to treat himself: with bemused condescension. He would -- almost -- treat himself like a retarded child. This is not a joke. All performers are like retarded children, as long as they're operating on the basis of, "Show Biz is my life! I need to be seen, I need to perform!"

 Of course, "It's all Show Biz." But there is a way in which anybody who's saying, "Hey look at me!" has no talent. I'm talking about all humans -- you at the ordinary level. Consider how you and all people get impassioned about themselves: they go into the dance of, "I'm going to tell you what kind of guy I am!" at the least provocation.

 Within the audience, within everybody, when you get up and do your dance you apparently have at least one member of the audience who cares. That's what the internal Partnership is about. You DO have an audience listening to you tell what kind of guy you are. The audience may be only one person, but there is an energy exchange going on when you do your show -- within you.

 Would anybody believe there is also one area within -- a pitch black room containing a creature with a disembodied voice that has no interest at all in talk about your life, about "what kind of guy I am"? I am suggesting that such a black room with a voice, a creature that apparently is dangerous and threatening to the performer, is there in everybody. That creature has no interest whatsoever in what kind of guy you are. And that's very frightening.

 Something else: Dancers, no matter what kind of music is playing, are engaged in their own particular form of dual madness. To stretch this, consider that there is a "folie a deux" inside each person: the Partnership. Because both aspects -- both partners, both voices in you at any given time -- must share the major madnesses, or you would be too unstable to be out on the street. There is a continual dance inside, within the partnership. There seem to be two partners, the one that talks and the one that hears. So there's a folie a deux going on in everybody. The partners apparently can verbally be in great conflict: "You are insane to keep taking drugs the way you do!" "I enjoy it!" Yet, they share the major madnesses. Just because one says, "I don't approve," doesn't mean he will stop it.

 The kind of apparent criticism the partners have of each other does not belie their shared madnesses, even when the voices are apparently in conflict. They MUST be in conflict or you would not be functional; one voice (form of behavior) must apparently talk to another voice (form of behavior) continually. The only reason one voice in you says, "I've got to stop this" is that another voice in you says, "I'm not going to stop."

 A Real Revolutionist -- one up to a certain speed -- would not be dependent upon any codified method. He would simply Do what it is that you do, and that would be it. That's why, in many respects, This Activity does not seem to have a beginning, or an end, or any sides. This just keeps moving.

 Ordinary people cannot live without a kind of formalization of power; they cannot live without laws, either written down or part of common knowledge. The idea is wired into humans that there has to be an exercise of power: the dominant and the submissive, reflected in personal life and in the codified structures of society. People insist on this and don't know what to do without it. Even to reject laws, there must first be laws. And yet, in This Activity, there comes a time when you have to not simply be in the audience.

 You'll thank me for never actually formalizing This, in spite of all the times you kept thinking, "I wish he would just say it and get it over with." To codify This would be to hurt you. There is a type of freedom inherent in This Activity which is stupefying. Ordinary people would go crazy from such freedom. Un-ordinary freedom is necessary because there IS no standard method for doing This. There is no method to This. Not that some particular system is right or that anything ever tried was wrong. Just that there IS no form, no method. I can't start off by saying that. Verbally, that makes no sense, even now.

 The only "method" is this: Once you know what you're doing, you do what you do. This is not my method or anybody else's. If any method IS codified, it won't take you anywhere. People think, "I'll study this method," but there's nowhere to go. If you're in a uniform, you're in a uniform. If you're on a train, you're on the train. You can walk around, go over to the window and look out. Notice, though, that you can't stop the train.

homepage