The Moron in Charge

 copyright 1989 -2000 Jan Cox
   Reminder: The following is a rough transcript of one of Jan's extemporaneous talks, and people do not speak, ad lib, in the same way they write. Thus some sentence fragments, and other linguistic anaomolies can pop up which may have slipped past the transcriber. But the overall tone and intent of his comments still comes through for those wanting to hear something new.

(Kyroot, to whom this transcript refers is the main character in a semi-fictional tale written by Jan)  

I'm going to cover some Kyroots people asked questions about.  The first one:  "He who defines ultimately controls."  Start by thinking of an absolute monarch in the external world; think of states where official reality is defined by the government.  Beyond the crude connotations of the word "propaganda," these governments exemplify how, "he who defines ultimately controls."  Look how in a quite routine sense, your definition of reality is the controlling mechanism in you.  Life transforms and transmits energy through your governing sense of reality.

     If you saw precisely how this works, you could operate as a newly positioned monarch -- you could operate at a new level -- you could decide what reality is.  Now, any City textbook on philosophy has at least a paragraph about how what you think is real, is real to you.  But, as always, in the City that has no permanent pertinence over a person's lifetime.  You would have to go beyond the definition of reality extant in you, or else you'd just end up with an upside down version of the same reality.  You could argue with it, criticize it, but you'll always do it again, because in the City, one of the great things that keeps you alive is:  if you've done it once you can do it again.

     To change the situation, you would have to operate in a way parallel to an external monarch.  A monarch is a sole, single authority.  A monarch answers to no one.  There is no discussion, no dialogue, only absolute exercise of power.  If you had that kind of internal source of authority, if you either short circuited, transformed or transcended the Dialogue, you could establish your own state's official reality.  The people might notice something was different for a day or two, but it's surprising how quickly people accommodate themselves to a real monarch.  All it takes is for one person to resist and get shot for everyone else to say, "Now that you mention it, I do believe 'up' is 'down.'"

     Another Kyroot, paraphrased:  "Only an absolute monarch could guarantee absolute freedom."  At least one ordinary historian or politician has made a comment to that effect, and at first it strikes ordinary intelligence as not true.  You're wrong.  Only an absolute monarch could absolutely guarantee freedom.  If you're dealing with a dual throne or a parliament, then various voices have input into what seems to be the source of authority.  How can there be an absolute guarantee of freedom if you are going to leave decisions to a dialogue?  Shared power offers no absolute guarantee of anything.  If one party says something, the other may change its mind.  So, even though it sounds contradictory, a monarch, a tyrant is the only form of social authority that could absolutely guarantee freedom.
      Now, consider this internally.  Can you see the need to consolidate your own internal Dialogue?  How do you expect to guarantee anything to yourself?  How can you make any decision with a Dialogue going on?  If you had any real knowledge of the human nervous system you'd see:  "I can't absolutely guarantee anything.  It is almost a miracle that I don't go around killing people."

     In spite of the apparently perverse, unexpected nature of society in general, once you see what I'm describing, it's almost a miracle that you can drive into a service station, turn on the pump, fill up your car and people let you finish without hitting you.  It's almost a miracle you walk into the 7-11, ask for a loaf of bread and the clerk doesn't scream, "Loaf of bread?" pull out a gun and shoot you.  In a sense it is miraculous, once you see it, that you live through 65 years at the ordinary level without being chopped up by a mad killer, without being surrounded by people screaming.  It's a miracle that you visit your mother on Thanksgiving and she recognizes you.  Yet, life seems relatively safe.  You plod along day after day retaining something resembling continuity of thought.  Just note, once you reach 25 or so you tend to keep the same habits for the rest of your life.  There's a safe sensation of continuity in the City.

     What seems to be a kind of relatively stable and predictable life in the City I could present to you as Life operating "around the corner."  Life has established a monarchy that you cannot see.  The four and five-dimensional world manifests itself at its own pace, for its own benefit, through human behavior.  You cannot see the stability of the additional complex dimensions.  So, it seems miraculous that you can get through life without strange things happening at the 3-D level -- not just being murdered, but without your life being like you live in the Twilight Zone.

     Why do you think people like spooky, science fiction?  Unexpected things happen.  A man pulls into his driveway, steps in the front door of his house, and finds his wife and kids are brand new.  She treats him normally, but as far as he's concerned, it's not his family.  Why do people like that?  Why would anyone find it entertaining to read a story about ordinary life being turned inside out?  Because, it's a miracle that doesn't happen all the time!  People get a cathartic laugh to see that on TV or in the movies.  People suspect, nonverbally, that it's a miracle the world is not like a Salvador Dali one-reeler with everything running into everything else, where one minute you're sitting at the table eating dinner, and then you go to the bathroom, come back and find yourself in 17th century England.  Even a bum on the street finds it miraculous that there are enough cans left around every day to trade in for a pint of wine.

     If you had an internal absolute monarch you could define a new reality in ways I won't put into words.  I'm not simply saying that what is real right now is not real -- you have to get more complex, add another dimension.  You have to absolutely redefine reality.  The Dialogue may think you're setting up a form of abject propaganda, but this new reality would be defined by action, not talk.  To stop doing something and not tell anyone takes an absolute monarch.  Someone says:  "What's different?  Have you been playing tapes on how not to be shy?  Wait, you started drinking again.  I know, you quit smoking."  Such could be an attempted conversation between two people externally, or within you.  Your own Dialogue could say, "What's going on?  You walked right into that bar full of single people.  Are you mad at us?  Have you been reading a self-help book while we were asleep?"

     The defining manifestation of a new level monarch would be action, not words.  Who would a real monarch discuss things with?  A real monarch looks upon all the people as dancing partners.  They'll dance backwards whenever he steps up or else get shot.  If a real monarch asks his subjects to dance and they say, "I'm kind of busy your highness," he doesn't dwell on revenge, he acts.  An absolute monarch doesn't think of retaliation because he wouldn't think of failure. If you were an absolute monarch it would not cross your mind that someone in your state would respond to your requests with, "Well, it's kind of late," or, "Me?" A real monarch would never think of that possibility.  There is the new reality.  There is guaranteed freedom.  Guaranteed.

     Another paraphrase of a Kyroot:  "Stupidity in the weak can be disturbing, if not annoying, but in the powerful it is awesome."  Let me start out with a good springboard scenario of apparently "out there."  The general populace of any state includes people who seem to operate on less than 8 cylinders.  You pull up to the gas station and the attendant can't turn on the pump, or the clerk in the 7-11 doesn't know where the bread is kept.  That sort of behavior in ordinary people can be anywhere from annoying to outright disturbing.  But, for someone in authority to be simplistically stupid is awesome and frightening.  This sometimes happens in the external world.  Monarchs inbreed and eventually the guy on the throne looks like Elmer Fudd -- and people who look like Elmer Fudd think like Elmer Fudd.  That may sound prejudicial in the City, since Life does not allow people in the City to see that genes are it.  But, you should know:  Someone who looks stupid is stupid.

     This inbred monarch may be able to stand at attention for hours.  You may be impressed by all his jewels.  Even when genetically somebody looks like a horse with a low IQ, when they are dressed up as a prince they can still have a charismatic effect on people.  But if you get up real close or put on binoculars you'd say, "Doris, I think that's Elmer Fudd."  It's not so strange for old Amos the shoe repairman to talk to himself.  But for the king to start talking to himself in the middle of a public proceeding is awesome and frightening.  Why?

     A piece of the answer is:  growth is complex, while regression, retreat, is always simplistic.  When someone in a position of authority and power is simplistic, the people know at the cellular level that if he dominates properly, "We are in trouble, we will stagnate, maybe even regress."  Yet, they know they are supposed to dance backwards just as wolves know they must follow their pack leader.  The people will discuss overthrowing the king because he is crazy and perverted, but they are still cellularly prepared to be led.
      This is absolutely true "out there" and absolutely, absolutely true "in here."  In each person, at about the age of 20 it's as though a simplistic Dialogue took over.  They are led by a simplistic power.  They have stagnated.  Their state, their civilization does not change or grow any more.  They may still paint the buildings and sandblast the old structures, they can get a degree or move across the country, but if you see them 20 years later at a class reunion, have they changed?

     Everyone is led by simplistic leadership.  If you begin to see this it is indeed frightening.  At the ordinary level this gives a kind of stability to life; that's how things are supposed to be in the City.  People seem to be more or less under control and you can count on your life being more or less predictable and stable -- in part, because your leadership is a dunderhead.  Within you, from one view, there are people working in the sewers more intelligent than the king.  Relatively speaking you're accepting leadership from an inbred, clinically classifiable moron.  You're being led by someone with the IQ of a 14 year old.  Not that you didn't finish high school and go to college or learn to operate new machinery at the factory.  But, look at your life, your relationships; look at you.  Are you any different, really, than you were when you were 14 or 16?  Don't think too hard.  The answer is:  no, you're not.  You have a king (of course, you have two kings) operating at the level of a clinically classifiable moron.  It is frightening, although not in the City since that's the way it is supposed to be.

     But realize how miraculous it is that anything gets done.  "Me and everyone else are all 14.  Everyone in the service stations and sewers is 14.  The king is, the priests are, the rabbis are, the pope is, the president is."  Now you know why I used the word awesome.  "And to think every day for the last 20, 30, 50 years," (and of course it's been going on historically for a lot longer,) "things have been going on and it's nothing but a group of morons being led by other morons.  It's a miracle.  We go into space, we put up satellites, morons write entangled books on philosophy that are criticized, praised and bought by morons.  All my thoughts up to this point have been moronic.  The whole world, including me up until now, is Elmer Fudd and everyone's whistling and dancing along.  Yet we go to other planets, fight wars, and explore the ocean in submarines."

     A few more Kyroots.  First:  "Necessity has no restraints."  That which is necessary has no restraints, no boundaries.  What can you say to that?

     For people led by idiots and morons, all sorts of things are necessary.  People find it necessary, although they do not analyze it, to come home from work and find their house where they left it.  People find it necessary for their spouse and children to be the same people and recognize them when they come home.  Everything that happens, everything that fits into the nexus of you and your life (you could call it habit), you find necessary.  That which is necessary at the ordinary level is that which is expected and predictable to you.  If you take that away, you have science fiction, a spooky drama.

     But, what you think is necessary at the old level is open to further consideration.  If you could push aside the moron and in some way put a sole non-binary source of authority on a new throne, then everything you previously thought of or accepted as necessary, at the very least would be open to further consideration.  The ordinary helps keep you ordinary.  People being ordinary keeps Life ordinary.  (Plug in the word "predictable" instead, repeat the whole thing, take two aspirins and do not call me in the morning.)

     What you take as being necessary is anything necessary to keep you sane, to keep you as you are -- stable and upright at the old level.  Fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  This Thing is not to make you nuts, at least not to where anyone can tell -- that's not revolution.  But, what is necessary at the ordinary level is open to investigation, and what's necessary to do This is not the same necessity that keeps you as you are.  You must do what is necessary to do This, and if it gives you any comfort I will say this:  Life will understand.

     It is not necessary to keep a moron on the throne.  There's nothing wrong with having money or owning a car, but they're just not necessary to do This.  Things that in sociological and psychological terms would seem to prop up a person's personality and position in the community are not evil, they are just not necessary to do This.  They are necessary to keep the balance between a moron and the people, to keep your Dialogue operating for 60 or 75 years, to keep you talking to yourself over and over and over as though Mutt and Jeff were living in your head.

     Amidst the noise in the chorus, amidst this moron running things and the lesser morons dancing backwards, you think, "I'm getting somewhere, closer to my goals."  But only a moron and the kingdom of morons continues to believe that.  Because there is not one iota of proof that anything ever changes in you.  None.  Elmer Fudd was born like that.  He does not have to look in the mirror and primp.  Every morning he gets up -- every morning you get up -- and you look like you.  It just happens.  You think like you.  What else are you going to do with that?  You could walk away from it and it will carry right on for as long as Life needs you.

     Another reason why everyone looks upon the external world as precarious is the overriding feeling that Life is going downhill.  "We're killing the planet, killing each other through hatred and warfare, racial and religious animosity."  All you have to do is point out to even the most nongloomy, intelligent person how statistics prove the greenhouse effect is 10 years closer and they'll say, "We have to do something Mabel, are we idiots?  Let's march, let's send some money, let's go picket, write a letter."  If you think Life is about to fall apart, that just shows:  not only are you Elmer Fudd, you have an Elmer Fudd mask under that.

     There's not one iota of proof that Life is falling apart.  Contraire.  Life is growing, becoming more and more complex.  But people say, "Just one more push and we'll all be gone.  Life's on the verge of falling apart."  If people were actually intelligent as defined in the dictionary they would see that's not true.  But remember, men wrote the dictionary definition of intelligence.  How is it that intellectual people wrote the definition of intelligence and not one person, including those who wrote the definition and those who posed for the lexicographer, can see that, "Wait a minute, something's wrong because none of us are as intelligent as our definition.  Have we described something that's not yet true?"  But, that's another story.

     Reasonable, sane, intelligent people, all immediately respond to the threat of destruction.  Because internally they feel stability is a miracle, that everything could dissolve in an instant.  So when the head man says, "Never has the shadow of destruction, the disintegration of society been more pressing," the whole tribe responds, "Truer words were never spoken.  What a leader!  A guy who can stand up and say, 'We're about to go down the toilet.'  What insight!"  But show me one piece of evidence historically, besides the most simplistic example that even Elmer Fudd could come up with, over the past 5,000 years that proves Life is disintegrating.  No one wants to deal with that.

     You must make new necessities.  To do this, you must first see that necessities -- all the way from your reputation, fame, possessions are the same as limitations, because real necessity has no limitations.  If they are hobbies, fine; if they are useful, great; if you enjoy looking at them, listening to them, holding and rubbing them, that's fine.  But to think they're necessary is to be deluded.  If you're dealing with nonessential necessities then you are limited.  You have no choices.  You believe (which is not the point, you're simply a wired up part of the network) that "without my physical possessions, without peoples' opinions of me, my opinion of me, I could not go on."  Of course, in the City, you couldn't.