What there is

That can be discussed---
The method.
.

Let there be....

How do you annotate a flash of light?

Such is the chore facing, not this those concerned to convey the burden of the ideas of Jan Cox, but the issue facing anyone who investigates the nature of human reality.  

The sun glinting in the trees, the carlights on the bedroom wall, the juncture of the light switch...

These phrases only make sense to someone who has experienced them.  What can more words add to the experience itself, except the dubious assumption that our experiences are the same?

Thothing it up

Thoth was, to be brief and inaccurate, the Egyptian god of mind, and writing. His representation in Egyptian art, though, is not dubious: this deity was presented either as a baboon, (sometimes just the head, on a human body) or an ibis. An Ibis for human thought strikes a precise note, does it not? Spindly legs, for perhaps that part of the human which is in the body, but not definitively. Sharp beak for pinpointing the PowerPoint points. How inspiring that those with a claim to inventing the first political state, should have so appropriately  picked a bird to convey the cerebral aspect of human reality. 

But what's with this baboon business? From the very vapors of the first marsh ascent, the people who looked around, and, able to catch their breath, finally, thought, we can do something with this, these people thought of "thought" in terms of a baboon. Does this not seem like a step backwards. Of course they did not have the perspective of modern evolution (considered by some superior to  polytheism as an explanatory structure). But what about baboons, clarified for the Egyptians, the mental dimensions of their world. The baboon might seem a clunky, rough hewn, model of human doing. rather than a way to explain human thought. This animal is hardly the aerial model of something that might survive  death. 

But what if, these ancient analyzers were able to appreciate something obvious that is yet entirely obscured by the flow of modern living. The Buddhists have a story about a man pointing to the moon. The problem he had was that those he wanted to look up, peered at the man's finger. Is it possible that the Egyptians picked the baboon to remind people that internal words, monologues. calculations, were just pointers to something outside us, and that words, were only ever of partial, instrurmental, value. The baboon then, is like the word, pointing to a human being, in reality. The word, as in a baboon, compared to a man, must always be a pointer beyond itself to the physical world. The choice of baboon reflects perhaps, an awareness of the inadequacy, and imperial apsect of verbage, and is meant to remind the thinker, the speaker, where the accent of reality goes. 

If this approach has any value, it means the Egyptians saw clearly an aspect of human reality which eludes the current era.  Ehh. Who knows?

The physical sciences

Real science is surrounded by popularizers of science, who think soldiering a noble calling. No need to name names. The real thinkers, are like body surfers, thrilled to keep any balance on the unknown infinity.  The popularizers and, most of those they keep out, are surfing in back yard pools.

Royalty's right to rule

What was the purpose of monarchy?  

In the greater economy of life 

which economy is obscured from all some of the time

and most, all of the time, 

in that greater (greatest being too presumptuous a word) economy of all,

with an intricacy and depth that modern physics only rarely even glimpses at the physical level, 

what purpose does inherited social position and political power play?

Jan Cox did not specifically mention this. As with most of the posts to this blog, meant to cast more attention on this 20th century spiritual teacher, the rationale is that he demonstrated and bid his students,

think fresh thoughts. 

Here is my latest attempt to think creatively:

And so here is a partial answer to the question, what is the purpose of monarchy.

At one time monarchy was an experiment on life's part to 

mechanically produce 

objectivity.

Royalty, occasionally, perhaps more often that other methods (in the past), produced people

who had nothing to hide, no bias to obscure, 

and were supremely confident of their right to lead.

Their swords cut clean.

The bravery of past kings is astonishing. Often it seems medieval kings barely passed on their genes when they died in some poorly thought out but incredibly brave military skirmish.

Now after some evolutionary twirls, this purpose is mainly irrelevant, the survival of mankind being less assured by physical leadership, than that of other human realms.

Objectivity was, it is perhaps unnecessary to say to those who have studied the writing of Jan Cox, cannot BE mechanically produced. One assumes this was always true, so life's experiments in this regard are --- instructive. 

Certainly though the landscape, and meaning of kingship, external and internal, has shifted, over millennia. 

Words We Need

What is the opposite of the word ventriloquist.  Here is a definition of ventriloquist:

"The art or practice of speaking without moving lips so that the voice seems to be coming from somewhere else."

So my thought is, what would be a word for the situation where speech comes from all around a person, but appears to originate with the person with their mouth open.

Hmm, some phrases come to mind, "human history," the rational mind," "the verbal mind", "the ordinary mind," but a word, which means the opposite of ventriloquism...."I" would be a one letter word which might do the job. Still an open case though....

Words and worlds

Again the world sees straight in your face evidence of the nature of human beings and refuses to draw the obvious conclusions. The evidence is not just the accounts of the miners in their underground tomb; most natural disasters present stories of heroism, of extraordinary courage and devotion. What we see is people feeling and acting on their unity. The obvious physical separation of  human bodies deflects from the reality than human minds are not separate. The mechanical, rational part of the human mind is not completely separate from the minds of other people.The potential for a separate, evolved human mind exists,(as Jan Cox outlined in his work and books)  but the reality of the contemporary human condition shows itself on a broad scale during disasters. Of course it is safe enough for the endurance of the mechanical growth of humanity to allow these glimpses. For what follows such events; words. Words: guaranteed to make you forget what you saw, what you experienced. The miners made an agreement when they were together, alone. They would share equally in any profits from the accounts of their stories. How wonderful is that, and how sure to ensure they forget the nightmare of unity.