Slomo skating

[keyboardpress]

Whole thing is great but 14:17 - 15:30 is flow at its finest

[Mickey O'neil]

Slomo is a good name for him since rollerblading is for homos.

[Shapecharge]

That was just about some of the coolest shit ever. Awesome.

[beefheart]

White people's problems.

[beefheart]

The Zone



by Slomo



The Zone and the Non-Zone. Anything with any authority that can be said about the Zone should be said by the fundamental man who dwells within the Zone. Anything that is said about the Zone by the institutionalized man who dwells completely within the four-dimensional world is said without any authority and is wasted gobbledygook. There will be no admission into this work from the institutionalized side of the author, and if the institutionalized side of the reader reads any part of it, he will not understand that part. That institutionalized side will interpret what it reads as nonsense, ridiculous, or simply untrue. If the reader himself is within the Zone when he reads any part of this work, that part will make perfect sense to him, even to the extent that he already knew it intimately long before he read it.

This dichotomy--the Zone and the four dimensional world, which for now on I shall call the Non-Zone--divides the entire human experience into two co-existing categories, and the truth in one of them is not the truth in the other. There is a God in one of the categories, but there is no God in the other. There is a soul in one category, and there is none in the other. These are two examples of opposite truths, existing side by side--one perceived from within the Zone, the other from without. Every truth has two sides, one perceived from within the Zone and one perceived within the Non-Zone.

Any knowledge of the Zone can only be assumed from direct, intimate experience of the Zone itself; no real knowledge of the Zone can be had from information about the Zone that comes from the Non-Zone. This predicament puts the present situation into a quandary because writing and reading require the continual intersection with the Non-Zone by both the author and the reader. Direct and intimate experience by the person himself is only way to acquire knowledge about the Zone. The best the author and reader can do to offset this predicament is to keep what is said about the Zone as close to the boundary between them as possible.

The Non-Zone and the Zone are adjacent to each other. On one side is the world and our physical bodies; on the other, pure subjectivity. A curtain of perceptions is the boundary between the two. On one side of the boundary is objectivity, on the other subjectivity. The experience of human existence includes the experience of the Non-Zone of objectivity, and it includes the experience of the Zone of subjectivity.

A relationship exists between the Zone and the Non-Zone. The relationship is important, and it has many features, not the least of which is conflict. The following is an attempt to get to the meat of this business as quickly as possible:

What is the Zone? The Zone is all that is pure subjectivity. The Zone is composed entirely of subjectivity. Subjectivity extends into space right up to the edge of perception and thought, but it does not extend beyond perception into the Non-Zone. Subjectivity has its own type of relationship with space and time. Subjectivity is the part of the human experience that exists as happening right now to one's self. The Zone is the "inside" part of this realm of pure subjectivity. For practical purposes, the Zone is pure subjectivity itself, and pure subjectivity is the Zone itself.

Another way to get at this is to use the two words, "I am." On one level these words are quite simple, and they can be easily used without really appreciating the implication they clearly contain. If one repeats these words silently and meditates on both of them for even the shortest time, his mind will be turned so that it is pointed directly at what we are talking about--subjectivity. Since subjectivity is not an object that can be viewed or imagined directly, it will never be visualized directly. This peculiar phenomenon--the nature of one's own subjectivity and the intimate knowledge that one has that it exists--is the very beginning of the mystical experience, which is the foundation of the major religions. Having a clear understanding of that to which the word "subjectivity" refers is essential and the first step toward understanding the Zone.

Some people encounter a block when it comes to meditation and the phrase, "I am." This is quite common among regimented people, highly educated people, and people who are pathetically lost in the Non-Zone. These people struggle to capture a meaningful life. Usually they have no belief in any of the types of truths that emanate from the Zone. On the other hand, many of these people serve out their lives usefully to society as a kind of personal and meaningless sacrifice from the beginning to the end. The bottom line is that those two little words, "I am," carry more meaning and more truth in them than all the other words in the language.

The Zone is the subjectivity inside you--the reader--at this very moment. Though it cannot be made into an object and studied in that way, the nature of the Zone and its mysterious substance, subjectivity, can be known to some extent and that knowledge, when it is personal to oneself is more powerful, more meaningful, and more truthful than any knowledge that will ever come from the Non-Zone. Those who cannot understand or see the underlying truth to these statements are living their lives in a kind of continual worship of sticks and stones.

The Zone then is "within," and it is within you. In the final analysis, it is more "you" than everything else put together.

What is the Non-Zone? For practical purposes, it can be said that the Non-Zone is the objective world in which we live. It includes our bodies, the objects around us, and all of the objective universe, which extends outward from each of us in time and space. It is our cultural belief that the Non-Zone is real and more permanent than the subjectivity of any one of us. It is also our cultural belief that the Non-Zone is composed of tiny subunits that are, in some manner, contained within a kind of matrix called space-time.

Science is so far the most successful mental instrument to make some sense out of the Non-Zone. Science, on the other hand, is altogether impotent when it comes to the Zone. One of our cultural beliefs is that the Non-Zone had some kind of beginning and that it will eventually have an end. Another is that the Non-Zone has always been where it is now. A third is that it was created, presumably by a grand entity whose nature is what? Subjectivity! Of course, we imagine the subjectivity of this grand entity to be great and powerful, but still, when we think into it even to a limited extent, it brings us back to the subjectivity of the Zone.

The Non-Zone, then, is that which is "outside," and that which each of us experiences as being objective in nature. It would be too simple to define the Non-Zone as objectivity, but for practical purposes, it can be defined that way.

Recall that the Zone and the Non-Zone are adjacent to each other; in a manner of speaking the Zone and the Non-Zone are clasped in each other's arms. But recall also, that they do not invade each other's realm, for the Zone and the Non-Zone are separated by a curtain of perception, and that is as close as they ever get.

Why call it "the Zone?" There are many names already for what we are calling the Zone: Tao, Buddha, Kingdom of God, Nirvana, and epiphany, for example. Each of these many names is meant to point at the substance of pure subjectivity that is implied by those two simple words, "I am." The Buddha is "within" and so is the Kingdom of God.

I personally like the word "Zone" best because that is what the great athletes call it, and in our society athletes may be those people we can most easily watch go into the Zone. Young people now also use the word "Zone" to refer to what we are talking about more than any other word. The word "Zone" communicates in its sound and common meaning more precisely what it is meant to than any of the other words.

Further quibbling about words would take us far outside the Zone into the Non-Zone from where, as we mentioned at the beginning, nothing of any authority can be said about the Zone!

What are some characteristics of the Zone? Though the Zone is only experienced directly, and it is the sort of subject, which requires a certain twist, or precision to the language used to talk about it, the Zone does possess a nature. That nature can be articulated, at least to some extent. We've already called attention to the fact that the Zone consists of pure subjectivity, so what else can be said about it?

There is only one Zone, not two, or three or more. The Zone is the same one everywhere. How could we know that? Knowledge of this type, that is, knowledge concerning the nature of the Zone, is the result of intimate observation during extended periods within the Zone. Any of us can experience these periods through meditation, prayer, or epiphany, or through other means, which will be mentioned later. In all of these instances the conclusion through the ages has been the same--there is one Zone, and only one Zone. There is no example of a credible mystical observation of the Zone which has concluded otherwise. This principle of oneness is universally held by all the great religious mystics and saints. It is so definite that any disagreement with this understanding of the essential oneness of the Zone demonstrates immediately that the information is false and does not apply to the Zone.

Any disagreement among the religions over any part of the Zone's nature demonstrates that the Non-Zone has gotten into the picture and botched things up. The first person who discovered the Zone within himself knew then that there was only one Zone. That discovery was made long ago, before the first man as we know him today. There has been one Zone forever, and there has been one religion forever that describes its nature. It goes without saying there was one Zone before Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. Any disagreement among religions about the nature of the Zone is over some matter that stems from outside the Zone and is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

The Zone has dimensions in space, though the spatial dimensions do not behave in the same rigid and predictable as the spatial dimensions of the Non-Zone do. Nevertheless, the Zone extends in space and can change its size, in a manner of speaking. The Zone extends in its own space out to that curtain of perception, wherever that curtain might be.

The Zone also possesses the element of time, but time in the Zone is overwhelmingly the present, not the past or the future. Time is flexible in the Zone. Indeed, it can run in either direction. The past and the future can even be mixed within the Zone. You might say that subjectivity rules time within the Zone.

The nature of Truth is different within the Zone. The Truth within the Zone is clear and obvious. Regardless of what matter to which the Truth may be applied in the Zone, that Truth will be agreed to by anyone in the Zone. There are no arguments about, disagreements about, confusion about, or quibbling about what is true and what is not true within the Zone. This particular feature of the Zone can be made obvious to any of us who are collected together. Those persons in the Non-Zone quibble continually about the differences of the truths within the Non-Zone, while the persons inside the Zone agree about the same truths. It can be said without a doubt that Truth within the Zone is not the same as Truth in the Non-Zone.

Who lives within the Zone? There is an inhabitant who lives within the Zone. This inhabitant is ancient, nonhuman, and sexless. He is composed of pure subjectivity. He is the fundamental man. He has many names, not the least of which are the "Christ," the "Buddha," the soul, the self, and the force. The names for the fundamental man vary widely. Inhabitants of the Non-Zone can debate until the cows come home whether one of these is really the same as the others. The fact is there is one of them who is present in the Zone, and he is the only one. Anyone who thinks there are two or three selves or subjectivities is in the Non-Zone and has nothing worthwhile to add to the intimate, direct information from the Zone itself. Within the Zone there is universal agreement that the Zone has one consciousness, and when it is present it is "in-itself" one entity. Its very qualitative nature makes it so. The fundamental man lives in a kind of solitude inside the Zone, but he is not alone. We will return to the subject of archetypes within the Zone later on.

Why call him the "fundamental man?" Why not something else? Children before a certain age appear to be in the Zone naturally most of the time. It is also generally true that the more one is educated, the more he experiences his life in the Non-Zone. There is no reason to doubt that subjectivity, the Zone, and its inhabitant--the fundamental man--do indeed extend well below the level of the human being down and out into the animal kingdom. For those reasons, I like to salute the primary, basic, and aboriginal nature of this entity with the word "fundamental;" others have used the term "fundamental man" for that reason. Of course, though the fundamental man is ancient, extending far back time, he is not at all primitive--no, just the opposite, as we will see.

Now, the word "man" is more difficult to justify, partly because in daily life at almost any moment in time, there are more women in the Zone, experiencing themselves as the fundamental man than there are men in the Zone experiencing themselves as the fundamental man. But frankly, what we are talking about is not a man or a woman, and it does not have the nature more of one than the other. The fundamental man exists at a level far more fundamental than the differential level of the male and female sexes, which I should add, exists only in the Non-Zone. No, the word "man" is used because of its older, abstract meaning, which carries with it the implication of significant spiritual worth.

After all, who is he who brought freedom to mankind? Who is he who fought and fights to survive in the Non-Zone? Who is he who looks into the mirror? Who is he who was supposed to have been created in the image of his Maker? And finally, who is he who was created equal? He is, and he always will be the fundamental man .

Just who is the fundamental man? The bottom-line answer to this question is: He is you! He is as close to your reading this sentence as anything could possibly be, but he is not the words you hear in your mind or the thoughts you are having, but he's there in spades, observing quietly. And as I type this sentence, he is here quietly observing. And he is the same one in your case as in mine. There is only one fundamental man; there is no such thing as fundamental men. This is another example of the unity or oneness of the Zone, which is the universal agreement of those who have spent much of their lives in the Zone, and it is even the intuitive result of the average person who slips from time to time into the Zone over a glass of beer. Any serious talk about multiple entities--one for each person and animal--is nonsense and a waste of time because it stems from far out in the Non-Zone, which is irrelevant. You might say that there is one Religion of the Zone, while there are millions of religions of the Non-Zone. To worship in a religion of the Non-Zone is stupid.

Where did the fundamental man come from? There are many similar questions: Was he here at the beginning of time? Will he live forever? How far into the animal kingdom does he go? Is he a small god of some type, or a piece of a greater fundamental man? All of these questions are asked from positions well outside the Zone itself, and frankly, they cannot be answered. The only questions that can be answered about the fundamental man or anything else pertaining to the Zone can only be asked and answered within the Zone. You will notice when you are within the Zone that none of these questions arises. Questions and answers about the Zone that originate in the Non-Zone are irrelevant and a waste of time. It should be easy to understand at this point that most of what people think they know comes from the Non-Zone, but rest assured that those who keep religious belief alive derive all of their knowledge from direct, intimate experience within the Zone at the level of the true fundamental man.

What is the relationship between the fundamental man and God? The relationship is so close that no point of separation exists. If the fundamental man were said to be the tip of an iceberg, God would be that greater part of the iceberg that cannot be seen but is presumed to be below the surface. Almost universally, persons who are inside the Zone acknowledge the existence of God; certainly there is a huge group who acknowledge the existence of God and His close relationship very enthusiastically. The great athletes invariably ascribe their prowess to God, and it is from within the Zone that they accomplish their feats on the field. This is also true of soldiers in combat, and it is true that there is a natural tendency in all of us to appeal to God in desperate times. All of this suggests that God is in the picture somewhere, but He's certainly not the god who most people think of from their places in the Non-Zone. Furthermore, we have no reason to think that there is another super-Zone somewhere way off where we'll all end up if we behave ourselves. All of this kind of thinking comes from the Non-Zone, and it's easy to see why intelligent people refuse to believe in a God concocted from Non-Zone imaginations. The part that God plays within the Zone will be discussed later on.

If the fundamental man lives within the Zone, who is he who lives within the Non-Zone? The institutionalized man lives within the Non-Zone, and under no circumstances is he admitted into the Zone. The institutionalized man is basically what we all would be most familiar with as who we say and think we are. There are many names for him. Psychoanalysts like to call him the ego, but the fact is each of our individual names is another name for the institutionalized man.

The institutionalized man is at his pinnacle in the more sophisticated and advanced parts of the civilized world. He typically emerges sometime in early childhood when the world around him begins to regiment his behavior and later on, his thinking and his beliefs. We are all familiar with the surprising wisdom of infants and very young children, and we are all also aware of how this wisdom seems to disappear during schooling and social conformity. This transition, which is usually most apparent around age six, results when his parents and teachers extract the child from the Zone and push him into the Non-Zone where he will continue to live the majority of his remaining waking life. At least, he will be taught to believe that this is his real life.

He will be taught that his real self consists of a mind, which is the product of his brain, which in turn, is a physical organ of his physical body. In other words, he will be taught to believe he is a thing in the world, that he is just one more object in the Non-Zone. For many years the fundamental man who began his life as a self-evident pocket of subjectivity will be ignored and covered over by this new edition--the institutionalized man. For most of us, if life were divided into three consecutive parts, the first part--that is, early childhood--would be dominated by the existence of the fundamental man. The middle part, which continues for five or six decades, is dominated by the institutionalized man, and the last part is dominated once again by the fundamental man. Of course, there are many variations on this general theme.

In many people the institutionalized man becomes mean, anxious, and depressed. Any strong beliefs he may have are those drilled into him through the institutions in the Non-Zone; the beliefs of the institutionalized man are similar to the programs of computer software. The institutionalized man is a kind of unhappy robot who carries out his tasks in the Non-Zone. Many of these institutionalized men die before they are able to return to the Zone and resume their true and original identity as the fundamental man. The institutionalized reader will have some difficulty with this kind of thinking. He will have been tempted already to stop reading this piece because it is inconsistent with his programming. He does not wish to acknowledge what has been literally staring at him in the mirror every morning.

During that middle part of life, how should the institutionalized man treat the fundamental man? Ideally, the fundamental man should always be acknowledged as the only really meaningful form of our existence. In comparison, the institutionalized man is a speck of dirt. In spite of his physical body, his elaborate adornments, and his stilted comportment, the institutionalized man is a cosmic joke. There is absolutely no meaningful comparison between the fundamental man and the institutionalized man. One of them actually exists, and the other does not. So how should we treat the fundamental man during this middle phase of life when the institutionalized man is dominant?

The first and most lasting domain of the fundamental man is sleep. In spite of all of his attempts, the institutionalized man can rob the fundamental man of this territory to a limited extent only. Under most circumstances, the fundamental man is assured of one-third of daily life that can be taken from him in only small chunks. Even here, the institutionalized man makes every attempt to take large parts of this guaranteed third, but when he does, it is at his own peril. The institutionalized man is continually frustrated in his efforts to steal this hallowed ground. It is often only during sleep that the fundamental man is temporarily freed from the assault of the institutionalized man. This characterizes the conflict existing during the middle phase of life.

In spite of the fact that the institutionalized man naturally sees it as useless, the artistic life must be maintained and respected: It must always be given the highest priority. Music, in particular, is the expression of the fundamental man, but each part of the artistic world is a kind of communication to the outside from that realm of subjectivity where the fundamental man watches and knows everything that is happening. When the music is sorry and its sister arts are inane and stupid, the institutionalized man stifles the life of the fundamental man. When the institutionalized man gets the upper hand, he often tries to subdue or obliterate the fundamental man altogether--but he does so at his own peril. The institutionalized man must always give way to the expressions of the fundamental man; when he does not he will suffer greatly.

True freedom is the only air the fundamental man will breathe. The institutionalized man attempts to regiment and constrict the behavior of the fundamental man with his governments, laws, prisons, and threats. Human history attests to the continual struggle against the cruelty of the institutionalized man in his conceited quest to control and limit the natural freedom of subjectivity. Democracy is a major advance in favor of the fundamental man, but the institutionalized man has a way of turning democracy into a democracy of institutionalized men, not a democracy of the fundamental man. The next great historical step in this regard will be the advent of a true democracy of the fundamental man; that step will further secure the freedom, which is his birthright. When the fundamental man is free, life is good; when he is not free, life is a disgrace.

The institutionalized man must hold religion in high regard. He should suppress his natural point of view that it is worthless, archaic, and untrue. The natural inclination of the institutionalized man is to either use religion as he would his laws to filch the freedom of the fundamental man, or to get rid of religion altogether. True religion and all true spirituality are within the domain of the fundamental man, that is, within the realm of subjectivity and essentially mystical in nature. The institutionalized man has no idea what religion really is. He does not understand it, does not appreciate it, and has a natural grudge against it. The institutionalized man hates the idea that something or someone may be higher than he is. One fundamental man armed with his religious beliefs is more powerful than millions of institutionalized men armed to the teeth with guns and rockets.

Love between man and man must be glorified in all instances for the sake of the fundamental man. The institutionalized man would have love become a matter of biology; he would have sex become the servant of pleasure. He would have his laws and regulations carry sway over the natural good will that is the brotherhood of the fundamental man. The fundamental man loves the fundamental man always, and he does so naturally. He does so regardless of whether the love is between man and woman, or adult and child. He does not pick and choose, and he does not barter good will as the institutionalized man does. The fundamental man has a natural brotherhood unto himself, and the institutionalized man must respect that brotherhood of love at all levels. When the institutionalized man attempts to make love obscene, he does so at his own peril.

In the final analysis the institutionalized man should always know his place and treat the fundamental man accordingly. He should keep his hands off religion and art, secure and protect freedom at all costs, hold love in its highest form, and make sure he usually gets a good night's sleep.

What is an "archetype?" In order to discuss more thoroughly the fundamental man and the Zone in which he lives, we must first understand archetypes. Who and what are they? Recall that in a technical sense subjectivity is not a "thing;" that the fundamental man is not a thing; and that the Zone is not a thing. They are different ways of naming the "I am" component of your existence--that is, pure subjectivity. But for the time being, imagine subjectivity as a type of "ether" with a point of view or a cloudy substance of some kind that looks across itself from one side to the other. It looks from "here" to "there." Its substance configures itself into the various objects, forms, and shapes that compose the world around it into the reality of daily life. Each object is composed in a specific way that makes it what it is.

Now, let's clarify subjectivity a bit more: The subjectivity we are imagining as a type of ether with a point of view is you sitting in the airport waiting and observing the people around you so that in a minute or so, you see as many as 100 people pass by or stand near you for a while. For several minutes you have noticed no remarkable or extraordinary people when suddenly a little white-haired lady in the middle of the crowd catches your eye. You cannot stop watching her for some reason. You may notice that in a subtle way she is brighter than the other people. You may feel that you know her or have seen her before or that she looks like your grandmother. The fact is you are observing an archetype, which is conjured up from the "ether" of subjectivity, and this subjectivity imbues the form of the little lady to give her appearance a very special quality. You experience that quality as an extraordinary little white-haired lady, but what you are really experiencing is an "archetype."

Archetypes are common and they come in all types and sizes. They are the special, meaningful people in our lives. Some individual people take on this subjectivity easily and become common archetypes for many other people. For instance, Elvis Presley was and is an archetype for many of his fans. Your mother and father are almost certainly archetypes for you; if not, some other older man or woman serves as a similar archetype. The same is true of your loved ones or the people you greatly admire.

The drama of one's life is the story of one's self and these archetypes. Recall that all along one's own subjectivity is conjuring up these archetypes by imbuing certain people with its own subjectivity, which converts them from non-descript persons into extraordinary and meaningful persons. Some particular archetypes are more familiar to us than others, and the dramas of most of our lives are composed from a common set of archetypes. For instance, a life might be the story of one's self, a mother figure, a child, a father figure, a young woman, an old man, a warrior, and a saint. A similar life might be the story of one's self, a mother figure, a father figure, an old woman, a lover, and a saint. Any individual subjectivity can conjure up its own collection of archetypes, and there are as many life dramas as there are individual subjectivities, though we cannot forget that each individual subjectivity is really the same one fundamental man .

There is a kind of cultural hierarchy of these archetypes; in others words, certain archetypes are held in higher esteem than others. The highest archetype is the supremely good, kind, and loving person. The nurturing mother and the intelligent father are archetypes also held in the highest esteem. The beautiful, young woman is an archetype held in high regard. Lastly, and not least, the heroic athlete-warrior is a beloved archetype. There are many obvious examples of each of these archetypes, and they are all well represented in our culture's history, in our religions, in our current public lives, and in our private lives.

This topic of archetypes business becomes even more interesting when we realize that each of us is one type or the other archetype for someone else. This connects you with another person because he uses you as one of his archetypes. One can imagine that the archetypes of one's own life overlaps with the archetypes of other lives, thus a huge web of connecting archetypes exists that links the individual subjectivities of all or most of the people of the world.

Hold in your mind this image of a vast matrix of connecting archetypes of various types, where certain archetypes are more illuminated than others because of their natural place in the hierarchy. If we could actually see this vast matrix before us so that we could study its nature, we would probably see the greatest and the brightest of all of the archetypes is the good, the kind, and the loving person. He is the brightest of all of the archetypes. One could study this matrix of archetypes and discover other characteristics and indeed, one might be able to put together a history of the archetypes; how they relate to each other; whether they have a life of their own; and whether they are bound in a struggle. There are many scenarios and the possibilities seem endless. Perhaps the life drama of this matrix of archetypes is quite simple. Perhaps it is recurrent. Or perhaps it is evolving.

In summary, an archetype is a specialized example of pure subjectivity that imbues certain objective persons with its own substance. One might say that an archetype results when subjectivity is objectified.

What is the relationship between the fundamental man and the archetypes? Recall that an archetype is created by subjectivity, which is the same entity that we are also calling the fundamental man. Thus, the archetype is a creation of the fundamental man who keeps his own point of view and works through the action of the archetype. In this way, the fundamental man can take on the identity of the archetype and act in the world of the institutionalized man. The phenomenon of the archetype allows the fundamental man to interact with himself and with the institutionalized man, who is his counterpart. For example, your fundamental man might imbue your grandmother with additional subjectivity in order that your institutionalized man would listen to and take her good advice. Or, your fundamental man might imbue a large, ugly, mean man with additional subjectivity in order to teach your institutionalized man that being large, ugly, and mean doesn't merit your respect or fear. In both cases and in all other cases, the fundamental man uses his archetypal representations to affect the behavior of the institutionalized man who has evolved out of him. By this method, the fundamental man is in a continual drama with the institutionalized man, and he reels in the institutionalized man over a lifetime like a patient fisherman might reel in a large fish. You might say that the Zone is a boat, the fundamental man is a fisherman in the boat, and the institutionalized man is a fish. The Non-Zone is the sea. Now, in this example, the fisherman puts a small fish on the end of his line and drops it in the sea at the edge of the boat. He then lets it out into the sea, and as he does the fish grows until it is very large. The fisherman senses that the fish may become so large it can never be reeled in, so he reels it back toward the boat from time to time. He always tries to maintain the proper tension on the line, until he decides it's time to reel it in completely and put it back in the boat. Naturally, the fish hopes that the fisherman has a tank of water on his boat and that he will put him in it.

The fisherman uses archetypes to reel the fish toward the boat. Visualize the huge matrix of connected archetypes mentioned earlier and add the image of each of those archetypes connected to a fish that is being reeled in. Recall that in reality there is only one fundamental man. Now, can you see how one fundamental man can control all the institutionalized men on earth? By this method the fundamental man is operating in the Non-Zone without having to go into it himself, and he is able to control the Non-Zone for a purpose, which he alone could know.

It's easy to see by this method how the fundamental man has been able to build his civilization--both the physical and the non-physical parts of it. It is also easy to see that at no time is it possible for the fundamental man to lose his general control over the process.

I would like to paraphrase this section in the words we have agreed to use: The fundamental man who dwells within the Zone creates and utilizes objectified forms of himself as common archetypes in order to control the institutionalized man who dwells in the Non-Zone. By this method the Zone controls the Non-Zone.

Who or what is God? This is the greatest of all the questions of life. Indeed, the drama of one's life plays out according to how this question is asked and answered as the stages of life advance and the problem of death reappears in its many forms. The simplest answer is: No one knows. If someone thinks he knows, his knowledge can't be trusted. One is free to believe whatever he wants to in order to maintain enough hope to make it through the hardships of life. To live one's life with this answer requires faith to counter a built-in doubt. Consider the millions and millions of people who have gone to their deaths armed with no more than faith. It's easy to see why so many people are not satisfied with this answer. Answering the greatest question of our existence this way and closing the matter out is pathetic.

Recall that this question and all similar questions cannot be answered with any authority from the Non-Zone. One must ask it from within the Zone where the answer can be known to some definite extent, beyond the wall which is reputed to be only scaled by faith. Observe the great athletes: Are there any examples of exceptional, beautiful, athletic performances where the athlete did not give an acknowledgement to his God? The great athletes all believe that they are experiencing the power of God when they perform in what Homer called a "god-like manner." These god-like athletic performances are performed within the Zone, and it is only within the Zone that the presence of a God can be experienced. There is no God in the Non-Zone, and none can be experienced there. The institutionalized man has no God; it is the institutionalized man who is told to have faith and die with his fingers crossed. For the fundamental man the situation is far different.

Anyone who asks this great question from within the Zone can find the answer. He must ask it in the state of pure subjectivity, and there he will find his answer. I shall try to describe the answer from the edge of the Zone but just outside of it: As one experiences his own pure subjectivity he cannot long be unimpressed with the special, divine quality of it. Subjectivity is different from other qualities in a way that is unmistakably transcendent because of its "in-itself" type of existence. When we study subjectivity further as the fundamental man, we see that it has power to affect the Non-Zone by using archetypes in ways that are almost magical. From the edge of the Zone we can speculate about the implications of what we can know directly about the fundamental man. In other words, if the fundamental man himself can be known directly and his power witnessed, would it not be reasonable to think that there is still more to the fundamental man than we know? If in any one of us the fundamental man is as impressive as he is, is it not reasonable to think that he extends into realms of power beyond what we have experienced?

God is the fundamental man extended outward beyond what we know. The fundamental man is a piece of the answer, and God is the remainder of the answer. God is the fundamental man extended as far as he might go--far, far beyond what any fundamental man might sense directly and certainly far beyond anything that the institutionalized man might have to say about it. Remember that if the fundamental man were the tip of an iceberg, God is that part of the iceberg, which cannot be seen below the surface, but is presumed to be there nevertheless.

The fundamental man himself would never ask the question: Is there a God? He would not ask it any more than a child standing with his father would ask: Is there a father?

Is there an afterlife? The greatest problem of this life is death. We were given existence before we could worry about existence itself, but that left us with the problem of our non-existence. The story of life itself is the cosmic effort to solve this problem. Part of every life is an attempt to find a solution. The common answers are "no" and "yes." In the latter case, the afterlife is supposed to be in some heavenly state where we will all be with God, or at least, the ones of us who have behaved ourselves or who have mumbled the right words at the right time. It is easy to see why this answer falls short and leaves the balanced mind with its built-in half-doubt in a state of disease. Actually, we can give a fairly good answer to this question, and it is as follows:

Recall that there is only one fundamental man who exists in the form of pure subjectivity in each or most of us, and of course, he extends well into the animal kingdom. In other words, even though there is only one fundamental man he is inside many individual people and animals of all ages and sizes. When one institutionalized man dies and takes with him his temporary, resident fundamental man, there are others left, and after them, still others. Even if life on Earth or life in the galaxy can no longer serve as a temporary home for the fundamental man, there are other worlds and other galaxies where he is alive and well.

The fundamental man has, in effect, diced himself into pieces and scattered these pieces through time and space. Death brings an end to only a part as new parts are being born. If I die, that same fundamental man who was I continues to live in you, and when you die, that same fundamental man remains alive in others. You and I are the fundamental man, and we share his existence throughout the universe.

Of course, this answer will not satisfy the institutionalized man who would have himself specifically live after his death. Poor institutionalized man! He must die, and frankly, there is no afterlife waiting for him.

The turning point is in the true brotherhood of the fundamental man. When one identifies with the fundamental man and acknowledges that there is only one fundamental man who lives in each of us, then he realizes that he himself will live forever. For that matter, he will also realize that he himself was here a long time before he was born.

Do we have free will? Each of us must have wondered whether or not we can actually choose to act one way or the other without there being pre-existing influences which actually determine the final choice we make. Modern thinking would have us believe that we do not have free will under any circumstances, and that in the final analysis, our emotions, our thoughts, and our actions are the result of hidden forces in the mind and in the brain. Our cultural institutions reflect the confusion which has always existed in this area. Certainly, anyone can experience this problem in a small way in the cafeteria line when we try to decide which dessert to choose.

The answer to this quandary is the same as other similar matters of truth: There is no free will for the institutionalized man; there is free will for the fundamental man. As the institutionalized man in each of us reacts to pre-existing factors in a mechanical way which is the subject of all the modern forms of psychology. In the simplest ways the behavior of the institutionalized man can be predicted in the laboratory, and a day never passes when each of us does not observe the predictable and mechanical behavior of the institutionalized people around us--the doctors, the lawyers, the politicians, the "this," and the "that"--all the way down the list. But put one fundamental man on the stage and the situation changes.

In the state of pure subjectivity as the fundamental man within the Zone, any of us is completely free to act as the fundamental man. The fundamental man is free and he chooses; the institutionalized man is programmed and he reacts. It is easy to see that conflict can develop between the choices made by an institutionalized man and those made by the fundamental man. For instance, one institutionalized man might follow a course of stimuli, which would have him steal from one of his fellows; the thief's fundamental man will choose to get caught and give back what was stolen. This obvious conflict is the bane of all thieves.

Indeed, the fundamental man is honorable, but he uses the institutionalized man as a kind of robot to act in the Non-Zone. You might say that the fundamental man sits at home while the institutionalized man is sent off to the rock quarry.

Can health be affected by the fundamental man? There is probably no subject more important than this one. All parts of health begin and end with the fundamental man. The institutionalized man has been programmed to believe that he can maintain his health by attending to certain parts of the Non-Zone, under the direction, of course, of the institutions of health. Our doctors would have us believe that if we do this and that and not that and this, we will be healthy; if we don't, then we will become unhealthy and die prematurely. It seldom works out that way. The fact is that our health is dependent on the fundamental man and how he is treated by the institutionalized man.

Let's use heart disease as an example. Our institutionalized thinking would have us believe that we can secure the health of the cardiovascular system by exercise, diet, and controlling the blood pressure. This approach places all the emphasis on pieces of the Non-Zone and how the institutionalized man interacts with certain parts of the Non-Zone. If he jogs two miles a day, eats the right amount of good fat, and keeps the pressure within the arteries between certain numbers, our institutionalized man will live longer that he would have otherwise. While he does all this, he continues to work daily to cheat his fellow man in some way at work. The fundamental man does not approve of cheating himself; his disapproval causes a pain in the chest which leads his institutionalized physician to add some additional item to the treatment list. The fundamental man within is not impressed, and if the institutionalized man does not change his ways he will eventually die with chest pain while his doctor stands by and wonders what new elements out there in the Non-Zone could have saved his patient. He looks outward into the Non-Zone for his answer, yet the answer was always inside the patient at the place that it was being freely observed by the fundamental man.

The beginning and the end of personal health is with the fundamental man within us all. The fear of death drives the institutionalized man to scramble frantically for his health to a dishonorable extent while the fundamental man has no death to fear and his health is secured by the world in which he lives--the Zone.

If you want to be healthy, do what the fundamental man wants you to do. If you do not want to be healthy, ignore the fundamental man and don't do what he wants you to do.

How does one honor the fundamental man? The fundamental man honors the man who honors him. By all measures, the fundamental man must be honored. He must be held in the highest regard. His desires must be met. How do we do this?

As the institutionalized man we honor the fundamental man by giving him his due. We should never forget the importance of sleep. The fundamental man is alone during the majority of sleep and that is where he wants to be, away from the institutionalized man whose hand he's been holding throughout the waking day. Most of what the fundamental man must observe passively as the institutionalized man carries out his duties is boring, meaningless, and stupid. Much of the behavior of the institutionalized man is offensive to the fundamental man. When possible, don't forget the importance of giving the fundamental man a break with a good night's sleep.

The institutionalized man should bow to the superiority of the fundamental man on all levels. The institutionalized man should act as honorably and morally as possible while fulfilling the mission he has been given by the fundamental man. Under no circumstance should an institutionalized man or one of his institutions kill a fundamental man. Recall that the little fish is put over the side of the boat by the fundamental man who is the fisherman, and that at the end of life the big fish has been reeled in to the side of the boat. The institutionalized man must honor the young and the old and never harm them for they are the closest to the fundamental man who watches from the boat.

The institutionalized man should never curse, sneer at, or disgrace in any way the fundamental man, regardless of the part the institutionalized man might have to play in the Non-Zone. In other words, the institutionalized man in all of us should always hold in the highest regard the fundamental man and treat him reverently. When the institutionalized man disrespects the fundamental man even to the slightest extent, his own arrogance and pride will seed him with mental illness, physical illnesses, premature aging, and death. If the institutionalized man really wants to be happy and healthy, let him not go to the doctor's office, but to the foot of the fundamental man inside the Zone. The manner in which we treat strangers demonstrates how we are treat the fundamental man. The stranger is the fundamental man. Treat strangers well, and you will live long.

The institutionalized man is given one-third of the 24 hour day; that is, eight hours. The fundamental man has already taken his eight hours of sleep. That leaves eight hours: these eight hours should be split so that the fundamental man gets no less than half whenever possible. In other words, four hours of each day on the average should be spent in the Zone, whether it is spent in fellowship, resting, sports, the arts, hobbies, or religion. Those institutionalized men who regularly steal time from the fundamental man’s due will become ill and die prematurely. They will die regardless of all the help they might try to get from their doctors in the Non-Zone.

What part does the fundamental man play in sports? As was mentioned earlier, the word "Zone" was chosen to describe the domain of the fundamental man because the term was established convincingly by our great athletes. There is no better example of the perfection and superiority of the fundamental man in the world of action than the beautiful performance of those athletes who find the Zone. We can see for ourselves the incomparable prowess of the fundamental man who takes control of physical action for a period of time. We have all watched this phenomenon in a state of awe. Those who have experienced it personally have no doubt that the Zone and fundamental man do, in fact, exist inside, waiting to emerge.

The archetype for the fundamental man manifesting himself in sports is the same as the archetype of the fundamental man manifesting himself as a warrior. He has many names, but to a large extent our culture has settled on the name "Achilles." The institutionalized man can play sports and become a proficient warrior, but he cannot hold a candle to the archetype Achilles. He can only excel by becoming Achilles, by becoming the archetype himself. The institutionalized man must find the fundamental man who placed him over the side of the boat long ago, and when he does, he becomes the fundamental man--he becomes Achilles. Anything short of this is practice and has little worth.

The warrior who would find a true justification of his trade will find it only with the fundamental man. If he takes another course, he will eventually become expendable. Through the ages, the true warrior has always known this. Behold his honor. Behold his courage. Behold his spirituality. There is no doubt about this. The archetype of Achilles or the great athlete-warrior should always be held in the highest regard, for he is the fundamental man. Where the institutionalized man would seek to diminish his worth, he will do so at his own peril. Recall that the fundamental man honors the man who honors him.

What part does the fundamental man play in motherhood and fatherhood? The loving mother and the wise father are archetypes of the fundamental man. To become a loving mother or a wise father, go not to books, movies, or anywhere else to find the archetype you must become. Go to the foot of the fundamental man inside. He is already the perfect mother and the perfect father, regardless of what all the institutionalized men say to the contrary. No one knows better how to take care of himself than the fundamental man who it is that is being taken care of in the first place; in other words, the fundamental already knows how to take care of himself. He existed long before our institutions. It would be mindless to think that where institutions do not exist, the loving mother and the wise father were not long on the scene, acting out their parts as archetypes of the fundamental man.

The same thing can be said of similar archetypes. The brother, the sister, the child, the old man or woman--all of these become perfect in the form of their archetypes that are, in each example, one more expression of the fundamental man.

How can I get into the Zone? There are many gates, which can be opened into the Zone, and through these gates the institutionalized man, weary of his struggles in the Non-Zone, can return to the arms of his creator, the fundamental man. Each gate can be opened by some, but not by others. Each institutionalized man must search for his gate and when he finds it, he must not lose it. He must open it over and over so that he opens it more easily each time. Each time he opens it he must keep it open longer and longer.

In ordinary life, we observe others as they use these gates to experience the fundamental man. Food, sex, competition, addiction, music, and dance are gates waiting for the institutionalized man to open so that he can return briefly to the side of the boat and witness again the fisherman who put him over the side in the first place. The gates are innumerable. It could be said that each institutionalized man has one gate waiting especially for him.

How can you find your gate? There is a kind of path that will lead you to the gate waiting for you. That path is happiness. If any of us does what he really wants to secure the most happiness for himself, he will be led to the gate that he can most easily open to find the fundamental man. The path to happiness begins with pleasure, and it is through modulating pleasure that we discover the fundamental man. From there the path is refined so that it becomes lasting in the form of happiness. At the moment that pleasure becomes happiness you have discovered the gate. Once you discover it, remember it, respect it, and glorify it. It will forever be your personal gate into the Zone.

When he acts, can the fundamental man make a mistake? He cannot. Every choice he makes is the correct one, taking into account the institutionalized man through whom he might have to act and the boundaries placed on the Zone by the Non-Zone. The fundamental man knows this truth intuitively: In all examples the fundamental man is doing the best he could have done. As a result, with the help of the institutionalized man, he is building the best of all possible worlds. The fundamental man trusts that this is true because he chooses to, and he knows that he may pass this way only once. What-if postulates belong to the Non-Zone. All the sad could-have-been's and all the regret that goes with them belong to the Non-Zone. Even there none of them actually exists. The fundamental man knows no regret, and he does not second-guess himself as the institutionalized man does. In other words, the fundamental man trusts himself. He knows no fear. He is calm. He is ultimately all that there really is.





The End

[Mickey O'neil]

That was just about some of the coolest shit ever. Awesome.

I first saw this in my local paper but dismissed it and didn't read it because it had rollerblading in it. I just watched the video and it is indeed some of the coolest shit ever. It really makes you think.

[nafod]

That was just about some of the coolest shit ever. Awesome.

I first saw this in my local paper but dismissed it and didn't read it because it had rollerblading in it. I just watched the video and it is indeed some of the coolest shit ever. It really makes you think.

I kept waiting for Terri Tate the Office linebacker to take him down.

[SubClaw]

Slomo is a good name for him since rollerblading is for homos.

Mountain bike riding, as manly as boxing.