Selected Correspondence Peter
PETER: Just a follow up to my last post. Soon after posting it I came across the following article which is relevant to the ever shifting chameleonic nature of religious belief.
I wrote in the post –
And the article from Brittanica.com –
Peter Bebergal, special to Britannica.com.
The other bit I found relevant was
And I had written –
PETER: (...) Perhaps upon reflection you might consider that the fact that you regard such matters as ‘even not worth a thought’ may well be the very reason why you are at loggerheads with the content of what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website.
RESPONDENT: First of all, it is not a fact that I regard such matters as ‘even no worth a thought’. What you talk about is something completely different from what I don’t consider as ‘even not worth a thought’. I consider ‘even not worth a thought’ the idea that some ‘blind’ (in the sense of ‘random’ or ‘mechanical’) forces are the cause for life in general and human life in particular.
PETER: I do realize that you have done some thinking about the nature of these forces yet what you have concluded along with countless others who have come to the same conclusion, is that these ‘forces’ must in some way be other-than-physical forces – the notion of noumenon and phenomena.
Here is the statement I commented on in context and where you define this non-physical noumenon in spiritual terms, whilst disingenuously blurring the distinction between spirit and matter, whereas elsewhere you have attempted to explain it in pseudo-scientific terms –
What I was pointing to was the fact that some people are beginning to do some down-to-earth thinking about the nature of these ‘evolutionary ‘forces’’ as opposed to the traditional notion that they must have an underlying non-physical (spiritual or metaphysical) nature, as you succinctly stated in another of your posts –
RESPONDENT: Obviously, instinctual behaviour is not ‘blind’ (in the sense of ‘random’ or ‘mechanical’) but fulfils ‘purpose’. As soon as there is a purpose guiding behaviour it is not ‘random’ anymore.
PETER: If this is so obvious to you, may I ask what ‘purpose guiding behaviour’ do you see in the phenomena of the instinctual passions (to use your terminology)? And further, is this purpose not also the purpose of the ‘factor X, noumenon’, (given that your latest thinking apparently proposes that noumenon and phenomena are one and the same as in inseparable)?
PETER: And further, is this purpose not also the purpose of the ‘factor X, noumenon’, (given that your latest thinking apparently proposes that noumenon and phenomena are one and the same as in inseparable)?
RESPONDENT: We cannot ascribe ‘purpose’ to the unknown factor X (noumenon), as long as it is unobservable; as soon as noumenon becomes observable it is not noumenon anymore but phenomenon; we can discover purpose, intelligence, meaning all over the place in the phenomenal world (‘nature’).
PETER: It sounds to me as a layman that this ‘factor X’ is totally useless as it has no purpose at all and not only that, when it does become observable it ceases to exist!
I can only conclude that your treasured ‘factor X’ (which presumably has something to do with your answer to your ‘ultimate questions’) has by its very metaphysical, non-purposeful, nature blindsided itself from being able to do anything at all about bringing an end to the phenomena of human malice and human sorrow. (...)
RESPONDENT: Besides, the existence or non-existence of passionate instincts and their effects on animal and human behavior is completely irrelevant for the postulation of a noumenon.
PETER: I for one was not musing about the existence or non-existence of the passionate instincts, I was simply pointing out the fact that some primatologists are starting to dare to publicize the readily observable fact that human malice and sorrow are the direct result of the animal instinctual passions,
RESPONDENT: Yes, I see that as well.
PETER: … a fact that makes any and all postulations of noumenon/phenomena completely irrelevant.
RESPONDENT: I don’t see why that would be the case.
PETER: Perhaps I can put it this way – when one takes on board the fact that human malice and sorrow are the direct result of the animal instinctual passions – and only the animal instinctual passions – then any musings or postulations about a ‘noumenon’ incarnating the instinctual passions, about an underlying metaphysical reality, a greater reality, a lesser reality, an intelligent design or an intelligent designer and so on become not only irrelevant but are clearly seen as puerility writ large.
RESPONDENT: So, in fact, I have no problem at all with the facts that are written on the Actual Freedom Trust website. I have only a problem with your conclusions what these facts mean regards the ‘ultimate questions’.
PETER: I do realize that some people spend a good deal of time wondering about such questions as ‘why are we here’, ‘where did we come from’ and ‘where are we going’ … but I have always been far more concerned with the down-to-earth questions such as why can’t we, as intelligent human beings, live together in peace and harmony, or more to the point, why can’t I live with people in peace and harmony.?
RESPONDENT: Yes, yes, I ask that myself.
PETER: Are you saying ‘yes, yes’ to the first set of questions or the latter two questions? The reason I ask is that in the hundreds of posts you have sent to this mailing list I can’t recall you expressing any interest in the latter questions – ‘why can’t we, as intelligent human beings, live together in peace and harmony, or more to the point, why can’t I live with people in peace and harmony?
RESPONDENT: The Holoscience people discount the notion of higher dimensions, but I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that ... maybe we are seeing all that there is. Maybe it is adequate, and complete. I’ll have to mull this over some more and rein in my skeptical bent a tad.
PETER: Human beings have an obsession with ‘the notion of higher dimensions’ – the belief that the world is subject to the influence of good forces and evil forces is prevalent in every tribe and every culture on the planet. This belief is somewhat understandable considering that it emerged in the days when it was universally believed that the world was three layered – a flat earthy plane full of dangerous animals and dangerous humans, a mystifying heavenly realm above and a mysterious underworld below. Eventually it was empirically observed that the earth was not flat but was spherical and subsequent explorations over centuries proved that this was in fact so. Nowadays photos of earth taken from spacecrafts have subsequently convinced all but the wacky that the earth is not flat.
The next belief to be demolished by empirical observation was the notion that the earth was the centre of the solar system – an empirical observation only made possible by the invention of a mechanical enhancement of our ‘sensory apparatus’ – the telescope. As telescopes got bigger and better, the belief that our galaxy was all there was to the universe – a conviction held in Einstein’s time – was replaced by the discovery that there are in fact countless other galaxies in the universe. The subsequent invention of radio telescopes and the like has meant that we are now able to observe and measure spectrums of the electromagnetic energy of the universe that lay outside the range human eyes can detect.
And yet, despite this long history of scientific discoveries about the extraordinary magic that is the physical universe, the eons-old search for some sort of ‘higher dimension’ or metaphysical energy – the famed spirit-energy of mythology – still persists.
The same long trek from belief and superstition to actuality and wonder can be seen in the discoveries about the creation of animate life. The process of animal reproduction was unknown to early humans and all sorts of beliefs and superstitions flourished in ignorance. Now, thousands of years later, the science of observation and investigation – mightily boosted by the invention of the inverted telescope, the microscope – has revealed the facts to be far more wondrous than the puerile myths dependant upon the belief in supernatural spirit forces.
I could go on tripping through other fields of scientific discovery and endeavour, but you probably have got the gist of what I am saying – human beings will never be free from the fear and hope inherent in superstition if they insist on believing in higher dimensions, supernatural forces, metaphysical realms, divine beings, good and evil spirits and so on – or persist in hoping that one day science will provide the empirical evidence that spiritual belief so tellingly lacks.
RESPONDENT: My statement does not imply anima, intelligence, etc. I flat out refute the notion of gods, fairies, and other such forces.
PETER: Your use of the words ‘higher dimension’ led me to make my comment – i.e. I was taking your words at face value. If I take out the word ‘higher’, as in lofty or elevated or principle, and take out the word ‘dimension’, as in attribute or aspect, I am left presuming you meant that the human sensory apparatus is limited in that it cannot detect the full range of all of the physical matter, nor the full range of all of the physical energies in the universe.
Scientific progress has gone hand-in-hand with the invention of tools and apparatus that have allowed humans to extend the range and effectiveness of their sensory apparatus. The human invention of language, then written language, then mass printed words on paper, then the digitalizing of words and the subsequent invention of a world wide web of home computers is what allows us to have this conversation across the globe – an astounding extension of the ‘limitations’ of the human language and auditory capacity.
PETER: This belief is somewhat understandable considering that it emerged in the days when it was universally believed that the world was three layered – a flat earthy plane full of dangerous animals and dangerous humans, a mystifying heavenly realm above and a mysterious underworld below. Eventually it was empirically observed that the earth was not flat but was spherical and subsequent explorations over centuries proved that this was in fact so. Nowadays photos of earth taken from spacecrafts have subsequently convinced all but the wacky that the earth is not flat.
RESPONDENT: This is my point exactly. We base our understanding of the universe on the facts we have gathered using the scientific method, and the tools we have available presently. A spacecraft is a sophisticated tool that allows us to gather useful information about the physical characteristics of the universe. Historically, the availability of ever more sophisticated tools (telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators, ...) has resulted in the refutation of previously held beliefs (masquerading as truths of course). So, the tool that someone invents in the 25th century could prove conclusively that the universe is not actually filled with plasma as previously thought, but actually filled with rubber duckies.
PETER: By the same logic, an agnostic would say it is best to keep one’s options open because ‘higher dimensions’ or evidence of creation or other worlds or black holes or singularities or meta-physical forces, or whatever else one chooses to believe in, might well be found to be true after all. This line of reasoning is often used as a last resort by those who can find no evidence to substantiate their belief and fall back on claiming the evidence does exist but it ‘hasn’t been discovered yet’.
RESPONDENT: BTW, I don’t think any of this is incompatible with the perception in a PCE, ‘that the universe is infinite and eternal and hence peerless both in its perfection and purity’.
PETER: I used to think that a lot of beliefs I held didn’t matter or weren’t relevant to actualism, but eventually I discovered the act of holding onto any beliefs only served to keep ‘me’ in existence and therefore kept me hobbled to the human condition of malice and sorrow. In short, if I couldn’t drop a belief I always knew it was something ‘I’ identified with – i.e. that it was part and parcel of ‘me’ as a social or instinctual identity.
PETER: I could go on tripping through other fields of scientific discovery and endeavour, but you probably have got the gist of what I am saying – human beings will never be free from the fear and hope inherent in superstition if they insist on believing in higher dimensions, supernatural forces, metaphysical realms, divine beings, good and evil spirits and so on – or persist in hoping that one day science will provide the empirical evidence that spiritual belief so tellingly lacks.
RESPONDENT: I guess I don’t really like the term ‘higher dimensions’ – maybe a better term is ‘characteristics of the universe that are not perceptible at present with the available human senses and tools’.
PETER: Maybe you would like to refect on what characteristics of the universe have changed since the beginning of human awareness of the universe? Such reflection might lead you to the conclusion that the characteristics of the universe exist independently of human sensory perception, and are unaffected in any way by human sensory perception.
Anthropocentricity runs deep within the human psyche, manifested in each and every human being as ‘self’-centredness. Contrary to popular belief, the universe was not ‘created’ especially for human beings – the human species is manifestly a species of animate life that has evolved from the matter of the universe. So predominant is anthropocentric belief that early humans, out of ignorance, believed the earth to be the centre of our solar system – a geocentric belief – but it has been discovered over time that the earth is but one of a number of planets that orbit the sun, which is but one sun in a galaxy full of suns, which is but one galaxy in an endless cosmos of countless galaxies.
And yet these physical characteristics of the universe have always been so despite the early beliefs and superstitions that the earth was the centre of the world and that this world must have been created by a Someone or Something.
I don’t know wether you came across the modern ‘Fingers of God’ tabulation – if this didn’t send the alarm bells ringing amongst creationist cosmology as to how geocentric, hence anthropocentric, their observations are then nothing will. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
RESPONDENT: Again, I emphasize that none of what I am talking about has anything to do with metaphysics or spiritual belief.
PETER: And yet, despite your disclaimer, you have said previously in this post –
The Big Bang theory is a creationist theory. The Big Bang theory is metaphysical in that it presumes there was a force or energy existing prior to the existence of physical matter and that this non-material force or energy then created the physical matter of the universe. The Big Bang theory is spiritual at root in that ancient spiritual belief was the prior source of all metaphysical science.
And just a note to finish with –
Personally I didn’t try to understand the science of all this too much. Simply contemplating on what would have existed before the universe was supposedly created, what would exist after in supposedly ended and what I would see if I got to the supposed edge of the universe was enough to convince me that the creationist cosmologists were off with the fairies.
RESPONDENT: No 45 quoted David Bohm recently:
You may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent, but I maintain his statement is valid. We can’t see UV for instance, so how do we know that there is not important information being presented to us at those wavelengths?
PETER: I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena.
Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 103 HZ to 1022 HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 1014 HZ to 1015 HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature.
Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves.
Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid. In doing so, you may well find that Mr. Bohm is using the word phenomena in the philosophical sense –
– in which case he is talking of objects of perception that have neither substance nor physical existence – in other words, he is talking of phenomena that are meta-physical, as in –
While you say ‘you may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent’, there is no need for me to do so because his spiritual bent is a matter of fact – well-publicized, well-known and readily verifiable. ( see also)
RESPONDENT: So, making absolute statements about the nature of the universe is presumptuous and smacks of a belief system.
PETER: And yet, earlier in this same post, you have maintained that Mr. Bohm’s absolute statement about the nature of the universe – ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ – is valid. I take it from this that you do not regard his statement as being presumptuous nor do you regard it as smacking of a belief system.
Whilst you have said in the past –
you are, yet again, coming out of the ‘not-knowing’ closet and championing yet another meta-physical theory about the nature of the physical universe.
RESPONDENT: But that’s just my opinion...
PETER: Having an opinion about something that you do not know to be a fact is but another way of saying I believe this to be so solely on the basis of what I hear other people have to say about the matter.
If I can refer you back to your claim that you hold no beliefs about the nature of the physical universe, I’ll take the opportunity of reposting my response –
I don’t know whether it has occurred to you in the course of our conversations but those who value ‘not-knowing’ do in fact hold to many opinions based solely on what they have heard other people say and they do in fact stubbornly cherish many beliefs – principal amongst them the belief that some type of ‘Unknowable’ forces and energies permeate the physical universe.
RESPONDENT: What a load of projected bullshit. Everything you say below is your own behaviour, your own scurrying for cover when myself, No 22 and No 12 have questioned you! So why should I cough up when you’re not willing to reciprocate! When you can finish the dialog that you so pettily (and with the usual lack of thought) entitled ‘No 22’s 17 words’, and answer the pertinent questions he put to you before you whimped out feigning computer problems (though you had access to two others) and then returned with some asinine excuse that you couldn’t continue what had degenerated in a tit for tat – a behaviour which BTW you were the only one contributing to – then and only then will I gladly answer any question you wish.
PETER: No 22’s pertinent questions?
No 22 came to this list under the pretence of studying actualism
knowing full well that this is a non-spiritual mailing list. Having previously read his long discourses to Richard, I was upfront when I entered into conversation with No 22 –
No 22 couldn’t even get past the second sentence as he had great trouble with the notion of being born.
I simply lost interest in his omnipotent metaphysics, his solipsistic viewpoint and his Grübelsucht behaviour, not to mention the quality of his supposed questions about actualism. –
Does this sound like someone who is interested in studying actualism? Then when I tried to introduce the subject of becoming free of malice and sorrow, he responded in classic dissociative terms –
When I tried to talk about God-men –
And then some of the dismissals –
And then, after I stopped writing to him, he posted the following to the list –
Goodness knows who he thought he was talking to but then again, being a solipsist, he obviously had been talking to a some-thing of his own creation. No wonder he had ‘nothing but calm and rational dialogue’, as you put it – he was talking to none other than Him-self. But he does seem to be miffed about actualists – why else would God waste good creating time by bothering to sign on to the non-spiritual actualist mailing list to strut his Godship and heap scorn on actualists?
Yours doubting that fact.
[G, f. grübeln to brood + Sucht mania.] A form of obsession in which even the simplest facts are compulsively queried. Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Here is a relevant URL (the fourth paragraph down the page ... plus footnote No 4): http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/prin21.htm
I liked what you posted, particularly that the characteristic form of the mania is of a metaphysical character ...
RESPONDENT: Hi Peter & No 37, I am following the conversation with interest (not 100% attention as I give to other matters involving consciousness, but I am intending to give it a thorough thought/read soon). Some points I observed/request for comment/ clarification:
Peter as I understand says: Relativity and Quantum Physics are mathematical models of this universe whose conclusions (like Big Bang proviso Expanding Universe, No matter Only Energy) are in contradiction to our normal experiencing of this Universe (and using our common sense, the sense we use to deal with everyday matters).
PETER: Normal human experiencing of the physical universe is that ‘I’, as a non-physical entity parasitically residing in a physical body, thinks and feels the physical universe to be an alien and fearful place (contrary to anthropocentric/ geocentric thinking, the physical universe is not limited to what is out there, it includes this planet and its oceans, clouds, earth, trees, animals, human beings, rivers, cities, buildings and so on). It is only because human beings think and feel themselves to be separate from the physical world of the senses that they have long imagined and felt that there is an underlying reality the physical world – an underlying reality that is metaphysical in nature.
When you take this on board it is clear that Einsteinian subjective relativity is but the latest in a long line of mathematical/ philosophical/ mystical theories that propose that there is a metaphysical underlying reality (a timeless, spaceless and formless reality) to the physical matter and space that is this infinite and eternal universe.
RESPONDENT: Moreover, everybody in these circles have tried to fit common sense with these models and seem to have failed and only ask us to abandon the common sense and use principles of logic and experimental evidence(?), not imagination based on common sense (that which we use to conduct our everyday life).
PETER: I take it from what you have written that you have had a pure consciousness experience whereby you have directly experienced the infinitude of the actual universe. If this is the case, you would know by your own direct experience that it is only ‘me’, the parasitical entity, who thinks and feels himself to be separate from, and alien to, the physical universe … and when ‘I’ am temporarily absent in a PCE all feelings of separation and alienation disappears.
Perhaps I can put it this way – a PCE is the direct sensate experience of the actuality of the physical universe because ‘he’ of ‘she’ who desperately seek a metaphysical underlying reality to the physical universe, is temporality in abeyance. This is the antithesis to an altered state of consciousness whereby the supposed underlying metaphysical reality of the universe is imaginatively and passionately revealed because ‘I’ think and feel myself to be a part of the illusionary underlying metaphysical reality (or in some cases even the creator of this Reality).
RESPONDENT: As a layman (outsider to the understanding of intrinsic nuts and bolts of how these works), one is concerned here how it translates to this everyday world... I am not particularly interested in how well the foundations are supported using logic and mathematics.
PETER: Nor am I. Whether people think this underlying reality is religious or mystical or mathematical in nature does not interest me at all. It’s their fantasy after all.
What is on offer on this mailing list is an actual freedom from the human condition including a freedom from all of the fantasies that propose that there is an underlying metaphysical reality to the physical universe. And the very first step in becoming actually free of the human condition is to abandon all of these religious or mystical or mathematical fantasies and start to come down-to-earth to the world of the senses where we humans actually live.
RESPONDENT: Back to me: If I have understood the line of thought somewhat correctly, I am also in favour of that currently as it relates to my quest for direct experience. I had realized long ago when I corresponded to Richard that I was defending science based on my strong belief in scientists (no other discipline relies on objectivity and explicitly stated goals and experiment as the final arbiter) and decided to step out of my defence till I understand them myself to a great detail (I have good mathematical and scientific training and I have the toolkit to expand my knowledge if I find it necessary).
PETER: A very sensible approach – and this is the approach I took. When I first came across Richard there were many things that jarred with ‘me’ but it soon became obvious that the only way I could find out if what he was saying was factual was to conduct my own investigation as to the nature of the human psyche (including its innate cunningness to do whatever it can to survive) – otherwise I was relying on either believing what others say or rejecting what others say, pathetically dependant upon ‘my’ own beliefs and predilections.
RESPONDENT: My intrigue though (loosely stated objections and not strongly felt):
And then comes a stage where one says: Logic and Mathematics have succeeded where a common sense approach have not (in explaining subatomic stuff and fast moving stuff). Therefore I will buy the consequences of Logic and Mathematics even if it means that I have to lay down my common sense. I will use the same principles that helped me to get beyond in the subatomic and fast-moving universe and extrapolate and apply to this everyday world (and probably justify my spiritual fantasies).
This is where Richard says (I think): Direct experience of the everyday world if you are willing to lay down in favour of your success in micro-worlds, you land up in imaginary world justified by mathematics and logic. The current models may be great in predictions but they are useful models... that’s all... do not justify one to jump to imagination sacrificing the common sense. Moreover these models that are based on logic and mathematics themselves use common sense at some level and nothing is just a standalone ‘logic and mathematics’ (as in there is no God that is running the world according to ‘logic and mathematics’).
I have just written my thoughts and let me see how all this goes... will refine these stuff based on what you think. I know I am talking a lot out of my hat :) but after some great successes in actualism, I have become much more cheerful and talkative :).
PETER: Einsteinian relativity theory relies upon imagining that time is a fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space, thereby allowing that time can be an abstract entity (t) having a hypothetical numerical value in abstract relativistic mathematics. A PCE experientially reveals that time is not an abstract dimension because a pure consciousness experience is the direct experience that this very moment is the only moment that is happening and that this very moment is perpetually happening. Whilst past moments did happen and future moments will happen, only this moment is actual – one is perpetually locked into this seamless moment of time as it were. It is always this moment of time, one cannot actually experience any other moment of time but this very moment.
This is not an esoteric or philosophical wisdom as one can also become aware of this fact in one’s normal daily life – in fact the actualism method is specifically designed to bring one’s attention to this fact as an on-going experience. As an example, if you care to remember back to the moment when you first opened this post and began to read it, it is obvious that when you did so you could experience that the opening of the post was happening in this moment and now that you are reading these words it is also this moment. As Richard puts it – this very moment is the arena in which actual events happen.
To keep with this practical observation, if you look at the computer monitor that you are reading these words on you will see that it has three spatial dimensions – width, length and depth – and that your observation of this is happening in this moment. The very spontaneity and instantaneity of this very moment gives vibrancy to the things and events that one sensately experiences in this moment of time. In short, in actuality, time is not a fourth dimension, space and time are not a continuum, space is not bent, nor is it expanding – all of these concepts and theories are nought but impassioned (subjective) fantasies.
To get back to your comment, I take it that you are aware that the theoretical subatomic particles described in quantum physics are mathematical suppositions that have no material existence. Quantum physics deals with abstracted models of hypothetical subatomic realms in exactly the same way that relativistic cosmology deals with abstracted models of hypothetical universes that have no material existence.
For me, once I understood that much of science masquerades theory as being fact and imaginary models as being things that actually exist, I also understood the absurdity of calling an internally-logical subjective theory an objective scientifically-verifiable fact. But then again, I have no emotional investment in supporting relativistic theory because I was not indoctrinated into believing that it is true, and nowadays I know by direct on-going experience that there is no underlying metaphysical reality to the universe. My ongoing objective attentiveness reveals that this is the only moment I can experience and this objective observation itself makes a nonsense of Einsteinian relativistic subjective observations and theoretical calculations.
The actuality of the infinitude of the physical universe compared to the fantasies of metaphysical beliefs is such a good subject to contemplate upon.
Who knows, it may even provoke the males of the species to get out of their heads and in touch with their feelings – after all taking such a step is an essential prerequisite to beginning to become free of the insidious grip of the instinctual passions.
RESPONDENT: What do you think about this statement of Jesus? ... ‘Come to take light!’
PETER: Exactly the same as I think about every other supposed statement that somebody called Jesus who was purportedly the son of God is reported to have said.
RESPONDENT: Here’s the 100 billion HumanityTM sponsored question: is that Light metaphysical or physical?
PETER: I have read that many people who have had near-death experiences report ‘seeing’ a light before losing consciousness, indeed I watched a TV documentary of volunteers who were placed in a centrifuge and were exposed to high ‘G’ force levels and most reported briefly seeing a light immediately before losing consciousness.
It would seem from this that there is substantive evidence that the phenomenon of seeing a light (or ‘seeing the Light’) is caused by a withdrawal of blood from the brain as a prelude to losing consciousness in particular circumstances or (as a reasonable extrapolation) as a prelude to the irrevocable and total cessation of the functioning of the brain organ itself … and not, as many people believe, as a curtain raiser to the ‘main event’, the entry of one’s psyche or ‘being’ or spirit into some mythical after-death ethereal realm.
PETER: Good to see you hanging in there with Actual Freedom. These investigations and discussions into the myths of Religions and the theories of science can literally shake the very ground you – and Humanity – stand on. For aeons the Sacred has been held as inviolate and the ‘upper’ echelons of philosophical and scientific theory as meaningful explorations. When one begins to understand that it is all a search for a somewhere else, a someplace else or a something else apart from the physical universe, then one understands that the ‘scientific’ beliefs, concepts and theories are all nothing more or less than a search for God. ‘Anywhere but here and any place but now’ is how Richard puts it.
RESPONDENT: Obviously you have read and thought over this subject lot more than I have. I have not finished reading the book. So I can’t say much about it. However, I did not say, suggest or imply that Roger Penrose was giving a prescription to eliminate Human Condition and/or obtain Freedom.
PETER: I have really only done a ‘skim’ over science and philosophy in order to see where it is they are coming from. In terms of the Human Condition there is a set-in-concrete belief that ‘you can’t change Human Nature’, and that is understandable from their point of view. The Human Condition is, after all, ‘the way it is and the way it has always been’ for human beings and no-one up until now has found an actual freedom from its instinctual clutches. As such, any investigations to date have been a study of what exists, a re-vamp of old ancient ‘solutions’ that have failed or an ‘escape’ into denial or fantasy.
RESPONDENT: From the little I read and the talk several years ago, I got the impression that he might have done a good job in researching on physics and biology of mind and trying to answer the question how mind works.
PETER: From what I read and from his own words that I pasted he is re-interpreting the research in physics and biology into a philosophical-mathematical theory of consciousness that is metaphysical in nature. We tend to think of metaphysics as the domain of the mystics and shamans but modern cosmology, quantum physics, mathematics and the like are mostly concerned with metaphysics.
You will remember, Sir Roger said –
PETER: In the previous post you said, ‘in the PCE the ‘I’ is lost and only here and now is experienced.’ Now you seem to be saying that Love is experienced.
RESPONDENT: The operative word is ‘this’, referring to Agapé. When one experiences Agapé the illusion of past and future or there, or other is no more.
PETER: The writer 2 must admit to having missed ‘this’, it completely passed the writer 2 by. Maybe it is the ‘this’ that cannot be put into words and that is why the writer 2 couldn’t see it. Is ‘this’ any relative to ‘That’ or is it different?
RESPONDENT: Vivian, Mabel, Winnifred and Florian, among others, have reported a different reality than the one you espouse about being soulless.
PETER: Never heard of these people or their reports. I am interested in anyone who has described their experiences. Can you give me some references as to where I can read of them?
RESPONDENT: These are women who have described to the writer, their existence after dying; between days and years following the event.
PETER: The writer 2 is confused again. Does the writer 1 mean that the writer 1 is channelling these women after physical death or is the writer 1 referring to their spiritual death as in Enlightenment?
RESPONDENT: But then you have probably not had any direct experience with the DIVINE yet.
PETER: Yes, I have had many experiences, a description of the strongest experience I will post below. <snip>
RESPONDENT: And as was written, ‘...you have probably not had any direct experience with the DIVINE yet.’ Your description attests to this.
RESPONDENT: Channelling is different from the ‘direct’ or mystical experience.
PETER: From what I understand, in the ‘Ancient Times,’ channelling was the exclusive preserve of the Prophets who channelled the Word of God by some Divine transmission. The witchdoctors and shamans dealt with both good and evil spirits of the dead but not in a such a personal channelling of individual spirits as is common today. This fashion seems to have taken hold in the seances held in the parlours of Victorian England where people attempted to ‘communicate’ with dead relatives via mediums.
The New Age has taken this to the extreme of channelling Guides, Aliens, Dolphins, etc. with gay abandon. Everybody ‘channels’ at some point in their life, be it talking to dead relatives, lovers, or praying to God or dead Masters. It is a common experience of most humans and some merely take it to extremes. A woman I knew made a good living out of it for a while. So yes, I agree, channelling is different from the direct or mystical experience in that it involves some contact with another individual ‘spirit’, but the common thread is the belief in an after-life and that the experience is affective and not actual.
PETER: We have found no one who has challenged the Eastern spiritual and religious texts, let alone proposed that ... EVERYONE HAS GOT IT 180 DEGREES WRONG, EVERYONE.
RESPONDENT: Have you read any writings of Yashua ben Yosef?
PETER: No, and a web search revealed nothing.
RESPONDENT: It just goes to show you the shortcomings of technology. In the world of mystics there is much known of this adept.
PETER: Well, as you may have gathered, I am not a fan of mysticism but I’m not going to surrender so easily on this one. I’ll have a few guesses and you can let me know if I’m close – <Snip>
RESPONDENT: Yes. Although that particular name was unknown to him during his lifetime. He claimed a name with the same meaning as the Latin word, Lucifer. Mr. Crowley was familiar with his real identity.
Much of what the world supposedly ‘knows’ about this adept is made up by his disciples to fit their own expectations.
PETER: Let me keep guessing ... then.
– and we can waffle on endlessly like this about ‘that which cannot be spoken of’.
You must be a good poker player, you keep your cards close to your chest and you keep trumping me with those same old psittacisms. I don’t see it as trumping but more like a refusal to even begin to consider that we might even start to talk sensibly about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.
Could it be that you are not concerned with life here on earth – hence your reference?
RESPONDENT: On other planets, with higher technological understanding, we are still quite primitive.
PETER: I would ask ‘on other planets’ do they still believe in good and evil spirits or are they still as primitive as we are?
I know, you will answer – ’the other planets’ are where the ‘Illuminati of Masters’ hold their meetings to discuss how we poor suffering humans are getting on and who has joined the Chosen Ones to book a seat on the flight out from hell to heaven!
I remember as a kid the Biggest Secret was the one where you just pretended that you had a secret – then nobody could disprove you. It went ‘I’ve got a secret and I’m not telling you about it ...’
But, of course everyone knows about it. It’s called the Truth which translates into I ‘Know’ and have Realized that there is God and an after-life’.
Humans have been, and still are, inventing fanciful adaptions of the Ancient myths ad nauseam – all in order to claim a bit of the fairy tale as their own particular Wisdom or Truth. With some, this adapting is done in order to attain some position of power or authority in the psychic world. Others are more prosaic in that they just want to make a living out of healing, curing or saving others from evil spirits or the like.
As you said ‘There is nothing new under the sun’, and this is obviously so in the spiritual world, and your reference to Yashua (Jesus Christ) is but another proof of this.
As I used to sing while strolling through the Ashram – ‘Give me that old-time Religion, give me that old time Religion ... it’s good enough for me ... ‘
But if one ceases to believe in the existence of a soul, then one’s connection to the psychic world of good and evil spirits eventually withers and dies, leaving one free to delight in the purity and perfection of the actual world.
Then the good and evil spirits are seen for the delusion they are – a mere illusion imposed over the already illusionary world of sorrow and malice.
One is then twice removed from the actual world.
One has given full reign to the imaginary alien entity within and imagination, psychic powers and psychic phenomena are free to roam at will and whim.
To experience the actual, free of both the illusion and delusion, one needs only to rid oneself of the source that generates these worlds within you – the alien self consisting of both ego and soul.
PETER to No 15: You said you had read my Journal and said I am saying what the Guru are saying. Well how about this bit on sex. Do the Gurus write like this?
Actual freedom or actualism is, of course, not merely a theory or philosophy but a new, down-to-earth non-spiritual path to freedom – an actual freedom from the Human Condition of malice and sorrow.
Now actual means it works. It means that given sufficient effort and intent that one can virtually eliminate sorrow and malice from the human body. This means in practical terms that one no longer suffers from feelings of sadness, melancholy, boredom, neediness, sympathy, empathy, despair or fear, let alone annoyance, offence, anger, revenge or violence. It is then possible by practical demonstration to live with a companion in total equity, delighting in freely and mutually enjoyed sex, discussion and physical intimacy. The physical pleasures build and build, as does the awareness of the immeasurable and limitless perfection and purity of it all, increasingly off the scales. One literally ‘buckles at the knees’ as the paltry attempts of the old ‘I’ to fearfully hang on wither in the helter skelter slide to freedom.
And all this is actual, sensate – as evidenced by the physical senses – not merely cerebral or affective. You know, things like the smell of a woman’s armpit during sex, the feel of the breast or bum, the way you can tease a nipple to hardness, the fresh unique journey that is each sexual encounter as a literal salubrious smorgasbord of sensuality unfolds as wave after wave of pleasure engulfs us both. To feel a woman as equally sexual such that you don’t know who is thrusting or who is wiggling or where you end and she begins. To ride wave after wave of pleasure of such intensity that ejaculation is but a side order, not the main meal. And after ... to lie back and chat about how it was for each of us, to compare notes, to discuss the nuances, pleasures, particularly delicious bits, or just to lay back in that state where all the cells of the body are sexually alive and tingling and drift off into a delicious half asleep state. To drift off entirely or to eventually surface and wobble to the shower where you realise that to have hot water on tap to pour over your body is a simple pleasure that rivals any. Then maybe a cup of freshly ground coffee and a post-coital cigarette, and wonder what other pleasures are next, and in what order they will come. Hedonism has got nothing on this. Freedom is this and much more, much more. Can’t I tease you into considering the possibility of living in paradise, here, now, on earth.
It is a paradise not only of physical pleasure as it also offers a stillness and purity wherein one is no longer driven by the instincts, where the mind is a perfectly clear and delightful and playful thing and the usual feelings of fear and aggression are replaced by a consuming sense of well being and benignity. And loneliness disappears as one immensely enjoys ones own company. Good Hey ...
So, unlike the other metaphysical and philosophical theories of freedom this one works and delivers and, as such, easily rebuffs charlatans and frauds. The proof is in the actual and in my experience if you can prove an end to malice and sorrow in equitable one-on-one companionship you have ‘put your money where your mouth is’. There is no greater test of fire than sexual freedom and equity, than for man and woman to live together in utter peace and harmony – not in theory but in practice.
The Gurus have failed to deliver, they have had their day. The old ancient, long dead ones have eschewed morals and ethical precepts for their followers who have fought horrendous wars as to the Rightness of their masters or own particular God’s vision. And as for the modern Gurus, I know them well to be pretenders. I have seen the despair that ravages their private lives and those around them. The chaos and duplicity of their personal lives, their sexuality, their treatment of women, the psychic powers and the entrapment, surrender and eventual total emotional dependency and enslavement of their disciples is but a sad useless re-run of all that has gone before. No wonder the spiritual or religious pursuits require bucket-loads of faith, trust and hope – it is needed in the face of its continual failure to produce the goods – peace on earth.
What I am saying to you is that Enlightenment is finished, now that Richard has exposed it from the ‘inside’. Discipleship and the Spiritual Path are also finished and Vineeto and I have exposed the fraud that it is nothing other than Eastern Religion masquerading in sheep’s clothing. So maybe, just maybe, it is worth while considering that everybody (including yourself) has got it 180 degrees wrong. Not just a bit wrong, but all wrong.
It can be an enormous blow to pride, particularly male pride – I know it was for me – but I am immensely pleased I let go of the ‘tried and failed’. I did however have to acknowledge I was neither happy nor harmless in order to even begin to become free of the crippling Wisdom of the Past. And then I got to be a pioneer on the path to actual freedom and I always liked to do a bit of pioneering occasionally, to dare to be authentic and original is such a hoot.
PUBLISHER No 1: I think nothing would silence you – as far as books go I never read them, (including Osho’s). They’re just full of other people’s ideas about how life should be and encourage people to live vicariously or adopt new belief systems which it seems is what most of you New Agers are on about.
PETER: Personally the term I like to use is New Dark Age rather than New Age.
All things metaphysical are fashionable at present as we are in the New Dark Age that is dominated by ancient, sacred, spiritual and other-worldly concepts. Ancient healings and esoteric medicines, divinations and prophecies, energies and auras, folk tales and legends, gurus and shamans, fairies and goddesses, sacred sites and cosmic planes, chakras and levels of consciousness, telepathy and spiritualism, visions and entities, ESP and UFO’s, somas and souls, mysticism and meditation, rituals and rites, reincarnations and past lives, karmas and dharmas, devils and demons ... they all testify to the vast extent of metaphysical beliefs. When one really investigates one finds that everyone believes in the metaphysical – without the hope of a ‘something else’, ‘someone else’ or ‘somewhere else’ the suffering of humanity would be unbearable.
PUBLISHER No 1: As far as I’m concerned people can do what they want and usually they do one way or another, but it still doesn’t answer my question of why you wrote the book. You tell how it came about and that writing makes things clear for you but that process is one or two steps away from publishing. I often write music because it expresses things for me but I don’t go off and record it and try to foist it on others. I did in the past and had moderate success but for me the creative bit was it in itself.
PETER: A minor correction here. You did co-author, publish and distribute a magazine for public consumption that did present your opinions to others. Personally, I think any public discussion, beyond the usual meek and mild, about religion is very useful indeed. And to dare to question some of the commonly held beliefs, power-structures, psittacisms and loyalties of others in one’s own religion is a good start.
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.