|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 22
VINEETO: Hi, One of the purposes of this mailing list to entice people to explore for themselves the possibility that there lies a pure and perfect world beneath the real world of every-day human affective experience – a reality, which is grim and grey, full of fighting and misery, anger and complaining and quibbling about right and wrong and good and bad. I always write to the actual flesh and blood body called No 12, he whom I presume yearns to be free of
the human condition. He just doesn’t seem to get a word in edgeways because the cult-buster-entity No 12 is always in the forefront. RESPONDENT: And the offering again begs the question, what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’? It was asked of Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed. Conclusion: Body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’. However, when the question, ‘what is body’ was asked of Beautiful Daughter, a different behaviour was observed. There is interest, when the offering ‘I always write to the actual flesh and blood body called No. 12, he whom I presume yearns to be free of the human condition’ how is ‘actual flesh and blood body’ related to behaviour? Where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed? By which sense is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ perceived? From here, when concentrating on the sense ‘sight’, only behaviour can be distinguished, never a body ‘behaving’. When applying the question ‘what is body’ to ‘my’ experience, only experience is experienced, never a body that experiences. By what sense is ‘your’ own body perceived? Looking forward to all comments. Thank you! VINEETO: Wow, No. 22, how do you manage to completely dismiss what is visible, tangible, audible, tasteable and smellable and categorize this actual flesh and blood body as mere behaviour? Let me ask you – is there an actual car when you drive or is it mere car-behaviour speeding and breaking, turning left and right? If you did not take your belief in being ‘infinitely responsible’ and your omnipotent GOD-ship so deadly serious, this re-definition tactic could be called a silly schoolyard ploy. However, as you have been so kind as to describe your method for bringing an end to malice and sorrow, I can now understand how, and why, you came to practicing denial of the actual flesh and blood body and only acknowledging behaviour – this redefinition is needed in order to ascertain that you are ‘absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No. 22 –
You cannot help but reduce an actual flesh and blood body into disembodied behaviourism because if you acknowledged that your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour, then your whole recipe of ‘I’ve got the power to chose’ will fall to pieces. Should you be inclined to answer that ‘this is wrong thought, good friend’ then be informed that I can already see, within the structure of your imagined world, that everything that does not fit the premise of infinite responsibility has to be ‘wrong thought’ for you. Despite the fact that it ‘does not feel correct and honest’, you have created an imaginary world with the above described method that is strictly dependant on ‘right thought’, otherwise known as belief, and you cannot allow the recognition and acknowledgement of an actual flesh and blood body to interfere with it. However, I want to inform you that there is one flaw that might one day put you in grave danger. You
did not follow your own advice (Point 3 I am not joking, No. 22, when I say that you are in grave danger – you might exhaust the seemingly omnipotent power of your imagination of being ‘infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No. 22 if you keep reading what actualists write. The universe it not a hologram and no actual flesh and blood body is immortal even if you chose to believe that you are.
VINEETO: One of the purposes of this mailing list is to entice people to explore for themselves the possibility that there lies a pure and perfect world beneath the real world of every-day human affective experience – a reality, which is grim and grey, full of fighting and misery, anger and complaining and quibbling about right and wrong and good and bad. I always write to the actual flesh and blood body called No. 12, he whom I presume yearns to be free of
the human condition. He just doesn’t seem to get a word in edgeways because the cult-buster-entity No. 12 is always in the forefront. RESPONDENT: And the offering again begs the question, what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’? It was asked of Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed. Conclusion: Body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’. However, when the question, ‘what is body’ was asked of Beautiful Daughter, a different behaviour was observed. There is interest, when the offering ‘I always write to the actual flesh and blood body called No. 12, he whom I presume yearns to be free of the human condition’ how is ‘actual flesh and blood body’ related to behaviour? Where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed? By which sense is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ perceived? From here, when concentrating on the sense ‘sight’, only behaviour can be distinguished, never a body ‘behaving’. When applying the question ‘what is body’ to ‘my’ experience, only experience is experienced, never a body that experiences. By what sense is ‘your’ own body perceived? Looking forward to all comments. Thank you! VINEETO: Wow, No. 22, how do you manage to completely dismiss what is visible, tangible, audible, tasteable and smellable and categorize this actual flesh and blood body as mere behaviour? RESPONDENT: Namaste If there is an interest in what is actual, no-thing was dismissed at all. A question was asked, and in that question was the affirmation of the visible. VINEETO: If you need confirmation that what is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable does actually exist, then you might have to see a doctor to confirm that your physical senses are working properly. I cannot give you affirmation of what your eyes are seeing and your other senses are perceiving – I can only point at the option of perceiving purely sensately without any conceptual and/or affective interpretation, something that needs a sharp awareness and a willingness to disregard the habit of conceptualising and dissociating. What you choose to do with my suggestion is entirely up to you. RESPONDENT: If I may, why is behaviour considered ‘mere’? VINEETO: Behaviour, as Richard already pointed out to you RESPONDENT: Another point please, and only if there is an interest in what is actual, to this point, no thing has been catagorized at all. VINEETO: You may not yet be aware of it, but by asking ‘where is ‘the actual flesh and
blood body’ when behaviour is observed?’ you are saying that for you the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent or not perceived by
your senses. You are intellectually categorizing Also, there is no need to repeat this haughty preamble of yours ‘if there is an interest in what is actual’ because what you perceive to be actual is merely your solipsistic truth and not actual at all, which is proven by the fact that an actual flesh and blood body does not exist as a physicality for you. For there is an interest in what is meta-physical – that which is not physical, that which is not sensately perceived, that which is spirit-ual. * VINEETO: Let me ask you – is there an actual car when you drive or is it mere car-behaviour speeding and breaking, turning left and right? RESPONDENT: Neither, thank you for asking. VINEETO: Please explain – do you not ride an actual car that has 4 wheels, a steering wheel, seats, brakes, a motor, etc.? Vis:
* VINEETO: If you did not take your belief of being ‘infinitely responsible’ and your omnipotent GOD-ship so deadly serious, this re-definition tactic could be called a silly schoolyard ploy. RESPONDENT: Thank you for sharing these thoughts. If there is an interest in what is actual, no-thing is taken deadly serious. VINEETO: Thank you for this important information that nothing is taken deadly serious. Also, there is no need to repeat this haughty preamble of yours ‘if there is an interest in what is actual’ because what you perceive to be actual is merely your solipsistic truth and not actual at all, which is proven by the fact that an actual flesh and blood body does not exist as a physicality for you. If you really want to know what is actual you will first have to find out where you are automatically and habitually categorizing the direct sensual perception of eyes seeing, ears hearing, tongue tasting, fingers touching and then stop that automatic and habitual categorization. It needs a bit of training in awareness and a lot of honesty with oneself, but it is possible. * VINEETO: However, as you have been so kind as to describe your method for bringing an end to malice and sorrow, I can now understand how, and why, you came to practicing denial of the actual flesh and blood body and only acknowledging behaviour – this redefinition is needed in order to ascertain that you are ‘absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No. 22 –
You cannot help but reduce an actual flesh and blood body into disembodied behaviourism because if you acknowledged that your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour, then your whole recipe of ‘I’ve got the power to chose’ will fall to pieces. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. VINEETO: You did not seem to have read, or you have not understood, the paragraph below. Vis:
By now it is all too obvious what you mean by ‘wrong thought’ – the other’s statement is outside of your belief system and therefore out of reach of your understanding and experience, for whatever reason. But as you are ‘infinitely responsible’ by your own definition, you are also ‘infinitely responsible’ for not being able to understand what I am saying. If you want to learn about what is actual and to understand actualism you will have to do better than repeating this stereotype of ‘this is wrong thought’. You came to this list stating that you wanted to study actualism and thus far you have done nothing but extol the virtues of your own personal ‘right thinking’, the myopia of your solipsism and the arrogance of your personal Self-centred belief system. RESPONDENT: If there is an interest in what is actual, I can indeed not reduce an actual flesh and blood body into any-thing. VINEETO: There is no need to repeat this haughty preamble of yours ‘if there is an interest in what is actual’ because what you perceive to be actual is merely your solipsistic truth and not actual at all, which is proven by the fact that an actual flesh and blood body does not exist as a physicality for you. According to you, an actual flesh and blood body does not exist but only its behaviour exists. By
the very denial of your primary sensory perception and by your categorization If you really want to know what is actual you will first have to find out where you are automatically and habitually categorizing the direct sensual perception of eyes seeing, ears hearing, tongue tasting, fingers touching and then stop that automatic and habitual reducing the sensate perception into the category of mere behaviour. It needs a bit of training in awareness and a lot of honesty with oneself, but it is possible. RESPONDENT: More-over, the original post was directed at asking assistance with establishing the very arrangement that is being attested to, i.e. your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour...’ To this point, there has been no obvious attempt to provide the evidence that this is the case. VINEETO: If Richard’s answer has not been enough ‘to provide the evidence’ that an actual flesh and blood body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’, then for you there is only one practical evidence that might work – the actualist’s recipe for recalcitrant meta-physical philosophers. This recipe needs to be put into action meticulously, following it step by step in order to produce the desired sensate experiential result. Beware of any thought that this is unnecessary effort because this would only be wrong thinking that would interfere with the procedure –
Should this recipe for an experience of direct sensate actuality not bring the desired result, then
nothing I say can ever help you to bypass your firm belief and your highly trained dishonesty (No. 2 of your recipe for infinite responsibility * VINEETO: However, I want to inform you that there is one flaw that might one day put you in
grave danger. You did not follow your own advice (No. 3 of your recipe for infinite responsibility I am not joking, No. 22, when I say that you are in grave danger – you might exhaust the seemingly omnipotent power of your imagination of being ‘infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No 22 if you keep reading what actualists write. RESPONDENT: The concern is appreciated, however, if you would, perhaps the next post could be directed at the questions for which answers are being sought? Honestly, if there is concern for ‘me’ being in grave danger, providing the sensory evidence of your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour,...’ would go a long way toward alleviating the threat. Thank you. VINEETO: There is no need at all for me to prove that my body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’ because I know that already. It is sufficient that you acknowledge that your own body exists ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’. This proof is completely in your own hands – if you apply the proposed exercise as ‘providing the sensory evidence of your body’. It is also completely up to you to be honest enough to become aware of such sensory evidence. This may require some backtracking to the second point in your recipe of how to acquire ‘infinite responsibility’. * VINEETO: The universe it not a hologram and no actual flesh and blood body is immortal even if you chose to believe that you are. RESPONDENT: Thank you for the information, now if there is an interest, please address the questions contained in the original post? From here it seems sensible to determine what the ‘flesh and blood body’ is, and if it ‘is’ before jaunting off into trying to establish ‘its’ immortality or lack there-of. That is why nothing of an actual flesh and blood body’s immortality or lack there of has been offered to this point. Specifically, if there is interest in what is actual, the original post is aimed an determining:
The continued kind attention is greatly appreciated. VINEETO: There is no need to repeat this haughty preamble of yours ‘if there is interest in what is actual’ because what you perceive to be actual is merely your solipsistic truth and not actual at all, which is proven by the fact that an actual flesh and blood body does not exist as actual for you. See, I have no trouble at all discerning my actual flesh and blood body separate from and outside of my
chosen behaviour as I have developed enough awareness to notice the difference and have not jeopardized my honesty and sincerity with your recipe
point No. 2 in order to become ‘infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name here’. My ‘own
body’ is my eyes seeing, my ears hearing, my fingers touching and my skin perceiving texture and temperature and so on. What is aware of all of
these perceptions happening is apperception Should the above practical exercise for an experience of actuality not bring the desired result for you, then nothing I say can ever help you to bypass your firm solipsistic belief and your highly trained dishonesty and you have thus chosen to live for the rest of your life utterly dissociated from the sensate experience of an actual flesh and blood body, from the rest of your fellow human beings and from the luxuriant and peerless paradise this physical planet actually is. There is nothing more that would need explaining, the understanding and experiencing is now completely up to you.
VINEETO: If you need confirmation that what is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable does actually exist, RESPONDENT: No confirmation is necessary for that which is self-evident. Experience is actual, yes? VINEETO: No, actual is that which is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable and it
exists whether you are experiencing it or not To state that your affective and cerebral experience is actual is to solipsistically propose yourself as the creator of what is actual – which is a massive narcissistic delusion of Self-centred grandeur. * VINEETO: Then you might have to see a doctor to confirm that your physical senses are working properly. I cannot give you affirmation of what your eyes are seeing and your other senses are perceiving. RESPONDENT: No affirmation is necessary. What is being sought is evidence of that which is being claimed to exist as other than experience, i.e. the actual flesh and blood body, or any object that exists as other than experience. VINEETO: I am talking about the evidence of pure sensate experience, unobstructed by mental and
emotional self-obsession. GOD * VINEETO: To dismiss the primary (the actual body) and pretend that only the secondary (behaviour) exists is to categorize and dismiss one’s actual flesh and blood body as ‘mere’ behaviour. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought Good Friend. The facts are: 1. There is no pretending present what-so-ever, VINEETO: It would be more accurate in your case to say – there is no awareness about ‘pretending present’ . To conceive of yourself as GOD you need to do a lot of pretending to the point of not even noticing the pretence any longer. Vis: ‘if the above does not feel correct and honest, do not stop until it does’. No 22, 19.7.2001, recipe point 2 RESPONDENT: ... including no pretending that there is an actual flesh and blood body observed to exist independent of behaviour (action). VINEETO: It would be more accurate in your case to say – there is no awareness about ‘pretending that there is no actual flesh and blood body observed to exist independent of behaviour (action)’ because first you deny the fact and then pretend that you don’t deny. Gee, to be GOD is to really complicate simple facts. RESPONDENT: 2. There is no categorization or dismissal offered. VINEETO: It would be more accurate in your case to say – there is no awareness, or no
acknowledgement, about ‘categorization or dismissal offered’ because it is you in fact who categorizes RESPONDENT: 3. There were certain question asked. Those questions did not dismiss the actual flesh and blood, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to dismiss that which is not yet made evident. VINEETO: You can only ask those questions (‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’?) if you first dismiss the flesh and blood body as being actual, otherwise there would be no need for such head-banging questions. RESPONDENT: 4. Any evidence that ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ exists as any-thing other than behaviour (action), or that the actual flesh and blood body causes, generates, produces, issues forth, or exists in any relationship to behaviour (action) is, and has been, welcomed. VINEETO: Then your welcoming has been mere lip-service, as your behaviour – your persistence in asking the same question – doesn’t indicate that you have welcomed any evidence. RESPONDENT: 5. To this point no evidence that ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ exists as any-thing other than behaviour (action), or that the actual flesh and blood body causes, generates, produces, issues forth, or exists in any relationship to behaviour (action) has been offered. VINEETO: As I said above, I am talking about the evidence of pure sensate experience,
unobstructed by mental and emotional self-obsession. GOD If you want to experience the purely sensate and sensuous evidence of your actual flesh and blood body existing ‘as anything other than behaviour’, you will first have to un-become GOD. No wonder you are so immensely stubborn about not acknowledging such evidence. * RESPONDENT: Another point please, and only if there is an interest in what is actual, to this point, no thing has been categorized at all. VINEETO: You may not yet be aware of it, but by asking ‘where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed?’ you are saying that for you the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent or not perceived by your senses. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought Good Friend. The facts are: 1. Offering the question does in no way indicate that the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent, for ‘me’ or in any regard. VINEETO: Then why do you ask? Is this your idea of GOD-sport, sort of setting pseudo-intellectual traps for mere mortals? RESPONDENT: 2. That the actual flesh and blood is non-existent because the actual flesh and blood body is not perceived by ‘my’ senses (and it is not) has not yet been determined. VINEETO: Whatever reasons you have for not perceiving what healthy people’s senses perceive is entirely your business to determine. The expression ‘‘my’ senses’ is an oxymoron. ‘My’, in inverted commas, is a generally used synonym for the alien entity inhabiting a flesh and blood body and this entity’s all-encompassing, albeit illusionary, presence prevents the pure unobstructed perception by the body’s senses. Your whole, dissociated from sensate feeling cerebral-only, argumentation is a perfect example of such interference from ‘me’, the alien entity inside your flesh and blood body. * VINEETO: You may not yet be aware of it, but by asking ‘where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed?’ you are saying that for you the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent or not perceived by your senses. RESPONDENT: 3. It would be impossible for me to be aware of ‘by asking ‘where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed?’ you are saying that for you the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent or not perceived by your senses’ because it has never occurred and the statement is false. VINEETO: How come that it ‘has never occurred’ and is a false statement that ‘for you the actual flesh and blood body is non-existent or not perceived by your senses’ and yet you keep asking ‘where is ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ when behaviour is observed’ ? Either you sensately perceive your actual flesh and blood body or not. Can you see it, touch it, smell it taste it, hear it when you slap it, taste it when you lick you fingers? To call this sensate evidence an experience, as in a mental or emotional experience, is to be imagining the world exclusively self-centred and completely cut off from what is actual. You are doing nothing but messing about with senseless silly philosophical argumentation that has no substance whatsoever, not even according to your own perception. RESPONDENT: 4. Any evidence that ‘the actual flesh and blood body’ exists as any-thing other than behaviour (action) which is ‘experienced’ (‘perceived by ‘my’ senses’), or that the actual flesh and blood body causes, generates, produces, issues forth, or exists in any relationship to behaviour (action) is, and has been, welcomed. VINEETO: Then your welcoming has been mere lip-service as your behaviour – your persistence in asking the same question – doesn’t indicate that you have welcomed any evidence, let alone left your GODly lofty heights as to question your own highly inhibited perception, inhibited as in refusing to acknowledge that physical sensations are obvious evidence of the physical existence of people and things. * VINEETO: You are intellectually categorizing RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. The facts are: <snipped> VINEETO: This is the third time that you answered with this overused phrase of yours – ‘this is wrong thought’. If you already Know what is right and wrong, why do you hypocritically pretend to ask questions of others? Just so you can yet again prove your Right Thinking? Why should an omnipotent GOD have a need to prove his Godship on a mailing list that is clearly labelled atheistic? Surely there must be more fertile fields and more gullible pastures for one so all-creative? If you sincerely want to study actualism, as you affirmed many times to several people, then you will have to put all your ‘right thoughts’ aside and be ready to learn something that you do not yet know. To study actualism is to practice the method of actualism, there is no other way. What you are doing is a study of your own invented GOD-view of actualism, which does not exist outside of your own skull. But then, being GOD, nothing exists for you outside of your own skull anyway. To practice actualism you first have to use the B.S. detector, as No. 12 has called it, inwardly, on
your own thoughts and feelings, beliefs and truths, instead of examining other people, and first and foremost you will have to question and
examine your own self-centred imagination of being an omnipotent Peter has described B.S. detecting in a recent post –
If, however, you only want to play ‘great sport’, as you said to No. 16 recently, and score ping pong points with ‘me right thought – you wrong thought’, I pass. I prefer to have a sensible and common sense conversation or none at all. So far the conversation with you had not an inkling of common sense.
VINEETO: However, as you have been so kind as to describe your method for bringing an end to malice and sorrow, I can now understand how, and why, you came to practicing denial of the actual flesh and blood body and only acknowledging behaviour – this redefinition is needed in order to ascertain that you are ‘absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No. 22 –
You cannot help but reduce an actual flesh and blood body into disembodied behaviourism because if you acknowledged that your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour, then your whole recipe of ‘I’ve got the power to chose’ will fall to pieces. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. VINEETO: You did not seem to have read, or you have not understood, the paragraph below. Vis:
By now it is all too obvious what you mean by ‘wrong thought’ – the other’s statement is outside of your belief system and therefore out of reach of your understanding and experience, for whatever reason. But as you are ‘infinitely responsible’ by your own definition, you are also ‘infinitely responsible’ for not being able to understand what I am saying. If you want to learn about what is actual and to understand actualism you will have to do better than repeating this stereotype of ‘this is wrong thought’. You came to this list stating that you wanted to study actualism and thus far you have done nothing but extol the virtues of your own personal ‘right thinking’, the myopia of your solipsism and the arrogance of your personal Self-centred belief system. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought Good Friend. VINEETO: It is hard to break an old habit, is it? Have you ever considered that GOD RESPONDENT: Despite the sarcastic claim that ‘thus far you have done nothing but extol the virtues of your own personal ‘right thinking’, the myopia of your solipsism and the arrogance of your personal Self-centred belief system’, the study of actualism has gone very well and I am grateful to all the actualists and self proclaimed experts in actualism for the information, input, examples of actualism in action, and the behaviours that results from practicing actualism. To observe the result of actualism in fact does not take ‘doing better’ than anything in particular. Simply ask a question and observe what returns is all that is necessary. VINEETO: There was no ‘sarcastic claim’ whatsoever. What you label as sarcasm is simply a statement of facts. You may not notice those facts, you may not like those facts and you may not like to investigate those facts, but that has nothing to do with me. So far in this post you have used 5 times ‘this is wrong thought’ – you are readily extolling the virtues of your own personal right thinking despite the fact that initially you were asking a question (‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’?’). You do not simply ‘observe what returns’; you persistently and categorically categorize ‘what returns’ as ‘wrong thought’. The myopia of your solipsism is apparent in your denial that anything actual exists outside of your own experience made evident by your very question that started this thread – ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body...’?’ The arrogance of your personal Self-centred belief system is evident and obvious by your claim to be an
‘absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible’, omnipotent GOD As I said before, studying actualism is first and foremost turning the B.S. detector inwards, towards your own right thinking, your own beliefs and truth and daring to question your own GOD-ship. You ain’t seen nothing of actualism yet. * RESPONDENT: More-over, the original post was directed at asking assistance with establishing the very arrangement that is being attested to, i.e. your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour...’ To this point, there has been no obvious attempt to provide the evidence that this is the case. VINEETO: If Richard’s answer has not been enough ‘to provide the evidence’ that an actual flesh and blood body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’, then for you there is only one practical evidence that might work – the actualist’s recipe for recalcitrant meta-physical philosophers. This recipe needs to be put into action meticulously, following it step by step in order to produce the desired sensate experiential result. Beware of any thought that this is unnecessary effort because this would only be wrong thinking that would interfere with the procedure –
Should this recipe for an experience of direct sensate actuality not bring the desired result, then nothing I say can ever help you to bypass your firm belief and your highly trained dishonesty (see No. 2 of your recipe for infinite responsibility) and you have thus chosen to live for the rest of your life utterly dissociated from the sensate experience of an actual flesh and blood body, from the rest of your fellow human beings and from the luxuriant and peerless paradise this physical planet actually is. RESPONDENT: Yes, this particular exercise has been offered before. What is found is that a particular behaviour results in a particular experience of discomfort. The resulting reaction (behaviour) is an attempt to alleviate that discomfort. It reveals no ‘sweet and actual air’ what-so-ever, but instead reveals that the experience of the possibility of no longer existing (being experience) is uncomfortable and generally responded to with any behaviour (new experience) necessary to remove the experience of discomfort. There is nothing in the experience that exhibits, reveals, verifies, or other wise brings into evidence ‘an actual flesh and blood body’ that exists as other than the experience. VINEETO: For you, that is. Your answer clearly indicates that your concept that an actual flesh and blood body does not exist independent of behaviour has prevented a straightforward attentiveness to, and a clear perception of, your physical senses. When you sharpen this attentiveness by questioning your dearly held concept and thus allow an open-minded-ness to operate, you might eventually notice that before the experience labelled ‘discomfort’ occurs, there is a distinct physical only sensation that occurs immediately prior to the affective label of ‘discomfort’. That physical sensation is simply breathlessness, an actual flesh and blood body running out of life sustaining breath. The emotional experience of ‘discomfort’ as well as the experiencer of this ‘discomfort’ are overlayed over and are secondary to the physical fact of breathlessness. To dismiss all that is physically evident as your own personal affective experience does nothing but aggrandize the experiencer to the point of GOD-ly delusions, so much so that the physical world and other human beings appear to be illusionary. * VINEETO: However, I want to inform you that there is one flaw that might one day put you in grave danger. You did not follow your own advice (3) because you have inadvertently chosen to be in a position that ‘thoughts, vocabulary, action, library, computer hard drive, floppy disk, daily routine, social interaction and behaviour in general, ANY information that promotes, assures, attests, re-enforces, claims, or otherwise communicates in any form that 1 is not true’ come streaming on to your hard disk every day from the Actual Freedom Mailing List. I am not joking, No. 22, when I say that you are in grave danger – you might exhaust the seemingly omnipotent power of your imagination of being ‘infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called’ No. 22 if you keep reading what actualists write. RESPONDENT: The concern is appreciated, however, if you would, perhaps the next post could be directed at the questions for which answers are being sought? Honestly, if there is concern for ‘me’ being in grave danger, providing the sensory evidence of your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour, ...’ would go a long way toward alleviating the threat. Thank you. VINEETO: There is no need at all for me to prove that my body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’ because I know that already. RESPONDENT: Of course there is no need Good Friend. It was a request. It seems, however, if the concern for ‘me’ being in grave danger, providing the sensory evidence of your body exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour, was genuine, and there is an opportunity to alleviate that danger it would be only a small chore to provide the evidence requested, yes? VINEETO: You have not understood what I mean by ‘grave danger’. The danger arises because you are not observing your own recipe of becoming absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible as in
As long as you are subscribed to the Actual Freedom Mailing List there will be ‘thoughts ... social interaction’ etc. come streaming on to your hard drive, questioning point 1 of your recipe ‘One (you) is absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name here’’. The only way to avoid such danger is stop talking to actualists. You are already moving away from being infinitely responsible by laying responsibility for your wellbeing on to me – you are placing a ‘request’ to ‘providing ... evidence’ in order to ‘alleviate the threat’ . It is you who are making inquiries that question your own absolute and unquestionable infinite responsibility, I am simply pointing out that you are not following point three of your own recipe that you offered to this list as the ‘Recipe for ‘bringing an end to sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, depression, corruption, despair and suicide...’ . If you don’t follow your own recipe, how to you expect others to take your teachings seriously? * VINEETO: It is sufficient that you acknowledge that your own body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’. RESPONDENT: In what instance is dis-honesty sufficient Good Friend? VINEETO: If you consider it dishonest to acknowledge that your own body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’ then why continue asking me to provide evidence to the contrary? It is you who have chosen not to acknowledge that your own body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’, all according to your own moral code of what is honest (see point 2 of your recipe – if the above does not feel correct and honest, do not stop until it does ). Talk about going around in circles! RESPONDENT: The facts are:
On what grounds Good Friend is the sufficiency of my dis-honest acknowledgment determined? Is it enough that it would confirm to the tenants of particular world-view? VINEETO: It was you who wanted to know if your own body ‘exists separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’. If you chose not to know because you choose to consider it dishonest, that is entirely up to you. As your awareness about ‘sensory evidence’ is stifled and stymied due to believing yourself to be the omnipotent GOD, there is no other evidence that can be provided. The ‘tenants of a particular worldview’ exist entirely in your own fantasy, as actualism is a method, not a ‘particular worldview’. I do not need confirmation that you exist as a flesh and blood body, your typed words appearing on my monitor are sufficient evidence that actual fingers have typed these words. It is not that I refuse to present ‘sensory evidence’, it is you who absolutely and unquestionably refuse to become aware of and acknowledge anything outside of your GODly belief system. Whatever evidence I have provided so far, you dismiss by labelling as ‘wrong thought’. One could compare your behaviour to someone demanding proof of the sun existing and then insisting on keeping his eyes shut and staying inside a door-less and windowless house. * VINEETO: This proof is completely in your own hands – if you apply the proposed exercise as ‘providing the sensory evidence of your body’. It is also completely up to you to be honest enough to become aware of such sensory evidence. This may require some backtracking to the second point in your recipe (if the above does not feel correct and honest, do not stop until it does) of how to acquire infinite responsibility’. RESPONDENT: Yes of course Good Friend. And being in my hands, and my hands being honest, I can only acknowledge that there is no sensory evidence of an actual flesh and bloody body existing separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’. Since there is an un-willingness, based on there being ‘no need to...’ do so, to produce any evidence that refutes that fact, the fact remains. VINEETO: The sentence ‘no need to’ has been deliberately taken out of context. I said –
It is not that there is un-willingness to present evidence, you refuse to acknowledge anything outside of your absolute and unquestionable GOD-ly belief system. Whatever evidence I have provided so far, you dismissed by labelling as ‘wrong thought’. * VINEETO: See, I have no trouble at all discerning my actual flesh and blood body separate from
and outside of my chosen behaviour as I have developed enough awareness to notice the difference and have not jeopardized my honesty and sincerity
with your recipe point No. 2 in order to become ‘infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name
here’. My ‘own body’ is my eyes seeing, my ears hearing, my fingers touching and my skin perceiving texture and temperature and so on.
What is aware of all of these perceptions happening is apperception RESPONDENT: Thank you. The section has been read and understood. VINEETO: If you had really understood the definition and description of apperception, you would not ask for evidence of an actual flesh and blood body. Apperception provides such evidence immediately. RESPONDENT: Now if you will, please provide what, in anything you have offered, or that is contained in the section you have directed me toward, provides evidence of an actual flesh and blood body ‘existing separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’. It seems, does it not, the passage, ‘I am the sensations...’ supports the fact that indeed there is no actual flesh and blood body ‘existing separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’? And would you not agree that the offering; ‘There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not to ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To be the sensations, as distinct from being an ‘I’ inside perceiving the world outside, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and magic.’ Further supports the fact that there is no actual flesh and blood existing separate from, and outside of, your chosen behaviour’, and that only experience is actual? It may be interesting that there is total agreement with the particular insight; ‘I am the sensations...’ VINEETO: No, No. 22, we are not in ‘total agreement’. I never said ‘I am the sensations...’. I said –
In order for sensations to be experienced there needs to be an actual body to have the sensate experience, i.e. there needs to be physical senses to perceive and a brain to be aware of what the senses perceive. Your ‘particular insight; ‘I am the sensations...’ is part of the same worldview as ‘experience is actual, yes?’ which posits that the experiencer, the non-physical spirit-like ‘self’, is Real and which denies the existence of an actuality apart from, and outside of, the thinking and feeling experience of this ‘self’. This is the ancient spirit-ridden world view that has been taught and practiced since thousand of years and has not contributed anything to an actual peace on earth, on the contrary. This worldview has only resulted in self-centred people who narcissistically believe themselves to be GOD or messengers of God, sitting complacently in their armchairs, and making it a ‘great sport’ to ‘study’ ‘tenants of a particular worldview’ by simply asking ‘a question and observe what returns’. The cynicism of such a worldview that denies the physical existence of one’s fellow human beings is blatantly obvious. * VINEETO: Should the above practical exercise for an experience of actuality not bring the desired result for you, then nothing I say can ever help you to bypass your firm solipsistic belief and your highly trained dishonesty and you have thus chosen to live for the rest of your life utterly dissociated from the sensate experience of an actual flesh and blood body, from the rest of your fellow human beings and from the luxuriant and peerless paradise this physical planet actually is. There is nothing more that would need explaining, the understanding and experiencing is now completely up to you. RESPONDENT: Very Good. Since this is apparently the best you are can do, appreciation for the attention is offered. VINEETO: You do have a way with words to make even the politest of your expressions appear haughty. I think it comes with the trade of being the omnipotent GOD. It is indeed quite remarkable that GOD can be, or can pretend to be, appreciative of the attention from a mere mortal. This is indeed the furthest I am willing to go in this silly theorizing about something that is obvious and evident to us non-gods. However, you seem to consider at least the pixels on your monitor and the letters on your keyboard as actually ‘existing separate from, and outside of, [their] chosen behaviour’ as you continue to demand response – ‘now if you will, please provide’. Presumable you are requesting this of someone separate from and outside your own behaviour and experience. If I do not exist separate from and outside your behaviour and experience, then you are clearly having great sport playing with your own behaviour, and we both know what that means. RESPONDENT: There is also appreciation for the continued example of the behaviour that results from practicing actualism. It is assumed since there is nothing more that needs explaining, and there would be no interest in being dishonest, there will be no reply to these offerings. VINEETO: Yet just a paragraph above you were demanding more explanations –
RESPONDENT: It having been left up to me, there will be a continued reliance on the facts rather than the unexamined acceptance of the tenants of a particular worldview. It is a pleasure to communicate. VINEETO: Of course it is up to you to rely on whatever you consider right thought. However, as long as your worldview is undertaken from the lofty perspective of believing yourself to be GOD, every perception of what is fact and what is fiction is exclusively subjective because GOD is ‘the Creator’ and ‘the Absolute’. For GOD objective facts do not exist, GOD’s universe is GOD’s own creation complete with GOD’s own facts and GOD’s own fiction. This is what the whole conversation has been about and your insistence that no evidence of actuality has been given confirms that you live your life within the sheltered-workshop confines of your own personal omnipotent creation. How could GOD who created All That Is ever acknowledge anything else or anyone else as being actual and having a separate physical existence. Your pleas for evidence of actuality are a nonsense, No. 22, and further, if you truly believe you are GOD, then you know you are but playing a hypocritical sport. Acknowledging what is actual is the end of being GOD. The fact of ‘being an actual flesh and blood body existing separate from, and outside of my chosen behaviour’ does not rely on GOD’s agreement or acknowledgement. It is self-evident and obvious. In actuality, any GOD by whatever name does not exist, only flesh and blood human beings. ‘It is, of course, a bold step to forsake lofty thoughts, profound feelings and psychic adumbrations and enter into the actuality of life as a sensate experience’, as Richard says it so accurately. I would entirely understand No. 22, should you decline taking such a step. RESPONDENT: Be well Good Friend. VINEETO: Thank you No 22, I am always well.
VINEETO: Here we go again into the next round of God seeking evidence that actual flesh and blood body bodies exist ... Given that the last post had close to 5800 words I have kept my reply reasonably short this time. * VINEETO: If you need confirmation that what is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable does actually exist, RESPONDENT: No confirmation is necessary for that which is self-evident. Experience is actual, yes? VINEETO: No, actual is that which is visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable and it
exists whether you are experiencing it or not RESPONDENT: Very good, then if you will please make evident for me that which is, visible, tangible, tasteable, audible and smellable. To this point evidence of such has not been produced, but is always welcome. VINEETO: Here is some evidence from Mr. Oxford –
In a transparent attempt to fit with your worldview you are continuously re-interpreting the meaning of the words – in this case describing what is actual to mean experience only, not material things. For sens-ible mortals, however, the experience of touching relies on physical receptors of the skin of an actual flesh and blood body touching something and the experience of tasting relies on physical receptors of the tongue and mouth of an actual flesh and blood body tasting something that may taste bitter, sour, sweet or salty. It is a purely cerebral concept to re-define this sensate experience as being devoid of any material form whatsoever. What you are describing is not sensate physical experience but emotional dreaming or Right thinking derived from imbibing too much ancient Eastern and fashionable Western philosophy – being off with the fairies, as we call it in this part of the world. Given that you are on record as saying
there is no point to the conversation when there is not even a common definition, ‘no objective standard’, that you are willing to apply to the meaning of any words that are used. Perhaps you are familiar with the words blather or gibberish – talking without any regard at all for the commonly agreed upon, sensible meaning of words. It makes a mockery of conversation but then again you are on record as saying that posting on mailing lists is merely ‘great sport’ for you. * VINEETO: I am talking about the evidence of pure sensate experience, unobstructed by mental and emotional self-obsession. RESPONDENT: There is no evidence of a pure sensate experience, it is its own evidence, and it leaves no tracks any-where. AND once this is recognized, even emotional self-obsession, if that is what is chosen, will be no less than pure sensate experience. There will be no more worries about living the life only 99% of the time, or what words must needs be whispered in order to achieve ‘it’. ‘It’ is now, regardless of what now is. It is written: ‘Be where God resides. God is this moment, this moment is this experience, and this experience is you’. Recognize, ‘you’ are never separate from ‘it’, nor in a position to question ‘it’. When it is whispered ‘how am I living this moment of life?’ You are living this moment of life being the question, that is all. The magic is in recognizing that. VINEETO: What has been written is nonsense. In order to ‘be where God resides’ one has to renounce the recognition of what is actual and ‘reside’ in a spirit-ual, imaginary realm only. The concept or belief in God, by whatever name, is a figment of passionate imagination (affective experience) and not a pure sensate experience. God is neither visible nor tangible, he is neither audible nor tangible. All your ‘magic’ experiences of ‘it’ happens in your head and heart only. I think No 28 expressed it very well when he wrote to No 30 –
Given that you experience yourself to be GOD himself and clearly have demonstrated an investment to stay as this experience, your motives is clear as to why you absolutely insist on only acknowledging experience, or process, or movement, to be real and then deny as ‘wrong thought’ any evidence that there exists something other than, and outside of, your own cerebral and affective experiences. * VINEETO: GOD RESPONDENT: Truly? Well then, and by all means, there will be no attempt to become God (by any definition). The behaviour sounds most uncomfortable (as do all dualistic world-views I have heard explained). Thank you. VINEETO: There is no need to resort to denial – ‘there will be no attempt to become God’ is certainly backtracking given you already have declared yourself to be GOD. Vis:
Or are you now recanting that you are GOD? Has ‘omnipotence’ ceased to exist? Have you given up on ‘Infinite Responsibility’? Or are you just playing word-games about not attempting ‘to become god’, because you are ‘not a god, nor the god, nor some god, nor another god’, whilst you ‘understand YOU are God’. But if you were indeed recanting, that would be truly a sign of the recovery of your common sense. As for ‘all dualistic world-views’ – it is you who firstly create a dualistic worldview – spiritual vs. material – and then, in order to free yourself from your own dualistic world-view, you have chosen to become the Creator, the centre and the infinitely-responsible lone inhabitant of your own imaginary world. You have created an imaginary world where no actual flesh and blood bodies exist, only ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ – and yet every word you write is evidence of the flesh and blood fingers that have typed them. Actualism takes the opposite route – the actualism method is designed to eliminate ‘me’ because ‘I’ am both the centre of, and the creator of, ‘my’ separative dualistic world-view. When ‘I’ no longer exist as a psychological or psychic entity then what I am emerges, this-moment-only sensate comprehension of this marvellous actual universe. The physical universe is in fact utterly non-dualistic because it is infinite, eternal and therefore peerless. * RESPONDENT: 3. There were certain question asked. Those questions did not dismiss the actual flesh and blood, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to dismiss that which is not yet made evident. VINEETO: You can only ask those questions (what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and
blood body...’? RESPONDENT: Not at all Good Friend. The flesh and blood body has been offered as something actual, all evidence is that this is wrong thought. A query was offered to ascertain if there was evidence that substantiated the claim. No-thing was dismissed, some-thing that there is no evidence of was asked to be established. To this point, the evidence requested has in fact not been offered. One might think of it as like questioning the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Someone will come forward and assert its actuality, someone else will ask for the evidence that it is actual. The asking party has not dismissed the existence of the monster, but rather has asked for the evidence that substantiates the claim. One could only be accused of ‘dismissing the actuality of Loch Ness Monster’ after said actuality is established. VINEETO: I do find it really cute that you should compare your actual flesh and blood body with the Loch Ness Monster. It would be more appropriate to compare your imaginary God with the Loch Ness Monster as nobody has ever seen God other than in imaginary visions, nobody has ever heard God other than as voices in their heads and nobody has ever physically shaken hands with God and yet everyone seems to be afraid of, or in love with, a God of some sort or other. Given that it is you who continue to introduce God into the discussion as in ‘be where God resides’, could you please give evidence that God does in fact exist. Can you establish God as an actuality? Is God and the Loch Ness Monster one and the same thing? By your own logic ‘one could only be accused of ‘dismissing the actuality of <God>, after said actuality is established’. Given that you have spent at least three years denying the actuality of anything and anyone that can be seen, touched, smelt, tasted and heard and that you have come to the unremitting conclusion that ‘all evidence is that this is wrong thought’, perhaps you might like to shift the topic of discussion to new ground – you providing evidence as to the actuality of God. * RESPONDENT: To this point it can be established that there is no evidence of an actual flesh and blood body that exists as any-thing other than behaviour (substitute; experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc.). That is to say, if the phrase ‘actual flesh and blood body’ is to represent any actuality, it must needs be it represents behaviour. There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’. VINEETO: For you that is. For you no evidence can ever be established because the evidence of sensate experience is considered ‘wrong thought’ according to your definition of right thought and your personal redefinition of the words ‘visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable’ as meaning ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ . From here, on this planet earth, in this actual world of people, things and events, it looks rather ridiculous when you say ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’. To think that typing is happening with no actual fingers touching the keyboard, reading words on the screen is happening but there are no actual eyes existing, walking is happening but no actual feet that touch an actual ground, swallowing of food is happening but no actual belly exists to receive it and speaking is happening but no actual mouth and tongue exists to make the sound. This fantasy strongly resembles the biblical myth of the burning bush that suddenly started talking to Moses with God’s voice. * VINEETO: You have not understood what I mean by ‘grave danger’. The danger arises because you are not observing your own recipe of becoming absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible as in –
As long as you are subscribed to the Actual Freedom Mailing List there will be ‘thoughts ... social interaction’ etc. come streaming on to your hard drive, questioning point 1 of your recipe ‘One (you) is absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name here’’. The only way to avoid such danger is stop talking to actualists. You are already moving away from being infinitely responsible by laying responsibility for your wellbeing on to me – you are placing a ‘request’ to ‘providing ... evidence’ in order to ‘alleviate the threat’. It is you who are making inquiries that question your own absolute and unquestionable infinite responsibility, I am simply pointing out that you are not following point three of your own recipe that you offered to this list as the ‘Recipe for ‘bringing an end to sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, depression, corruption, despair and suicide...’ If you don’t follow your own recipe, how to you expect others to take your teachings seriously? RESPONDENT: Ahhhh! Very nicely done! Thank you. The recipe will in fact need some revision. VINEETO: Not only will the recipe need some revision but also the imagined result of following
that recipe Should you become really fed up maintaining the illusion of being GOD, and not waste your time playing
word-games, there is always the possibility to discover the actual world with actual people and actual things. As Richard said in his definition
of
Until you are able to compare the magical experience ‘to be the sensations, as distinct from being an ‘I’ inside perceiving the world outside’ with your God-magic of ‘living this moment of life being the question, that is all’ you will never know what you are missing. There is far, far more to being alive on this planet than imagining oneself to ‘be where God resides’.
VINEETO: What has been written is nonsense. In order to ‘be where God resides’ one has to renounce the recognition of what is actual and ‘reside’ in a spirit-ual, imaginary realm only. RESPONDENT: Not at all Good Friend. No imagination at all is required or ordered, including the imagining a flesh and blood body that exists as other than behaviour. Further, no-thing has to be re-nounced. When the fact of the matter is recognized, there is no-thing to renounce nor to lose in imagined suicides. No-thing to sacrifice, grow out off, shed, dis-entangle from, rise above, transcend, or otherwise separate from. Actuality is, regardless of what it is being, even the experience of being a separate individual, or the imagining of a body that exists a some-thing other than behaviour. VINEETO: How can you say ‘when the fact of the matter is recognized’ – you have never recognized the fact of matter – for you matter does not exist in fact but only as movement, experience, action and behaviour. You explain this again in your letter further below –
By your own philosophy there can be no matter of fact, only ‘movement of fact’, ‘behaviour or fact’, ‘process of fact’ ... in other words ‘no objective standard’ as in
You have fallen into your own word-game trap. Perhaps you will now need to add ‘there is no fact of the matter’ to your seemingly endless list of denials of actuality. As for ‘no-thing to renounce nor to lose in imagined suicides’ – this typical ‘I am not the body’ Eastern philosophy was the basis of the Zen Buddhists avid support for the Japanese army’s appalling slaughter in Nanking (http://www.darkzen.com/) – a reference which you have steadfastly ignored so far making any comment on over the years. Too close to the bone perchance or some-thing that even GOD is loathe to dismiss as mere movements of swords and fallings of heads of non-existent flesh and blood bodies? RESPONDENT: This entire conversation has been reviewed for any material that was offered and in fact represented proof of the flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour. Those items which were determined to be wrong thought were carefully reviewed. VINEETO: See the picture RESPONDENT: Are we in agreement that as a matter of fact, that to maintain the belief that there is an actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour, is an effort in a particular faith, and that that particular faith is established without any evidence of a actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour? VINEETO: No, we are not in agreement. VINEETO: To merely establish a personal philosophy that considers behaviour, movement, process the only fact does not make it a fact. To merely establish a personal philosophy based on Eastern spirit-ual teachings that considers sensory evidence of matter a belief does not make matter non-existent. Simply repeating the same argumentation and ignoring the evidence of your own physical senses does not make your personal philosophy a fact. It only demonstrates the endless capacity for denial evident in all Eastern philosophy – in fact, a little clear-eyed reading of their teachings will reveal that denial is the very basis of all Eastern ‘right’ thinking. RESPONDENT: If there is no agreement, perhaps the conversation would benefit from a summary of any facts presented that are felt to establish a actual flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour, or existing as the cause of behaviour? Thank you! VINEETO: If you deny sensory evidence of a flesh and blood body existing as other than behaviour than that is your personal problem. I do not pose philosophical restrictions on my sensory perception of the physical world around me. Being ‘in your head,’ as it is sometimes called, is to remain forever locked out of the sensual enjoyment and unfettered appreciation of the actual world we flesh and blood bodies live in. Actualism is 180 degrees opposite to your philosophy because it is about the very things you deny the existence of. RESPONDENT: If in fact there is any evidence of why the words ‘visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable’ should represent any-thing other than experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ please do present it. VINEETO: I did present the evidence of the common agreement of the words visible, audible, tangible, tasteable and smellable meaning the things that one sees, hear, touches, tastes and smell at the beginning of the last post, which you ignored. Vis –
Simply repeating the same question by ignoring the evidence smacks of silly schoolyard word-games. What you do with common agreed upon meanings of words that don’t fit your personal philosophy is entirely your business. If you believe tasting food is only an ‘experience, consciousness, sensation, action, process, what is being done, etc’ then try giving up eating the stuff that is commonly called food for a year or two and then report back as to whether it matters or not whether there is matter or not. * VINEETO: From here, on this planet earth, in this actual world of people, things and events, it looks rather ridiculous when you say ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’ . To think that typing is happening with no actual fingers touching the keyboard, reading words on the screen is happening but there are no actual eyes existing, walking is happening but no actual feet that touch an actual ground, swallowing of food is happening but no actual belly exists to receive it and speaking is happening but no actual mouth and tongue exists to make the sound. This fantasy strongly resembles the biblical myth of the burning bush that suddenly started talking to Moses with God’s voice. RESPONDENT: Yes, it may in fact look rather ridiculous, however, and in fact, it is true that ‘There is movement that is a simple fact, however, there is no-thing existing other than movement that can be called ‘that which moves’’, ... VINEETO: No No. 22, it is neither true nor a fact but it is nought but Eastern philosophy presented as your personal philosophy. Nowhere have you given evidence that in fact ‘there is no-thing existing other than movement’ and when Richard asked you a relevant question to explain your philosophy in regards to non-moving bodies (‘to watch a dead frog on the road (or any road-kill) is to experience ... what?’), you did not reply and cunningly changed the topic. He also asked a second question that demonstrated where your plagiarized philosophy lacks consistency, and you never answered –
RESPONDENT: ...and to this point Good Friend, there has been no evidence presented that would make it remotely sensible to maintain any world view or faith that believed other than that fact. With a deep and happily extended Respect, perhaps some attention would be given to the attachment to the belief system that requires denial of the fact? VINEETO: Given that you are presenting a personal philosophy that ‘may in fact look rather ridiculous’ to anyone with a little common sense, it is in fact up to you to present evidence of your conviction that no-thing but movement exists, just as it is up to you to present evidence of the existence of the God which you introduced as ‘Be where God resides’. I am waiting for you considered response. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
