|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 81
VINEETO: You commented on a letter I wrote to No 75 – RESPONDENT No 75: Also if it is all a product of matter, can physics describe the dynamics of the evolution of a living being by a mathematical formula (albeit complex) one day? VINEETO: Mathematical formulas are but a human concept, an anthropocentric attempt to define the universe by equations, models and principles, … RESPONDENT No 75: What do you think about Newton’s laws of physics? They are mathematical formulas describing the dynamics of mechanical objects. Problems like protein folding try to understand the components of living creatures from physical standpoint. So just like we can describe the dynamics of a jet plane by formulas, we maybe able to model a living being by formulas (though actualism is not about this, but I am trying to evaluate the consequences of the ‘matter is primary, the rest is secondary’ – please correct me if this does not represent your views). VINEETO: Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is. That’s what makes it so magical. The universe is a physical material universe and there are no disembodied spirits anywhere to be found except in the hearts and minds of human beings who yearn for immortality. Nor was the universe created according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas or models – such beliefs arise from the stifling anthropocentric thinking and self-centred feelings that continue to inhibit the possibility of clear thinking from operating. RESPONDENT: Statements like ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ make me questioning the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’. How do you know that this is not just another belief as bad [maybe worse] as believing in ‘disembodied spirits’ or a creation of the universe ‘according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas and models’? VINEETO: I know because I am reporting the direct experience that is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance. As for ‘the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’’ (as in world-view) – before you mount any further critique on your concept of ‘the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’’ it may be pertinent to take the following into account –
RESPONDENT: I am asking because these terms ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ themselves have no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them – as one can easily find out for oneself. I will just requote the physicist Metanomski who joined ‘the branch of Einstein’s team opened in Warsaw Mathematical Institute by Infeld, where [he] worked on Relativity’. ‘Mass and Energy are pure constructs of mind having no autonomous phenomenal meaning.’ <snipped rest of the quote> VINEETO: Given that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ existed long before human beings existed and that human beings have coined the words matter and energy to describe the physical phenomena that they have observed, do you not think it preposterous (‘having last what should be first’ Oxford Dictionary) to propose that the words matter and energy have ‘no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them’? As for ‘as one can easily find out for oneself’ – for an actualist the finding out for oneself consists of sensate empirical observations combined with sensible down-to-earth autonomous thinking – it does not consist of quoting what one physicist of Einstein’s team believes to be the truth. To propose that ‘Mass and Energy’, which are palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material and can be experienced by the physical senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch (it is a fact that the sun exists in that we can both see it, see the energy in the form of light that it gives off and feel the energy in the form of heat that it gives off on our skin), should be ‘pure constructs of mind’ is clear indication that Eastern spiritualism has muddled the mind of many a scientist who in turn have muddled the minds of many a layman. If you regard the sun (being matter and energy) as a ‘pure construct of mind having no autonomous phenomenal meaning’ then you are clearly strutting your stuff on the wrong mailing list. RESPONDENT: An actualist should/could never come up with words like ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to describe ‘his/her’ reality VINEETO: If you were to set aside your personal fantasies as to what an
actualist ‘should/could never’ do according to your ‘Actualist’s Weltanschauung’ and instead informed
yourself about what Contrary to what those who believe in what could be termed dissociative philosophy would have the rest of us believe, words do have meanings and many words refer to physical things that do actually exist. By the way, the actualist writings make a difference between actuality and reality,
reality being the emotion-based and belief-filled ‘self’-centred perception of the world whereas actuality only becomes
apparent when beliefs and feelings don’t interfere with the pure sensate perception. (see The Actual Freedom Trust Glossary for RESPONDENT: [An actualist should/could never come up with words like ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to describe ‘his/her’ reality] simply because these words don’t correspond with ‘factual’ reality; they correspond with beliefs, mathematical models, and constructs of mind derived from the physicist’s imaginative and affective faculty. We simply don’t know what the universe and our sense perceptions are made of. VINEETO: You can count me out from your statement that ‘we simply don’t know’ – by throwing out all beliefs I had taken on board I have arrived at solid fact and experiential certainty. I now know without a smidgen of doubt that I am made of the same stuff as the universe and the reason I am without a doubt is because when no ‘self’ interferes as ‘my’ belief and disbelief, and ‘my’ interpretation of the world, I am this body’s senses, as opposed to the normal experience wherein ‘I’ feel I ‘have’ senses. You yourself stated in a recent post to No 66 that you understood that actualism is experiential –
The following description from Peter is an experiential report as to how the human brain and sensory perception works when the ‘self’ is absent –
RESPONDENT: Physical models and words like ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ are mere descriptions of ‘sense perceptions’ … VINEETO: Why do you call a description of a sensate experience ‘mere’? RESPONDENT: … based on beliefs, mathematical models, and constructs of mind. VINEETO: I understand that ‘sense perceptions’ may be ‘based on beliefs, mathematical models, and constructs of mind’ for you but to assume that this is the case for everyone is far too hasty a conclusion, to put it mildly. Actualism is indeed a paradigm shift, as you called it, and that’s why actualists stress the importance of remembering a pure consciousness experience. If you are interested in discovering the ‘new paradigm’ that actualism is, it is vital to find the ‘crack in the door’ that enables you to experience the actual world that only becomes apparent when the ‘self’ disappears. Otherwise you are bound to misinterpret actualism according to your already existing concepts, beliefs and feelings. RESPONDENT: I don’t see a problem with trying to become ‘happy and harmless’ with the AF method but I see a problem if the actualists start (mis-)using terminology to support their case. VINEETO: So you would have actualists describe their discoveries and their
experience using terminology to mean something other than the dictionary meaning of words – that we should use words, or not use
words, according to what can well be described as the lunatic Eastern wing of philosophy, mysticism and science. This objection
has been raised, and Actualism is much, much more than ‘trying to become ‘happy and harmless’ with the AF method’ – it is ‘me’ getting out of the way in order that actuality in its purity and perfection can become apparent, else one’s happiness and harmlessness will be but fragile and conditional. RESPONDENT: ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ is as a meaningless/meaningful phrase as ‘God is not only primary but He is all there is’. VINEETO: Au contraire. It is the accurate description of the way I experience this physical universe when the identity within this body temporarily disappears. The information I have gained from many such experiences is that there is no consciousness, or ‘Consciousness’, outside of animate conscious matter. It is also indubitably clear that any notion of a disembodied ‘Energy’, ‘Intelligence’, ‘Consciousness’, ‘Information’, or God by any other name, is nothing other than an imaginary creation of ‘me’, the lost, lonely, frightened and very cunning entity inside this flesh-and-blood body. As an identity one feels separate from each and everything and therefore perceives matter as inert, passive, dull, separate and distinct from consciousness and consequently an identity has to invent, or believe in, a non-material ‘Something’ that is intelligent, conscious, limitless, etc, and a priori to matter. You made that clear in your latest post to No 73 today –
It is no wonder then that my statement that matter is all there is seems incomprehensible to you – actualism is indeed 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual beliefs.
VINEETO: Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is. That’s what makes it so magical. The universe is a physical material universe and there are no disembodied spirits anywhere to be found except in the hearts and minds of human beings who yearn for immortality. Nor was the universe created according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas or models – such beliefs arise from the stifling anthropocentric thinking and self-centred feelings that continue to inhibit the possibility of clear thinking from operating. RESPONDENT: Statements like ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ make me questioning the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’. How do you know that this is not just another belief as bad [maybe worse] as believing in ‘disembodied spirits’ or a creation of the universe ‘according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas and models’? VINEETO: I know because I am reporting the direct experience that is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance. RESPONDENT: I like to reword your answer in the following way [without changing its meaning] for the sake of clarification: ‘I KNOW ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ BECAUSE I am reporting the direct experience that ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’. The direct experience that ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance.’ I assume I have a language problem here because I don’t understand how you can possibly think that. So please help me out. The words ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ have been used by the physicists to describe physical phenomena. Let’s assuming our ‘self’ went temporarily in abeyance. Then we would be able to say something like: ‘I know that I have a direct experience of holding ‘a cup’ in my right hand.’ A slight modification of our statement would read: ‘I know that I have a direct experience of holding ‘matter’ in my right hand. I also know that this ‘matter’ in my right hand is called ‘a cup’ in the English language.’ Now we go a step further and look into the Oxford Dictionary [as you already did]: ‘Matter’, it says there, is the substance or the substances collectively of which a physical object consists; ... as passing into senses.’ So again we reword the initial statement: ‘I know that I have a direct experience of holding ‘substances’ in my right hand. I also know that these ‘substances’ in my right hand are called ‘a cup’ in the English language.’ The Oxford Dictionary offers the word ‘substance’ as a synonym for ‘matter’ to [practically] denote ‘a solid thing’. We might want to reword the initial sentence again: ‘I know that I have a direct experience of holding ‘a solid thing’ in my right hand. I also know that this ‘solid thing’ in my right hand is called ‘a cup’ in the English language.’ The Oxford Definition is fine for lay people but is not what physicists refer to when they use the word ‘matter’. A physicist would smile mildly about our naïve take of the word ‘matter’ because s/he knows that the word ‘matter’ really is used as ‘a metalanguage term denoting for simplicity’s sake SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ [Georges Metanomski]. We might want to reword the initial sentence once more: ‘I know that I have a direct experience of holding ‘SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ in the hand. I also know that these ‘SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ in my hand are called ‘a cup’ in the English language.’ Now it is a fact that ‘‘SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ don’t appear anywhere in the phenomenal space, nor in the model space [of the Relativity Theory], i.e. they have no phenomenal, nor abstract meaning. Scientifically speaking they don’t mean anything at all’ [Georges Metanomski]. VINEETO: Wow! I mean, WOW. I am absolutely stunned at your conjuring skills. With a rewording, an assumption, another rewording, a slight modification, another rewording, a synonym from the dictionary and one more rewording, a translation into the physicist’s language and a last rewording you have succeeded in turning my experiential report of a ‘self’-less experience of this physical universe into quantum gibberish (to the point that rather than holding a cup in my hand you now tell me that what I should really be experiencing is ‘a direct experience of holding ‘SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ in the hand’). May I ask, do you actually read what you write? RESPONDENT: In other words: If a physicist talks about ‘matter’ s/he doesn’t know [and cannot possibly ever know] what it is. The only thing a physicist can do is giving descriptions in mathematical terms [theories] about what that should do [!] that s/he doesn’t know [and possibly will never know] what it is! VINEETO: Just because a theoretical physicist leaves common sense behind when theorizing about matter doesn’t mean that I do. * VINEETO: I know because I am reporting the direct experience that is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance. RESPONDENT: <snipped … more rewording and redefining according to a physicist’s definition of matter> ‘Direct experience’ means – if I understand it correctly – that there is no entity [no ego/soul] that has the experience of holding a cup. VINEETO: A direct experience of the universe is a sensate experience unmediated by a thinker in the head (‘I’) and/or a feeler in the heart (‘me’). It is something that has to be experienced to be understood. RESPONDENT: You – correct me if I am wrong – believe you are the body VINEETO: No. I do not believe that I am the body – what I am in fact is this mortal body; it is only ‘me’, a psychological and psychological non-physical parasitical entity who thinks and feels that ‘I’ am separate from the body. RESPONDENT: [You – correct me if I am wrong – believe you are the body] that has the ‘direct [entity free] experience’ of holding a cup in its hand. VINEETO: When there is neither ‘I’ nor ‘me’ to claim the experience for myself, then this body’s experience of the actual world is an unfettered sensate experience. This is what is called ‘direct experience’. I would suggest you take the time to read at least some of the Actual Freedom Trust website – a little knowledge as to what it is you are arguing against might well be useful. RESPONDENT: But what is the ‘direct experience’ of a sense perception? The answer is surprising: consciousness! VINEETO: No so. A pure consciousness experience reveals that consciousness is simply this body being conscious (as in not comatose or unconscious). When ‘I’ am temporarily in abeyance, what I am, this body, is free to directly experience the sensuous peerless purity of the universe – there is no ‘me’ having a ‘direct experience of a sense perception’ as you would have it. Your conclusion comes as no surprise because each and every spiritual/ meta-physical/ religious teaching is based on the ‘self’-centred conviction that consciousness is primary – a feeling-fed conviction which gives credence to the belief that consciousness exists a priori to matter, or to put it another way, ‘I’ as consciousness am primary (real/substantial) and matter including this body is secondary (unreal/illusionary). I can recognize those teachings anywhere because I have not only studied Eastern spirituality in its homeland but I also practiced it and lived in the thick of it as well. RESPONDENT: Why? Because the only thing you can ever know directly [without any intermediary, be it an entity, be it the senses!] is that you are conscious [’present to yourself’]. In other words, you are ‘consciousness’. Beside of that direct knowledge of being consciousness, you can only become indirectly conscious by means of a sense perception. VINEETO: For someone who says of himself that he never experientially practiced
spiritual traditions but only ‘tried to gain an intellectual understanding about ‘spiritual realisation’ and the
different traditions’ RESPONDENT: So when somebody states: ‘I am the senses,’ s/he, in fact, states: ‘I am presently sensing.’ Why? Because s/he doesn’t state: ‘I am the ear...’ That would be silly. S/he states: ‘I am hearing,’ that is, ‘I am conscious by means of hearing,’ that is ‘I am presently hearing.’ VINEETO: This is how Richard describes his ongoing direct experience of the actual world –
Given that you now find this pure direct experiencing to be silly and absurd, it is
clear that you have turned your back on the opportunity of learning, i.e. experiencing beyond doubt, something new, something
radically different, something through and through non-spiritual, something that is a ‘paradigm shift’, as you once
called it RESPONDENT: In a PCE you experience ‘consciousness’ entity free but indirectly [though the senses] … VINEETO: No. In a PCE you experience matter entity free … in other words, when ‘I’ disappear, any notion of ‘consciousness’ per se being separate from matter disappears while what is actual becomes startlingly obvious. Matter is actual, ‘I’ am an illusion. RESPONDENT: … and you become aware that ‘matter’ [defined as the outside of consciousness inclusive body] is not merely passive, that is, a perpetual modification of consciousness itself. VINEETO: No. You become aware that matter [defined as the very stuff of this
universe RESPONDENT: You though are mistaken about the nature of your experiences and confirm therefore: ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is,’ which is a meaningless sentence altogether (as demonstrated above). That statement and all else you come up with [for example, that you are the body and only the body] is your indirect knowledge [words/sentences] derived from conclusions [thoughts] you made with regard to the nature of your sense perceptions, thoughts, feelings etc. [summarized as ‘life experiences’]. And that knowledge is called ‘ignorance’ in the different traditions. What you really should be saying based on what you really experience and directly know is something completely different: ‘Non-intermediated consciousness is not only primary but it is all there is. The entities [’I’ and ‘me’] are an illusion and a delusion. Mediated by the senses [and free from the entities] I experience the inside of non-intermediated consciousness, that is, hearing, seeing, tasting etc., and am not different from the outside of the same non-intermediated consciousness, that is, the heard, the seen, the tasted etc. VINEETO: I think you described the way your mind operates really well only a few days ago –
I see that you have seemingly abandoned your hopeful attempt to fit actualism into a spiritual framework rather than it being a completely different paradigm and are now reduced to telling us what we should be saying in order that we fit into the spiritual tradition. Denial not only ‘kicks in’ but is now in full bloom, hey? RESPONDENT: ‘Matter’ [defined as the outside of the non-intermediated consciousness inclusive body] is not merely passive, that is, a perpetual modification of the inside of the non-intermediated consciousness itself.’ VINEETO: Your statement that ‘non-intermediated consciousness is not only primary but it is all there is’ is the classic premise of all spiritual traditions, including those that you quoted as calling a ‘self’-less experience ‘ignorance’. As such your recent posts have served to verify what actualists have been saying all along – that actualism is 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual beliefs.
VINEETO: Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is. That’s what makes it so magical. The universe is a physical material universe and there are no disembodied spirits anywhere to be found except in the hearts and minds of human beings who yearn for immortality. Nor was the universe created according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas or models – such beliefs arise from the stifling anthropocentric thinking and self-centred feelings that continue to inhibit the possibility of clear thinking from operating. RESPONDENT: Statements like ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ make me questioning the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’. How do you know that this is not just another belief as bad [maybe worse] as believing in ‘disembodied spirits’ or a creation of the universe ‘according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas and models’? VINEETO: I know because I am reporting the direct experience that is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance. (…) RESPONDENT: I am asking because these terms ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ themselves have no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them – as one can easily find out for oneself. I will just requote the physicist Metanomski who joined ‘the branch of Einstein’s team opened in Warsaw Mathematical Institute by Infeld, where [he] worked on Relativity’. ‘Mass and Energy are pure constructs of mind having no autonomous phenomenal meaning.’ <snipped rest of the quote> VINEETO: Given that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ existed long before human beings existed ... RESPONDENT: That is incorrect. ‘Matter’ and ‘energy’ are words used to describe the behaviour of physical systems inside of physical theories. These words are meaningless outside of the theories that define them. When you use the word ‘matter’ as synonym for ‘substance’ or ‘a solid thing’ that’s fine but don’t believe that you know what it is you are talking about. All you do is renaming your sense perceptions and using words out of their proper context. VINEETO: Instead of telling me that usage of words is ‘incorrect’, I suggest that you write to all the dictionary makers around the world and tell them what the words matter and energy means in ‘their proper context’ in the world according to No 81. RESPONDENT: With regard to what existed long before human beings existed – that is not something that you or anybody else can directly know because it simply cannot become part of your experiences. It has to be theorized. VINEETO: Common sense would have it that the matter of this planet existed before human beings existed such that they could walk upon the earth … or are you seriously proposing that human beings wafted around in space waiting for the matter that is the planet to come into existence? Your thoughtless knee-jerk objections to everything and anything that is said, based as they are on a potpourri of spiritual beliefs, metaphysical concepts and pseudo-scientific theories simply make no sense at all. RESPONDENT: And based on our current understanding of quantum physics we cannot say that something that is not perceived by the senses is actually existing. There is only ‘sense data’ and what is outside of sense data cannot be termed as ‘existing’ in the proper sense of the word. And that is not claimed by Eastern Spirituality. That is claimed to be a fact by modern physics. Quantum physicists calls it ‘probability wave’ or whatever, but that is altogether different from how you understand of ‘matter’ and ‘energy’. Modern physics doesn’t support you case. VINEETO: Yes, I know, nor do I take many of the current theories of theoretical physics to be facts. Despite your denial, modern physics has been heavily influenced by Eastern Spirituality, as has a good deal of what passes for scientific thinking for more than a century now. And given that you keep quoting quantum physics to support your case, you might want to contemplate on the fact that quantum physics is a theory based upon a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator – in other words, a lot of hot air about nothing … RESPONDENT: Physicists have actually coined a term for your world-view [and it is a world-view regardless whether Richard defines it away or not]. They call it ‘naïve realism’. VINEETO: Ah, you hit the nail on the head – naiveté is the key that allows you to slip out of the armour of your social identity and become unstuck from the grip of your instinctual identity and discover the actual world with a child’s eyes (but with adult sensibilities) – a prerequisite to stepping out of the real world into the actual world where you belong and leave your ‘self’ behind. RESPONDENT: And correct me if I am wrong but one cannot go and use scientific claims to support one’s case if they conveniently fit into one’s world-view and blame scientists for being mistaken if their claims don’t support one’s case. I mean, sure, one can but that would be intellectual dishonest and in conflict with ‘happy and harmless’ [at least how I understand it]. VINEETO: Oh, but I am not doing what you say I am doing. I have inquired into
the so-called ‘scientific claims’ that contradict my experience of the actual world and I have always found them to be
theories, assumptions, concepts or speculations only, often based on false premises and made seemingly plausible by a combination
of pride, faith, passion. … and cognitive dissonance * VINEETO: [Given that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ existed long before human beings existed] and that human beings have coined the words matter and energy to describe the physical phenomena that they have observed, … RESPONDENT: The physicists that have coined these words ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ don’t know what these words mean outside of their theories. These words are void of meaning. VINEETO: Physicists have not ‘coined’ the words ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ – rather they have redefined them to fit their ever-evolving theories. RESPONDENT: The only thing you have are your sense perceptions which tell you that you are holding a cup in your right hand. And if you smell, lick, and look at the cup you will realise that it is ‘solid’ and made of a ‘substance’, which, you are told, is called ‘porcelain.’ If you ask further and want to know what that is you are at your wits end. The chemist might tell you some interesting facts about porcelain with regard to its chemical composition but s/he won’t be able to tell you what it is. Therefore, you go on and meet a physicist who will tell you all sorts of other interesting facts with regard to its physical properties but s/he is also at their wits end with regard to the question what it is. S/he will then start talking about ‘SINGULARITY AREAS of the gravity field’ which s/he doesn’t know what it is etc. VINEETO: To repeat for emphasis – when the ‘self’ who is claiming to ‘have’ senses is absent then I am aware that I am the senses. Of course, the people you mention are ‘at their wits end’ because everyone, being afflicted with the human condition, they experience themselves as a feeling entity who consequently feel themselves to be separate from the actual world of the senses. The whole point of actualism is to be rid of ‘me’ who think myself to be separate from the world of people, things and events. * VINEETO: [Given that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ existed long before human beings existed and that human beings have coined the words matter and energy to describe the physical phenomena that they have observed,] do you not think it preposterous (‘having last what should be first’ Oxford Dictionary) to propose that the words matter and energy have ‘no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them’? RESPONDENT: No I don’t think it is preposterous. It is actually a fact. VINEETO: Let me try and get this one right – in the world according to No 81, I cannot call the cup that you hold in your hand matter because in the world according to No 81 the word matter does not refer to an actual thing but rather refers to the physical theories that are used to define matter. By sleight of hand, a swift redefinition and a bit of double speak, t’is only a short step to proposing that the cup in your hand is not a physical substance occupying space as the dictionary defines the word matter but that the cup is matter as a few men in ivory towers and academic institutions would have us believe – insubstantial and ephemeral. You may not see it right now … but there was life (and matter) before theoretical physics. * VINEETO: As for ‘as one can easily find out for oneself’ – for an actualist the finding out for oneself consists of sensate empirical observations combined with sensible down-to-earth autonomous thinking – it does not consist of quoting what one physicist of Einstein’s team believes to be the truth. RESPONDENT: He is not talking about the truth. He is talking about what words like ‘matter’, ‘energy’ and ‘mass’ mean as defined by the physical theories. And they don’t mean much and not at all what you think that they mean. VINEETO: To you, that is. I will stick with my own experience of matter and energy, after all actualism is experiential and down-to-earth. RESPONDENT: With regard to sensate empirical observations – all you have are your sense perceptions and you can invent words to describe them but you won’t never ever know what it is that you describe with these words except that it is your sense perceptions. And that is called a circular reference. VINEETO: First of all, I do not invent words, as the words matter and energy existed and meant what they mean long before theoretical physicists hijacked and redefined them – you need to make your complaints to the dictionary writers. Secondly, because sensate perception is primary and bare awareness of sensate perception is unmediated, I know exactly what it is my senses perceive when I pay attention to it. Words serve to communicate one’s perception to others but they are not needed in order to be aware of one’s sensate experiencing. To put it into plain language, of course the word is not the thing, but human beings have coined many words to describe the many things that exist in the world. The word cup refers to an actual thing we call a cup, the actual thing is actual whether we call it a cup or not. The thing that we call a cup exists in its own right, it has a quality that we call substance in that it had been fashioned from the rocks of the earth and it autonomously exists in space regardless of whether anyone is touching it or looking at it. Nothing circular about that at all – it’s all straightforward really, unless you are a solipsist, that is. RESPONDENT: [And that is called a circular reference.] That’s how consciousness works. A sense perception is derivative of consciousness. VINEETO: To propose that ‘a sense perception is derivative of consciousness’ is, yet again, to put the cart before the horse. Consciousness, the condition of being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is a by-product of animate matter in sentient beings. RESPONDENT: Is this so difficult to understand? VINEETO: Oh, I understand you all too well. It is the anthropocentric
self-centred spiritual paradigm – that which is 180 degrees opposite to actualism. I’ve been there, done that and even got the
robes and the mala (the initiation-necklace), but in your case your intellectual understanding of spiritualism has apparently led
you to the utter isolation of solipsism * VINEETO: To propose that ‘Mass and Energy’, which are palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material. RESPONDENT: That’s is just plain wrong. ‘Mass’ and ‘energy’ have no autonomous phenomenal existence. The phenomena which you refer to are your sense perceptions, not ‘mass’ and ‘energy’. VINEETO: We’ve been at this point before. For lack of a better definition I call this attitude ‘Denial of Direct Perception’. One person who was enamoured with this belief went as far as telling me recently that the chair he was sitting on did not in fact exist but was only a sense perception. I was actually surprised it never disappeared from under him when he stopped looking at it or being aware that he was sitting on it. You said in a recent post that ‘…‘the Truth’ cannot be known … I don’t see a way how to get out of this trap. I also don’t see Richard and the actualists out of this trap’. (Statement of mind, 12.4.2005) I recommend doing a simple experiment Richard devised that will get you out of this trap because it demonstrates the actualness of physicality in a way that a thousand words would not:
* VINEETO: [To propose that ‘Mass and Energy’, which are palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material] and can be experienced by the physical senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch ... RESPONDENT: That’s just not correct. ‘Mass’ and ‘energy’ are not words that refer to any sense data of yours. VINEETO: Maybe not to one who has been indoctrinated by philosophy, spiritualism and theoretical physics and whose sensibility is presently blinkered by narrow-minded definitions of quantum quackery. To me matter and energy refer to actual things and actual phenomena that this body can see, and/or touch and/or smell and/or taste and/or hear, as do other bodies. As you may well have gathered by now, actualism is not a philosophy – it is rooted in common sense. * VINEETO: ... (it is a fact that the sun exists in that we can both see it, see the energy in the form of light that it gives off and feel the energy in the form of heat that it gives off on our skin), RESPONDENT: You are not seeing the ‘energy’. You see light. It is incorrect to say ‘energy in form of light’. You are also not feeling the ‘energy’ on your skin. You feel heat. It is, again, incorrect to say ‘energy in form of heat’. There is a sense perception [feeling ‘heat’] and there is another sense perception [seeing ‘light’] but the word ‘energy’ as understood by the physicist is meaningless in the context of your description of what your sense perception are [seeing light and feeling heat]. VINEETO: I am reminded of RESPONDENT: All you do is having sense perceptions and coining words for them. Some words make sense [like the word heat and light] because they stand for [symbolize] specific sense perceptions, other words make no sense [like the word energy and mass] because their meaningful use [with regard to sense data] is limited to the context of the theories that define them and even then they are sometimes meaningless [like the word matter], that is, they don’t refer to any sense data whatsoever and also not to anything else in the context of the theories which would not have been already coined with different terms like ‘singularity areas of the gravity field’. VINEETO: Oh dear me, how silly can a grown man get? Are you seriously proposing that unless I use words defined as ‘meaningful’ by the theoretical physicists you quote, that I cannot experience the thermal energy from the sun or the kinetic energy from the wind, the touch of my fingers on the matter of the keys of the keyboard or the sounds from the humming computer next to me? Should you indeed be serious in your assertion then I can only suggest that now would be a good time to leave your ivory tower of cerebral-only activity, lie outside in the grass and smell the fragrance of springtime in order to extend your range of perception a bit. * VINEETO: ... should be ‘pure constructs of mind’ is clear indication that Eastern spiritualism has muddled the mind of many a scientist who in turn have muddled the minds of many a layman. RESPONDENT: It is a very bad style of communication to confuse the proper use of words [mass and energy] and mix them with unrelated topics [Eastern spiritualism] in order to suggest something. That is actually harmful. You simply don’t get that the words ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ don’t stand for [symbolise] any sense data. VINEETO: It was you who suggested that my use of words was not ‘proper’ because I used the words as per the dictionary definitions and not in accordance with the current theories of theoretical physicists. You also introduced the notion that consciousness is primary and sense perception is secondary (‘a sense perception is derivative of consciousness’) and that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ ‘have no autonomous phenomenal existence’ – a concept which is a purely spirit-ual concept, i.e. it states that spirit (aka consciousness aka the Transcendent, etc.) is primary and matter is a mere derivative of it. I don’t see how pointing out to you that what you are doing on this mailing list is peddling a spiritual concept could be harmful. I do acknowledge that having one’s beliefs challenged can be confronting for those who hold such beliefs, but I would point out that this is something that one could reasonably expect given that you are attempting to teach spiritual beliefs on a non-spiritual mailing list. Personally, it was only because Peter and Richard pointed out to me the spiritual-ness of my beliefs that I was able to question, understand and eventually abandon them which in turn enabled me to perceive the magical physical world without the blinkers of my spiritually-thwarted perception. As for ‘very bad style’ – you are not the first to come up with
RESPONDENT: And it dawned to me that the ‘Great Joke’ (which made Lazarus laugh) is our Buddhists in disguise: R.P.V.! That is the Big Joke, And why it is a big joke! And why there is nothing more to be said. VINEETO: Given that you are on record as saying that ‘your cognitive and sensory faculties call into existence your reality! This is all so simple.’ Quantum koan (2), 13.4.2005, your latest version of reality that actualism equals Buddhism ‘in disguise’ – a revelation brought on by reading a spiritual text – is a ripsnorter. This statement has, however nothing to do with fact. I would suggest stretching your
cognitive faculties by reading at least a little of what actualism is about before you go public with your revelations. In this
case, the obvious place to start would have been the
RESPONDENT to No 82: I have actually done an experiment with some positive results you could try as well: Next time you experience fear, ask the following question: What is fear if I don’t call it ‘fear’? Your mind should go blanc for a moment. You might come up with an answer like ‘a pain in the chest’. Then you go on asking: What is a pain in the chest, if I don’t call it a pain in the chest. You should turn blanc again. Finally, when you have deprived yourself of any positive language with regard to what you experience and what you called ‘fear’ in the beginning the only thing that should remain is a blanc mind. The fear should disappear or at least you should be able to experience that what you called fear in the beginning without any superimposition by words/thoughts and feelings. VINEETO: An excellent description of how dissociation looks like in practice.
RESPONDENT No 82: When Richard advises people to ‘minimise’ the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activate the felicitous feelings what does he really mean by ‘minimise’? Feelings can be ‘minimised’ by brute force, e.g. repression, denial, avoidance and distraction but what is the sensible way to do it? I have tried to eliminate fear. I have repeatedly felt the fear, investigated its causes, identified the associated aspects of my social identity and instincts, understood the silliness of spoiling this one and only moment of being alive in such a way, and so on. Unfortunately I cannot see any changes occurring. The whole process happens on a level that is too superficial. It does not penetrate deeply enough to pull up the roots of fear. The result is that fear still comes, stays as long as it pleases, then departs until next time. Then it comes, stays as long as it pleases, then departs until next time. So on. So forth. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end, hallelujah. I cannot see how it will ever be different because ‘I’ cannot touch the source of it. How can ‘I’, a fantastical figment of these passions, reach down and dig them up by the roots? ‘I’ have no grip because I am nothing. I am a mere ghost grasping at reflections of something that happened before ‘I’ even appeared and started reacting to it. How can such a thing act upon itself? Can it? Does it? Who can vouch for this method with 100% sincerity? RESPONDENT to No 82: I have actually done an experiment with some positive results you could try as well: Next time you experience fear, ask the following question: What is fear if I don’t call it ‘fear’? Your mind should go blanc for a moment. You might come up with an answer like ‘a pain in the chest’. Then you go on asking: What is a pain in the chest, if I don’t call it a pain in the chest. You should turn blanc again. Finally, when you have deprived yourself of any positive language with regard to what you experience and what you called ‘fear’ in the beginning the only thing that should remain is a blanc mind. The fear should disappear or at least you should be able to experience that what you called fear in the beginning without any superimposition by words/thoughts and feelings. VINEETO: An excellent description of how dissociation looks like in practice. RESPONDENT: I miss your point here. This method is not at all dissociative. VINEETO: Dissociation is a psychiatric/ psychological term meaning ‘the separation (dissociation) of one’s thoughts, emotions and even body sensations’ (©George F. Rhoades, Jr., Ph.D. November 1, 1998), which is exactly the technique you described above. In order to eliminate the feeling (‘the fear should disappear’) you first suggested separating feeling and thought (‘don’t call it ‘fear’’) and then you suggested separating body sensation and thought (‘don’t call it a pain in the chest’). In a normal human being, dissociative reactions are attempts to escape from traumatic tension and anxiety by separating off or dissociating one’s feelings from the rest of cognition as an attempt to isolate or distance oneself from that which arouses anxiety Nowadays, given the increasingly dominating influence of Eastern Mysticism, this somewhat normal reaction to trauma is held to be the ultimate panacea to the grim reality of human existence to the point where dissociative practice has become the common garden approach for the spiritually-minded to any and all kinds of uncomfortable feelings and unpleasant situations. RESPONDENT: This method is based on the simple observation: We have been programmed to associate certain emotions/feeling with certain words/thoughts. There have been vast research on the relationship between our emotional well-being and language patterns we use to describe ourselves and others. VINEETO: Yes, this is the theoretical basis for the practice of dissociation – the assumption being that you ‘have been programmed to associate’, the conclusion being that you de-program by dis-associating. This theory, like the vast majority of psychological/psychiatric theories, ignores the fact that human beings are born with basic instinctual passions, which are only overlaid by the social conditioning designed to keep the underlying passions in check, in other words, it is a theory aimed at alleviating the symptoms rather than eliminating the cause. Further, this theory ignores the practical observation that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and as a consequence the ploy of deliberately not labelling my feelings is only ‘me’ playing games with my self. The proposed de-programming via dis-association (as in deliberately not naming the feeling) can therefore only ever be a ruse and a skin-deep and fickle ruse at that – as the continuing need in every society to uphold the law at the point of the gun (or knife, or spear, or club) clearly demonstrates. RESPONDENT: For example: Somebody calls you ‘loser’. This word might trigger in your mind some emotional reactions based on conscious or unconscious [childhood] trauma and you experience fear and sentences like ‘I will never make it’ or ‘I am not good enough’ might involuntarily cross your mind. This is called negative self-talk. I read that some 80% of the population is supposed to suffer from that. My method is deprogramming emotional reactions towards trigger-words. You just have to find your trigger word and put it out like that: What is <trigger word> if I don’t call it <trigger word>? That creates a paradox in the mind and the mind should go blanc for a moment. I will then be able to distinguish between the word ‘loser’ and my emotional reaction towards it [like fear]. VINEETO: What you are suggesting is to un-define the word ‘loser’ such that it no longer means ‘I am not good enough’. Have you thought of calling this the Four Wise Monkey approach – see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil and label no evil … and bingo, what a wonderful world it is inside here. Basically there are two types of dissociation, head-in-sand or head-in-clouds (in German: ‘Vogel-Strauss’ und ‘Hans-guck-in-die-Luft’). Whether it be a head-in-the-sand or a head-in-clouds approach, your method is comparable to not labelling what is happening to the Titanic as ‘sinking’ when it goes under. RESPONDENT: If I exercise this long enough I might achieve some results in deprogramming myself not to react emotionally towards the word ‘loser’. This is just an experiment, work-in-progress. I have no definite prove that it works. Therefore it would be interesting to see if somebody else like No 63 finds it useful. Obviously the AF method has helped him [No 63] only so far. VINEETO: I find it somewhat strange that you would subscribe to a mailing list, denigrate what is on offer on this mailing list as well as those who offer it, diagnose that those who are interested in what is on offer are getting little or no benefit from what is on offer and then proceed to offer something that you yourself admit to only having just begun to try and claim that it might give results. Strange reasoning for selling a method with ‘no definite prove that it works’. Sure seems like snake-oil selling to me, but then again, I’ve developed an acute nose for such things in my investigations into the human condition. In contrast, the actualism method has a proven track record in that it made one person actually free and several people virtually free from the human condition. As for No 82’s question about what to do with fear – in my experience fear is part and parcel of the enterprise of becoming free and can at times be the very indication that the method works. After all, ‘I’ am being exposed to the bright light of awareness and this is a daring adventure, to say the least. As Richard points out –
RESPONDENT to No 65: Actually, I am amazed. There is somebody who understands what I am saying the same way I understand what I am saying and he rephrases it even better than I was able to do. VINEETO: No 81, you have made your position quite clear on this list many times, in many ways, very often sprinkling your posts with quotes from Eastern philosophy and religion, so there can be little doubt as to what you are saying and where your interest lies. Given that you write as you do you would be much better off on any of the philosophical discussion lists where metaphysical wisdom is still valued. Going by what I observed over the years, this particular list is mainly populated by people who are attracted by what is written on the Actual Freedom website, namely in becoming free from the human condition including the eons-old human belief in a Greater Reality of some sort. A vital prerequisite of becoming free from one’s religious/spiritual/metaphysical beliefs is to be fed up with them, or at the very least suss of them in the first place, which you don’t seem to be at all. RESPONDENT to No 65: Before somebody can dispute my argument s/he has to understand it the same way I understand it, otherwise s/he disputes something else. What is primary is that there is an understanding of what I am saying and that (see above) is what I am saying. VINEETO: But then again one would obviously need to abandon this stance when one comes across something new that one has not come across before – what one needs to do then is sit down and make the effort to overcome the cognitive dissonance that inevitably occurs such that one can clearly understand the new paradigm. In this case, demanding that one’s old thinking and old ways are best is an exercise in futility. The ‘primary’ topic on this list is the investigation into the human condition, namely one’s beliefs, convictions and superstitions. To insist that others on this mailing list understand your beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals and superstitions in order that you can proselytise yet another version of the ‘Tried and Failed’ is the very opposite of what the practice of actualism is about. What actualism is about is made perfectly clear on The Actual Freedom Trust homepage – [emphasis added]  The Actual Freedom Trust Homepage
As such, your insistence that others need to understand your argument ‘the same way [you] understand it’ before it can be disputed is a stance that is contrary to the very aim and raison d’être of this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Now dear actualists please dispute it! VINEETO: You may have also overlooked the essential prerequisite for becoming free from the human condition, which is that there is only one person one can, and needs to, change and that is oneself. For very obvious reasons nobody can do the questioning and investigating of your beliefs for you – should that be what you are interested in – you will have to take yourself apart all by yourself and for yourself. RESPONDENT: I want to understand in which ways you think my argument is faulty. VINEETO: Since you asked – your argument is faulty from beginning to end, 180 degrees opposite in fact. Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the Actual Freedom Trust website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more.
RESPONDENT to No 65: Actually, I am amazed. There is somebody who understands what I am saying the same way I understand what I am saying and he rephrases it even better than I was able to do. VINEETO: No 81, you have made your position quite clear on this list many times, in many ways, very often sprinkling your posts with quotes from Eastern philosophy and religion, so there can be little doubt as to what you are saying and where your interest lies. Given that you write as you do you would be much better off on any of the philosophical discussion lists where metaphysical wisdom is still valued. <snip>RESPONDENT: I want to understand in which ways you think my argument is faulty. VINEETO: Since you asked – your argument is faulty from beginning to end, 180 degrees opposite in fact. Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/ psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the Actual Freedom Trust website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more. RESPONDENT: First of all I don’t understand why you chose ‘diversion tactics’ as the email subject. It is quite amazing to see how hostile you guys are getting if somebody is not a 100% in line with your ‘whatever’ [I’d like to say ‘ideology’ but I refrain for a moment]. I am not ‘diverting’ and I am not using any ‘tactics’ nor do I have any ‘hidden agenda’. I thought you guys are happy and harmless. Why does it seem you think the worst about me? No. 66 has already started spell casting. VINEETO: ‘Diversion tactics’
RESPONDENT No 32: Maybe there should have been three different versions of actualism one can choose from: ‘beginner’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘you’re fucked’. Re: GOD, 3.5.2005 RESPONDENT No 32: I’ve read through much of the last few days messages and I gain an impression of madness writ large. Or would you prefer rotten? Madness, 4.5.2005 VINEETO to No 32: I don’t know if you can relate to this but your postings reminded me of the early years of putting the actualism method to task, which were thrilling, often weird, bizarre and mostly un-natural times as I proceeded to ween myself off my old ways of thinking and intuiting. I recorded some of those experiences in my letters to Alan and thought you might find them interesting – <snipped for space> Those times definitely pass as thinking on one’s feet instead of with one’s heart becomes more familiar and intelligence is allowed to gain more ground with the withering of the passions. But as I proceeded I also knew I was ‘fucked’ as you say it, because turning around and going back ceased to be a possibility, let alone an option. In the meantime, non-carborandum (loosely translatable as ‘don’t let the buggers get you down’)! RESPONDENT: Your’s and Alan’s reports are very interesting. Are these symptoms still coming up or was it only back then [1998] for a short time period that the ‘I’ was struggling for survival? I understand you are in VF, that is, your ‘I’ is still intact but diminished. Is this correct? Are you going fully for it [self-immolation, AF] or are you happy to stay where you are? I understand that Alan is not going fully for it. In the case you go fully for AF what are you doing to keep up the process? Thanks for your time and effort, VINEETO: Given that you have thus far spent a lot of your time and effort to dismiss and ignore all that I have written to the point of saying that the words I use have no meaning whereas the philosophers and metaphysicalists whose writings you post on this list have got it right, may I inquire why you are asking? In the meantime I can refer you to what I wrote to No 32 above –
RESPONDENT to Richard: That’s the core teachings of the metaphysical doctrine and that’s pretty close to what you report. VINEETO: Have you checked out this link:
VINEETO: Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the Actual Freedom Trust website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more. RESPONDENT: First of all I don’t understand why you chose ‘diversion tactics’ as the email subject. It is quite amazing to see how hostile you guys are getting if somebody is not a 100% in line with your ‘whatever’ [I’d like to say ‘ideology’ but I refrain for a moment]. I am not ‘diverting’ and I am not using any ‘tactics’ nor do I have any ‘hidden agenda’. I thought you guys are happy and harmless. Why does it seem you think the worst about me? No 66 has already started spell casting. VINEETO: ‘Diversion tactics’ RESPONDENT: Yes. I had a hunch it was after I already had sent out the email. Sorry for that. VINEETO: This may be a good opportunity – because it just happened – to point out that the actualism method in practice is designed to become attentive to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive in order to become aware of one’s feelings as they are happening – in this case, to be aware of one’s feelings before pressing the ‘send’ button. A lot of toing and froing of emails as well as possible embarrassment can then be avoided. The actualism method is based on the fact that all sentient beings are born pre-primed with certain distinguishing instinctual passions, the main ones being fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This instinctual program is located in the primitive ‘lizard’ brain and the almost instantaneous thoughtless automatic instinctual response is termed the ‘quick and dirty’ response. The primitive area of the brain makes an initial quick scan of all sensorial input and, if an instinctive reaction is required, almost instantaneously floods the body and neo-cortex with chemicals which then inevitably cause an automatic and unfettered emotional response – hence an instinctive thoughtless reaction becomes an instinctual passionate reaction. LeDoux empirically investigated the pivotal role of the amygdala in producing the feeling of fear, in particular the relationship between the thalamus (relay centre), the amygdala (feelings) and the neo-cortex (modern brain/thoughts). The most significant of LeDoux’ experimentation with regard to fear is that the sensory input to the brain is split at the thalamus into two streams – one to the amygdala and one to the neo-cortex. The input stream to the amygdala is quicker – 12 milliseconds as opposed to 25 milliseconds to the neo-cortex. Less information goes to the amygdala quicker – it operates as a quick scan to check for danger. Indeed LeDoux regards the amygdala as the alarm system, for bodily safety – hence the necessity for a quick scan and an almost instantaneous instinctive (thoughtless) response. This ‘quick and dirty processing pathway’ results not only in a direct automatic bodily response to either an actual or a perceived danger, but because the amygdala also has a direct connection to the neo-cortex – it causes us to emotionally experience the feeling of fear – i.e. we feel the feeling of fear a split-second later than the bodily reaction. Not only is the primitive brain’s response ‘quick and dirty’, it is also very
powerful in that it primes the whole body for action – which is precisely why instinctual reactions and the resulting
instinctual passions are ultimately so hard to keep in control. Now, these are things we all know well from personal experience as
well as from observation of others but it is fascinating that scientific investigation of the ‘hardware’ of the human brain is
now providing the biological evidence of how what is known as ‘human nature’ operates. (See Therefore from experience and observation one can say that one’s responses are by default almost always ‘quick and dirty’, i.e. thoughtless and instinctual … unless one applies an ongoing attentiveness to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. This attentiveness eventually allows me to recognize as and when the automatic instinctual response is happening and the very awareness itself disempowers it.
VINEETO to No 32: I recorded some of those experiences in my letters to Alan and thought you might find them interesting – <snipped for space> Those times definitely pass as thinking on one’s feet instead of with one’s heart becomes more familiar and intelligence is allowed to gain more ground with the withering of the passions. But as I proceeded I also knew I was ‘fucked’ as you say it, because turning around and going back ceased to be a possibility, let alone an option. In the meantime, non-carborandum (loosely translatable as ‘don’t let the buggers get you down’)! RESPONDENT: Your’s and Alan’s reports are very interesting. Are these symptoms still coming up or was it only back then [1998] for a short time period that the ‘I’ was struggling for survival? I understand you are in VF, that is, your ‘I’ is still intact but diminished. Is this correct? Are you going fully for it [self-immolation, AF] or are you happy to stay where you are? I understand that Alan is not going fully for it. In the case you go fully for AF what are you doing to keep up the process? Thanks for your time and effort, VINEETO: Given that you have thus far spent a lot of time and effort to dismiss and ignore all that I have written to the point of saying that the words I use have no meaning whereas the philosophers and metaphysicalists whose writings you post on this list have got it right, … RESPONDENT: I am not at all ignoring what you are writing. I am simply not agreeing with a great deal of your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] but that’s a complete different story. VINEETO: To dismiss your dismissal of everything I write as being ‘a
completely different story’ is yet another example of your intransigent attitude * VINEETO: … may I inquire why you are asking? RESPONDENT: Genuine interest. I have read vast amounts of the AF webpage over the last 12 months. I also bought Richard’s journal and read vast parts of it. I wouldn’t’ be here if I didn’t think there is some value in your research. I also reemphasized several times [!] that I hold your method for very useful regardless of my criticism of your ‘ideology’ [for lack of a better word]. To reduce the effects of the ‘ego’ on one’s and others well-being is a noble preoccupation in all traditions. VINEETO: When you say that the actualism method is ‘to reduce the effects of the ‘ego’’ you blithely ignore what is writ large in all actualism writings on the Actual Freedom Trust website – that an actual freedom from the human condition involves the extinguishing of both ego and soul whereas the ‘noble preoccupation in all traditions’ involves the death of the ego such that the soul (by whatever name it is called in whatever tradition) survives in order to rule the roost. In your fervour to fit actualism into these traditions you hold so dear you persistently dismiss and stubbornly ignore just what is on offer here. As such, to practice the method in order only to reduce the ego is to pervert the method into being something it is not. RESPONDENT: Also, I have had some experiences about 10 years ago which resemble your’s and Alan’s. Because I had these intense ‘fights’ so to speak with ‘myself’ only for a limited time period I was interested if the same was true for you or if these ‘fights’ with your ‘self’ are ongoing and if yes what are you doing to keep them ongoing or runs the process on auto-pilot or did it change in ‘quality’. VINEETO: As those reports were from 28.7.1998 and 5.1.1999 I had added a present day comment to them which you ignored not only the first time but also when I reposted it with added emphasis the second time –
Maybe, just maybe, it is possible for you to conceive that what you are talking about is not the same as what I am talking about as actualism is not about fighting with one’s ‘self’? RESPONDENT: Please distinguish between the [Respondent] who criticizes your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] regards the ‘ultimate questions’ on the one hand and the [Respondent] who is genuinely interested into your experiences regards ‘self’ immolations on the other hand. I’d rather wait until you two guys have made up your minds about actualism – particularly since the former seems to be well and truly strutting the stage, so much so that the other guy cannot get a word in edgeways.
RESPONDENT: That’s the core teachings of the metaphysical doctrine and that’s pretty close to what you report. VINEETO: Have you checked out this link: RESPONDENT: Yes, I saw that page but I didn’t find Richard’s conversations with these objections helpful or conclusive. VINEETO: If none of the 25 responses to the objection that actualism is just a rehash of what ‘the Ancients’ taught was ‘helpful or conclusive’ to you then you will probably have to remain with your objection as no further amount of words is likely to make a difference to you. By the way, a RESPONDENT: <snip> There is just no way how you can demonstrate to me that ‘life’ is a derivative of some blind physical processes [theory of evolution]. That is just ‘stupid’ to me. That I don’t believe for one second. VINEETO: Yep, you said it well, ‘there is just no way how you can demonstrate to me ...’ – therefore I won’t bother. Given that you insist in sticking with your traditional beliefs I have no interest in presenting you with an alternative.
VINEETO: I know for a fact that there is no God because I know for a fact that God is a construct of ‘my’ fear and hope, of ‘my’ passionate imagination. No imagination – no God, no passion – no God. It is essential to go this far in order to become free of the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: The only thing you know for fact is that ‘your’ version of ‘God’ doesn’t exist because that God was a construct of ‘your’ fear and hope, of ‘your’ passionate imagination. And now that construct is gone. If there is God s/he is certainly beyond of ‘our’ fears, hopes and passionate imaginations. So the question whether there is God or is not God and what kind of God etc can never be known for fact. You believed in an idol [’your’ version of God] and realized that this ideal doesn’t exist and now you conclude ‘God’ [the real one so to speak] doesn’t exist. VINEETO: You must be talking about your version of God then, the Principle or Godhead or Atma or whatever name you want to call it. There are no gods of any kind in the actual world. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me. VINEETO: Of course not – your God is preventing you from using common sense.
RESPONDENT to Richard: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. RICHARD: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. Incidentally, it was not a [quote] ‘lofty goal’ [endquote]
... it was a very down-to-earth, sensible, and practical goal. RESPONDENT to Richard: Not you, of course, the others (your former wife, Vineeto, Peter, No. 66, and others). As long as your method does not get them beyond what Buddha’s method does, I don’t see your claims justified – that your method does what we don’t have any evidence that it does what you claim it does. VINEETO: Not so. The actualism method has already got me far ‘beyond what Buddha’s method does’, and any other spiritual method for that matter. In a relatively short time (about 2 years compared to 17 fruitless years on the spiritual path) I gained a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow, which allows me to feel carefree most of the time and to be considerate of others at all times. This virtual freedom from malice and sorrow is not only a delicious way of experiencing life whilst still remaining a feeling being, it would also mean, with an eventual global spread of happy and harmless people, an end to human conflicts and an end to what can only be described as the human malaise. That said, I am under no illusion that this will happen in my lifetime but I am well pleased that I made the effort. After all pragmatic claims require pragmatic proofs.
RESPONDENT to Richard: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. RICHARD: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. Incidentally, it was not a [quote] ‘lofty goal’ [endquote] ... it was a very
down-to-earth, sensible, and practical goal. RESPONDENT to Richard: Not you, of course, the others (your former wife, Vineeto, Peter, No 66, and others). As long as your method does not get them beyond what Buddha’s method does, I don’t see your claims justified – that your method does what we don’t have any evidence that it does what you claim it does. VINEETO: Not so. The actualism method has already got me far ‘beyond what Buddha’s method does’, and any other spiritual method for that matter. In a relatively short time (about 2 years compared to 17 fruitless years on the spiritual path) I gained a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow, which allows me to feel carefree most of the time and to be considerate of others at all times. This virtual freedom from malice and sorrow is not only a delicious way of experiencing life whilst still remaining a feeling being, it would also mean, with an eventual global spread of happy and harmless people, an end to human conflicts and an end to what can only be described as the human malaise. I am under no illusion that this will happen in my lifetime but I am well pleased that I made the effort. After all pragmatic claims require pragmatic proofs. RESPONDENT [quotes himself]: ‘Buddha taught a technique called ‘mindfulness’ (and most likely the technique was very different 2500 years ago than today) which had as an aim to stop instinctive and affective behaviour whether for good or bad. I don’t see how what you achieved with Richard’s method is ‘far beyond’ that. VINEETO: Buddha’s mindfulness is based on dis-association and dissociation in order to nurture the transcendent ‘Self’ or ‘Being’ whereas the actualism method diminishes both good and bad feelings and fosters the felicitous/ innocuous feelings thereby diminishing both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as ‘Being’. For starters, being blissfully removed from the world via denial, transcendence and dissociation is a world of difference to happily (and harmlessly) experiencing this moment of being alive in the world as-it-is with people-as-they-are. For you to claim that Mr. Buddha taught a technique aimed at stopping one’s good ‘instinctive and affective behaviour’ as well as one’s bad ‘instinctive and affective behaviour’ is mind-boggling – you wouldn’t like to reconsider your claim perchance? RESPONDENT: You retrained yourself as to reduce the effects of your feelings, instincts and passions upon your behaviour. VINEETO: Your reading of the website has been somewhat superficial because the actualism method is clearly not a re-training ‘to reduce the effects of your feelings’ – the actualism method results in abandoning one’s beliefs in anything meta-physical, mystical and spiritual – upon closer inspection they are all recognized as silly for being obstacles to being happy and harmless. Haven’t you noticed that a fact that you know as a fact does not trigger any malicious or sorrowful feelings when questioned whereas each and everyone of one’s beliefs when questioned by others immediately brings a whole range of defensive, aggressive and doubtful emotions into play. With no beliefs to defend or uphold the very arising of all those feelings supporting and/or defending one’s beliefs, be they spiritual, metaphysical, religious, political, cultural, philosophical or whatever, simply disappears. Eliminating one of the major causes of feelings such as righteousness and/or indignation means that one is more able to be happy and harmless. In other words – no cause, no effect. RESPONDENT: For example, in the past you might have gone mad screamed if somebody had spoken to you in derogative language. Nowadays you might not even ‘feel’ the insult, or if you still feel the insult you feel it much less than before, which enables you NOT to act based on the feelings of insult. VINEETO: Yes, following Buddha’s method I would have merely retained myself not to feel insulted by staying cool, remaining aloof and acting superior. Whereas with the actualism method, when and as a feeling arises, I neither repress nor express the feeling but apply attentiveness to the fact that I am feeling melancholic, annoyed, bored, frustrated and so on with the aim to get back to being happy and harmless as soon as possible. Being attentive in that way I find the trigger that set me off feeling that way in the first place, in order that I can find the root cause of the feeling’s onset and clearly seeing the root cause is also the end of it. To give you an example – the other day No 88 wrote that ‘Vineeto, being of German origin, is so responsive to it, makes me suspect otherwise’. I actually had to ask Peter to explain what No 88 meant by this because when I used actualism to inquire into all the reasons that caused me to being malicious and sorrowful, insulted and angry, I had to, along all the other aspects of my social identity, also dismantle my German identity and its associated range of feelings, beliefs, attitudes and cultural/historical encumbrances. Think about it – if all the Arabs and Christians, Jews and Palestinians, Hutus and Tutsis, Chinese and Americans, English and Irish, Greeks and Turks, Prussians and Russians, Greenies and world-traders, vegetarians and omnivores, hawks and pacifists, left wingers and right wingers, and so on would stop feeling themselves to be of a particular creed, of a particular nationality, of a particular tribe, of a particular social, political and/or philosophical group, then they would have no need whatsoever, no matter what anyone says, to feel insulted on grounds of their nationality, creed, convictions and beliefs – that would be the end of all the wars and feuds and conflicts on the planet. Buddha’s method certainly has not achieved that after a good long trial of 2500 years.
RICHARD to Respondent: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses (both
literally and figuratively)’. RESPONDENT: Your direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. VINEETO: All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. As for me, when I began to pay attention to my own mind’s ‘initial, automatic and first interpretation’ and particularly to my affective and instinctual interpretation did I discover how to distinguish between direct sensory experience and the instinctual affective interpretation of the direct sensory experience.
RICHARD to Respondent: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses (both
literally and figuratively)’. RESPONDENT: Your direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. VINEETO: All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. RESPONDENT: You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! VINEETO: Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. RESPONDENT: My VERBAL reinterpretations of what happens in R’s brain are of course only my VERBAL reinterpretations. My VERBAL reinterpretations can be close or far from ‘how it really is’. VINEETO: All I was pointing out is that your ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but your own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience and as such is far, far, far from ‘how it really is’. * VINEETO: As for me, when I began to pay attention to my own mind’s ‘initial, automatic and first interpretation’ and particularly to my affective and instinctual interpretation did I discover how to distinguish between direct sensory experience and the instinctual affective interpretation of the direct sensory experience. RESPONDENT: I make some progress here as well. You see what I am saying is that your direct sensory experience is only ‘direct’ in the sense that is not reinterpreted by the entity; your direct sensory experience is not ‘direct’ in the sense that it can know ‘how it really is’ because you would have to be able to step outside of your brain/ senses to know directly ‘how it really is’. So your direct sensory experiences are your brain’s NON-VERBAL interpretations of sense data which will be reinterpreted VERBALLY [‘making sense of your sense data’]; in this sense your direct sensory experiences they are not ‘direct’, they are still ‘mediated’ [not by the workings of the entity anymore but by the workings of your brain]. VINEETO: No, your statement is a statement of ‘me’ inside the brain holding the reigns, so to speak. When there is no entity inside, as experienced in a pure consciousness experience, then there is no ‘interpreter’ of sensory experience because the senses *are* the brain on stalks. All the speculation of what the brain is doing with sensory information is but speculation of ‘me’, the interpreter, who will do anything to remain in existence and in control. RESPONDENT: So regardless of what you write me, it is, it only can be, it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations of what was initially an automatic and NON-VERBAL interpretation of your brain [what you call ‘direct sensory experience’]. I’d be delighted if you could tell me where my argument is faulty from your point of view. VINEETO: Given that you said ‘regardless of what you write me, (…) it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations …’ nothing that I say will make any difference to your firm conviction that your speculation applies not only to you but to everyone. But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling being inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real world of ‘re-interpretations’. But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling ‘being’ inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real’ world of ‘re-interpretations’. If you take my report, and those of other actualists, into consideration, allow that your speculations of your ‘work in progress’ are not factual and crank up your naivete, you might even be able to remember one of those direct pure un-interpreted and non-affective experiences for yourself. A memory of a past PCE then might even twig you to look for, and find, a pure consciousness experience now. It was certainly the end of not-knowing and the beginning of the ending of believing for me.
RICHARD to Respondent: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses (both
literally and figuratively)’. RESPONDENT: Your direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. VINEETO: All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. RESPONDENT: You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! VINEETO: Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. RESPONDENT: I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. VINEETO: Progress towards what? * RESPONDENT: My VERBAL reinterpretations of what happens in R’s brain are of course only my VERBAL reinterpretations. My VERBAL reinterpretations can be close or far from ‘how it really is’. VINEETO: All I was pointing out is that your ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but your own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience and as such is far, far, far from ‘how it really is’. RESPONDENT: Your pointing out that my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but my own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience is not only a total incorrect understanding of what I said but also totally irrelevant for the question how far, far, far, or close, close, close my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is from ‘how it really is’. To figure out how far, far, far, or close, close, close my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is from ‘how it really is’ I suggest the following thought experiment: <snip> VINEETO: The only way you could make any ‘progress’ towards understanding would be to stop your ‘interpreter’ dead in his tracks. The reason I say this because in the course of your 350+ emails to this list it has become blindingly obvious that your ‘interpreter’ is programmed with a software that is unable to take notice of, let alone comprehend, anything outside ‘his’ pre-conditioned metaphysical framework and ‘he’ frantically produces one interpretation after another and one unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable speculation after another. Just look at what re-interpretation of Richard’s experiential description ‘he’ came up with (in the snipped part of this post) –
* VINEETO: Given that you said ‘regardless of what you write me, (…) it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations …’ nothing that I say will make any difference to your firm conviction that your speculation applies not only to you but to everyone. RESPONDENT: If I was a neurobiologist working for the ‘National Institute of Neurological Disorder and Stroke’ making these speculations would that change a thing for you? VINEETO: Not a bit, because any neurobiologist would have a parasitical entity he thought and felt as being ‘me’ which would pre-empt the possibility of the unmediated direct sensate experiencing such as is readily apparent in a pure consciousness experience. * VINEETO: But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling being inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real world of ‘re-interpretations’. RESPONDENT: Yes, yes, I understand all these things. They don’t conflict with my speculations. I don’t doubt the actual world. What I doubt is that the actual world is non-contingent; you present the actual world as if it was non-contingent, as if it was absolute. (snipped a whole range of more translations, see above). VINEETO: No, you don’t ‘understand these things’. Your ‘interpreter’ has again fooled you with his instant metaphysical knee-jerk translation. To say it again for emphasis – unless you make ‘him’ cease his endless speculations and blatant reinterpretations and sit down and listen, there won’t be any progress in understanding what the actual world is about and unless you are at least even slightly prepared to begin to take what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website at face value (without re-interpretation) an empirical/experiential understanding is simply impossible. And unless one is able to arrive at an empirical/ experiential understanding, all one is doing is belief-hopping and speculation-rotating.
VINEETO: All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. RESPONDENT: You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
VINEETO: I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. RESPONDENT: I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. VINEETO: Progress towards what? RESPONDENT: to a closer understanding of actualism how ‘it really is’. VINEETO: And yet this is what you said in the rest of this post, in reply to my explanations, and not only once but five times so as to set this particular speculation in concrete, as it were –
Can you not see that these two statements are mutually exclusive? Besides, actualism is all about changing oneself, and *only* oneself. How else is one to ever become free from other people’s problems?
RESPONDENT: R’s dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions are a metaphysical impossibility, a scientific absurdity, bad philosophy and religious heresy, but because R claims his dogmatic assertions to belong to a complete different domain than metaphysics, philosophy, science, and religion it renders their take on his dogmatic assertions irrelevant; simply because R equates his dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions with his sense perceptions [direct experiences], that is, if you equate the report with the reported, then you have immunized your report against any kind of criticism; if so, criticising the report is criticising the reported and criticising the reported is as if somebody tries to prove you away that you hold a banana in the hand. VINEETO: That’s right, with the slight correction that these are not Richard’s dogmatic assertions but your own dogmatic assertions assigned to Richard. You invented them, you deal with them.
RESPONDENT: I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. VINEETO: Progress towards what? RESPONDENT: ... to a closer understanding of actualism how ‘it really is’. VINEETO: And yet this is what you said in the rest of this post, in reply to my explanations, and not only once but five times so as to set this particular speculation in concrete, as it were –
Can you not see that these two statements are mutually exclusive? RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that. The latter statement was rather a question than a statement. I just want to make sure if my understanding is correct that you claim that only if the ‘interpreter’ [the self, the entity, the affective, imaginative, and intuitive faculty] is gone I will be able to see that they are not dogmatic assertions of sense perceptions but ‘how it really is’ and ‘what they really are’. Is this correct? VINEETO: No. VINEETO: Let me put it this way – if you were on Safari and came across an animal you have never seen before, wouldn’t it be more sensible to ask the accompanying guides who are experts in their field about this new situation rather than shooting off one battery of random speculation after another? Besides, if you were to put a question mark behind your statements-as-if-they-are-facts they would more likely stop looking like dogmatic assertions and more easily convey the nature of inquiry. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
