Actual Freedom – A Request from Konrad Swart

September 28 1998:

KONRAD to Vineeto: An ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move. This is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it.

RICHARD: Now, as this is such a outright misrepresentation of anything I have ever said, I would certainly appreciate you copying and pasting the quotes wherein you claim that I have stated that ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body and that without such thoughts the body is not able to move’. I have consistently explained there is no ‘I’ extant in this body ... thoughts happen of their own accord and all the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here now (and I specifically mean those writings where you ‘really confronted him with it’, Konrad, so that not only Vineeto but anyone at all reading this can see how the logic of your argument has persuaded me that you are right and that I am wrong. Goodness me, I have no idea what you hope to achieve by such dissimulation ... this goes beyond confronting another person with your fantasising in order to make them ‘think hard’. This is such straight-forward lying that it makes all of your arguments look pathetically weak in the reader’s eyes).

KONRAD: It was no lying. I really observed that much when you denied in one of your mails that you never have said that movement does not require thought.

RICHARD: I will repeat that I have never said that movement does not require thought – other than idle gestures or when running on automatic pilot – because purpose is involved and only thought can see a means to an end. Thought is obviously required ... that is not the issue. The issue is what you wrongly ascribed to me in the above exchange in that you claim that Richard said: ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’. Do you see it written there? And can you also see where you say: ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’? Now, I repeat again: I would certainly appreciate you copying and pasting the quotes wherein you claim that I have stated that ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body and that without such thoughts the body is not able to move. In other words: back up your fantasies with facts ... if you want to be taken seriously.

KONRAD: But you were never really clear on this subject. Now, I ask you again. Do you think the body can move without a thought being in command? Answer this question, and settle it once and for all. I have settled the ‘life after death’ question. Now YOU settle this one. For, again, I found your answers to this question never to be too clear. So if I misunderstand, this is now your own fault, not mine. For you were never too clear on this matter. Even when I pressed it very hard.

RICHARD: Wow! You do go on. And all wrong, too. Look, if you have misunderstood me then perhaps you are not actually reading what I write. Here, let me copy and paste what I have already sent to you:

• ‘For the vast majority of my time there is no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action and effortlessly does its thing. All the while, there is this apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur ... it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here. Consequently, I am always blithe and carefree, even if I am doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake’.

In fact, I have already sent this several times ... to which you complained that I sent the same stuff over and over again. Viz.:

• [Konrad] ‘I have tried to make many things clear to you, but your mind is too closed. Especially because you are endlessly repeating yourself, as is typical for a prophet, and not of a true human being trying to share what he has to offer with others, and to receive what others have to offer’.
• [Richard] ‘I have been ‘endlessly repeating myself’ because when I send something to you – and you say you understand – then the next post from you shows that you have not. So I send it again ... and again ... until you do actually understand’.

But perhaps you will read it this time, no? And do not omit to copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’., eh?

KONRAD: I want to go only into one thing. I think it is the main issue. I delete nothing.

RICHARD: Do I take it then that you are not going to copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’? Do these quotes exist?

Or are they part of your fantasising?

KONRAD: THIS is the main issue where we differ, and where all your misunderstanding of me comes from. You accuse me of misrepresentation, and misunderstanding.

RICHARD: If you continue to avoid copying and pasting those quotes, where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’, then it is no mere ‘accusation’ ... by default it is established as being an accurate reflection of your modus operandi.

KONRAD: However, I think it is the other way around. So let me try to become as clear as possible.

RICHARD: Would it not be a lot simpler if you just copied and pasted those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’.? Surely these quotes would so easily back up your claim that where you could see that ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’?

KONRAD: What I see is that you fail to recognize the importance of my question about the thought controlling the body, and why I make such a big thing out of this.

RICHARD: No, Konrad ... I simply want you to copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’. You know, those quotes that show that where you could see that ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’?

KONRAD: You read my definition backwards, and therefore you do not really understand what I am saying.

RICHARD: Okay ... so you are not going to copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’ ... you are going to run the line that you are being misunderstood instead of backing your fantasy with the facts that ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’, eh?

KONRAD: If I say, that no movement of the body is possible without a thought controlling the body, you think that I am making excuses, and plead for the continuous existence of the ‘I’. And in this way you totally miss the point that I am making.

RICHARD: No, Konrad ... the point you were making is that Richard stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’. So why not just copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’ ... and stop all this nonsense? Because I have never said or written any such thing ... this is the kind of thing that you say.

KONRAD: If you really understood what I am saying, you would understand that I do nothing of the sort. On the contrary. If I say that the body is not capable of any action without a thought controlling the body, I try to make people aware of the fact, that the ‘feeling’ they have that they are ‘I’s, persons, WHO do things, is a mistaken vision on themselves.

RICHARD: Look out folks ... it looks like a complete reversal in Konrad’s thinking is on its way. But I had better clarify this – and please correct me if I have got it wrong – because are you really saying that any ‘I’ is a feeling (and not only a thought as the Krishnamurtiites say) and, as such, is not actual?

KONRAD: What I am really saying, is that their vision of themselves wherein they see themselves as persons is wrong. There is no ‘I’ present in anybody, in the sense of a person, a WHO that does things.

RICHARD: Not so, Konrad, 5.8 billion people are totally dominated by a sense of identity ... it is the sole cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that epitomises the grim and glum reality that this ‘I’ pastes over the top of the actual world.

KONRAD: What I mean by this is that there is no action separated from the ‘I’.

RICHARD: Ah ... so I was wrong about the reversal ... you are going to stay with your already-stated position. Konrad, I know that this is what you mean ... you have been saying this for many, many months now. The issue here is that you claim that Richard stated that ‘an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move’ ... and you will not copy and paste these quotes wherein you claim that ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’?

KONRAD: No, what I try to make clear is that the ‘I’ IS the picture of that what the body is trying to actualise. So the ‘I’ is a possibility that tries to make itself actual. Or, better, that CONSISTS OF making itself actual. This making itself actual is the purposeful, goal directed movement of the body. It is the expression of the picture that controls the body.

RICHARD: Yes, the ‘I’ – which arises out of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with – takes itself to be so important that it genuinely fears that this body cannot operate and function without it.

KONRAD: Again, I repeat. I am NOT making excuses for the continuous existence of the ‘I’. What I am saying is, that that what people believe to be their ‘I’ is just an abstraction, a hypothesis. The ‘I’ has NO real existence in ANYBODY.

RICHARD: Oh ... so I was right about the complete reversal in your thinking after all. Good ... we are in agreement, for once. No ‘I’ is necessary for this body to operate and function. Thoughts are quite capable of thinking themselves ... in fact, a whole lot better without an ‘I’ in there thwarting native intelligence with its petty needs, wants and demands. As I have oft-times said: ‘for the vast majority of my time there is no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action and effortlessly does its thing. All the while, there is this apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur ... it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here. Consequently, I am always blithe and carefree, even if I am doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake’.

KONRAD: How can I make you understand what I really mean? Let me try to say it in different words. Ah! maybe this works. What if I tell you I think what your vision is what is happening with me. Yes, this may well be the right approach. As far as I understand you, you say that in most people there is an ‘I’ present. This ‘I’ is the personal ‘I’.

RICHARD: Yes. Everybody I have ever talked to has reported having a sense of identity ... of being ‘me’. And everybody I have read about – other than enlightened people – has an ‘I’ of some sort that can be insulted or flattered, for example ... so it is personal, yes.

KONRAD: You think, that there is a first state of ‘enlightenment’, wherein this ‘I’ disappears.

RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ that the ‘I’ – as ego in the head – disappears in the altered state of conscious called Spiritual Enlightenment ... it does disappear. Only it reappears as the ‘me’ – as the soul – in the heart. The sense of identity is remarkably persistent ... thanks to blind nature’s instinct for survival at any cost.

KONRAD: And when this happens, a new ‘I’, a new psychological identity takes over. This new psychological identity you call, or you say others call the SELF.

RICHARD: Not ‘others’, Konrad ... you are the one who called it the ‘SELF’ (using all capitals). I follow the established convention of the West and call it the soul. In the east it is generally known as ‘The Self’ (divinity being always capitalised).

KONRAD: This is a different kind of ‘I’ that does not think in terms of its own personal gain, but it tries to be the saviour of the world in some magnanimous way. This type of enlightenment still has to go, for this is the Eastern enlightenment that does not bring any solution to what you call the ‘human condition’. This is the ‘I’ you observe in people like Buddha, Jiddu Krishnamurti and the likes. Am I right so far?

RICHARD: Yes. They say things like ‘I am The Truth’ or ‘I am The Absolute’ or ‘I am The Void’ or ‘I am Love’ or ‘I am God’ and so on.

KONRAD: Okay. Now if I understand your vision on me correctly, you think that I am in a state, wherein this SELF is gone, too.

RICHARD: Oh, no ... I do not think that at all. I gain the distinct impression from you that your ‘I’ as ego is still in place ... let alone having your ‘me’ as soul gone. You convey this to me by stating frequently that your ‘I’ is a thought that controls your body and that it is impossible to operate and function without it ... and that you see the ‘I’-ness of your ‘I’ when the process is happening. I say this ‘I’ is not necessary at all ... this is the substance of our debate. From what you write it becomes obvious that this ‘process’ that you are undergoing is yet to do its job of freeing the flesh and blood body called ‘Konrad’ from the insidious sense of identity that has a parasitical existence in its psyche. Only you are under the impression that the process – instead of being a means to the end – is the end in itself. Even though the Indians – who have been experimenting with these matters for thousands of years – specifically warn of the dangers of succumbing to the temptation to delude oneself that one has arrived ... I wrote and told you about what they call ‘kriyas’ and ‘mudras’. It is the seduction of the psychic power over other people that makes this position so attractive.

KONRAD: But this still is not the end point, according to you. For if the SELF is gone, another, even more subtle form of ‘I’ emerges.

RICHARD: No way ... when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (what you called I and SELF in past E-Mails) become extinct it is all over. Then there is this flesh and blood body being here now at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space ... being apperceptively aware. End of identity. Kaput.

Finish.

KONRAD: This ‘I’ is then called by me, you think at least, the BEING.

RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ this at all ... you wrote and told me this. Have you forgotten already ... or were you just fantasising?

KONRAD: This BEING manifests itself, so you think, in the form of this ‘process’.

RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ this at all ... you wrote and told me this. Tell me, please, how is your memory course going?

KONRAD: But if that is where ‘I’ am, there is still an identity present in me. A very subtle one. But nonetheless it is an identity that tries to maintain its grip on my body, infests my body, and therefore blocks the emergence of true actuality. Am I right so far? Does this correspond to your vision on me?

RICHARD: Konrad, if you say – as you repeatedly do – that an ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body and that it is impossible to operate and function without it ... then I can only take it that there is still an ‘I’ inside the flesh and blood body called ‘Konrad’.

I go by what you write.

KONRAD: Well, let me return to the above statement. If that is the vision, you are wrong. For the whole paradigm you use to judge me is itself wrong.

RICHARD: Yet I do not have a ‘vision’ about you ... this ‘paradigm’ is what you think I understand about you ... and has nothing to do with what I read. I know nothing but that what you have written and told me about. You have consistently – with few exceptions – stated that an ‘I’ is essential to operate and function. For example:

• [Konrad]: ‘Remember, that we talked about the phenomenon of ‘Mudras’. I have written to you, that these things happened maybe thousands of times with me. How? Well, exactly at the moment whereby all thoughts are stopped by the ‘process’ inside of me, the thought that is ‘connected’ to my body, the ‘I’ of that moment is also stopped. This invariably causes a ‘pull’ in the muscles. For the ‘I’, the thought connected to the muscles, mostly performing the action of meditation, is at that moment disconnected from the body. This disconnecting it causes this ‘pull’, because the electrical energy that was in the ‘I’-thought is discharged completely in the muscles. Exactly after this moment, no trace of an ‘I’ is left inside of me. All thought is gone. But then there is no agent of action left either. However there IS witnessing of this fact. Witnessing, that happens not by an ‘I’, but by the intelligence of the body. In this witnessing, there is only the ‘process’. Everything else is gone. However, this witnessing is therefore not put into words. For this is only possible when an ‘I’ is formed. If all thought stops, the true nature of the ‘I’-ness of the I is revealed, but the action of speaking is then impossible, for there is no ‘I’ that can speak. For ALL action is then impossible, including speaking (and typing)’.

Do you see it there? You clearly say: ‘in this witnessing, there is only the ‘process’ ... ... this witnessing is therefore not put into words ... for [speaking] is only possible when an ‘I’ is formed’. You emphasise this impossibility of operating and functioning by following that statement with: ‘if all thought stops ... the action of speaking is then impossible ... for there is no ‘I’ that can speak ... ALL action is then impossible, including speaking (and typing)’.

It is your description of your experience, not my ‘vision’ or my ‘paradigm’.

KONRAD: Let me explain. What I say is that the ‘I’ itself is an illusion. It is an abstraction that has no actual existence. Not only in you, or in me, but in nobody. THERE IS NO ‘I’ IN ANYBODY. Neither in the form of an ‘I’, nor in the form of a ‘SELF’, nor in the form of a ‘BEING’.

RICHARD: Yet you also say that without an ‘I’ that any action – like speaking and typing – is not possible. Which of your two statements are correct? Also, you have claimed that even Richard says this too (although he says that he does not) remember? You wrote to Vineeto: [Konrad]: ‘An ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body. Without such thoughts the body is not able to move. This is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’.

Perhaps you might like to copy and paste those quotes?

KONRAD: Still, people believe in this abstraction. They believe that they are persons, ‘who’s. How can this be? This is, because it is an abstraction. An abstraction of what? An abstraction of a controlling thought.

RICHARD: It looks as if you are reverting back to being a Krishnamurtiite here by saying that an ‘I’ is a product of thought. For a moment (further above) you could comprehend that an identity arises out of feelings. Let me copy and paste it for your edification: [Konrad]: ‘I try to make people aware of the fact, that the ‘feeling’ they have that they are ‘I’s, persons, WHO do things, is a mistaken vision on themselves’.

Oh well ... back to the drawing board, eh?

KONRAD: Let me use a robot metaphor. Suppose, you make a programmable robot that looks so much like a human being physically, that no difference can be seen between it and a human being. Still, if you want to make the robot do things, you must put a program into it. As soon as this program is running, this makes the robot execute the instructions the program consists of. And, as long as this program is running, from the outside it appears that the robot is a living entity acting purposefully. For the computer program is placed there in order for the computer to execute a specific task. Usually this task consists of a specific thing that has to be realized. Now you can put many different programs in this computer, so that it can do many different things. It is even possible to have all of these different programs be stored within the computer, but only one to be active at a particular time, depending on the instruction you give. In fact, more can be said. For you can make a program that controls which of these stored programs is going to run. This program controlling program is then the most abstract program. Still, it is only more abstract in the sense that it selects a specific program as a response to a command. This process of picking out the right program from a command you can call a rudimentary form of understanding. In fact, suppose you extend the number of programs present in that computer so that it becomes many thousands of them. And suppose the master program is able to respond not only to verbal or typed commands, but even to sensors that are connected to this master program. You can design the master program in such a way, that a certain configuration of stimuli leads to the picking out of one of the many thousands of programs, so that some action is performed that is beneficial to this robot. Now what I assert is this: If somebody who has no knowledge whatsoever of programs, computer etc, looks at this robot, he sees an entity that is capable of ‘understanding’ commands, and ‘respond’ to its environment. Such a person then can make the ‘abstraction’ that there is a ‘person’ present in this robot that is actually capable of understanding him, and thinking and acting by itself. Still, you and I know that this thing is just a very elaborate robot, in whom only a very complicated stimulus – response program is present, controlling thousands, and maybe millions of programs. Now let us take this metaphor one step further. Suppose this master program is not just simply a pre – programmed configuration – stimulus – response program, reacting in a pre – programmed way to certain combinations of stimuli, but it is made more complicated. How? Well, you design a system, in which you can store also pictures. And not just ordinary pictures, no, a complete home video of some situation you can find in home movies. You can store, for example, a picture of a day out of the life of Dr Jones. Further you extend the memory banks of this robot, extend the programs until there are millions of them, and you make the master program in such a way, that the robot is able to activate a sequence of programs, including finding other programs, and running them. This picking out by the master program not only occurs as a reaction to environmental factors, but also as a reaction to the home video. Let us suppose that all this makes it behave in such a way that it itself is changing the conditions around it. It is actually performing the steps needed to enable it to live this day out of this home video. This implies that it goes to high school, it goes to the university, and it extends its own software in such a way, that it is, in the end, capable of passing the exams and functioning as a real doctor. And then it is able to live this film that has been stored at the beginning. Now what I assert is that this robot is no different from us. Our ‘I’ IS this ‘home video’. It is a series of pictures that tries to operate on the body, and through it on the environment in such a way so that the situation it consists of, the home video, becomes actual. What I assert is that it is this picture itself that CONSTITUTES our ‘I’. Furthermore, I assert that this is the case with EVERYBODY. The home video’s may differ, but the deepest thing controlling this is this ‘home video’. The actions are directed at making this home video real in the sense that the ‘robot’ that is us can act it out. In other words, this ‘home video’ IS our ‘I’. It is the deepest layer of control of the body.

RICHARD: This is a fantastic dissertation, Konrad ... yet it completely ignores one pertinent fact. Blind nature does not endow robots or computers with survival instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire. It is these instinctual passions that form the rudimentary self that all sentient being are ruled by. Now the human animal, with its ability to know its impending death, transforms the physical survival instinct into an emotion-driven will to survive as a psychological and psychic entity ... ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ a soul. In the Eastern Mystical Enlightenment process, ‘I’ as ego, desiring to perpetuate itself for ever and a day, passionately feels itself to really be ‘me’ as soul – and an immortal soul at that – and becomes ‘Pure Being’. It then identifies as being ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ (this narcissistic self-aggrandisement is epitomised in the phrase ‘I am God’).

No robot or computer does this.

KONRAD: Let me return to this three – stage vision ‘I’, ‘SELF’ and ‘BEING’.

RICHARD: If you must ... but remember that it is your vision that you are discussing. My experience demonstrated two parts to the identity ... not three. ‘I’ as ego in the head and ‘me’ as soul in the heart. By identifying totally as this soul, in the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment, one is ‘Pure Being’. It is not a third position ... it is self-aggrandisement taken to its narcissistic extreme. Incidentally, I do not have a vision ... my on-going experiencing of living here in the actual world is a fact, not a fantasy.

KONRAD: In this ‘robot’ vision there is no essential difference between these three stages. The only difference is in degree. In the ‘I’ type of picture the ‘home video’ consists of a situation as the one described above. It consists of some future carrier. In this picture there can be beautiful houses present, so that actions are taken to collect enough money to buy them. There can be a picture of a certain high position in a company. But what all of these pictures have in common is that they are all ‘about’ a certain affluent and wealthy position this particular ‘robot’ tries to place itself in.

RICHARD: It seems to me that what you are talking of here is desire ... which is affective. Desire is an emotion-driven thought ... and thought cops the blame.

KONRAD: The ‘SELF’ home video does not consist of the picture of the body of this particular individual. No, this picture consists of a situation wherein many other ‘robots’ participate in the daily life. Therefore this particular home video is more ‘abstract’, for it attempts to find something that is common to many individual ‘home video’s’. And there is the ‘BEING’ home video. In this home video the picture is not only limited to ‘many people’, but all of existence is also taken into it. Still, all of these home video’s are ‘controllers’ of the body. They therefore do not differ in essence, only in scope and pretences. They are all manifestations of certain forms of ‘I’. Now what I think is, that your particular ‘home video’ consists of your own body.

RICHARD: They are always fascinating, Konrad, all these different hypotheses that you come up with to explain away this tremendous evolutionary breakthrough – with its far-reaching implications and ramifications for human existence – that I am living each moment again.

KONRAD: Why do I say this? Because there is only ONE way to see, that such a picture is the centre of all actions, and that is when ‘the process’ is ignited. Why is it necessary that such a process is present to see this? Because only in a self-referential process this ‘home video’ is able to ‘film’ itself. But then there is a film of a film of a film of a ... ad infinitum. A ‘feedback loop’ results, taking so much energy that a very intense ‘process’ emerges. I assert, that without it you cannot become aware of the fact, that no ‘I’, separate from thought exists, in the sense I have explained above.

RICHARD: Yet what about the sense of identity as feeling ... which in the enlightened state this identity as feeling becomes ‘Pure Being’? You are back to blaming only thought, again. This is the subterfuge that ‘me’ – busily ‘being’ and potentially becoming ‘Pure Being’ – throws up to remain intact.

KONRAD: It is also the reason why I make such a big fuss of exactly this point. As long as you talk in terms of the ‘I’ must be eliminated, you must free yourself from the ‘self’, or, as you do, stating that: [Richard] ‘What is central to my approach is the elimination of an identity in any way, shape or form’, it just betrays, that you are unable to see, that there is no identity to eliminate.

RICHARD: Oh, I get this ploy from many long-time spiritual seekers ... they get to a point where they fondly imagine that there is no problem. The ‘I’ is an illusion, they say, so nothing has to be done once this is realised. This is nothing but spiritual masturbation.

And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides go on ad infinitum.

KONRAD: There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me.

RICHARD: Perhaps a few quotes from these long-time spiritual seekers might enable you to see – by seeing how others are playing with themselves – just what you yourself are doing here. Viz.:

1. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘The notion of an ‘I’ that is here seems to be added by thought and cannot be found with close observation’.
2. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Thought falsely attributes the true existence of a ‘me’.
3. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Thought conceives the true existence of separate things, when, in fact, life is basically undivided’.
4. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Thought creates the notion of a ‘me’ and a ‘not’ me. A ‘me’, a watcher, a detached something could never see this since it is what thought creates. The existence of a ‘me’ or an idea of some detached position is merely imputed by thought, so it can never see or observe anything. That is the meaning of ‘the observer is the observed’.
5. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘By what signs would this self be known to be existing as more than passing phenomenon? It seems that passions or feelings are just changing phenomenon that seemingly arise and pass away in awareness just as thoughts’.
6. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘To label that ever-changing phenomenon as an instinctual self seems to be the addition of thought’.
7. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘If I see a real lake and look closer and closer, there is still a lake. If however, I see a mirage of a lake, the closer I get, its lack of existence is clarified. Likewise, the existence of a real self would be clarified with close exposure. What happens, though, is that no substantial self can ever be found’.
8. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Since there has never been a real ongoing self from the first (only action based on the assumption or belief in one) there is an appearance of something ending when in fact it is exposing and dropping of the beliefs and misconceptions concerning an ongoing self’.
9. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Your belief that there is someone that experiences feelings is a misconception’.
10. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Does there need to be a ‘who’ at all to be angry? Anger comes and goes in awareness. Thought may imagine an ‘I’ that is angry, but that seems to be an added label’.
11. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Looking now, this moment, there is no one to be angry and nothing that can be labelled angry. There are memories of anger that have arisen and dropped out of exposure. There is no thought of a someone that can proceed anywhere. It is just observing what comes up. It is not a goal, path or method. It is just what occurs naturally’.

Does all this help somewhat, Konrad, to throw some light upon the subject? In Australia, this kind of behaviour is called ‘being a wanker’.

KONRAD: For as long as you think that this is necessary, you have no clear understanding of the real nature of ‘I’. For if you had, you would see that this is ridiculous. For you cannot eliminate something that is not there in the first place. There is only one problem, and that is REALIZING that this ‘I’, this identity IS an illusion. And when this is totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true, and not only understood as a possibility, the process of enlightenment sets in.

RICHARD: Perhaps the following exchange might help you to understand how it is for me in regards to what you are now discussing. Viz.:

• [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘You say that there used to be an ‘I’ in this body, but somehow it is gone. Yes?’
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, it is gone ... and not just ‘somehow’, but with full intent and knowledge of what to do and what was happening. Consequently, I know how to get rid of this very persistent self which you quite rightly say is an illusion’.
• [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘If, in fact, there was some real self in your body, where did it go and how did it end? Real things don’t just disappear’.
• [Richard]: ‘How did it end? It was due to my intense conviction that it was imperative that someone evince a final and complete condition that would ‘deliver the goods’ so longed for by humanity for millennia. ‘I’ paid exclusive attention to being alive right here and now only. This type of attention is best known as fascination. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. This potent combination produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself.
Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity. All this is born out of pure intent. Pure intent is derived from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen to be perfect as-it-is. Diligent attention paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent. With pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, contemplation rapidly becomes pure. Pure contemplation is bare awareness ... bare of ‘me’ being aware. Apperception happens of itself.
With pure intent operating more or less continuously in ‘my’ day-to-day life, ‘I’ find it harder and harder to maintain credibility. ‘I’ am increasingly seen as the usurper, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness – apperception casts no shadows – ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable. ‘I’ can only live in obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about, creating all sorts of mischief. ‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end, ‘I’ can barely maintain ‘myself’ any longer.
The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending.

What a marvellous difference this makes to being alive!

KONRAD: In fact, this is the reason why EVERYBODY in whom ‘the process’ of enlightenment starts is laughing at the very moment it starts. For exactly at the moment when enlightenment sets in, the ridiculousness of the belief in an existence of such an identity is understood completely, and it is also understood what a ‘jack-ass’ he has been in believing in such an identity in the first place.

RICHARD: Yes indeed ... it is a deep belly-laugh. This profound levity continues for the remainder of one’s life. Is it not strange, Konrad, that you do not write about a viable, liveable and delightful alternative to what people are currently living? I do not read your saying anything about how deliciously enjoyable it is to be finally free of the Human Condition; what a pleasure it is to be alive at this moment in time; how life is an adventure in itself by the simple fact of being here; what a felicitous experience it is to be the universe’s experience of itself as a human being; how fabulous it is to be able to fully appreciate the infinitude of this physical universe by being alive ... and so on. In short, what I read sounds like a dull life lived in abstraction.

I can only assume that your understanding – as an actual understanding – was short-lived, and that the ‘process’ still has to finish its task ... if only you will let it do so.

KONRAD: THIS is what I meant when I said that at the moment of the enlightenment of ‘the process’ it turned out there was nothing at all. For I was searching for such an identity, and then there was awareness of the fact that the searching for this identity itself was the identity searched for. Next to this there was nothing at all.

RICHARD: Yes ... I would suggest that you stick with this realisation and go with the ‘process’, whatever it takes, until your awareness becomes an actualisation lived in your daily life.

KONRAD: So you see, Richard, why I make such a point of how the body moves? The body NEEDS a picture in order to act purposefully. In this an ‘enlightened’ individual does not differ from everybody else. Only, the ‘enlightened’ individual is able to see that there is only such a picture that makes the body act purposefully. A picture, that can be mistaken for an ‘I’.

RICHARD: Hmm ... if you say so, Konrad. However, I am unable to make any pictures whatsoever ... I cannot see anything ‘in my mind’s eye’ for I do not have one. The faculty for imagination disappeared along with ‘I’ as ego and the faculty for intuition disappeared along with ‘me’ as soul. I have no need to create a picture in order to operate and function ... and I can act purposefully with remarkable ease and alacrity.

KONRAD: What you also failed to understand is that there is a lot of mathematics in me.

RICHARD: Oh, no ... I very quickly came to comprehend that you were deeply enamoured of mathematics right at the beginning of our correspondence!

KONRAD: Mathematics moves from definition to definition. Therefore I express my insight in a mathematical way. Like this: Question: What makes a body move? Answer: A picture of some future state. Question: What is the essence of ‘I’? Answer: The ability to control the body.

RICHARD: A body moves itself as is necessary according to the circumstances via will ... and the bodily needs are what motivates will. Will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function – not an identity. Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the identity is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of the ego and soul – which are born out of instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence ... and this intelligence is the body’s native intelligence. It is a joy to be me, going about my carefree business with freed-will, in this wonderful physical world. It is only people who, believing themselves to be an identity needing to control and be controlled, that wreak havoc in this otherwise marvellous playground that humans all live on.

KONRAD: Now what do you get if you merge those two insights?

RICHARD: A ... um ... headache?

KONRAD: Answer: An ‘I’ is a picture, or home video of some desirable future state the body is imagined to be in as one of its actors. It is this picture that makes the body move in such a way, that this imagined picture is actualised. Question: Can the body move, act purposefully, if such a picture is not present? Answer: No.

RICHARD: Only if you are referring to yourself, Konrad. Speaking personally, I have no compulsion to invent a picture in order to perform and transact in this world of people, things and events ... and I can act purposefully with astonishing effortlessness and extraordinary dispatch.

KONRAD: Question: Is there an identity, independently from this home video, that can make the body move, act purposefully? Answer: No.

RICHARD: Yet your ‘I’ is persistent (you see the ‘I’-ness of your ‘I’) ... are you pushing this ‘home video’ analogy a bit far, here?

KONRAD: Question: Is this realized by others? Answer: No. Almost everybody believes, that there is an identity that is separate from this picture that does the actual desiring. It is the identity that desires that this home video becomes actual. But this identity is a false abstraction. In actuality, there is no difference between the home video and the identity.

RICHARD: Oh ... you are talking about desire. Desire is affective ... thus the identity you refer to here is ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’

KONRAD: But you misunderstand me. You read my explanations backwards. You think, that because I define the ‘I’ as a thought that controls the body I am defending this as a necessity.

RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ this ... you repeatedly tell me so. Are you going to change your mind again?

KONRAD: But it is exactly the opposite. I try to make others aware of the fact that this ‘I’ IS an illusion. And if it is an illusion, it cannot be eliminated.

RICHARD: Oh yes it can ... and it must be eliminated. This illusory ‘I’ must undergo an illusory death. This death, when it happens, is indistinguishable from physical death ... it is that startling in its intensity. This is a far cry from you ‘realising that this ‘I’, this identity, IS an illusion’ that you referred to above. Becoming free from this – at times very real – identity requires far more than the illusory nature of ‘I’ being merely ‘totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true’ that you accurately explained.

KONRAD: This is why I consider your ‘actualism’ as bogus.

RICHARD: Then ‘bogus’ it must be, Konrad, if you say so ... but what a marvellous counterfeit it is. Every moment again is a joy and a delight ... I never get ... um ... infuriated. I never have to use the ‘good’ emotions to restrain myself from acting on my ‘bad’ emotions with ... um ... principles (I have noticed that principles – ethics and/or morality – are only necessary when there is a wayward ‘I’ creating havoc inside the body).

But as you have ‘totally realised’ that there is no ‘I’ ... then none of these symptoms would be occurring in you, now, would they?

KONRAD: For, obviously, you still express yourself in terms of the necessity of something that needs to be eliminated. Therefore you obviously do not see that ... oh boy, I am repeating myself. Probably this is due to the fact that there is only a self-reference present on this side of the Internet.

RICHARD: This is the funniest thing that you have written so far ... and possibly the most true: an ever-infinite tautological self-referential regression called ‘Konrad’, eh?

Now I know that, epistemologically speaking, tautology is the absolute identification of cause and effect and that, logically speaking, a tautology is a compound proposition which is unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its component propositions and by virtue of its logical form. But in everyday use, tautology is but another word for pleonasm – a circumlocution or a reiteration – when all is said and down.

Hence my mirth: perhaps it is a good point to leave this particular discussion and move on to your next topic wherein you make more sense than in this one.

*

KONRAD: Richard, I just wanted to share these thoughts with you ... ... I am now reading a book about brain functions. And guess what. Suddenly something dawned on me. Do you realize, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has been somebody who in essence discredited thought and logic?

RICHARD: Um ... actually ... yes. I have not only known this for years and years now, but have written about it ad nauseam ... especially in this last seven-eight months to the Mailing List operating under the auspices of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. He talked endlessly about what I call Love Agapé and Divine Compassion as being Intelligence (although he did not use capitalisation, when he described his ‘intelligence’ as being ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and that ‘that I would bow down to, that I would prostrate to’ ... then it is obvious that he was indicating what is known as ‘Divine Intelligence’ or ‘God’s Omniscience’. Especially as other times he referred to it as ‘God’ or ‘Brahman’ or ‘Truth’ or ‘whatever name you may call it’).

And, of course, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are affective ... so, the penny has finally dropped for you, eh?

KONRAD: Since thought and logic is situated in most people in the left hemisphere of the brains, you could say that he was a discreditor of this side of the brains. And another thing. Logic and thought of the inferential kind is completely devoid of emotions. I have never seen Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti going against emotions. On the contrary. He very often appealed to them, by statements like: ‘Your brother is dead. You are heart. Now can you go into that, without resistance, without condemnation, without evasion? If you can, you will arrive at the root of sorrow’ etc. And then all kinds of fantastic things, things he only hinted at would await us.

RICHARD: Oh, he did not always ‘only hint’ ... at times he was most specific. I have posted quotes detailing these very things to the Mailing List in order to see if the Krishnamurtiites there could grasp that their mentor was actually an Indian Guru in disguise. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti surrendered his will in 1922. He wrote about the event just days after (using capitalisation). Viz.:

• ‘I [sat] under the pepper tree which is near the house. There I sat cross-legged in the meditation posture. When I had sat thus for some time, I felt myself going out of my body, I saw myself sitting down with the delicate tender leaves of the tree over me. I was facing the east. In front of me was my body and over my head I saw the Star, bright and clear. Then I could feel the vibration of the Lord Buddha; I beheld Lord Maitreya and Master K. H. I was so happy, calm and at peace. I could still see my body and I was hovering near it. There was such profound calmness both in the air and within the lake, I felt my physical body, with its mind and motions could be ruffled on the surface but nothing, nay nothing, could disturb the calmness of my soul. The Presence of the mighty Beings was with me for some time and then They were gone. I was supremely happy, for I had seen. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and pure waters at the source of the fountain of life and thirst was appeased. Never more could I be thirsty, never more could I be in utter darkness. I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world. I have stood on the mountain top and gazed at the mighty Beings. Never can I be in utter darkness; I have seen the glorious and healing Light. The fountain of Truth has been revealed to me and the darkness has been dispersed. Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated’.

KONRAD: So, in essence he was an advocate of allowing our emotions to penetrate as deep as possible into our lives. For, obviously, if you open up for your emotions, these emotions will have total freedom to exist in you. And, as a side effect, there will be nothing in particular that can be said to be your actuality. For, obviously, if no emotion is resisted, then no emotion is preferred above the other. And therefore this leads to an individual that never takes a stand on anything.

RICHARD: Yet they do take a stand on matters metaphysical ... they extol the virtues of ‘The Truth’ and ‘Love Agapé’ and ‘Divine Compassion’ (under various names) at the very least. There is always an ‘Absolute’, in some sense, that is beyond time and space ... ‘Unborn’ and Undying’ and ‘Timeless and Spaceless’. Their ultimate ‘It’ is never of this physical world ... it pre-dates and post-dates this physical universe. Their ‘It’ is that which creates – or makes possible – this material universe. They generally see physical life as being a dream and that when this flesh and blood body dies, they will discard it as a suit of old clothes and dissolve into ‘That’ by whatever name.

Their instinct for survival has transmogrified their finite earthly existence into a specious ‘Immortality’ in some nebulous ‘After-Life’ ... but I have written about all this before.

KONRAD: Such a concentration on emotions is also an intentionality that is primarily consciousness directed. It is a lopsidedness.

RICHARD: Okay ... I call it a delusion. And I call their much-prized ‘State Of Being’ a massive hallucination. But ‘lopsidedness’ will do, for now!

KONRAD: Have you also realized, that feelings and emotions are situated in most people in the right hemisphere of the brains? Since you are in essence a discreditor of feelings and emotions, and an advocate of a form of existence totally devoid of emotions, you are the exact opposite of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

RICHARD: An actual freedom lies 180 degrees in the opposite direction to enlightenment’s metaphysicality. I am physical ... down-to-earth and matter-of-fact.

KONRAD: You deny the functionality of the emotions, and the advantages they can bring us.

RICHARD: Emotions cripple the body’s native intelligence ... therefore emotions impair clear functioning in the world of people, things and events.

What advantages would you be referring to?

KONRAD: You even deny that emotions can bring us any advantage.

RICHARD: They have brought wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ... I fail to see what advantage there is in that lot.

What advantages would you be referring to, now?

KONRAD: Therefore your approach is as lopsided as that of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

RICHARD: This looks like your predilection for Buddhism shining through, at a guess, because the antidote to ‘lopsidedness’ implies balance. Hence the ‘Middle Path’ (I now know that I should not have so easily agreed to your use of ‘lopsidedness’). Now, the middle path betwixt black and white, for example, is grey ... which description fits the impression you convey about your experience of being alive.

A person who has actualised the realisation the an ‘I’ is an illusion is free from this kind of dualistic thinking.

KONRAD: Only, you are an advocate of the total domination of the left hemisphere of the brains over the right.

RICHARD: Not so ... that is your model. I advocate the extinction of any sense of identity whatsoever ... which means the elimination of the instinctual passions in their entirety. They are located in – or near to the top of – the brain-stem. Then this feeling-induced left/right hemisphere disparity between intellect and emotion that is so troubling to you is resolved (at a guess, it could possibly be then described as one hemisphere for being delightfully analytical and the other one for being deliciously aesthetic ... at a guess).

KONRAD: You want to become, or, if I understand you correctly, even assert to be, a total actuality in whom every form of potentiality has ended.

RICHARD: To be living here and now – at this juncture in infinite space and eternal time – as this flesh and blood body, bereft of any identity whatsoever, is to be perfection personified. This perfection is the purity of the infinitude of this material universe ... which is so pure that nothing dirty can get in.

KONRAD: I considered this a very funny thing. For, as I have written you before, I suspected that you have found some western kind of ‘enlightenment’.

RICHARD: Despite the fact that I repeatedly state that an actual freedom lies beyond enlightenment? That it is situated in what Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain called ‘The Unknowable’ (he posited three worlds: ‘The Known’, ‘The Unknown’ and ‘The Unknowable’. To be enlightened was to live in ‘The Unknown’ ... and ‘The Unknowable’ existed only after physical death. Hindus call it ‘Mahasamadhi’ and Buddhists call it ‘Parinirvana’ ... the ultimate ending of all duality).

KONRAD: And now I suspect this even more. So you are the western Krishnamurti, whose message, I must hasten to add, is the total and exact opposite of that of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.

RICHARD: As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was living in an altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment – and as the physicality of actual freedom is diametrical to enlightenment’s metaphysicality – my condition is indeed the opposite. I can assure you that I am no ‘Western Krishnamurti’ though ... do not do that disservice to yourself.

I am this flesh and blood body called Richard ... a fellow human being.

KONRAD: And I think, that if you focus on some method with which others can ‘enjoy’ your actuality, and offer that to others, you will have a lot of followers.

RICHARD: I think not ... to be able step onto the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom, one can only start with autonomy And to follow some ‘leader’ – spiritual or secular – is to remain forever a ‘follower’ ... autonomy has to be thrown to the winds in order to obey. Now, whilst one has no integrity whilst one is a ‘me’ – the psychic entity within the body – nevertheless one can resurrect one’s autonomy by activating naiveté. This is essential, for nobody, but nobody, can set one free ... and upon sober reflection, who would have it otherwise? One must start with autonomy or else one is doomed to fail ... one is completely on one’s own in this adventure. ‘On one’s own’ does not have to mean alone or lonely ... with pure intent the entire universe is right here with the one who goes all the way. And what a magnificent adventure it is!

What I can do – other than demonstrating and saying that it is possible – is but offer tips, hints, clues, suggestions ... and the other does with this what they will.

KONRAD: In fact, it can even be predicted that if you do that, your success will be larger than that of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. For it is far more difficult to discredit thought and thinking than to discredit feelings and emotions.

RICHARD: Hmm ... it is not that easy to discredit feelings and emotions in your case, Konrad ... you passionately defend them.

KONRAD: Especially in times like ours, wherein we are bombarded through the media with exactly the misery happening all over the world, and wherein the positive things emotions bring are mostly hidden.

RICHARD: See ... with this ‘the positive things emotions bring’ statement you defend feelings and emotions straight away, right after your apparently profound observation above that they are easy to discredit.

KONRAD: Just another personal thing. I have been thinking a lot lately about the e-mail medium, and the difficulty to discover who or what is at the other end. The book told about so called split brain people. People, in whom the corpus callosum had been cut because of epilepsy. One of the phenomena was very remarkable, and threw light on my own misunderstanding of others. Whenever the right hemisphere, the silent one, performed an action, the left hemisphere just invented an explanation for this, so that it could pretend that it was still in command. The book went even so far as demonstrating, that maybe every conviction we have, even from persons who do not have a split brain is erected in that way. Or, to put it differently, whenever the right hemisphere performs an action that contradicts the convictions of the left hemisphere, this left hemisphere tries to ‘own’ these actions by adapting his convictions. If this is indeed so, it explains something I was also puzzled about. I have written to Vineeto, and explained to her that science is far more than common sense. And therefore its products are also far more than the application of common sense. To keep it simple for her I told her that it is common sense corrected by extensive and thorough logical analysis, and heavy mathematics.

RICHARD: Apart from the self-important over-tones in the assumption that any person other than a logician lacks the ability to understand straight-forward concepts, perhaps it would be of better use if you kept things simple for yourself, Konrad. Instead, you unnecessarily complicated what was an otherwise lucid E-Mail correspondence about human relationship and the utter failure of abstract logic to produce total peace and harmony, with involved, complex and convoluted cerebalisation. Indeed, fancy having to dress-up one’s native intelligence – commonsense is epitomised by sensible rationality and sensitive reason – with ‘extensive and thorough logical analysis and heavy mathematics’ in order to justify the way you avoided answering Vineeto’s very intelligible original question.

• [Vineeto]: ‘How do your concepts translate into action in your daily life? Logic is the male weapon to tackle life, but it has utterly failed – as you can see in the way human beings treat each other on the planet – whichever system of logic they follow’. And your answer had nothing whatsoever to do with the question ... which was clearly about human relationship and not technological progress.
• [Konrad]: ‘If you really understood the monstrosity of that remark of yours: ‘Logic is the male weapon to tackle life, but it has utterly failed’ ... in fact, there are countless specific problems logic has solved. Only if somebody is as stupid as to believe that there is such a thing as one solution to all of the problems you are blind to this solution. May I remind you, that the very computer you use to talk to me is a product of logic? And, does it fail? The house you live in, product of logic. Would you rather live in a cave, or, for the lack of it, in open space? So logic has solved the problem of communication and of housing. Logic has brought us houses, aeroplanes, roads, better food productions, computers, medicine, and on and on and on and on and on and on ... and on and on and on’.

You have been trying this stunt with me for ages now ... and you just do not address the issue of the Human Condition and logic’s arrant failure in the area of human relationship. Vineeto did try again:

• [Vineeto]: ‘I have asked you how you are in your daily life, with your fellow human beings, with your wife. If your theory cannot even produce equity, then what possible value is it?’

And your enlightened reply was:

• [Konrad]: ‘You know what? I stop here reading you. Probably the rest you write is just one huge attack on what I represent, and probably there is nothing good you can find in me, now that your mind is set. So I do not want to waste any more energy on you. Not again such a stupid exchange of misunderstanding upon misunderstanding’.

Vineeto tried again ... I considered these sentences of hers to you very reasonable:

• [Vineeto]: ‘I did not mean to attack you when I said: ‘Logic is the male weapon to tackle life, but it has utterly failed’. It is simply my experience. In my life I have mainly come across men who were very good in finding excuses with abstract logic not to try something new. I have seen logic being used to wander from the subject, to build castles in the clouds, to create theories. My main question to you has been and still is: Does the concept that you are teaching change the person in his behaviour to other fellow human beings, or does it avoid exactly this frightening but so vital issue: neither logic nor the controlling of emotions has ever succeeded in eliminating malice and sorrow, wars and ‘domestics’, suicide and murder from the world. This is what I call using common sense instead of logic’.

Oh well ... one can but try again, eh?

KONRAD: But if I am more precise I would say even this is not true. The products of science are the result of a fusion of the experiment principle, logic and mathematics.

RICHARD: I cannot resist ... it is your use of the word ‘fusion’ that prompts me to say that one of the ‘products of science’ is the nuclear bomb.

KONRAD: No common sense is even present in it.

RICHARD: In regard to the nuclear bomb ... no commonsense whatsoever.

KONRAD: On the contrary, one of the first things you learn as a science student is to distrust common sense.

RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure about that? Perhaps I can demonstrate something for you with the following process of logical deduction. Viz.:

1. The cat has fleas.
2. Immersing fleas in boiling water kills them.
3. Put the cat in boiling water.

Now, this is a simplistic syllogism, I know ... but it illustrates that even scientists have to use commonsense when it comes time to move from pure science to applied science (perhaps Vineeto was asking you about ‘applied science’ when she wrote: ‘how do your concepts translate into action in your daily life?’).

KONRAD: For the results of experiment, logic and mathematics are very, very often counterintuitive.

RICHARD: Maybe you need a definition for ‘common sense’ ... so that you may stop using only a ‘fusion of the experiment principle, logic and mathematics’ ... and add a very large dash of very essential commonsense.

(Dictionary Definition): Common sense: n. and a. (also spelt: common-sense, commonsense). [Gk. koine aisthesis, L. sensus communis.]: commonsensible a. commonsensibly adv. commonsensical a. commonsensicality n. commonsensically adv. Synonyms: good sense, sense, practicality, judgement, native wit, native intelligence, level-headedness, prudence, discernment, astuteness, shrewdness, judiciousness, wisdom, horse sense, gumption, nous.
1. An internal sense regarded as uniting the impressions of the five senses in a common consciousness.
2. Good sound practical sense in everyday matters; general sagacity.
3. Ordinary or normal understanding, as possessed by all except the insane and the mentally handicapped.
(Example) R. G. Collingwood: ‘The world they represent is not the common-sense world, it is the world of delirium’.

KONRAD: I have received, since then, no answer from her. And I now understand why. For obviously my demonstration was irrefutable. Therefore it went against her feelings. The most simple thing to save her erroneous convictions is, of course, simply to ignore my argument. This is then probably done in the obvious way, by discrediting my person in her mind, and denying that my explanation deserves an answer.

RICHARD: Perhaps you may be beginning to realise, by now, just how difficult it is to break the long-standing habits ... in this case: fantasising. Or, to put it another way: methinks that you have jumped to a conclusion here and formed a picture about Vineeto based upon assumptions. You will have noticed by now that she did write back ... this E-Mail of yours and her latest to you crossed each other in transit.

KONRAD: I think you will encounter this same phenomenon when you explain your position.

RICHARD: If you mean by this, that have I noticed how you ignore the more difficult-to-answer parts of my E-Mails to you, then yes ... I have. For example, I have asked you to copy and paste those quotes where you claim that I have stated that ‘I’ is a thought that controls the body and that without such thoughts the body is not able to move’. You know, those quotes that show that where you could see that ‘this is something even Richard could not deny when I really confronted him with it’?

And you have not done this ... is this the kind of ignoring that you are referring to?

KONRAD: It is so easy to dismiss the arguments of somebody else by just stating that he is an idiot who does not understand, instead of looking at the mistakes that are made by yourself. Since you are so very rooted into reality, your analyses are always very clear in the sense, that you have a remarkable ability not to let your feelings cloud your observations. I must confess, that you really have shook me up in realizing how much ‘pseudo – arguments’ I produce. Arguments, not backed up, or sometimes only very weakly backed up by facts. So I can really say that I learn from you.

RICHARD: Good. Then our discussion about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in this world as-it-is, with people as-they-are, can obviously proceed apace ... onto better and better understanding.