|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 103
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. (...) RICHARD: ... in what way would a down-to-earth response to a query from an identity asking [quote] ‘Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’?’ [endquote] be couched? RESPONDENT: In the way you just couched it. RICHARD: Aye ... that down-to-earth response, which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along, is couched in such a way as to contain, as a matter of course, no reference to an identity at all (for no other reason than no such imaginative/ intuitive ‘being’ whatsoever is in situ) for the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is readily evoked – and which is directly informative about the situation/ circumstances – by the very fact of the object of perception being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, to tell that something is different from what it ought to be/is wanted to be and, furthermore, by virtue of the mental product/ result of perceiving being directly informative (about the object of perception being different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) it is that particular situation/ those specific circumstances which calls for something to be done. Any grammatical use of passive voice (typically used in scientific text so as to emphasise objectivity) over active voice is besides the point – as is any grammatical absence of the first person pronoun – as to be a sentient creature is to be an agent anyway (and agency of necessity involves self-reference). In short: a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto is itself the agency (which is dramatically different to an identity being the agent and who needs to be told information/who needs to call for something to be done) and, as such, cause and effect are not separated by an intrusive intermediary. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite straightforward.
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on).(...) RICHARD: ... that down-to-earth response, which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along, is couched in such a way as to contain, as a matter of course, no reference to an identity at all (for no other reason than no such imaginative/intuitive ‘being’ whatsoever is in situ) for the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is readily evoked – and which is directly informative about the situation/circumstances – by the very fact of the object of perception being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, to tell that something is different from what it ought to be/is wanted to be and, furthermore, by virtue of the mental product/result of perceiving being directly informative (about the object of perception being different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) it is that particular situation/those specific circumstances which calls for something to be done. RESPONDENT: I would like to ask, lastly, if we have also reached agreement in our example that an observer, looking comparatively at you and a person still equipped with an identity put in the same situation, would not be able to see any difference between the two reactions to the approaching car. RICHARD: The illustrative example provided in my initial response was just that (an illustrative example) ... as I neither drive nor own such a vehicle as you mention – I do not even have a driver’s licence – I am unable to answer your query.
RESPONDENT: Do you experience the bodily sensation of an empty stomach? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: If so, do you regularly react to this sensation by eating? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: If not, what occasions you to eat? RICHARD: Intelligence. RESPONDENT: Similarly: does your house ever get messy ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... or do you always stuff things up immediately? RICHARD: Huh?
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. (...) RICHARD: ... in what way would a down-to-earth response to a query from an identity asking [quote] ‘Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/ what I want it to be’?’ [endquote] be couched? RESPONDENT: In the way you just couched it. RICHARD: Aye ... that down-to-earth response, which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along, is couched in such a way as to contain, as a matter of course, no reference to an identity at all (for no other reason than no such imaginative/ intuitive ‘being’ whatsoever is in situ) for the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is readily evoked – and which is directly informative about the situation/ circumstances – by the very fact of the object of perception being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, to tell that something is different from what it ought to be/is wanted to be and, furthermore, by virtue of the mental product/ result of perceiving being directly informative (about the object of perception being different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) it is that particular situation/those specific circumstances which calls for something to be done. RESPONDENT: I would like to ask, lastly, if we have also reached agreement in our example that an observer, looking comparatively at you and a person still equipped with an identity put in the same situation, would not be able to see any difference between the two reactions to the approaching car. RICHARD: The illustrative example provided in my initial response was just that (an illustrative example) ... as I neither drive nor own such a vehicle as you mention – I do not even have a driver’s licence – I am unable to answer your query. RESPONDENT: Let the illustrative example be that you’re not driving, but standing on the road, and that a car is suddenly coming at you with high speed. RICHARD: As I am not wont to be standing on those black ribbons of death and destruction (whereon a cross between Russian roulette and Vatican roulette gets played out around the clock) – will it suffice to substitute one of those occasions of being about to step onto a pedestrian crossing only to have a pedestrian-expurgator (a pedestrian who has amnesia about having been just that the moment they get behind the wheel) suddenly appear, as if out of nowhere and with both feet firmly planted on the gas-pedal, for your example? RESPONDENT: Would your reaction, as observed from the outside, look any different to the reaction of somebody else (would it be faster, for example) or would it look the same? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
As what you are asking me (twice now) is a behaviour-only question – a query about appearances – it may very well be advisable to re-phrase your question in such a way as to elicit the thick-mouthed response you (presumably) require. ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RESPONDENT: Do you experience the bodily sensation of an empty stomach? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: If so, do you regularly react to this sensation by eating? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: If not, what occasions you to eat? RICHARD: Intelligence. RESPONDENT: Similarly: does your house ever get messy ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... or do you always stuff things up immediately? (correct wording should have been) do you stuff things away immediately? RICHARD: No, I never stuff things away (let alone immediately). RESPONDENT: From the previous answer I conclude that the answer would be yes. RICHARD: Not all that surprisingly (given all those other conclusions of yours scattered throughout the 70-odd emails you have written in the eight days you have been posting to this mailing list) your conclusion, being based upon a false premise, is invalid. RESPONDENT: Has this – your being very orderly – always been the case? RICHARD: First, I never said I was very orderly (that is yet another fanciful conclusion of yours). Second, since when has stuffing things away – either immediately or otherwise – been considered orderly (let alone very much so)? Lastly, what does a case of out-of-sight-out-of-mind suggest RESPONDENT: If not, when did this habit set in? RICHARD: Hmm ... yet another thin-mouthed query, eh?
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. (...) RESPONDENT: I would like to ask, lastly, if we have also reached agreement in our example that an observer, looking comparatively at you and a person still equipped with an identity put in the same situation, would not be able to see any difference between the two reactions to the approaching car. RICHARD: The illustrative example provided in my initial response was just that (an illustrative example) ... as I neither drive nor own such a vehicle as you mention – I do not even have a driver’s licence – I am unable to answer your query. RESPONDENT: Let the illustrative example be that you’re not driving, but standing on the road, and that a car is suddenly coming at you with high speed. RICHARD: As I am not wont to be standing on those black ribbons of death and destruction (whereon a cross between Russian roulette and Vatican roulette gets played out around the clock) – will it suffice to substitute one of those occasions of being about to step onto a pedestrian crossing only to have a pedestrian-expurgator (a pedestrian who has amnesia about having been just that the moment they get behind the wheel) suddenly appear, as if out of nowhere and with both feet firmly planted on the gas-pedal, for your example? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Okay ... I have written before about the observable difference between me and another in regards stepping onto a busy street. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Any other example you like which requires a quick reaction would do, too. RICHARD: As I am not prone to putting myself in such situations as those which require a quick reaction I am unable to provide any other example. * RESPONDENT: Would your reaction, as observed from the outside, look any different to the reaction of somebody else (would it be faster, for example) or would it look the same? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
As what you are asking me (twice now) is a behaviour-only question – a query about appearances – it may very well be advisable to re-phrase your question in such a way as to elicit the thick-mouthed response you (presumably) require. RESPONDENT: As the offer of a thick-mouthed response is too tempting to be rejected, I will extend my question: RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest (as I could not find the term in any dictionary at all and only guessed at ‘thick-mouthed’) just what does ‘thin-mouthed’ mean? RESPONDENT: First, the old part about appearances-only: Would your reaction, as observed from the outside, look any different to the reaction of somebody else (would it be faster, for example) or would it look the same? RICHARD: As already explained, they tend to zip across the street whereas I wait for an adequate break in the traffic RESPONDENT: Next, about your own experience: Would you see a car, not only in the sense of electrical impulses being transmitted from your eye to your brain and being processed there ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As I understand it sensory stimuli is part-processed in the eyes before proceeding to the brain proper (the eyes being the brain on stalks as it were). RESPONDENT: ...but in the sense of an image appearing in your consciousness in the same way that it would appear in somebody else’s consciousness? RICHARD: I am unable to form any mental image whatsoever – be it visual imagery, audile imagery, haptic imagery, olfactory/gustatory imagery or kinaesthetic imagery – as the imaginative/intuitive facility, of course, disappeared right along with the affective faculty when the identity in residence all those years ago altruistically ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RESPONDENT: If not, how would you describe the medium in which the perception is processed so as to later be able to tell an acquaintance about the danger you just escaped from? RICHARD: The same way I described it to you (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness). RESPONDENT: Would your experience of the situation be any different to that of another person, and, if yes, in what way? RICHARD: My experience in any situation is different to that of an identity (all identities are totally oblivious to this actual world). RESPONDENT: When telling somebody about the situation, would you again see the car in your mind’s eye? Or would the words appear, ready-made, without any intervention of mental images? RICHARD: Just as with typing these words, once given the topic, verbal communication happens of its own accord. RESPONDENT: When asked about the colour of the car, would you see the colour in your memory again or not? If not, would you, even without any memory of the visual stimuli, be able to answer the question, without any intervention of processes of internal vision? RICHARD: Just as with all recall memory operates directly and as required by the situation and circumstances.
RESPONDENT: ... does your house ever get messy ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... or do you stuff things away immediately? RICHARD: No, I never stuff things away (let alone immediately). RESPONDENT: From the previous answer I conclude that the answer would be yes. RICHARD: Not all that surprisingly (given all those other conclusions of yours scattered throughout the 70-odd emails you have written in the eight days you have been posting to this mailing list) your conclusion, being based upon a false premise, is invalid. RESPONDENT: Has this – your being very orderly – always been the case? RICHARD: First, I never said I was very orderly (that is yet another fanciful conclusion of yours). Second, since when has stuffing things away – either immediately or otherwise – been considered orderly (let alone very much so)? RESPONDENT: Never, indeed. I will refrain as best as I can from any further conclusions before having ascertained the premises in a better way. So, question one: Is your house orderly? [snip various dictionary definitions]. RICHARD: No. I keep things tidy enough – as in uncluttered – to suit my purposes but I am in no way strict or finicky (and neither is my companion); most things have a regular place in cupboards, wardrobes, drawers and shelves (for ease of access and storage); I make the bed upon arising, clean the benches/utensils as I cook, pick up things as they fall, and so on, as it is much simpler that way; I do not have a lot of possessions (and certainly not knick-knacks, trinkets, and other dust-collectors) so housekeeping is at a minimum; I do not have children or pets so disarray and demolition are a non-event; the socialisation I do is both minimal and casual (no dinner-parties) and often eat out/order in. I am certainly not a slave to cleanliness and tidiness – as in house-proud – and am guided more by serviceability and efficacy than anything else. RESPONDENT: Question two: Are you an orderly man? [snip various dictionary definitions]. RICHARD: No. I function organically – as in uncontrolled – inasmuch I am pragmatic/practical (as contrasted to principled/logical) ... and, again, utility and effectivity in any given situation/ circumstances is what determines such functioning. In short: there is nothing which needs to be controlled ... hence spontaneity (no impulsivity). * RICHARD: Lastly, what does a case of out-of-sight-out-of-mind suggest to you? RESPONDENT: To me, it suggests this: out of sight, out of mind – a principle I can relate to whenever I put things away ... . RICHARD: Hmm ... yet you originally asked me if I stuffed things away. * RICHARD: So as to be up-front and out-in-the-open: what it suggests to me is being concerned about behaviour-only ... or, to put it in the jargon, with keeping up appearances. RESPONDENT: In case that you have only limited interest in keeping up appearances and want to tell me subtly that you find questions about behaviour-only boring – what other kind of questions would you find more interesting? If that is not the case, what are you trying to tell me? RICHARD: It was a query related to both stuffing things away (as in what an observer would observe from the outside) and your question in another thread (about an observer, looking comparatively at me and a person still equipped with an identity, put in the same situation) in the context of the theme which had been running through the latter of your e-mails about how everyday experiences are formulated (rather than how they are experienced) It is what is happening on the inside (or in my case what is not) which counts – not appearance/ behaviour/ formulation – as it is the affective ‘vibes’ (to use a colloquialism) and the psychic currents (aka energies) which determine same in the world of the psyche.
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness. (...) RESPONDENT: Would you see a car, not only in the sense of electrical impulses being transmitted from your eye to your brain and being processed there ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As I understand it sensory stimuli is part-processed in the eyes before proceeding to the brain proper (the eyes being the brain on stalks as it were). RESPONDENT: I understand it the same way. Do you have direct experience of this pre-processing of sensory stimuli in the eyes? RICHARD: The term ‘direct experience’, in the context it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and mailing list, refers to the apperceptive awareness (unmediated perception) mentioned at the top of this page – rather than just to the everyday ‘first-hand experience’ such a term usually connotes – and apperception does not render microscopes (or whatever extensions to the senses peoples utilise to examine how eyes function) redundant ... which is why I prefaced my interjectory comment with ‘as I understand it’. And, as I understand it from an ad hoc reading of some of what such examinations have shown so far, it is the photosensitive receptors called rods (about 130 million cells which detect size, shape, brightness and movement) and cones (about 7 million cells which detect fine detail and colour) in the retinas which part-process sensory stimuli.
RICHARD: (...) it is also to no avail to vociferously state, for example, that [quote] ‘‘I’ have NEVER been king of the show’ [endquote] because it is ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), who fundamentally determines behaviour/ appearance by ‘my’ very presence (‘my’ affective vibes/ psychic currents are ‘me’). Put succinctly: there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it. RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). RESPONDENT: (...) Are you referring to the instinctual animal passions – the soul – with the ‘much, much more’ in your last sentence? RICHARD: The soul, or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), is the instinctual passions ... here is one way of putting it:
RESPONDENT: (...) Has there been any potentially extremely emotional event in your life, since the death of your soul, at which the absence of such instinctual passions or emotions has become apparent? RICHARD: It does not take a dramatic event as the absence of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto is markedly apparent 24/7 ... there is a peerless purity of such pristine perfection, here in this actual world, which is beyond any identity’s most vivid dreams/most flamboyant imaginings. RESPONDENT: Such as the death of a close and beloved (in the days when you still loved) family member or a dear friend? RICHARD: The affective connections one ‘being’ forms with another ‘being’ – the unity of relationship, the bonds of friendship, the ties of kinship, the union of nuptiality – have no existence in actuality: here in this actual world there is an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event (no separation whatsoever) such as to render the affective oneness of the most beautiful love possible (Love Agapé) a mere bagatelle by comparison. RESPONDENT: If yes, what was your reaction to and experience of it? RICHARD: With no ‘being’ in situ to react – and with no affective connection/ unity/ bond/ tie/ union/ oneness extant – nobody’s death diminishes me. Look, the very fact you are asking about extremely emotional events/ beloved family members/ dear friends,
and the such-like, must surely show you that (for all your justifications elsewhere about the ‘scientific non-existence’ of
identity) you are indeed a feeling being and that any and all attempts to intellectually abjure same by thinking you have made the
problem of life disappear Put succinctly: there is much more to who you really are than mere behaviour/ appearance-only.
RICHARD: (...) it is also to no avail to vociferously state, for example, that [quote] ‘‘I’ have NEVER been king of the show’ [endquote] because it is ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), who fundamentally determines behaviour/ appearance by ‘my’ very presence (‘my’ affective vibes/psychic currents are ‘me’). Put succinctly: there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it. RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). RESPONDENT: Are you referring to the instinctual animal passions – the soul – with the ‘much, much more’ in your last sentence? RICHARD: The soul, or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), is the instinctual passions ... here is one way of putting it: [quote] ‘soul: the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Has there been any potentially extremely emotional event in your life, since the death of your soul, at which the absence of such instinctual passions or emotions has become apparent? RICHARD: It does not take a dramatic event as the absence of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto is markedly apparent 24/7 ... there is a peerless purity of such pristine perfection, here in this actual world, which is beyond any identity’s most vivid dreams/ most flamboyant imaginings. RESPONDENT: Such as the death of a close and beloved (in the days when you still loved) family member or a dear friend? RICHARD: The affective connections one ‘being’ forms with another ‘being’ – the unity of relationship, the bonds of friendship, the ties of kinship, the union of nuptiality – have no existence in actuality: here in this actual world there is an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event (no separation whatsoever) such as to render the affective oneness of the most beautiful love possible (Love Agapé) a mere bagatelle by comparison. RESPONDENT: If yes, what was your reaction to and experience of it? RICHARD: With no ‘being’ in situ to react – and with no affective connection/ unity/ bond/ tie/ union/ oneness extant – nobody’s death diminishes me. Look, the very fact you are asking about extremely emotional events/beloved family members/ dear friends, and the such-like, must surely show you that (for all your justifications elsewhere about the ‘scientific non-existence’ of identity) you are indeed a feeling being and that any and all attempts to intellectually abjure same by thinking you have made the problem of life disappear detracts nothing whatsoever from the reality of whom you instinctually know/ intuitively feel yourself to be at the very core of your own existence. Put succinctly: there is much more to who you really are than mere behaviour/ appearance-only. RESPONDENT: Of course I am an emotional human being ... RICHARD: If I might point out? As I clearly refer to a feeling being (an emotional/ passional entity inhabiting a sensate creature), in the above response to your query about just what the soul is and what effect the absence of same has, and not to a feeling human being (a sensate creature hosting an emotional/ passional entity) your ‘of course’ does not follow-on from anything I wrote but is, rather, indicative of the dissociative train of thought which has been thematic to most, if not all, of your e-mails. RESPONDENT: ... [of course I am an emotional human being] with passions and brain, heart and mind. The topic of this mail: I can’t conceive how my passions create ‘me’ as ‘being’. RICHARD: First of all, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions are not something you have or possess – as in your ‘with passions’/ ‘my passions’ phraseology – as you are them/they are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). Second, the word ‘being’ (be + -ing), in this context, refers to the instinctual feeling of presence –
an indubitable intuition of the action or process of being present Third, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not so much create you but, rather, automatically form themselves as you by the very movement or motion of being extant/ being in situ (in a process similar to an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water). RESPONDENT: As I wrote in an earlier email, this piece of actualism still seems like pure spiritualism to me. A ‘vortex’??? RICHARD: This is what I mean by that word:
Why that word has invoked connotations of spiritualism (let alone pure spiritualism) in you has got me beat. RESPONDENT: But, whilst still awaiting further elucidations about the process of how ‘being’ arises from the passions ... RICHARD: The feeling of ‘being’ does not so much arise from the genetically-inherited instinctual passions but, rather, forms itself (in a process similar to an eddy forming itself in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water) as the very movement or motion of same being extant/being in situ. RESPONDENT: ... I’d like to get an experiential insight into the ‘self’/’being’ as that vortex of the passions. RICHARD: As it is whom you instinctually know/ intuitively feel yourself to be, at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’), it is something to be felt out affectively (intuitively). RESPONDENT: If this a hallucination, I’d like to know how to create it ... RICHARD: As the difference between imagining and hallucinating is a difference in degree, and not of
kind, all you need to do is to .. (a) imaginatively feel that who you are at the very core of your own existence (the soul as the
seat of the emotions or sentiments) is an immortal being ... and (b) add a dash of faith, a sprinkling of hope, a modicum of
trust, a soupçon of belief, a splash of certitude RESPONDENT: ... if it’s a reality, I’d like to know how to perceive it. RICHARD: In a word: affectively (rather than cognitively). RESPONDENT: In case you’ll tell me that for this I need to have a PCE (...) RICHARD: No, all what is required is to get out of your head (the cogitations) and into your heart (the affections) – specifically down past the superficial feelings (the emotions) into the deeper feelings (the passions) – and start feeling it out, for yourself and by yourself, as yourself. RESPONDENT: In case you’ll tell me that it’s all obvious in a PCE (...) RICHARD: No, all what is required is to focus less upon the conceptional – as in your [quote] ‘I can’t conceive how ...’ [endquote] phrasing further above – and more on the experienceable. One experience is sometimes worth a thousand words.
RICHARD: (...) there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it. RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). (...) RESPONDENT: (...) whilst still awaiting further elucidations about the process of how ‘being’ arises from the passions ... RICHARD: The feeling of ‘being’ does not so much arise from the genetically-inherited instinctual passions but, rather, forms itself (in a process similar to an eddy forming itself in currents of air/a whirlpool forming itself in currents of water) as the very movement or motion of same being extant/ being in situ. RESPONDENT: ... I’d like to get an experiential insight into the ‘self’/’being’ as that vortex of the passions. RICHARD: As it is whom you instinctually know/ intuitively feel yourself to be, at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’), it is something to be felt out affectively (intuitively). RESPONDENT: If this a hallucination, I’d like to know how to create it ... RICHARD: As the difference between imagining and hallucinating is a difference in degree, and not of kind, all you need to do is to ... (a) imaginatively feel that who you are at the very core of your own existence (the soul as the seat of the emotions or sentiments) is an immortal being ... RESPONDENT: This hallucination of imaginative feeling, to me, is what defines spiritualism. Would a non-human animal also imaginatively feel the seat of its emotions or sentiments to be an immortal being? RICHARD: What the primary requisite is, in order for a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter – to imaginatively feel itself to be an immortal being, is self-consciousness and although there is some evidence to demonstrate that chimpanzees (and maybe even dolphins) are thus aware of being a self, distinctly so and separate from other selves, it is not necessarily conclusive. The secondary requisite is, of course, being capable of having that imaginative feeling cross the line into being an hallucinatory intuition ... namely: the ability to believe (to have faith), to hope (to have trust), and to have certitude (be capable of delusion). Over and above all those requisites, however, is the essential ingredient: the fore-knowledge of death’s inevitability ... and, as the archaeological/ palaeontological evidence to date shows that homo sapiens did not have that apprehension until about 50-70,000 years after sapience, it is apparent that non-sapient animals do not have that capacity.
RICHARD: (...) there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it. RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). (...) RESPONDENT: ... Would a non-human animal also imaginatively feel the seat of its emotions or sentiments to be an immortal being? RICHARD: What the primary requisite is, in order for a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter – to imaginatively feel itself to be an immortal being, is self-consciousness and although there is some evidence to demonstrate that chimpanzees (and maybe even dolphins) are thus aware of being a self, distinctly so and separate from other selves, it is not necessarily conclusive. The secondary requisite is, of course, being capable of having that imaginative feeling cross the line into being an hallucinatory intuition ... namely: the ability to believe (to have faith), to hope (to have trust), and to have certitude (be capable of delusion). Over and above all those requisites, however, is the essential ingredient: the fore-knowledge of death’s inevitability ... and, as the archaeological/ palaeontological evidence to date shows that homo sapiens did not have that apprehension until about 50-70,000 years after sapience, it is apparent that non-sapient animals do not have that capacity. RESPONDENT: So non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’ ... RICHARD: If I might interject? What animals in general (other than chimpanzees, that is, and maybe even dolphins) lack is self-consciousness – the awareness of being a self (distinctly so and separate from other selves) – and not the instinctual/ intuitive feeling of presence that they do indeed exist, as that presence, in that they are the very instinctual/intuitive presence they instinctually/intuitively feel themselves to be at the very core of their existence. The word ‘being’, in this context, is but another way of referring to that very instinctual/ intuitive feeling of presence (an instinctual/ intuitive feeling of being) – albeit a rudimentary affective ‘self’ (aka ‘being’) inasmuch it is an inchoate/ elementary presence, an amorphous/ embryonic feeler, a nebulous/incipient intuiter – as the suffix ‘-ing’, forming a noun from the verb ‘be’, denotes a (subjective) thing involved in an action or process. And the action or process, in this instance, is the very movement or motion of the instinctual survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... [non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’] and, consequently, the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me ... RICHARD: It was your [quote] ‘consequently’ [endquote] which occasioned my interjectory explication as it is as a consequence of the lack of self-consciousness that animals, in general, also lack a distinct and separate affective ‘self’/‘being’. RESPONDENT: ... [the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me] and makes that my perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality ... RICHARD: If I might again interject? All animals are at least once-removed from actuality (in the perceptive process sensitive perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary). RESPONDENT: ... [my perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality] because they are mediated by ‘it’ ... RICHARD: Again, your perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality because of the way the perceptive process works (per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival package). RESPONDENT: ... while in Actual Freedom perceptions are immediate, the identity having abdicated, altruistically self-immolated? RICHARD: The altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto, which enables an actual freedom from the human
condition, *is* the extirpation of the entire affective faculty – which of course includes its intuitive/ psychic
facility – as the extinction of the one is the (simultaneous) extinction of the other ... ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’
feelings are ‘me’ Put succinctly: it is not possible to be sans identity, in toto, without being (concomitantly) sans the entire affective faculty.
RESPONDENT: So non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’ ... RICHARD: If I might interject? What animals in general (other than chimpanzees, that is, and maybe even dolphins) lack is self-consciousness – the awareness of being a self (distinctly so and separate from other selves) – and not the instinctual/ intuitive feeling of presence that they do indeed exist, as that presence, in that they are the very instinctual/intuitive presence they instinctually/intuitively feel themselves to be at the very core of their existence. The word ‘being’, in this context, is but another way of referring to that very instinctual/ intuitive feeling of presence (an instinctual/intuitive feeling of being) – albeit a rudimentary affective ‘self’ (aka ‘being’) inasmuch it is an inchoate/ elementary presence, an amorphous/ embryonic feeler, a nebulous/incipient intuiter – as the suffix ‘-ing’, forming a noun from the verb ‘be’, denotes a (subjective) thing involved in an action or process. And the action or process, in this instance, is the very movement or motion of the instinctual survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... [non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’] and, consequently, the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me ... RICHARD: It was your [quote] ‘consequently’ [endquote] which occasioned my interjectory explication as it is as a consequence of the lack of self-consciousness that animals, in general, also lack a distinct and separate affective ‘self’/ ‘being’. RESPONDENT: ... [the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me] and makes that my perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality ... RICHARD: If I might again interject? All animals are at least once-removed from actuality (in the perceptive process sensitive perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary). RESPONDENT: All animals? Insects and arachnids, too? RICHARD: I see that, in the third and only part of my reply you responded to, I inadvertently left off the [quote] ‘in general’ [endquote] qualifier which appears in the first two parts ... for example:
I am an actualist, not a biologist, and I am not about to become side-tracked into a discussion about whether or not animals of the phylum Arthropoda (such as insects, arachnids, and crustaceans, for instance) are instinctually driven by fear, aggression, nurture, desire, and so forth (and thus whether or not they are once-removed from actuality in the perceptive process) as the identity in residence all those years ago did not find it at all necessary to get into that sort of minute detail so as to be able to altruistically ‘self’-immolate, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. Indeed ‘he’ did not know anywhere near what I know (through having to look things up as a result of going
public with what ‘he’ did) nowadays. In a nutshell: ‘he’ understood what the expression ‘fiddling whilst Rome burns’
CORRESPONDENT No. 103 (Part Three) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
