|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 110
RESPONDENT: Hi everyone. How does one ‘get back to feeling good’? RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... one gets back to feeling good (a general sense of well-being) by finding out what has happened between the last time one felt good and now: when did one feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous/ innocuous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’ and so on and so on. One does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events. RESPONDENT: Is the HAIETMOBA itself supposed to get you back to feeling good? RICHARD: Aye, it takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have that question running as an on-going thing (as a non-verbal attitude towards life/a wordless approach each moment again) because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future.
RESPONDENT: I’ve recently had some success with the method, at times feeling happy and harmless at will. It’s like being able to activate the release of a pleasure drug in my own brain. I easily become aware of how I’m feeling, then watch as it quickly morphs into felicity and explosions of delight. At other times, however, nothing happens when I try haietmoba or to ‘come to my senses’. During the periods in which it works, I’m often thinking back at how I was ‘clearly’ doing the method wrong. I can never seem to leave myself an accurate reminder of how to do it right. So it seems like I keep ‘getting’ the method, then ‘losing’ it. Right now I can attend to my senses and thoughts but feelings seem more elusive. I don’t know if I’m really less able to ‘access’ them or if it is just the lacklustre or flat feeling in effect. The question haietmoba has the same effect: the senses are clear, feelings aren’t. Is any of this normal or are there any glaring issues to resolve? RICHARD: If, as you say, right now you are feeling flat or lacklustre then that is how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever actually alive). Why are you frittering away this opportunity to enjoy and appreciate being alive ... what happened between the last time you felt good (a general sense of well-being) and now? When did you feel good last? Was it five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous/innocuous feelings? Was it (for example) something someone said and you ...? Or was it (for instance) something someone did not do and you ...? Or was it (for another example) that you wanted something and ...? Or was it (or another instance) something you did not do and ...? And so on and so on. You do not need to trace back into your childhood ... most often no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. Once you pin-point that specific moment of ceasing to feel good, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away your enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – you can be once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have that question running as an on-going thing (as a non-verbal attitude towards life/a wordless approach each moment again) because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events.
RESPONDENT: I’ve recently had some success with the method, at times feeling happy and harmless at will. It’s like being able to activate the release of a pleasure drug in my own brain. I easily become aware of how I’m feeling, then watch as it quickly morphs into felicity and explosions of delight. At other times, however, nothing happens when I try haietmoba or to ‘come to my senses’. During the periods in which it works, I’m often thinking back at how I was ‘clearly’ doing the method wrong. I can never seem to leave myself an accurate reminder of how to do it right. So it seems like I keep ‘getting’ the method, then ‘losing’ it. Right now I can attend to my senses and thoughts but feelings seem more elusive. I don’t know if I’m really less able to ‘access’ them or if it is just the lacklustre or flat feeling in effect. The question haietmoba has the same effect: the senses are clear, feelings aren’t. Is any of this normal or are there any glaring issues to resolve? RICHARD: If, as you say, right now you are feeling flat or lacklustre then that is how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever actually alive). Why are you frittering away this opportunity to enjoy and appreciate being alive ... what happened between the last time you felt good (a general sense of well-being) and now? When did you feel good last? Was it five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous/innocuous feelings? Was it (for example) something someone said and you ...? Or was it (for instance) something someone did not do and you ...? Or was it (for another example) that you wanted something and ...? Or was it (or another instance) something you did not do and ...? And so on and so on. You do not need to trace back into your childhood ... most often no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. Once you pin-point that specific moment of ceasing to feel good, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away your enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – you can be once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have that question running as an on-going thing (as a non-verbal attitude towards life/a wordless approach each moment again) because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events. RESPONDENT: I have seen the silliness in letting those thoughts about work to do for tomorrow (and a stream of similar future worries) impair my experiencing of this moment. RICHARD: If there be recurring thoughts about things needing to be done on the morrow – as in running through a mental check-list over and again – just take a few minutes to jot that list down on paper for future reference and ... !Hey Presto! ... get on with enjoying and appreciating being alive. RESPONDENT: That was earlier, though. Since I last felt good (6/7 hours ago), I have been trying to re-commence feeling good with no success. RICHARD: Okay, it is all as simple as this ... trace back by asking yourself such questions as: what happened 6/7 hours ago which occasioned me to cease feeling good? Where was I, back then? What was I doing/what was happening? Was I by myself/was I with company? Once you start to recall where you were/what you were doing/ what was happening/ who was there, and so on, just prior to ceasing to feel good you will find it a lot easier to pin-point the precise moment when those felicitous/ innocuous feelings came to an end ... and, thus, just what it was which did that. In short: go back (in memory) to when you were last feeling good and then come forward, step-by-step, until that moment.
(...) RESPONDENT: Right now I can attend to my senses and thoughts but feelings seem more elusive. I don’t know if I’m really less able to ‘access’ them or if it is just the lacklustre or flat feeling in effect. The question haietmoba has the same effect: the senses are clear, feelings aren’t. (...) [Addendum]: To add to this: It’s as if I can’t find any feelings. If I ask: ‘how do I feel?’ I can give no clear answer. I certainly don’t feel good, neither do I feel terrible. I can deduce that I feel malcontent but no feeling seems apparent. This is why ‘lacklustre’ and ‘flat’ come to mind first. RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: do you see how [quote] ‘the lacklustre or flat feeling’ [endquote] has now been stripped of its feeling-tone? If not, the following is how you described it less than twenty four hours ago (from further down this page):
RESPONDENT: At this point I’m so confused I can hardly remember what a feeling is. Am ‘I’ always experiencing a feeling of some sort? RICHARD: As an identity is, at root, an emotional/ passional being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) then all experiencing is, essentially, affective in nature ... such as, for instance, feeling less than good. RESPONDENT: There is also confusion as to what should be done as soon as I find myself feeling less than good. RICHARD: The very first thing to do is to acknowledge that feeling less than good is an affective experience. RESPONDENT: Sometimes I read that I should get back to feeling good quickly before investigating the feeling, other times I read that I should track back and investigate first in order to feel good. RICHARD: The latter advice relates to consciously experiencing whatever it is which is preventing happiness and harmlessness (less it all be but a detached/ disassociated intellectual exercise) ... for example:
RESPONDENT: So far, tracking back and investigating has not made me feel any better. RICHARD: In a nutshell: one cannot examine something fully if one is busy denying its existence. (...) RESPONDENT: Since I last felt good (6/7 hours ago), I have been trying to re-commence feeling good with no success. RICHARD: Okay, it is all as simple as this ... trace back by asking yourself such questions as: what happened 6/7 hours ago which occasioned me to cease feeling good? Where was I, back then? What was I doing/what was happening? Was I by myself/ was I with company? Once you start to recall where you were/what you were doing/what was happening/ who was there, and so on, just prior to ceasing to feel good you will find it a lot easier to pin-point the precise moment when those felicitous/innocuous feelings came to an end ... and, thus, just what it was which did that. In short: go back (in memory) to when you were last feeling good and then come forward, step-by-step, until that moment. RESPONDENT: That sounds very difficult. RICHARD: Here is a word-of-the-day for you:
RESPONDENT: I can remember – just barely this time – that it was thoughts about tomorrow and decision-making that probably ended the felicitous feelings. RICHARD: Presumably by [quote] ‘this time’ [endquote] you are referring to the following:
Given that you have more recently reported that tracking back and investigating has not made you feel any better then on that earlier occasion, of seeing the silliness in letting thoughts about work to do for tomorrow (and a stream of similar future worries) impair your experiencing of this moment, did feeling good recommence? RESPONDENT: It was indeed silly to allow that to happen. RICHARD: Unless it really occurred – rather than it [quote] ‘probably’ [endquote] happened – that can only be
an armchair assertion RESPONDENT: Meanwhile, here I am feeling ‘not-so-good’, lacklustre, flat, a little frustrated. RICHARD: Hmm ... it could be said that such is the lot of defeatists who speculate about what most likely occurred (rather than actively finding out). RESPONDENT: How do I get back to feeling good? RICHARD: Quite simply ... by actively tracing back to when you last felt good (a general sense of well-being) through literally asking yourself such questions as: what happened 6/7 hours ago which occasioned me to cease feeling good? Where was I, back then? What was I doing/what was happening? Was I by myself/was I with company? Once you actually start to recall where you were/what you were doing/what was happening/who was there, and so on, just prior to ceasing to feel good you will find it a lot easier to pin-point the precise moment when those felicitous/innocuous feelings came to an end ... and, thus, just what it was which really did that. In short: consciously go back (in memory) to when you were last feeling good and then heuristically come forward (in memory), step-by-step, until that moment.
(...) RESPONDENT: Thank you Richard, that clears up what I have been doing wrong. I agree with all that you said and am now back to having some success feeling happy and harmless when I remember to. Though I was being defeatist, my memory does not seem strong enough to recall every detail of my life like playing a film back. I wonder how hard I have really pushed it in the past, though. Reading over the interpretations of other correspondents on the site has been very helpful in clarifying the method. Something else I have been doing wrong is trying to be attentive (haietmoba) but with an agenda to manipulate my feelings into good ones, rather than genuinely and objectively looking into how I’m experiencing this moment. Thanks again. RICHARD: Just one point (for now): nowhere have I ever said, or even implied, that you need a memory strong enough to recall every detail of your life like playing a film back ... indeed I have been most explicit that it be only the events of 6/7 hours ago/ just prior to ceasing to feel good. Viz.:
And again four days later:
Please, do watch out for any tendency to turn something simple into being something difficult (or even into something impossible).
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, please check out this link and tell me how this guy’s model relates to your actual experience. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Lehar.html RICHARD: As Mr. Steven Lehar’s model does not relate to a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/
identity in toto your request is a non sequitur CO-RESPONDENT: (...) if that guy I gave you his link is correct then couldn’t it be that you are being actual within a virtual reality? RICHARD: Mr. Steven Lehar has the following to say (from Chapter One of his
book ‘The World In Your Head: A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious Experience’): [quote] ‘I propose that
out beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions, i.e. above the dome of the sky, and below the solid earth under your feet, or
beyond the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room you see around you, is located the inner surface of your true physical skull. And beyond that
skull is an unimaginably immense external world of which the world you see around you is merely a miniature internal replica. In other words, the
head you have come to know as your own is not your true physical head, but only a miniature perceptual copy of your head in a perceptual copy of
the world, all of which is contained within your real head in the external objective world’. [endquote]. As there is no way he is proposing that
flesh and blood bodies (aka ‘true physical skull/ true physical head/ real head’) have any physical existence in that miniature internal
replica/ perceptual copy (of ‘an unimaginably immense external world/ the external objective world’) your query is a non sequitur RESPONDENT: Our senses are wrong some of the time, though. RICHARD: As nowhere above is it either stated or implied that human senses are right all of the time that assertion is
way out in left field RESPONDENT: Isn’t my personal world a representative reality, a reflection of the universe as it is? RICHARD: If by ‘as it is’ you mean the actual universe then ... no (more on this further below). RESPONDENT: The universe has no colours and no appearance, for example, it is the human organism that sees it with colour. RICHARD: Presuming that you mean ‘appearance’ in a phenomenological sense then its intellectually-intuited ‘essence’ (aka ‘thing-in-itself’) has no existence in actuality either ... and in regards to colours/ colour the following may be of interest:
(...) RESPONDENT: The universe has no colours and no appearance, for example, it is the human organism that sees it with colour. RICHARD: Presuming that you mean ‘appearance’ in a phenomenological sense then its intellectually-intuited ‘essence’ (aka ‘thing-in-itself’) has no existence in actuality either ... and in regards to colours/ colour the following may be of interest: [Richard]: ‘(...) I have come across this argument many times before ... the first time I heard it was some person saying that the universe was really black and white because it is the human eye which creates colour: to be consistent that person would have to say that the universe is not black and white either as it is rod-shaped receptors in the retina which detect brightness (there are upwards of 130 million of these photosensitive cells in an eye, which detect size, shape, and movement, as well as brightness, whilst it is the cone-shaped receptors which determine colour and fine detail). Do you see where this line of argument leads to? No colour, no brightness (no light and dark/ black and white), no size, no shape, no movement, no detail at all ... RESPONDENT: I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘detail’ there. RICHARD: I mean the particulars, the finer features of something, usually noticed only upon closer inspection (such as a visually blind person running their fingertips all over and all around something after having first ascertained its basic nature, shape, size, and so on, with a few quick touches). RESPONDENT: That line of argument does indeed lead to a ‘noumenon’ universe with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape and no movement. RICHARD: Put succinctly: that line of argument leads to no universe at all. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with that model, just that it is not experienced directly? RICHARD: No, what is wrong with that model is that there is nothing to experience, period (nor any body to be experiencing). RESPONDENT: If we find the corresponding faculties in the brain and senses, then couldn’t the source of the sense data be without those things? RICHARD: Hmm ... there is no ‘brain and senses’ in that model to find anything in (the word universe is, of course, inclusive of all brains and all sense organs). RESPONDENT: As for the colour example, my obvious question is: How can you be experiencing actuality if your eyes see something as red while other humans see it as green? RICHARD: First and foremost, it makes no sense to say [quote] ‘your eyes see something ...’ [endquote] as I am these eyes seeing something. Viz.:
Second, no identity ever experiences actuality ... all psychological/ psychic entities, by their very nature, are oblivious to this actual world. Viz.:
Third, as I am not colour-blind I see something green as being just that (green) and not red ... besides which invoking defective sense organs, in order to make a case, is tantamount to throwing in one’s hand. You may find the following to be of interest:
(...) RESPONDENT: That line of argument does indeed lead to a ‘noumenon’ universe with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape and no movement. RICHARD: Put succinctly: that line of argument leads to no universe at all. RESPONDENT: Couldn’t it lead to a universe made up of something we can’t and don’t perceive ... such as ‘particles’, ‘energy’ and other such things? RICHARD: What is often overlooked, in regards to theoretical physics, is that mathematics do not describe the universe (a mathematical model has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process). What Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré (a mathematician and physicist of some note) has to say about mathematical models is quite illuminating:
(...) RESPONDENT: That line of argument does indeed lead to a ‘noumenon’ universe with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape and no movement. RICHARD: Put succinctly: that line of argument leads to no universe at all. RESPONDENT: Couldn’t it lead to a universe made up of something we can’t and don’t perceive ... such as ‘particles’, ‘energy’ and other such things? RICHARD: What is often overlooked, in regards to theoretical physics, is that mathematics do not describe the universe (a mathematical model has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process). RESPONDENT: We use microscopes to see that everything is made of parts smaller than are directly detectable by the senses. RICHARD: Just by way of example, then, if you could describe what parts can be seen when the most abundant element in the universe (hydrogen) is viewed through a microscope it would be most appreciated ... as would a description of what parts can be seen when one of the most plentiful and essential compounds, which covers nearly seventy one percent of the earth’s surface, is similarly viewed. I am, of course, referring to water. RESPONDENT: In principle, couldn’t a noumenon universe be made up of tiny undetectable constituents ... RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘in principle’ you mean ‘in theory, theoretically’ (Oxford Dictionary), and that by ‘noumenon’ you mean ‘an object of purely intellectual intuition, devoid of all phenomenal attributes’ (Oxford Dictionary), and that by universe you mean ‘(figuratively) a domain or sphere characterised by a particular (specified) quality or activity’ (Oxford Dictionary) then such an abstract/ metaphysical realm as that could be made up of tiny undetectable constituents ... or could even be made up of one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eaters, for that matter. RESPONDENT: ... while our nervous systems give it its macro-level appearance, colour, size, shape, etc? RICHARD: Not the nervous systems ... no, never at all; the identities’ imaginative/ intuitive facilities ... yes, only too often. RESPONDENT: It does not have to lead to no universe at all. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend: what you are positing is an abstract/ metaphysical realm of purely intellectual intuition, devoid of all phenomenal attributes yet to which your (macro-level) nervous system somehow gives it its macro-level appearance, colour, size, shape, and etcetera, but then say that the line of argument which does indeed lead to an abstract/ metaphysical realm with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape, and no movement does not have to lead to no universe at all. Am I understanding you correctly?
(...) RICHARD: (...) Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: Perhaps more than I am. RICHARD: Being bereft of any subjective/ objective dichotomy has its distinct advantages. RESPONDENT: Reading over some of your previous correspondence (regarding UV Light, quantum physics and subjective realities), I seem to have no reason to believe in private representative realities or a noumenon objective reality anymore. Stunning stuff. Thanks again Richard. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... it is indeed stunning to discover that more than a little of the wisdom of the real world is not worth the parchment/ papyrus/ palm leaves/ rice paper/ clay panels/ stone tablets it is inscribed upon. What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention ... so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down. It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for – the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition – and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense.
(...) CO-RESPONDENT: Can you give me some good pointers and questions and help/ assist me with your expertise on human condition to uncover any such pure experience I had? RICHARD: Have you ever thought that there must be more to life than currently experienced (the everyday norm in which maybe 6.0 billion peoples live)? RESPONDENT: Let’s see if someone can exorcise the materialist in me then. Why ‘must’ there be more to life than the miserable reality people live in? RICHARD: I did not say there must be ... I only asked whether my co-respondent had ever thought that, as a lead-in to uncovering a pure consciousness experience (PCE), and this is why I did:
RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection. RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy. RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection. RESPONDENT: Also, ‘meaning’ is of human invention ... RICHARD: I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion ... suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the d’où venons-nous/ que sommes-nous/ où allons-nous (‘where do we come from/ what are we/ where are we going’) type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings. RESPONDENT: ... life and the universe can’t have a purpose or meaning. RICHARD: Even so, the answer to those types of queries/ quests mentioned above lies open all about in this actual world ... complete with an utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/ unbelievable to any identity whatsoever. There is a vast stillness here.
(...) RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection. RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy. RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection. RESPONDENT: If by perfection you mean ‘lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind’ ... RICHARD: The following exchange perhaps best encapsulates what I mean by perfection in this context:
RESPONDENT: ... why is happiness inherent to perfection? RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity (and innocuity). * RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as
in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without
perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for
it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too
neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2] RICHARD: Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote? RESPONDENT: Why is the physical world ‘too big’, ‘too neatly complex’, and ‘too perfectly organised’ for miserable lives? RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Viz.:
In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in. RESPONDENT: If misery helped survival, having miserable humans would be blind nature’s perfection. RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you of the school of thought which holds that suffering is good for one? RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all
fated to be forever wrong. (...)’. RICHARD: For the very reason which immediately followed on from that sentence you have quoted. Viz.:
Have you never seen the magnificence, to say the least, of this tremendous universe (such that you would be of the opinion it is foolish to have suspected perfection and excellence)? * RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that [that life is not a random,
chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe] is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life
is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#3] RICHARD: As I do not know what [quote] ‘mini-PCE’s’ [endquote] are, be they short or otherwise, I am unable to comment upon your experience of being yet to see – as is readily seen in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – that life is not a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe. RESPONDENT: Can you point me to something? RICHARD: Yes ... but it will require reading the full paragraph which you part-quoted from:
You will see that the entire meaningful/ meaningless and/or purposeful/ purposeless debate revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) provides meaning/ purpose and that, because materialists contend there is no such supernatural entity, life then (as a chance, random event in an otherwise empty universe) is a life devoid of meaning/ purpose ... so much so that life without such a god/ goddess is whatever one makes of it. Yet when pressed as to just what meaning/ purpose their god/ goddess provides the spiritualists become remarkably coy (they say that only their supernatural entity really knows and use words like inscrutable, enigmatic, recondite, paradoxical, and so on and so forth, plus further contending that all will be revealed after physical death in some timeless and spaceless and formless realm where all is bright and beautiful) ... so much so that life with such a god/ goddess is, in effect, whatever one makes of it. RESPONDENT: Am I restricting the options when I say that either the universe is meaningless or there was a designer ‘God’ with a meaning in mind? RICHARD: You are not so much restricting yourself (with those meaningful/ purposeful or meaningless/ purposeless options) but are, rather, being sucked into a teleological discussion about a dichotomy which has no existence in actuality ... as is made clear further on in that exchange you part-quoted from:
Which is why I said to you yesterday that I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion – and that suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the where-do-we-come-from/ what-are-we-here-for/ where-are-we-going type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings – as the answer to those types of queries/ quests lies open all about here in this actual world. Needless is it to add that it is an experiential answer (which personal experiencing is the only answer worthy of the name)?
CORRESPONDENT No. 110 (Part Two) 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 |
