|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 110
(...) 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: I don’t understand the quality-property-value connection ... RICHARD: The connection is essentially as follows: those qualities are sourced in (not attributed to) those properties and those values – in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary) – originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves. Put succinctly: it is a seamless connection. RESPONDENT: ... is there a page on it on the AF site? RICHARD: No ... suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that qualia are intrinsic to properties and not to consciousness (as more than a few academics contend). RESPONDENT: I would have thought that qualities and values are specific to human experiencing and can not be attributed to the universe itself. RICHARD: As I understand it, when trying to make sense of academia, properties are the inherent
characteristics of things and exist irregardless of humans being present (palaeontology evidences that this planet existed long
before humans appeared on the scene) whilst qualities are the anthropocentric RESPONDENT: I still don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: I am not, of course, referring to affective happiness (a feeling of being happy) but to an actual happiness which, being sans any affective content whatsoever, is unconditional (not dependent upon events). RESPONDENT: Are you simply saying that the make-up of the universe is such that if experienced by a human sans identity, that human experiences felicity? RICHARD: That is one way of putting it ... I would rather say that, by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously). RESPONDENT: Billions of years before humans evolved (excluding life on other planets) the universe ‘just was’, its perfection having nothing to do with happiness or felicity, right? RICHARD: If what you are saying, in effect, is that with no apperceptive human present to experience felicity the universe cannot experience the pristine purity of its perfection felicitously then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Happiness is a human (or at least animal) phenomenon. RICHARD: As no animal, human or otherwise, is separate from the universe RESPONDENT: Perfection has no affective characteristic. RICHARD: Indeed not ... here in this actual world qualia are neither affective nor tinged with affectivity. RESPONDENT: Are not humans – like everything else in nature – ‘perfect’ with or without emotions and however miserable and dissociated? RICHARD: An apperceptive human – like everything else in nature without emotions – is perfect (without scare quotes); an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never be perfect (with or without scare quotes) as that entity is forever locked-out of actuality by its very nature. For instance:
* 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. (...)’. [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: Because right now I don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: In which case I will await your perusal and consideration of all the above before continuing.
(...) RESPONDENT: I don’t understand the quality-property-value connection ... RICHARD: The connection is essentially as follows: those qualities [being pure and pristine] are sourced in (not attributed to) those properties [being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate] and those values [being benign and benevolent] – in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary) – originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves. Put succinctly: it is a seamless connection. RESPONDENT: I’m trying but I still don’t fully understand. Any value is of human invention, surely? RICHARD: The values under discussion – the benignity (as in being favourable, propitious, salutary) and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous) inherent to the perfection, the purity, of the infinitude and/or absoluteness that this actual universe is – are most certainly not human inventions. The word value can, of course, also be used in other ways than the above usage ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: It is humans that make the calculation of something’s ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect. RICHARD: Perhaps an obvious example might throw some light upon the matter: for vegetation to flourish there must be certain conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) and the value of such conditions, in terms of their quality in regard to their ability in causing that effect (flourishment), have nothing to do with human invention/ human calculation as palaeontology – ‘the branch of science that deals with extinct and fossil animals and plants’ (Oxford Dictionary) – evidences that vegetation flourished long before humans appeared on the scene. RESPONDENT: Can there be values in the actual world? RICHARD: As values (in the sense specifically delineated in response to your query about happiness being inherent to perfection) originate from both sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves then ... yes. * RICHARD: ... as an apperceptive human [sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto] this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously). RESPONDENT: If the human brain’s pleasure faculties were damaged, the sensual pleasure wouldn’t be there and the pristine purity would be experienced in what way? RICHARD: In a word: anhedonically * RESPONDENT: Are not humans – like everything else in nature – ‘perfect’ with or without emotions and however miserable and dissociated? RICHARD: An apperceptive human – like everything else in nature without emotions – is perfect (without scare quotes); an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never be perfect (with or without scare quotes) as that entity is forever locked-out of actuality by its very nature. RESPONDENT: I would say that an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never *feel* perfect. RICHARD: An enlightened/ awakened/ self-realised identity does ... both solipsistically and narcissistically. For example:
RESPONDENT: That is to use the word ‘perfect’ as an evaluation of the experience. RICHARD: Whereas the way the word perfect is being used in this thread – as in ‘unqualified; pure; absolute, complete, utter’ (Oxford Dictionary) for instance – it is simply a way of describing this actual world (the sensate world). RESPONDENT: To use the word ‘perfect’ in the sense of ‘complete-in-itself’ then absolutely everything in the universe is perfect, with or without emotions. RICHARD: As no affective identity has any existence whatsoever in actuality RESPONDENT: In this sense, murders, wars, malice and sorrow are all perfect manifestations of the universe, as is the desire to be rid of these things. RICHARD: As neither malice nor sorrow have any existence whatsoever in actuality (only their effects, such as the murders and wars you mention, do) – nor any desire at all for that matter – it makes no sense to say they are manifestations (let alone perfect ones) of the universe. RESPONDENT: I realise that this is similar to the spiritual view so debunk away. RICHARD: Presumably you are (albeit obliquely) alluding to the way you started this thread:
As the same soul RESPONDENT: Forgetting the ‘meaningless’ evaluation: why is life not a random, chance event aided by the process of natural selection? RICHARD: As both the word random – ‘that which is haphazard [occurring, put together, etc., casually or without design] or without definite aim or purpose’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and the word chance – ‘the absence of design or discoverable cause; an event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; a casual circumstance; an accident’ (Oxford Dictionary) – more or less revolve around meaninglessness and purposelessness it is well-nigh impossible to forget that evaluation as what you are asking, in effect, is why life is not a meaningless/ purposeless event. Be that as it may ... life is not a haphazard/ casual and causeless/ accidental event because, given the situation and circumstances conducive to same, it is inevitable that otherwise inanimate matter be animate.
RESPONDENT: If we’re in an infinite universe, were there an infinite number of planets before ours? RICHARD: Not only is this actual universe spatially infinite it is temporally eternal and materially perdurable ... therefore it is possible that somewhere and somewhen planets other than those in this particular solar system have existed, do currently exist, and will be existent. RESPONDENT: Were there an infinite number of life-forms before us? RICHARD: As this actual universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable, it is possible that somewhere and somewhen animate matter other than that on this particular planet has existed, does currently exist, and will be existent. RESPONDENT: Were there an infinite number of highly evolved intelligent space-travelling life forms before us? RICHARD: As this actual universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable, it is possible that somewhere and somewhen animate matter with a developed ability to judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons (and be thus capable of travelling some distance away from and returning to the planet of origin) has existed, does currently exist, and will be existent. RESPONDENT: Are there an infinite number of super-intelligent life-forms flying around the universe? RICHARD: As this actual universe is spatially infinite it is simply not possible for any animate matter with a developed ability to judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons (and being thus capable of travelling some distance away from and returning to the planet of origin) to be travelling around it. For instance: it would take something like 100 years or so to travel to the nearest star to the one this planet orbits. RESPONDENT: They’ve had a long time to evolve. RICHARD: As this particular planet is estimated to have formed 4.0 billion or so years ago (and is estimated to cease existing 4.0 billion or so years hence), and as the ability to judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons developed in one particular form of animate matter about 100,000 years ago (and as the capacity to travel some distance away from and return to the planet of origin came about a little more than 30 years ago) it is not very long at all ... indeed it is quite infinitesimal when compared with eternity. As a matter of related interest: one of the major stumbling-blocks to interplanetary travel is the human condition itself – as is evidenced by the difficulties peoples can have getting-on with both each other and themselves when wintering-over in Antarctica for example – such as to render a mere 3-year trip to Mars quite problematic.
(...) RESPONDENT: I don’t understand the quality-property-value connection ... RICHARD: The connection is essentially as follows: those qualities [being pure and pristine] are sourced in (not attributed to) those properties [being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate] and those values [being benign and benevolent] – in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary) – originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves. Put succinctly: it is a seamless connection. RESPONDENT: I’m trying but I still don’t fully understand. Any value is of human invention, surely? RICHARD: The values under discussion – the benignity (as in being favourable, propitious, salutary) and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous) inherent to the perfection, the purity, of the infinitude and/or absoluteness that this actual universe is – are most certainly not human inventions. RESPONDENT: Do these values only apply from a human perspective? RICHARD: As the values of benignity and benevolence originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves they most certainly do not only apply from a human perspective. RESPONDENT: Can’t what is favourable to human life be detrimental to other life-forms? RICHARD: The benignity of the pristine purity of the perfection of this actual universe’s infinitude/ absoluteness is not detrimental, period. * RESPONDENT: Can there be values in the actual world? RICHARD: As values (in the sense specifically delineated in response to your query about happiness being inherent to perfection) originate from both sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Where are these values? RICHARD: Here in this actual world (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Can I see, feel, sense them in some way? RICHARD: No (an identity is forever locked-out of this actual world by its very nature). RESPONDENT: How do we know they exist? RICHARD: By experiencing them directly (apperceptively) ... as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto). RESPONDENT: I don’t see how values are not constructs of the mind. RICHARD: Perhaps an obvious example might throw some light upon the matter: for vegetation to flourish there must be certain conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) and the value of such conditions, in terms of their quality in regard to their ability in causing that effect (flourishment), is quite evidently not a construct of the human mind as palaeontology – ‘the branch of science that deals with extinct and fossil animals and plants’ (Oxford Dictionary) – evidences that vegetation flourished long before human mind’s appeared on the scene. RESPONDENT: I’m still missing why felicity ‘can only’ result from the make-up of the universe. [Richard]: ‘... 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 ...’ [endquote]. [Richard]: ‘... by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously)’ [endquote]. My response to all of these is: Why? You appear to be repeating that felicity can only result without explaining why. RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds ... to wit: here in this actual (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic RESPONDENT: What has perfection got to do with this? RICHARD: The perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness this actual universe is has nothing to do with what you wrote (that happiness is the sensual pleasure, sourced in the brain, which results when there is no emotion or identity). * RESPONDENT: To use the word ‘perfect’ in the sense of ‘complete-in-itself’ then absolutely everything in the universe is perfect, with or without emotions. RICHARD: As no affective identity has any existence whatsoever in actuality it makes no sense to include same in [quote] ‘everything’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: In this sense, murders, wars, malice and sorrow are all perfect manifestations of the universe, as is the desire to be rid of these things. RICHARD: As neither malice nor sorrow have any existence whatsoever in actuality (only their effects, such as the murders and wars you mention, do) – nor any desire at all for that matter – it makes no sense to say they are manifestations (let alone perfect ones) of the universe. RESPONDENT: Emotions exist, do they not? RICHARD: Neither emotions nor passions have any existence in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Why not include emotions when saying ‘everything’? RICHARD: Because emotions have no existence whatsoever in actuality (only their physical effects do). RESPONDENT: Where and how do emotions and identities exist, if not within the universe? RICHARD: They exist affectively, psychically, in the real-world (the world of the affections, the psyche). RESPONDENT: The universe is not split into two realms of ‘actuality’ and ‘reality’ is it? RICHARD: No ... the reality of the real-world, being but a veneer pasted over actuality by the identity within, has no actual existence. * RICHARD: ... life is not a haphazard/ casual and causeless/ accidental event because, given the situation and circumstances conducive to same, it is inevitable that otherwise inanimate matter be animate. RESPONDENT: True. RICHARD: Speaking of the situation and circumstances conducive to life: the discovery late last
century of microbes known as archaea, in and around out-gassing deep-ocean vents where no photosynthesis whatsoever can take
place, has thrown considerable light upon questions as to the possible origin of life itself inasmuch it might indeed be that both
the microfauna/ microflora and the macrofauna/ macroflora living on this planet’s surface, and thus drawing their nourishment
primarily from the sun’s radiant energy, originally stem from the subsurface life which sustains itself with the chemical energy
resulting from an out-flowing of hydrocarbons (principally methane) formed deep within the planet under great pressure and heat And, as hydrocarbons have been identified on various other bodies in the solar system, there could also be (microbial) life under the surface in those places as well. RESPONDENT: I suppose the point of saying ‘random’ and ‘chance’ is to separate it from a designer god who had a purpose in mind. RICHARD: As the entire meaningful/ meaningless and/or purposeful/ purposeless debate betwixt materialists and spiritualists revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) provides meaning/ purpose, whereas life absent same means that everything is meaningless/ purposeless, then the entering into such a discussion, about a dichotomy which has no existence in actuality, is but an exercise in futility. RESPONDENT: The mind’s desire for meaning may be satisfied by experiencing actuality, but I think this is far from saying there is a ‘meaning of life’. RICHARD: What the phrase ‘the meaning of life’ more generally refers to, in asking whether there is any, is significance (as in whether life has any significance or whether it of no consequence) ... needless is it to add that, here in this actual world, life is bursting with significance? RESPONDENT: The closest thing I can think of to a ‘meaning of life’ is nature’s imperative to reproduce. RICHARD: In which case the following exchange will surely be of interest:
(...) RESPONDENT: Do these values only apply from a human perspective? RICHARD: As the values of benignity and benevolence originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves they most certainly do not only apply from a human perspective. RESPONDENT: Why do the values of benignity and benevolence originate from the universe’s pristine purity and being complete-in-itself? RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that three-letter word you are making liberal use
of in this thread
Do you want to know for what reason do the values of benignity and benevolence originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves? Or, do you want to know from what cause or motive do the values of benignity and benevolence originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves? Or, do you want to know for what purpose do the values of benignity and benevolence originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves? RESPONDENT: What have benignity and benevolence got to do with pristine purity and being ultimate? RICHARD: They are inherent to those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties. * RESPONDENT: Where are these values? RICHARD: Here in this actual world (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Can I see, feel, sense them in some way? RICHARD: No (an identity is forever locked-out of this actual world by its very nature). RESPONDENT: Can you see, feel or sense values in some way? RICHARD: Do you mean ‘see’ in its ocular meaning or its mental connotation; do you mean ‘feel’ in its cutaneous meaning or its affective connotation; do you mean ‘sense’ in its sensitive meaning or its intuitive connotation? RESPONDENT: What do values feel like, look like, smell like, taste like, sound like? RICHARD: The direct experience of the benignity and benevolence which originates from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves is an apperceptive (unmediated) awareness, and thus comprehension, of the essential character of the infinitude/ absoluteness of the universe. * RESPONDENT: I don’t see how values are not constructs of the mind. RICHARD: Perhaps an obvious example might throw some light upon the matter: for vegetation to flourish there must be certain conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) and the value of such conditions, in terms of their quality in regard to their ability in causing that effect (flourishment), is quite evidently not a construct of the human mind as palaeontology – ‘the branch of science that deals with extinct and fossil animals and plants’ (Oxford Dictionary) – evidences that vegetation flourished long before human minds appeared on the scene. RESPONDENT: The favourable conditions existed before human minds appeared on the scene – as did the vegetation – but there were no values. RICHARD: Oh? Did the vegetation not flourish, then, before human minds appeared on the scene? * RESPONDENT: I’m still missing why felicity ‘can only’ result from the make-up of the universe. [Richard]: ‘... 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 ...’ [endquote]. [Richard]: ‘... by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously)’ [endquote]. My response to all of these is: Why? You appear to be repeating that felicity can only result without explaining why. RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds ... to wit: here in this actual world (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Why? RICHARD: Because what one is, as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto), is not separate from that pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is. Viz.:
Were you to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly to its obverse – all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe – whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were (and not through the eyes), then what I am reporting/ describing/ explaining may very well become apparent as an experiential understanding. One experience is worth a thousand words. RESPONDENT: You’ve once again repeated that felicity can only result ... RICHARD: Well now, that is what comes of repeatedly asking ‘why’ to each and every answer to an initial ‘why’ question. RESPONDENT: ... while my question was why can felicity and only felicity result. RICHARD: Anybody who is or has been a parent knows only too well that children, around the age of three-four, can develop a tendency to keep on asking ‘why’ to each answer given to their previous ‘why’ query until the parent usually tells them that it is just the way things are and to go outside and play ... mostly, however, they grow out of that stage (those who do not are called philosophers in adulthood). This may be an apt place to point out that, as to be asking ‘why’ is to be eliciting a motive, a purpose, a reason, an intent, then the very asking in this context presupposes some omnipotent creative being, force or energy complete with a blue-print, a master-plan or grand-design ... in short: an intelligence (usually capitalised as ‘An Intelligence’). In other words, and because humans quite rightly value their intelligence highly, to ask ‘why the universe’ (the ultimate teleological question) is to anthropomorphise that which is much, much more than merely intelligent. * RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic RESPONDENT: I’m talking about sensual pleasure not the affective faculties. RICHARD: In which case your earlier question (about which I assumed that, as a matter of course, you
meant the hedonic pleasure/pain centre) makes no sense
If (note ‘if’) there were no sensation at all – no cutaneal, olfactory, aural, ocular, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensing whatsoever – how on earth can any experiencing happen? RESPONDENT: Sensual pleasure results from the brain’s pleasure faculties. RICHARD: Are you referring to what is known as the sensorium? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If that part of the brain was damaged there would be no pleasure in the actual world – regardless of its perfection or infinitude. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the sensorium completely ceased to function there would be no experiencing, period (just as when in a coma, anaesthetised, knocked unconscious, or in any other way rendered comatose) ... yet the universe would keep on keeping on all the while. RESPONDENT: You claim happiness is inherent to perfection ... RICHARD: I do not [quote] ‘claim’ [endquote] happiness is inherent to perfection ... it is a report of my direct experiencing (which can be verified in a PCE), night and day, for the last 13+ years. RESPONDENT: ... though you haven’t said why. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I have provided an explanation many times over. RESPONDENT: Do perfection and infinitude lead to sensual pleasure? RICHARD: I am none too sure just what to make of that query ... if anything leads to sensual pleasure it is, of course, sentience. * RESPONDENT: Emotions exist, do they not? RICHARD: Neither emotions nor passions have any existence in this actual world. RESPONDENT: In what ‘world’ do emotions and passions have existence then? RICHARD: What part of the following answer (from a little further below) is it that you are unable to comprehend? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Emotions do exist ... RICHARD: I never said they did not: what I said was (a) neither emotions nor passions have any existence in this actual world ... and (b) they exist in the real-world. RESPONDENT: Emotions do exist, they are the reason why you made this site. RICHARD: The reason why I went public was (amongst other things) to inform my fellow human being that neither emotions nor passions have any existence in this actual world/ that they exist only in the real-world. RESPONDENT: Do thoughts exist? RICHARD: Indeed they do. * RESPONDENT: Why not include emotions when saying ‘everything’? RICHARD: Because emotions have no existence whatsoever in actuality (only their physical effects do). RESPONDENT: Where and how do emotions and identities exist, if not within the universe? RICHARD: They exist affectively, psychically, in the real-world (the world of the affections, the psyche). RESPONDENT: The universe is not split into two realms of ‘actuality’ and ‘reality’ is it? RICHARD: No ... the reality of the real-world, being but a veneer pasted over actuality by the identity within, has no actual existence. RESPONDENT: But it still has existence, as evidenced by the fact that we are talking about it. RICHARD: I also talk about gods/ goddesses, imagination/ intuition, psychic currents/ energies, egos/ souls, and so on, and so forth ... none of which have any existence in actuality. RESPONDENT: ‘Everything’ can mean everything in existence. RICHARD: As you specifically used the word everything in regards to the universe, and not in regards to existence, that is beside the point. Viz.:
Would it have been clearer had I written that it makes no sense to include affective identities in [quote] ‘everything in the universe’ [endquote]? * RESPONDENT: The mind’s desire for meaning may be satisfied by experiencing actuality, but I think this is far from saying there is a ‘meaning of life’. RICHARD: What the phrase ‘the meaning of life’ more generally refers to, in asking whether there is any, is significance (as in whether life has any significance or whether it of no consequence) ... needless is it to add that, here in this actual world, life is bursting with significance? RESPONDENT: The closest thing I can think of to a ‘meaning of life’ is nature’s imperative to reproduce. RICHARD: In which case the following exchange will surely be of interest:
RESPONDENT: What is the ‘actual purpose/ meaning of life’ that can become apparent, in clear terms? RICHARD: What is it about the information (a little further above) that life is bursting with significance, here in this actual world, that is not clear terminology? RESPONDENT: What is your chosen definition of the word ‘purpose’? RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to me saying [quote] ‘if that is the right word’ [endquote] in response to my co-respondent having both anthropomorphised and intelligenced nature (as in their ‘mother nature has figured out’ phrasing) the following is as good a definition as any:
(...) RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic RESPONDENT: I’m talking about sensual pleasure not the affective faculties. RICHARD: In which case your earlier question (about which I assumed that, as a matter of course, you
meant the hedonic pleasure/pain centre) makes no sense
If (note ‘if’) there were no sensation at all – no cutaneal, olfactory, aural, ocular, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensing whatsoever – how on earth can any experiencing happen? RESPONDENT: Sensual pleasure results from the brain’s pleasure faculties. RICHARD: Are you referring to what is known as the sensorium? Viz.: ‘sensorium: the seat of sensation in the brain of humans and animals; the percipient centre to which sensory impulses are transmitted by the nerves; the whole sensory apparatus (including the sensory nerves); formerly also, the brain regarded as centre of consciousness and nervous energy’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: If that part of the brain was damaged there would be no pleasure in the actual world – regardless of its perfection or infinitude. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the sensorium completely ceased to function there would be no experiencing, period (just as when in a coma, anaesthetised, knocked unconscious, or in any other way rendered comatose) ... yet the universe would keep on keeping on all the while. RESPONDENT: You claim happiness is inherent to perfection ... RICHARD: I do not [quote] ‘claim’ [endquote] happiness is inherent to perfection ... it is a report of my direct experiencing (which can be verified in a PCE), night and day, for the last 13+ years. RESPONDENT: ... though you haven’t said why. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I have provided an explanation many times over. RESPONDENT: Do perfection and infinitude lead to sensual pleasure? RICHARD: I am none too sure just what to make of that query ... if anything leads to sensual pleasure it is, of course, sentience. * RESPONDENT: I’m afraid that No. 87 had my position and question correct ... RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication here it is (stripped of its compulsive curlicues):
RESPONDENT: ... so I don’t know where I lead you to believe it was otherwise. RICHARD: I have re-inserted the entire exchange (further above) which pertains to the ‘sensual
pleasure’ issue you introduced ... if you could demonstrate how your position and question is, essentially, about how can
sensual pleasure be experienced anhedonically, and that it is not about the sensorium, it would be most appreciated as anhedonic
(sensate only) pleasure, just the same as anhedonic (sensate only) pain, can only ever be experienced sensorially
CO-RESPONDENT: ... can you help me in remembering any PCE that I had? 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: Would I be right in saying that the perfect happiness is the result of something in nature doing exactly what it was ‘intended’ to do? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ‘Sensual pleasure’ doesn’t start or stop ... RICHARD: It does when there is sensual pain. RESPONDENT: ... it is only taken away from by emotion. RICHARD: Or added to (just as with sensual pain). RESPONDENT: The pleasure isn’t separate, it is just the senses doing what they do. RICHARD: If you could drop the notion that unconditional happiness is the result of (and thus dependant upon) sensual pleasure then what I have to report/ describe/ explain may very well become apparent. RESPONDENT: Sensation is inherently happy, due to the perfection. RICHARD: As sensation is, according to the circumstances, alternatively pleasurable or painful it is
patently obvious you are barking up the wrong tree RESPONDENT: I see now how this also accords with my memories of my tiny PCE. It was only about 3 seconds long but it was very distinct and perfectly matches descriptions I’ve read. The silly words that came to mind at that time last year were: ‘reality alone is’, and the sense that my head was ‘hollowed-out’ of me, leaving only sensations. Wish I had more than 3 seconds to draw information from though. RICHARD: Or that you had stubbed a toe (for instance) ... or had been walking barefoot across a shag-pile carpet liberally strewn with drawing pins (for another). RESPONDENT: As to the meaning of life: No purpose, but all the significance of something doing what is perfect for it to do. Right? RICHARD: Wrong ... life is neither purposeful nor purposeless (that is a spiritualist/ materialist dichotomy which has no existence in actuality) and its significance is as follows:
RESPONDENT: Thanks once again Richard for your time. If this isn’t it then, I can’t see what could be. ;-) RICHARD: If you were to see that unconditional happiness cannot possibly be conditional – as in dependent upon sensual pleasure – there is a distinct possibility you may very well start to see just what it actually is.
CORRESPONDENT No. 110 (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 |
