|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 110
(...) 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: I still think I understand this ... RICHARD: Yet the sooner you cease thinking that is the sooner you might actually understand what I have to report/ describe/ explain. RESPONDENT: ...but the terminology I’m using is not as precise as yours is. RICHARD: It is not a case of your terminology ... that understanding of yours has nothing to do with what I have to report/ describe/ explain. RESPONDENT: Your lack of an imaginative faculty, does it make it harder to get what people mean? RICHARD: Generally speaking ... no; on this particular occasion ... not at all. RESPONDENT: To explain what I mean with an example: The senses sensing is perfection and so there is an inherent happiness at the senses doing the act of sensing. RICHARD: First, here is a simple experiment:
Second, here is a word-of-the-day for you:
RESPONDENT: Until my next PCE, I suppose this is all theory. RICHARD: That understanding of yours has nothing to do with what is patently obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... to wit: that apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon experiencing sensate (bodily) pleasure/ that apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensate (bodily) pain is happening as well. * RESPONDENT: ‘Sensual pleasure’ doesn’t start or stop ... RICHARD: It does when there is sensual pain. RESPONDENT: ‘Sensual pleasure’ was a poor phrase to use, but it’s been what I’ve been using up to now so I put it in quotes. I am actually referring to a contentment/ happiness of sensing ... RICHARD: In which case, then, here is what you had to say (with each instance of ‘sensual pleasure’ replaced with ‘contentment/ happiness of sensing’).
Do you not see that not only are you overlooking/ ignoring the human brain’s pain faculties (to use your phraseology) – wherein sensing can hardly be described as contentment/ happiness – but that you are presupposing that the felicity of this actual world is a matter of sensation? RESPONDENT: ... [I am actually referring to a contentment/ happiness of sensing] which I suspect to be the happiness inherent to perfection your are talking about. RICHARD: The sooner you drop that suspection is the sooner you will actually understand what I have to report/ describe/ explain. RESPONDENT: The happiness of sensing doesn’t start or stop (as one is always sensing) while conscious ... RICHARD: What actually neither starts or stops is apperceptive awareness ... inasmuch the very fact of being alive is truly wonderful (regardless of sensation being, according to circumstances, alternatively pleasurable or painful). RESPONDENT: ... [The happiness of sensing doesn’t start or stop (as one is always sensing) while conscious], but it is taken away from by emotion. RICHARD: The pleasure of pleasant sensing, such as walking barefoot on a shag-pile carpet, is instantly taken away from the moment unpleasant sensing, such as of drawing pins underfoot, takes place. RESPONDENT: This is what I meant by ‘the pleasure isn’t separate’. RICHARD: As the unpleasure of unpleasant sensing is not separate, either, that is but a truism (a proposition that states nothing beyond what is implied in any of its terms). * RESPONDENT: ... it [sensual pleasure] 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: Not ‘sensation’ then. Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy ... RICHARD: If I might interject? As sensation – ‘perception by the senses’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is the very act of sensing then what you are saying (just above) is that the act of sensing is inherently happy ... therefore, because the very act of sensing is alternatively pleasurable or painful (according to the circumstances), it is patently obvious you are still barking up the wrong tree. RESPONDENT: ... [Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy] when there is no emotion seemingly taking away from the perfection of the universe? RICHARD: No, apperceptive awareness is what is inherently happy/ felicitous (and harmless/ innocuous) ... here it is again (highlighted this time around for your convenience):
(...) 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: Not ‘sensation’ then. Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy ... RICHARD: If I might interject? As sensation – ‘perception by the senses’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is the very act of sensing then what you are saying (just above) is that the act of sensing is inherently happy ... therefore, because the very act of sensing is alternatively pleasurable or painful (according to the circumstances), it is patently obvious you are still barking up the wrong tree. RESPONDENT: ... [Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy] when there is no emotion seemingly taking away from the perfection of the universe? RICHARD: No, apperceptive awareness is what is inherently happy/ felicitous (and harmless/ innocuous) ... RESPONDENT: ... as that’s where the perfection becomes evident? RICHARD: No ... as that awareness is the universe being conscious of its own perfection RESPONDENT: Is felicity an inevitable human reaction to the perfection? RICHARD: No, felicity is the universe’s inevitable experience of its own perfection. RESPONDENT: Is the felicity inherent to apperception caused by chemicals in the brain? RICHARD: No, the cause of the universe’s felicity is the universe’s own perfection.
(...) 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: Not ‘sensation’ then. Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy ... RICHARD: If I might interject? As sensation – ‘perception by the senses’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is the very act of sensing then what you are saying (just above) is that the act of sensing is inherently happy ... therefore, because the very act of sensing is alternatively pleasurable or painful (according to the circumstances), it is patently obvious you are still barking up the wrong tree. RESPONDENT: ... [Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy] when there is no emotion seemingly taking away from the perfection of the universe? RICHARD: No, apperceptive awareness is what is inherently happy/ felicitous (and harmless/ innocuous) ... RESPONDENT: ... as that’s where the perfection becomes evident? RICHARD: No ... as that awareness is the universe being conscious of its own perfection. RESPONDENT: That sounds more like a ‘Yes’. RICHARD: It would only be a ‘Yes’ were that to have been what you had meant by ‘as that’s where the perfection becomes evident’ and, given you had both preceded it with a similar materialistic-like statement/query and followed it up with more of that ilk (asking whether it be an inevitable human reaction caused by chemicals in the brain), that is not at all likely ... and especially so, now, in view of your ‘seems spiritual or metaphysical to me’ response further below. RESPONDENT: Is the cause of the felicity the fact that the universe is perfect ... RICHARD: I have already said it is (further below) ... here it is again:
RESPONDENT: ... [Is the cause of the felicity the fact that the universe is perfect] or the fact that the universe is conscious of it ... RICHARD: No, the cause of the universe’s felicity is the universe’s own perfection. RESPONDENT: ... [Is the cause of the felicity the fact that the universe is perfect or the fact that the universe is conscious of it], or can they not be separated like that? RICHARD: There is nothing to be separated ... the cause of the universe’s felicity is, quite simply, the universe’s own perfection * RESPONDENT: Is felicity an inevitable human reaction to the perfection? RICHARD: No, felicity is the universe’s inevitable experience of its own perfection. RESPONDENT: Is the felicity inherent to apperception caused by chemicals in the brain? RICHARD: No, the cause of the universe’s felicity is the universe’s own perfection. RESPONDENT: The felicity seems spiritual or metaphysical to me when I read this. RICHARD: Yet it actually is entirely corporeal or physical: the flesh and blood body typing these
words, being nothing other than the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: Where is the felicity? RICHARD: Right were I said it was in my very first response to your initial e-mail of this thread. Here it is again (highlighted for your convenience):
RESPONDENT: In the five (main) human senses? RICHARD: No, it is inherent to perfection. RESPONDENT: Is it some kind of non-affective ‘feeling’? RICHARD: No, it is an immediate (unmediated) experiencing. RESPONDENT: Is it the natural state of the universe being the universe? RICHARD: No, it is not a state (be it natural or otherwise) but, rather, the condition of being perfect. RESPONDENT: I don’t actually understand where the felicity comes from yet ... RICHARD: It comes from (to use your phraseology) the very perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness this physical universe actually is ... or, in other words, it is inherent to perfection/ to the condition of being perfect. RESPONDENT: ... I considered the senses sensing as perfection and the awareness of senses sensing as perfection but you tell me it’s not that. RICHARD: I did more than merely tell you it is not that ... I provided a simple experiment which would demonstrate why not. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one. RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Viz.:
Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent? RESPONDENT: I realise that humans experience the world through this demonstrably illusory ‘self’ ... RICHARD: Not through such a ‘self’ but as that ‘self’ ... and not the world as it actually is but a veneer (known as ‘the outer world’) pasted over it by the ‘self’ within. RESPONDENT: ... [I realise that humans experience the world through this demonstrably illusory ‘self’], which distorts perception of the universe with emotions. RICHARD: Normal humans experience an (illusory) outer world as an (illusory) ‘self’ which is forever locked-out of perceiving actuality by its very nature. RESPONDENT: What the universe ‘is like’ in actuality, without the ‘self’ running, is anyone’s guess but the PCE recaller. RICHARD: Recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is essential as such guesses are unavoidably/ inescapably self-centred (as in egocentric and homocentric/ anthropocentric) and thus mostly hubristic ... particularly so when the intuitive/ imaginative facility runs rampant.
(...) RESPONDENT: Without an affective faculty, surely there would remain only sensate pleasure and sensate pain? RICHARD: Indeed ... and as such pleasure/pain is anhedonic – as contrasted to hedonic pleasure/pain RESPONDENT: If one is the senses only, how can the senses experience felicity? RICHARD: The felicity being referred to RESPONDENT: Could you explain the difference between affective felicity (which the identity can experience) and actual felicity? RICHARD: Sure ... affective felicity, being conditional, is dependent upon felicitous events; actual felicity (aka uncaused happiness), being unconditional, occurs all the while regardless of infelicitous events. Here is how I put it only recently:
(...) RESPONDENT: Without an affective faculty, surely there would remain only sensate pleasure and sensate pain? RICHARD: Indeed ... and as such pleasure/pain is anhedonic – as contrasted to hedonic pleasure/pain RESPONDENT: So why is there also felicity in one’s experience, rather than just sensate pleasure and pain? RICHARD: Because the felicity inherent to perfection is a feature of apperceptive awareness (and not sensation per se). * RESPONDENT: If one is the senses only, how can the senses experience felicity? RICHARD: The felicity being referred to RESPONDENT: A *feature* of apperceptive awareness? RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:
I have made no secret of the fact that felicity is a distinctive and/or characteristic part of apperceptive awareness and not sensation (aka the act of sensing). Viz.:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: Yet the felicity is not the brain’s reaction to the unmediated self-awareness of the universe’s perfection? RICHARD: No, felicity is the universe’s inevitable experience of its own perfection. RESPONDENT: To explain more what I mean by asking ‘where’: There are just the senses and self-aware thoughts – where is there room for felicity? RICHARD: As it is a feature of apperceptive awareness then, of course, that is where there is room for it (to use your phraseology) ... and infinite room to boot. RESPONDENT: Where can this happiness occur in one’s experience? RICHARD: It occurs in apperceptive awareness. RESPONDENT: How is the felicity perceived or experienced by the human organism? RICHARD: As the universe’s experiencing of itself. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Could you explain the difference between affective felicity (which the identity can experience) and actual felicity? RICHARD: Sure ... affective felicity, being conditional, is dependent upon felicitous events; actual felicity (aka uncaused happiness), being unconditional, occurs all the while regardless of infelicitous events. RESPONDENT: Is that the only difference between them? RICHARD: Essentially ... yes. RESPONDENT: They feel exactly the same, but one is unconditional and another is temporary. RICHARD: As the actual felicity you are enquiring about – the felicity inherent to perfection – is a feature of apperceptive awareness, and not the affective faculty, perhaps you might be inclined to rephrase your [quote] ‘they *feel* exactly the same’ [emphasis added] statement? RESPONDENT: Is it a coincidence that a feeling – affective felicity – evolved in humans to be exactly the same as actual felicity? RICHARD: As an affective felicity, being but a feeling of (conditional) happiness, is not exactly the same as an actual felicity your query is a non-sequitur.
(...) RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one. RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Viz.: [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. (...)’. [endquote]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly. [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’. [endquote]. Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent? RESPONDENT: It is clear to me that the universe is perfect (as are humans in their actual state).... RICHARD: In what way is it clear to you that the universe is perfect ... and what perfect state are you referring to? RESPONDENT: Why does that imply excellence though? RICHARD: As I am not yet cognisant of what way it is clear to you that the universe is perfect/ what perfect state you are referring to I will await your clarification before proceeding. RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘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’. Most humans have a similar suspicion because of a belief in a god that wouldn’t allow them to suffer forever. What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery? 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 miserabilism RESPONDENT: The view I have is that happiness and all ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are sourced in the brain ... RICHARD: More specifically ... the affective faculty is the source of all feelings. RESPONDENT: ... while the universe is a perfect but ‘neutral’ one. It seems anthropomorphic to say that happiness – an animal phenomenon – is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: As I have made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that I am not referring to an affective feeling of happiness, and that to be apperceptive is to be the universe’s experiencing of itself, there is nothing anthropomorphic about what I have to report/ describe/ explain.
(...) RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one. RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Viz.: [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. (...)’. [endquote]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly. [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’. [endquote]. Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent? RESPONDENT: It is clear to me that the universe is perfect (as are humans in their actual state).... RICHARD: In what way is it clear to you that the universe is perfect ... and what perfect state are you referring to? RESPONDENT: I mean I agree that it is perfect. The universe is complete-in-itself, peerless – having no ‘outside’. The universe certainly was pristine during my short PCE. RICHARD: Okay, and if something – anything – is perfect, complete-in-itself, peerless, pristine, is the word excellent an apt word to use? RESPONDENT: (...) Humans, as physical bodies in the actual universe, are perfect. RICHARD: The reason why I asked is because to be a physical body is not to be in a [quote] ‘state’ [endquote] in the way that word is commonly used ... for instance:
More to the point, however, as physical bodies are the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe (in that they come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed) then the word excellent an apt word to use, is it not? RESPONDENT: It is only the subjective experiencing of emotion and thought that suggests otherwise, only the affective ‘reality’ that is imperfect. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, it is only the (illusory) identity experiencing its (illusory) universe – its ‘outer world’ – who gives voice to words such as imperfect, unsatisfactory, and so on ... and to terms such as a sick cosmic joke, a vale of tears, and so forth. * RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘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’. Most humans have a similar suspicion because of a belief in a god that wouldn’t allow them to suffer forever. What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery? RICHARD: (...) In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of miserabilism RESPONDENT: What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery? RICHARD: I am none too sure how to answer it any other way than the very way in which the identity in residence saw it, 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. RESPONDENT: What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not this is all a cosmic sick joke? RICHARD: Simply because it is nonsensical to believe 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 sick cosmic joke. * RESPONDENT: The view I have is that happiness and all ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are sourced in the brain ... RICHARD: More specifically ... the affective faculty is the source of all feelings. RESPONDENT: ... while the universe is a perfect but ‘neutral’ one. It seems anthropomorphic to say that happiness – an animal phenomenon – is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: As I have made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that I am not referring to an affective feeling of happiness, and that to be apperceptive is to be the universe’s experiencing of itself, there is nothing anthropomorphic about what I have to report/ describe/ explain. RESPONDENT: Why isn’t the universe a neutral one, rather than a felicitous one? RICHARD: The word neutral can be used in several ways ... here is one way:
And here is another:
If you were to have been asking why is the universe not occupying a middle position, with regard to two extremes (felicitous and infelicitous), then you would have been presupposing that both felicity and infelicity are actual – else it be but an abstract theorising – thus it only makes sense that what you are asking, instead, is why the universe is not a universe having no strongly marked characteristics or features (why it not be undefined, indefinite, indistinct, vague, lacking colour or intensity) ... right? If so, then what I can report – as can be verified in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – is that it is because the universe, far from being undefined, indefinite, indistinct, vague, lacking colour or intensity, has the strongly marked characteristic/ feature of felicity inherent to its perfection. For what it is worth: I am reminded of when I was a parent and one of my then-children asked me why the sky was blue – to which I responded with a rather simplistic version of ‘Rayleigh Scattering’ – only to then have the question qualified ... to wit: why the sky was blue and not green (and, correspondingly, why leaves are green and not blue, and so on, and so forth). There is no prize for guessing the answer to that one ... and the scientific way of saying ‘that it is just the way things are’ is that it is a given (just like gravity is, for instance, and temperature, and so on, and so forth). * RESPONDENT: Could you explain the difference between affective felicity (which the identity can experience) and actual felicity? RICHARD: Sure ... affective felicity, being conditional, is dependent upon felicitous events; actual felicity (aka uncaused happiness), being unconditional, occurs all the while regardless of infelicitous events. RESPONDENT: Is that the only difference between them? RICHARD: Essentially ... yes. RESPONDENT: They feel exactly the same, but one is unconditional and another is temporary. RICHARD: As the actual felicity you are enquiring about – the felicity inherent to perfection – is a feature of apperceptive awareness, and not the affective faculty, perhaps you might be inclined to rephrase your [quote] ‘they *feel* exactly the same’ [emphasis added] statement? RESPONDENT: Is it a coincidence that a feeling – affective felicity – evolved in humans to be exactly the same as actual felicity? RICHARD: As an affective felicity, being but a feeling of (conditional) happiness, is not exactly the same as an actual felicity your query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Perhaps it would help me if you explained what felicity is. RICHARD: One way to put it would be to say that the felicity being discussed – the felicity inherent to perfection – is what the feeling of happiness is but an affective substitute for ... and to then say that when I went public to inform my fellow human being of my discovery I chose to not coin new words, as that would be counter-productive, but to instead make a distinct difference between the word ‘actual’ and the word ‘real’ (plus the word ‘fact’ and the word ‘true’) whereas the dictionaries do not. Suppose I had used the letters ‘qwerty’ (the first six letters on a standard keyboard) to refer to what is inherent to perfection ... would it not have led to being asked what that means? For example:
Besides which ... anybody having had a memorable PCE knows exactly what I am talking about. RESPONDENT: All I know of is the feeling of happiness. RICHARD: That is because an identity, being but an affective entity within, cannot ever experience an actual happiness. RESPONDENT: Actual felicity, if not a feeling, is a mystery to me. RICHARD: Indeed ... an identity is forever locked-out of actuality by its very nature (an affective ‘being’). RESPONDENT: Is actual felicity just experienced-perfection? RICHARD: No, is the universe’s inevitable experience of its own perfection. RESPONDENT: That would make sense to me, only it seems far from my concept of ‘happiness’. I feel like saying: perfection is perfection, not the lesser ‘felicity’. RICHARD: An actual felicity – the felicity inherent to perfection – is not less than the perfection itself ... it is a seamless inherence.
RESPONDENT: Whether it is a contradiction or not, I need this issue [getting back to feeling good] clarified for the practical application. RICHARD: Oh? What was not clarifying about my response when you first introduced this topic, then? Viz.:
And the reason why I ask is because this is the reply I received to that e-mail:
RESPONDENT: (...) How is the method best done – should I examine the feeling and find its trigger while experiencing it, in order to get back to feeling good? RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an intellectual/ abstractional-type person then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Or should I get back to feeling good and then figure out why I last felt less-than-good? RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an emotional/ passional-type person then ... yes.
RESPONDENT: (...) I agree that it is perfect. The universe is complete-in-itself, peerless – having no ‘outside’. The universe certainly was pristine during my short PCE. RICHARD: Okay, and if something – anything – is perfect, complete-in-itself, peerless, pristine, is the word excellent an apt word to use? RESPONDENT: (...) Humans, as physical bodies in the actual universe, are perfect. RICHARD: (...) as physical bodies are the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe (in that they come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed) then the word excellent an apt word to use, is it not? RESPONDENT: It is, yes. Since we are the stuff of the perfect universe, our label of ‘excellent’ is indeed apt to describe it. I am no longer of the opinion that it is foolish to suspect that the universe and humans are actually excellent. Most of my questions and viewpoints on this topic came – as you’d expect – as from the perspective of a ‘self’ inside the body. You reminded me many times that (when free of the identity in toto) we are the stuff of the universe but the implications didn’t click for a while. RICHARD: It will be handy to bear that in mind (that when free of the identity in toto humans are the stuff of the universe) as you read/consider what is on offer on both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and its associated mailing list ... terms such as ‘no separation’ (aka ‘actual intimacy’) and ‘direct experience’ (aka ‘apperceptive awareness’), and phrases such as ‘as a flesh and blood body only one is this actual universe experiencing itself apperceptively’, and so on, will make a lot more sense. * RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘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’. (...) Emotions evolved in humans naturally. RICHARD: So too did thought ... and thus intelligence (the cognitive faculty of understanding and comprehending, as in intellect and sagacity, which means the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, compare, appraise, plan, and implement considered action for beneficial reasons and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations). And now that intelligence has developed in the human animal those otherwise essential survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto). No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: If self-awareness had not become feature of the brain, then humans would be doomed to suffer with emotions in an enormous, complex, perfectly organised universe. RICHARD: Yet as self-awareness did become a feature of the human brain (and thus eventually thought with its corresponding intelligence) then humans are obviously not doomed to suffer, now, are they? RESPONDENT: What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery? RICHARD: First of all: it is a fact, is it not, that self-awareness (and thus thought with its corresponding intelligence) did become a feature of the human brain? Second, did that self-awareness, along with its associated thought and corresponding intelligence, become a feature of the human brain in a perfect (a complete-in-itself, peerless, pristine and thus excellent) universe or an imperfect (a contingent, comparable, flawed and thus inferior) universe? Third, is it not inconceivable/incomprehensible (or unimaginable/ unbelievable) that self-aware, thoughtful and thus intelligent creatures be doomed – ‘destined inexorably to a (usu. unwelcome) fate; also absol. consigned to certain misfortune’ (Oxford Dictionary) – to perpetual misery in a perfect (complete-in-itself, peerless, pristine and thus excellent) universe? Therefore, could it possibly be that it is for the very reason that 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 self-awareness (and thus thought with its corresponding intelligence) to not have become a feature of the brain? RESPONDENT: Is there something about the *size* of the universe, or the *complexity* of the universe, which makes freedom from emotional suffering possible? RICHARD: That quoted sentence of mine is not about either the size or the complexity of the universe making freedom from emotional suffering possible ... it is about this universe, this physical world humans all live in, being too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure making it impossible to believe any longer in the wisdom of the world ‘I’ have inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – when ‘I’ look, really look for the first time, at the natural world and realise that it is not, never has been and never will be, some sick cosmic joke which humans all have to endure, with only scant moments of reprieve, and make the best of. Viz.:
VINEETO (to No. 60): I was half way through answering both of your recent posts on this topic when your latest posts arrived in one of which you said – [No. 60] ‘I don’t want any of that shit. That’s what I call ‘boneheaded absolutism’ [Re: ‘stuff’, 21.8.2006]. I assume that anything and everything I would say to you in my response would fall into this same category so I decided to leave it. I’m sure I’ll hear from you if my assumption was incorrect. RESPONDENT No. 60: Was Richard a glaring exception to your ‘without exception’ scenario? You say you were half way through your response. Do you mean you were half way through ‘yes’? Or half way through ‘no’? [Addendum] By all means, send me half your response, and I’ll figure out the other half myself. VINEETO: This is what you informed me just recently – [No. 60] ‘Ironically,
it was No. 74’s recent correspondence with Vineeto that was, for me, the final straw ... with a little help from her handling of
No. 23, and her ridiculous and pointless unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious fact that Richard was indeed a glaring exception
to her ‘without exception’ scenario. Seems to me there is just no point in corresponding with such people, on any subject; it’s
far, far worse than pulling teeth, in my opinion’. [Re: Actualism without absolutism, 20.8.2006 7.52AM AEST].
As I’m not a dentist nor in the business of knowingly inflicting pain I will refrain from any further correspondence with you as
long as you experience it this way. Anyway, there is so much information on the AF website already that you can figure out
everything for yourself if you want to. RESPONDENT No. 60: From one ‘human’ ‘being’ to another: This human world is all blind self-assertion, Vineeto ... and some are more blind to it than others. You cop more than your share of criticism because you position yourself as someone who’s NOT blindly self-assertive, yet it’s plain for all to see that you’ve got a far worse case of it than most ... and your actualism may well be your chosen way of indulging that very thing. Setting yourself up as a world-leading expert in a pioneering field of human endeavour is a heady trip indeed; but you abuse it cruelly; you have demonstrated time and time again that you do NOT care how it affects others ... and the lack of willingness to do so is even built into the tenets of your creed. It makes you a virtually impossible person. Why not just wake up and notice that you’ve fallen for your own bullshit; and then maybe there’s a chance that it WON’T be bullshit any more. Why be so bent on saving face, each and every time you’re mistaken about something? If that’s what ten years of actualism amounts to, it demonstrates to me that either you’re doing it wrong, or it has no value at all (short of complete ‘self’-immolation). I honestly think you are paying a very high price for your consistency now (or perhaps it has not hit you yet). It seems to me, based on two years of ‘living with’ you here, that you decided very early on to adopt an actualist persona, and you’ve never budged one iota ever since. You’ll do and say virtually anything in order to prevent the mask from slipping, little realising that your desperate attempts to keep the mask in place ... only draw attention to it. There does not seem to be any honesty in it from here. If you ever really did have good intentions, they’ve gone out the window. If there is still any genuine naiveté and sincerity in you, I hope that part of you is hearing this, and not the Vineeto who will immediately rush to defend herself and point out all the ways in which No. 60 is just plain wrong, projecting his own self-assertive instincts onto you, etc, etc. Anyway, best of luck. I’ll stay out of your hair now. RESPONDENT: Will someone please clue me in as to where Vineeto has demonstrated that she is not virtually free? Apparently it has been shown ‘time and time again’ and is ‘plain for all to see’. I must keep missing it. Could someone post just a few of these examples? RESPONDENT No. 60: As I see it, there have been about half a dozen such instances running concurrently in the last couple of days/weeks, which all demonstrate the same or similar thing. Just look at the type and quality of V’s communications with you, me, No. 74, No. 18, No. 23, and No. 123 these last couple weeks. As I see it, just about everything Vineeto writes contains the same or similar obnoxious qualities, and if anything it’s getting worse. For whose benefit is this occurring, and at whose expense? Either there is something truly bizarre happening here that is indeed ‘all in our heads’ as No. 110 suggests, or there is some truly pointless, illogical, obfuscatory, obstinate, manipulative stuff coming out of Vineeto that explains how it actually got into our heads in the first place. I personally know damn well where it’s coming from, without the slightest shadow of doubt any longer (it is beyond a joke), but it looks like I’ve been yet again sucked into this ‘where is the picture, I see only pixels’ kind of thing. So be it, then. Even stuff that doesn’t bother me personally any more still shits me by proxy, because I see the same-old same-old pointless ordeals are being undergone by new people all the time, and I know what a sense of futility it creates (and I consider that sense of futility, endured chronically, harder to endure than a physical beating). The same old patterns are being repeated endlessly, and she’s getting more and more like a vampire, sucking on other people, deriving her power from having little pets to ‘instruct’ and train. It is disgusting to observe. RESPONDENT: I appreciate you taking the time to give me examples. If Vineeto is demonstrating that she is not virtually free then this process of showing the newbies this will indeed happen again and again. It would be very helpful, though. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication the following is a detailed example of what being virtually free is and how it came about:
You will notice that nowhere is it mentioned that a virtual freedom automatically precludes one from inadvertently making sweeping generalisations (more on this further below). RESPONDENT (to No. 60): The example you have given me so far is of an ongoing debate that is going to be hard to show either way. Vineeto seems to be saying that Richard is not one who pursued enlightenment like is described – without exception – in spiritualist autobiographies and biographies. RICHARD: Vineeto is quite up-front and out-in the-open, about whom and what she was referring to, from the get-go (when she first responded to a characterisation of her dedication/single-pointed commitment to becoming actually free from the human condition as being an obsession). Here is the sequence (with those operative words highlighted for convenience):
Here it is spelled-out sequentially:
And, just for the record, Vineeto has already made this crystal-clear:
RESPONDENT: A further clarification would apparently sound ‘absolutist’. RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that word:
The illustration in question – an illustration which your co-respondent has elsewhere acknowledged as being
trivial
Here is an example of what that would look like with the conjunctive ‘or’:
Here is another example:
If (note ‘if’) making a sweeping generalisation qualifies one as being an absolutist (or is an example of boneheaded absolutism) then your co-respondent is also guilty of same. Here (from further above):
Whereas here is what Vineeto wrote only last month:
And that is it, in its entirety, with nary a trace of excuses, justifications, or any other face-saving ploys. RESPONDENT: I’ll join the call for Vineeto to clarify. RICHARD: She already has (thrice):
And:
Plus:
You will notice that these clarifications are entirely in keeping with what she was quite up-front and out-in the-open about from the get-go (about wanting to find out what exactly it is that made people successful in what they wanted to achieve in life/that what all these people had in common was a burning passion to be successful at their chosen field of interest and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach their goal). And just so that there is no misunderstanding: Vineeto knows only too well that what made Richard successful in what he wanted to achieve in life (that which he had experienced, in his four-hour PCE, which he later called ‘Actual Freedom’) was a burning passion to be successful at his chosen field of interest (that which he had experienced, in his four-hour PCE, which he later called ‘Actual Freedom’) and an unwavering determination to do whatever it takes to reach his goal (that which he had experienced, in his four-hour PCE, which he later called ‘Actual Freedom’). The fact that some denizens of the peanut gallery choose to characterise such dedication, such single-pointed commitment, to becoming actually free from the human condition as being an obsession only serves to demonstrate that arm-chair philosophising gets one nowhere, fast. * RESPONDENT (to No. 60): As for Vineeto replying with ‘I take it then that you have not ...’. She is assuming – based on what No. 18 said – that No. 18 is putting forward the argument that spiritual enlightenment can be a free lunch. RICHARD: Given that her co-respondent informed her two days later that he is [quote] ‘a man of U-turns and inconsistencies’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘such a man need not be to be afraid of getting lost in a quagmire of contradictions and/or denial’ [endquote] it is as serviceable an assumption as any. RESPONDENT: Do you think Vineeto’s assumption was a reasonable one, based on their prior conversation? RICHARD: Here is how the man of u-turns and inconsistencies, the man who need not be afraid of getting lost in a quagmire of contradictions and/or denial, responded:
And that, apparently, was the end of the matter. RESPONDENT: Some of us – including me – are not very specific and accurate with our words. RICHARD: Whereas the man of u-turns and inconsistencies, the man who need not be afraid of getting lost in a quagmire of contradictions and/or denial, is very rarely specific and accurate with his words. RESPONDENT: I suppose Vineeto could have asked ‘exactly what do you mean?’ ... RICHARD: Ha ... only to get an amplification like the following, perchance? Viz.:
Maybe some background information is in order here: Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain, an enlightened master known for his many (self-acknowledged) contradictions, inconsistencies, u-turns and denials, once declared twenty or so of his disciples to be enlightened – a matter which raised considerable ego-puffery amongst some and more than a little consternation amongst others – only to withdraw that declaration sometime later. Needless is it to add that the current man of u-turns and inconsistencies (the man who need not be afraid of getting lost in a quagmire of contradictions and/or denial) is on record as stating that he is hoping to further the work of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain on this mailing list? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [I suppose Vineeto could have asked ‘exactly what do you mean?’], but perhaps that was unnecessary. RICHARD: Hmm ... because of the miasmal nature of the above-quoted amplification the word unwise could be a more appropriate than the word unnecessary. RESPONDENT: I’d appreciate some more examples. RICHARD: As your co-respondent has already invoked their [quote] ‘where is the picture, I see only pixels’ [endquote] copout you would be well-advised to not hold your breath waiting.
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 |
