|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 19
RESPONDENT No. 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this: ‘Whether this flesh and blood body likes it or not this flesh and blood body is here on this planet anyway; whether this flesh and blood body approves of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether this flesh and blood body accepts it or rejects it this flesh and blood body is going to die one day anyhow’. RESPONDENT: Would the following also be offered: 1. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) likes it or not ...’ is one and the same body that is ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ and further is one and the same body that eventually dies someday? RICHARD: There is only the one body here (if that is what you are asking). RESPONDENT: In fact, no that is not what was asked. Perhaps this: Does that only one body remain the same body (that) likes it or not, and at another time may approve of it or not, and that eventually dies? In other words, is that only one body an ongoing entity that remains the same while the actions it completes change? RICHARD: I shall put it this way, for the sake of communicating in the convoluted and tortuous use of words and sentence structure such as you are most familiar with, if that will assist your comprehension: The body called ‘Richard’ does not become the body called ‘wife’ or the body called ‘neighbour’ halfway through dying. RESPONDENT: Before the behaviour called dying, there is the behaviour called breathing, evacuating, walking, eating, farting, masturbating, salivating, sweating, thinking, talking, writing, etc., and before all of that, there was the behaviour ejaculation, and before that the behaviour foreplay, and before that the behaviour desire, and perhaps, the behaviour called love, etc. RICHARD: Nevertheless the behaviour called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the behaviour called ‘wife’ or the behaviour called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the behaviour called ‘dying ... breathing, evacuating, walking, eating, farting, masturbating, salivating, sweating, thinking, talking, writing ... ejaculation ... foreplay ... desire ... love, etc’. Furthermore, the action called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the action called ‘wife’ or the action called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the action called ‘dying ... breathing, evacuating, walking, eating, farting, masturbating, salivating, sweating, thinking, talking, writing ... ejaculation ... foreplay ... desire ... love, etc’. And lastly (unless you have some more synonyms up your sleeve), the experience called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the experience called ‘wife’ or the experience called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the experience called ‘dying ... breathing, evacuating, walking, eating, farting, masturbating, salivating, sweating, thinking, talking, writing ... ejaculation ... foreplay ... desire ... love, etc’. RESPONDENT: The word Richard, which adds absolutely no-thing to what is actual, is the result of the intention to maintain an identity. RICHARD: Not so ... the word Richard is nothing more complicated or complex than an agreed-upon name which is established so as to distinguish this body from that body or some other body. RESPONDENT: The Richard that is the reading of this word is not the same Richard that is now the reading of this word. RICHARD: Whereas the body called ‘Richard’ does not become the body called ‘wife’ or the body called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the reading of a sentence. RESPONDENT: Richard does not die, the word is new and fresh each time it is uttered. RICHARD: Do you see that you are discussing ‘the word’ uttered as ‘Richard’ ... whereas I clearly said ‘the body called Richard’? RESPONDENT: The body does not die, there is no body to die, there is only a uninterrupted process, that may be represented by, segmented into, thought of as, the group of words above. RICHARD: Uh oh ... it looks as if the word ‘process’ is synonymic to what the words behaviour and/or action and/or experience refer to. RESPONDENT: That Richard does not become Wife has nothing to do with what is actual. RICHARD: Yet, even using your lingo, the behaviour/action/experience/process called ‘Respondent’ does not become the behaviour/action/experience/process called ‘Wife’ either. RESPONDENT: Richard does not exist to become any-thing. RICHARD: There is no becoming happening as the name ‘Richard’ refers to an already existent flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: It is a word used with the intention of maintaining an identity. RICHARD: There is no ‘identity’ extant here ... things operate differently, in this actual world, to the way they happen in the world you live in. RESPONDENT: Richard does not become Wife ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... which is why I initially said that there is only the one body here. Viz.:
To which you replied:
... and away you went on a nonsensical discussion about the word uttered as ‘Richard’ (that never dies because it is fresh and new each time it is uttered) and some other fantasies about a non-existent identity. RESPONDENT: ... just as winter does not become spring ... RICHARD: As it would be more apt to say that winter comes to an end and spring begins your analogy seems to be more akin with what could be called an uninterrupted process, eh? RESPONDENT: ... or as walking does not become running. RICHARD: Hmm ... when running commences walking (or standing or crouching) ceases. RESPONDENT: No-thing becomes another thing, never has, never will. RICHARD: I am none to sure regarding the aptness of your analogies but you do seem to be saying the same as I initially said (that there is only the one body here) ... only you use the word ‘thing’ instead. If so, I am pleased that we are at least in agreement on this point. * RESPONDENT: 2. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than that approval or disapproval (experience)? RICHARD: There is much more to life than going around approving or disapproving. RESPONDENT: Yes of course ... RICHARD: Indeed ... so much so, in fact, that this flesh and blood body does not go around approving or disapproving of this universe happening (which is the whole point of the paragraph you are responding to). RESPONDENT: *Roaring Laughter* RICHARD: Speaking personally, I am hard-pushed to find it humorous that there are peoples who are so misguided that they do go around approving or disapproving of this universe happening * RESPONDENT: ... is that only one body some-thing other than that approval or disapproval (experience), in other words does that only one body exist as something other than any experience? RICHARD: As there is no ‘(experience)’ called approving or disapproving of this universe happening your question is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Does that only one body exist as something other than any experience? RICHARD: Yes ... when asleep, when anaesthetised, when knocked out, when having fainted, when in a coma or in any other way soporose, there is no experience or experiencing happening at all. * RESPONDENT: 3. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than ‘... this universe (which) is happening ...’? RICHARD: This body is made of the same-same stuff as the universe. RESPONDENT: Is approving and disapproving some-thing other than the universe happening? RICHARD: Again ... this flesh and blood body does not go around approving or disapproving of this universe happening. RESPONDENT: Is talking about experiences there is no familiarity with (i.e. approving and disapproving) some-thing other than the universe happening? RICHARD: Again ... this body is the same-same stuff as the universe. * RESPONDENT: Is there any action that is other than the universe happening? RICHARD: There is nothing other than the infinitude of time, space and matter which is this universe ... there is no action called god or action called goddess anywhere, anywhen or anyhow (outside of any particular human psyche that is). RESPONDENT: Is the human psyche some-thing other than the universe happening? RICHARD: You probably would be better of asking those that lay claim to having, or who say they are, such a psyche as there is no fantasy of that description operating here in this actual world. * RESPONDENT: What is the difference between the universe and the stuff it is made of? RICHARD: As I never said there was a difference between the stuff of this body and the stuff of the universe – I specifically said ‘same-same’ – your question is superfluous. RESPONDENT: But I never asked you to answer the question ‘what is difference between the stuff of this body and the stuff of the universe?’ RICHARD: Aye ... but as there is no difference between this body and the stuff it is composed of – and I specifically said ‘same-same’ as in regards the stuff of this body and the stuff of the universe – your question is indeed redundant. Quite frankly it smacks of being a word-game. RESPONDENT: Here is the question again with some additional explanation. What is the difference between the universe and the stuff it (the universe) is made of? as in ‘This body is made of the same-same stuff as the universe’ (IS MADE OF). Answer if you please. Thank you. RICHARD: It really cannot be answered any other way than as a wordy rearrangement of what I have already said ... it makes no sense to draw a distinction between ‘the universe and the stuff it (the universe) is made of’ , as if it be a sensible distinction, and then ask a nonsensical question (twice) as if it be a meaningful question. The universe, same-same as this body, is the very stuff it is made of. * RESPONDENT: 4. The flesh and blood body, which is actual, can become non-existent (non-actual)? RICHARD: No ... it will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. RESPONDENT: Does this suggest the body is actual, but not actually flesh and blood (the body does not become non-existent, however, flesh and blood does)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: There is decomposition, this is a fact, but where, as an actuality, is the body that decomposes? RICHARD: It is the very stuff that ‘decomposes’ of course ... there are no vacuous happenings in the physical world.
RICHARD: When one is living life in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), or living life in an actual freedom from the human condition, life is indeed pristine perfection. RESPONDENT: A question if I may please? And when one is not living life in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), or living life in an actual freedom from the human condition, life is indeed what? Thank you. RICHARD: Every body is already walking around in the pristine perfection of this actual world ... it is the direct and/or on-going experiencing of such consummate purity that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples miss out on. Generally speaking ... such a life is the pits (as is summarised in popular expressions such as ‘life’s a bitch’).
RESPONDENT No. 25: I’m one of those who try to figure out what actualism really is and most of all what real living means. What I’ve found until now it’s a lack of practical ‘things’ one must/must not do in order to become free from the human Condition-ing and let’s say some actual methods. Also about the so-called apperception (Richard) I want some details. I suppose it’s something in which you’re both aware of yourself and the outside world ...?? RICHARD: There is nothing ‘so-called’ about apperception ... and apperception reveals that there is no ‘outside world’ (or ‘inside world’): apperception is where the creator of the ‘outside world’ is not extant. Apperception – a clear and clean perception – means that the peace-on-earth which is already always just here right now will be apparent. And the actualism method, first put into action in 1981, is a potent method specifically aimed at experiencing a condition of uninterrupted apperception. Ask yourself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ To explain: when one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness. The word ‘apperception’ literally means: consciousness being conscious of being consciousness ... as distinct from the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception (‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). [Dictionary Definition]: ‘apperception (n.): the mind’s perception of itself: apperceptive (adj.): of or pertaining to apperception: apperceptiveness (n.): the condition or quality of being apperceptive: ‘apperceptively’ (adv.): the experience of being apperceptive: ‘apperceptivity’: (n.): the capacity to be apperceptive’. [Fr. aperception or mod. L apperceptio(n) (Liebniz), f. (non-productive) prefix ap- (assim. form of L ad-) + perception]. In that brief scintillating instant of bare awareness, that twinkling sensorium-moment of consciousness being conscious of being consciousness, one apperceives a thing as a nothing-in-particular that is being naught but what-it-is coming from nowhen and going nowhere at all. Apperception is very much like what one sees with one’s peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperception – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ ... a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’. In the process of ordinary perception, the apperception step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept; emotionally recognising the qualia; zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it. When the original moment of apperception is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperception – a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content – so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate. Apperception is the clear and direct experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time – sans identity and its feeling-fed realities – and it is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet. Apperception is where one is living in the already always existing peace-on-earth and is where one is blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of the never-ending perfection of the infinitude which this material universe is. Apperception is where one is the universe being stunningly aware of its own infinitude. RESPONDENT: This is a very valuable example of the efficiency the exercise of the world view called actualism ... RICHARD: I notice that you still are unable to discern the difference between a description of actuality, plus the method whereby actuality may become apparent, and your ‘world view called actualism’. RESPONDENT: ... specifically, the act of transcending experience, splitting in two, and asking the then imagined self: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RICHARD: I cannot see where I am suggesting that there be the act of going beyond the range or grasp
of experience and/or being above and independent of experience. Furthermore, unless one is desirous of being GOD RESPONDENT: Which is claimed to be ‘... a potent method specifically aimed at experiencing a condition of uninterrupted apperception’, with apperception being ‘... and (apperception) is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet’. Yet despite a history of two decades of practice, upon receipt of the offering, uninterrupted apperception (uninterrupted wordless appreciation) was passed over in favour of 738 word response ... RICHARD: How can you construe that apperception ‘was passed over’ when there is a very clear explanation that doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of it? What is it about the word ‘uninterrupted’ that you do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: ... which must needs be based on ‘focus(ing) one’s feeling-memory on the object’. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to re-read the above description you will see that it is based upon sensuous perception (‘the clean perception of sensum’) ... which, of course, occurs prior to ‘one’s feeling memory’ surging into action? RESPONDENT: Of course the is the escape hatch; ‘Apperception is ... doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking’. RICHARD: Needless is it to say that any conceptualised ‘escape hatch’ can only have its existence somewhere in the recesses of your ‘world view called actualism’ ?
RICHARD: ... when one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. (...) When the original moment of apperception is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperception – a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content – so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate. Apperception is the clear and direct experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time – sans identity and its feeling-fed realities – and it is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet. Apperception is where one is living in the already always existing peace-on-earth and is where one is blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of the never-ending perfection of the infinitude which this material universe is. Apperception is where one is the universe being stunningly aware of its own infinitude. RESPONDENT: This is a very valuable example of the efficiency the exercise of the world view called actualism ... RICHARD: I notice that you still are unable to discern the difference between a description of actuality, plus the method whereby actuality may become apparent, and your ‘world view called actualism’. RESPONDENT: If you will, please share the intent behind offering the above? RICHARD: As there is no ‘intent behind offering the above’ – the only intent is up-front and out in the open as displayed in the response – I am unable to meet your request. * RESPONDENT: ... specifically, the act of transcending experience, splitting in two, and asking the then imagined self: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RICHARD: I cannot see where I am suggesting that there be the act of going beyond the range or grasp of experience and/or being above and independent of experience. RESPONDENT: No? RICHARD: Indeed it is a ‘no’ ... as it is definitely so that I cannot see where I am suggesting that there be the act of going beyond the range or grasp of experience and/or being above and independent of experience. RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not some much being unable as it unwilling? RICHARD: You can rest assured that it has nothing to do with being ‘unwilling’ as I can personally vouch for it being a fact that there is not the slightest trace of transcendence (the act of going beyond the range or grasp of experience and/or being above and independent of experience) being suggested as an advisable course of action in asking such a simple, straightforward question. Such a transcendence as you propose can only have its existence in your ‘world view called actualism’ . * RICHARD: Furthermore, unless one is desirous of being GOD, there is no need whatsoever to split into two imagined selves ... and have one imagined (transcendent) self ask the other imagined (non-transcendent) self how it is experiencing anything. RESPONDENT: Desirous to be God? RICHARD: Also ... interestingly enough the same technique (transcendence) used by those desirous of being GOD is also employed by those who are desirous to be ‘God’ . RESPONDENT: If you will, what is the intent behind offering the above? RICHARD: As there is no ‘intent behind offering the above’ – the only intent is up-front and out in the open as displayed in the response – I am unable to meet your request. * RESPONDENT: Which is claimed to be ‘... a potent method specifically aimed at experiencing a condition of uninterrupted apperception’, with apperception being ‘... and (apperception) is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet’. Yet despite a history of two decades of practice, upon receipt of the offering, uninterrupted apperception (uninterrupted wordless appreciation) was passed over in favour of 738 word response ... RICHARD: How can you construe that apperception ‘was passed over’ when there is a very clear explanation that doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of it? What is it about the word ‘uninterrupted’ that you do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: Thank you for asking, but in fact there is not a dot about the word uninterrupted, or the phrase it qualifies ‘wordless appreciation’ that is less than fully comprehended. RICHARD: Good ... I am glad we have cleared up that misunderstanding, then. * RESPONDENT: ... which must needs be based on ‘focus(ing) one’s feeling-memory on the object’. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to re-read the above description you will see that it is based upon sensuous perception (‘the clean perception of sensum’) ... which, of course, occurs prior to ‘one’s feeling memory’ surging into action? RESPONDENT: Thank you. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... I am always glad to have cleared up any misunderstanding. * RESPONDENT: Of course the is the escape hatch; ‘Apperception is ... doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking’. RICHARD: Needless is it to say that any conceptualised ‘escape hatch’ can only have its existence somewhere in the recesses of your ‘world view called actualism’ ? RESPONDENT: Needless to say, but said any-way? RICHARD: No ... as it may very well have been only obvious to me I was asking if it was necessary to point it out (for the sake of clarity in communication and so as to obviate any misunderstanding). RESPONDENT: If you will please, what is the intent behind offering that which is believed to be clear without being said? RICHARD: This undergraduate debating ploy does not work on me ... you may as well save your time and finger-tips and stop using it.
RESPONDENT: As we look out into the cosmos (at the world around us) we find that ‘none of the data of our present perception’ originates in our present time. We grow up thinking that anything within the realm of our sphere of consciousness shares our ‘present moment in time’ and that our perceptions of our world are instantaneous. The deeper reality is quite different. Looking out into the cosmos, we find that our perceptions are not instantaneous. Our experiences, of the world around us, come to us as waves of information and energy travelling through space and time. Everything we see now, ‘in this present time’ is the image of ‘an event that is past’ in relation to this moment. In order to understand the nature of objects in this truth it is wise to remember that objects are better understood as events or as a progression of events (energy in motion, or behaviours) with a location in time in relation to the observer. With this knowledge we can place object/events/behaviours at specific locations in space and in past time. And with this ability, we can describe patterns that are structured in past time. We are describing a geometry with which we can weave patterns with time lines. Time lines (data paths from event/behaviour to perception) ( of the data from which we build our experience of the present moment) form a pattern in space and in time. The fabric of this pattern spans the gap between the fireball and the observer’s present moment. Now, it is common knowledge that The sun that we see, here and now, in our sky was a ‘present time configuration on the sun’ eight minutes ago. (The data travel time, at the speed of light, from the sun to the earth is eight minutes), and Even event/objects that we perceive as very close require some ‘data travel time’ to reach our perception. And we experience it all (this convergent information and energy) as a ‘virtual reality that is totally within’. As we gaze out into the sky, the clouds that we see are data images that have already been received by us, and that we have already processed within us. The experience is within. Our experience of ‘seeing a tree’ is within us, It seems like it’s all out there. It is both. The inner world lives in universal present time, The outer world is structured progressively in past time. RICHARD: What happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? * RESPONDENT: The ‘inner experience of the outer convergent data’ (experienced as the present moment) is a printout on the loom of our consciousness of convergent data who’s origins span a geometric pattern in time reaching from this present moment back to the beginning of time. We don’t experience this incoming data directly. Instead, it seems we experience our daily moments within a kind of multidimensional browser that we live within (a holodeck of sorts ) that is programmed, in many ways, by our input. Perceptually we already internalised the cosmos but we still experience it primarily as duality without knowledge of underlying unities. RICHARD: What happens to the ‘underlying unities’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? * RESPONDENT: A flight into image-ing. If we travel far enough in one direction, in a spherical universe, we will eventually return to our point of departure. With this single concept we can begin to build a bridge between divergence and convergence. Using this idea of traversing the cosmos (of departure and return) without changing directions’, we can join divergent to convergent. Please visualize a beam of light departing (diverging) from a star, traversing the cosmos, till it returns to shine back upon itself. Then visualize a star shining out in all directions of around till it shines back upon itself from all directions. The ‘shining out’ takes the form of a star shining out upon the cosmos. The ‘shining in’ takes the form of the cosmos shining in upon the star. It is a circle of divergence, then convergence. If an observer were to ride on the light beam (traversing the spherical cosmos at the speed of light), departure and arrival (divergence and convergence) would be simultaneous at the speed of light time stops. For the observer who stays at the central point (as we do) the trans-spherical journey takes an eternity. Wonderfully Lovely! It is a ‘spherical mobius’ (the twist in the ribbon is the point of present – the observer). We project ourselves as a unity, and receive our self as diversity (the world). The cosmos that we see around us is us. If we look deeply within a flower we see thunder storms and biospheres we see star light and blue birds, we see everything that is other. This is the substructure of the flower. When we look deeply within ourselves we see the cosmos as a path, structured in time, unfolding through time until the possibilities of this present moment are ready (till everything from which we come is here). RICHARD: What happens to the imagined ‘spherical universe’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist?
RESPONDENT: (snip) ... The inner world lives in universal present time, The outer world is structured progressively in past time. RICHARD: What happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? RESPONDENT: Interesting question. RICHARD: It is indeed ... so what happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist, then? RESPONDENT: What are your thoughts? RICHARD: As I understand it they are an electro-chemical activity in the neurons of the brain. * RESPONDENT: (snip) ... Perceptually we already internalised the cosmos but we still experience it primarily as duality without knowledge of underlying unities. RICHARD: What happens to the ‘underlying unities’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? RESPONDENT: Not a thing. RICHARD: Yet without ‘duality’ (as in an ‘inner world’ and an ‘outer world’ ) there is no need for ‘underlying unities’ . * RESPONDENT: A flight into image-ing. If we travel far enough in one direction, in a spherical universe, we will eventually return to our point of departure ... (snip). RICHARD: What happens to the imagined ‘spherical universe’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? RESPONDENT: Not a thing. RICHARD: Yet when imagination ceases to exist the ‘spherical universe’ similarly ceases to exist. RESPONDENT: Like every-thing (event/behaviour) the imagined spherical universe does not exists as something to which other things (events/behaviours) can happen. RICHARD: Virtually anything can happen to an ‘imagined’ universe, surely? RESPONDENT: While it is, it is. When it is not, it is not. RICHARD: Hmm ... this is about as useful a statement as that ‘a rose is a rose’ wisdom.
RESPONDENT: (snip) ... The inner world lives in universal present time, The outer world is structured progressively in past time. RICHARD: What happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? RESPONDENT: Interesting question. RICHARD: It is indeed ... so what happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist, then? RESPONDENT: Reading the response ‘As I understand it they (thoughts) are an electro-chemical activity in the neurons of the brain’ manifests a different perspective on the question. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you that introduced the ‘different perspective’ of thought into the question and not me ... I merely answered the query you asked (which query you asked in lieu of answering my question). Viz.:
How you conduct your communications is your business of course ... but it has had the effect of unnecessarily making complex an otherwise simple issue (as evidenced below). RESPONDENT: Would we agree that the ‘inner world’ as described in the offering would be the equivalent to electro-chemical activity in the neurons of the brain? RICHARD: Not if you are going to confine a definition of the ‘inner world’ to thought alone ... the inner world is, primarily, affective in origin (propagated by a rudimentary animal ‘self’ born of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, located in the brain-stem at the top of the spinal cord). Thought merely aids and abets by putting the intuitive ‘inner world’ into word pictures. RESPONDENT: In other words, universal present time (the collapse of a unified and ceaselessly changing historical timeline <behaviour> into a isolated things/events that persist in ‘present time’) is the result of brain process? RICHARD: What ‘unified and ceaselessly changing historical timeline <behaviour>’ are you referring to? Without duality there is nothing to be ‘unified’ . RESPONDENT: Perhaps the following example might aid the discussion. One might have a favourite ‘football team’. One may root for the team, hold the team dear, buy the assorted icons and emblems of the particular team. It has been observed that this admiration of the ‘team’ may be sustained over a period of years, sometimes from childhood through adulthood. Ask ‘what is your favourite team?’ and the response will be ‘X-team’. The same question might be asked two football seasons later, and the response will be ‘X-team’. Over the interceding 2 football seasons, the entire personnel of ‘X-team’ may have been replaced, X-team may have completely new uniforms, perhaps a new stadium, and certainly the plays in X-team’s playbook have been complete modified and revised. In other words, everything that was ‘X-team’ has completely changed, yet the admiration of X-team persists (this admiration being of a thing/event that persist in ‘present time’ and is probably thought to be the agent of the changes that have taken place, or at the least, the independently existing entity on to which the changes have been foisted ). Factually, there was never any unique ‘X-team’ that could change. There was no X-team that could do this or that, change or stay the same. Most accurately, the universal present time ‘isolated thing’ (X-team) is a collapse of what is actually a unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour. RICHARD: Here again, without negating any value in your analogy, you do seem to be taking as granted that there is indeed a ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’ of a sufficiently enduring facticity such as to provide a firm basis for discussion. My initial question would then need to be re-arranged as follows:
RESPONDENT: This same principle can be applied to any thing/event (nation, body, ego, soul, psyche, race, planet, universe, etc.) and the same conclusion will be produced. RICHARD: Only if your ‘unified’ principle be taken as fact ... as I have remarked, in the previous post, without ‘duality’ (as in an ‘inner world’ and an ‘outer world’ ) there is no need for ‘underlying unities’ RESPONDENT: If this collapse is to be attributed to brain process, then, it seems reasonable to surmise, when brain function stops (or when the particular brain function that results in the collapse stops), all isolated thing/events also cease to exist. RICHARD: Howsoever the question was not about what happens to ‘isolated thing/ events’ but about what happens to ‘universal present time’ upon the ‘inner world’ ceasing. Viz.:
You have introduced a ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’ in lieu (or in addition to) ‘universal present time’ ... I asked about ‘universal present time’ because the ‘inner world’ creates the ‘outer world’ ... it is an imposition, as a veneer, superimposed over the physical world of people, things and events. Perhaps if I put it this way: palaeontology evidences that this planet earth existed long before human beings ... therefore physical world time (actual time) pre-exists both your ‘inner world’ time (‘universal present time’) and your ‘outer world’ time (‘past time’ ). Here is your original statement (from the top of this page):
Hence my initial question about what happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist ... I could have as easily queried what happens to your ‘outer world’ time (‘past time’ ) when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist. Actual time exists independent of any ‘inner world’ time or ‘outer world’ time.
RESPONDENT: The inner world lives in universal present time, The outer world is structured progressively in past time. RICHARD: What happens to ‘universal present time’ when the ‘inner world’ ceases to exist? (snip) RESPONDENT: Perhaps the following example might aid the discussion. One might have a favourite ‘football team’. One may root for the team, hold the team dear, buy the assorted icons and emblems of the particular team. It has been observed that this admiration of the ‘team’ may be sustained over a period of years, sometimes from childhood through adulthood. Ask ‘what is your favourite team?’ and the response will be ‘X-team’. The same question might be asked two football seasons later, and the response will be ‘X-team’. Over the interceding 2 football seasons, the entire personnel of ‘X-team’ may have been replaced, X-team may have completely new uniforms, perhaps a new stadium, and certainly the plays in X-team’s playbook have been complete modified and revised. In other words, everything that was ‘X-team’ has completely changed, yet the admiration of X-team persists (this admiration being of a thing/event that persist in ‘present time’ and is probably thought to be the agent of the changes that have taken place, or at the least, the independently existing entity on to which the changes have been foisted ). Factually, there was never any unique ‘X-team’ that could change. There was no X-team that could do this or that, change or stay the same. Most accurately, the universal present time ‘isolated thing’ (X-team) is a collapse of what is actually a unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour. RICHARD: Here again, without negating any value in your analogy, you do seem to be taking as granted that there is indeed a ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’ of a sufficiently enduring facticity such as to provide a firm basis for discussion. RESPONDENT: Allow me to offer appreciation for the approach you have taken in pointing out the fact that the ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’ of a sufficiently enduring facticity such as to provide a firm basis for discussion is taken for granted in the offering. The ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’ is a product of intuition (a sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression) and arises from the void left when inductive reasoning eliminates the actuality of individual thing/events. As an example, in the offering ‘palaeontology evidences that this planet earth existed long before human beings’ there is supposed at least two distinct thing/events. Of interest are A. ‘human beings’ and B. ‘ this earth (before human beings)’. Both things/events are of no actual existence. There is no ‘this earth’ as a uniquely existing thing. No earth that can be the agent of change, nor the medium on to which change can be effected. There is no earth that is ‘this earth’ and now ‘this earth’. No ‘this earth’ that can be objectively pointed toward as some thing/event that exists as other than the behaviour of pointing. Human beings, likewise do not exists as agents of change, nor mediums on to which change can be effected. There are no objective human beings that can be observed to be other than the behaviour of observing, which of course, is not a uniquely existing thing/event. Neither ‘this earth’ nor ‘human beings’ exists as unique, independently existing thing/events. Either is not unlike ‘X-team’ in the originally offered allegory. There may be discussion of this earth before humans, and this earth now, however, like the non-existent X-team, there is no underlying entity ‘this earth’. Any relationship between ‘this earth’ and ‘human beings’ exists as no-thing other than the image of a relationship (electro-chemical activity in the brain?), however, some sense of a continuing movement remains even after every vestige of that which could move, or that which that could be moved is recognized as non-existent. There is a sense of being with no assumption that there is a ‘that’ which is being. It is that sense represented by the terms ‘unified and ceaselessly changing behaviour’. RICHARD: It must be a fascinating experience for you, writing to various people in different parts of the world in order to share your experience, if there are no human beings ... nor any planet earth for them to live on either.
RICHARD: It must be a fascinating experience for you, writing to various people in different parts of the world in order to share your experience, if there are no human beings ... nor any planet earth for them to live on either. RESPONDENT: There is appreciation for the fantasy, however, there is no thought what so ever given to sharing ‘my’ experience. I am what I am doing, that is all. Writing this post is experience – not the sharing of an experience. Reading of this post is experience – not the sharing of an experience. RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my comment so as to be in accord with what you have to say about yourself: It must be a fascinating experience for you, writing to various people in different parts of the world, if there are no human beings ... nor any planet earth for them to live on either.
RESPONDENT No. 27: What happens if you try to ‘think how a song goes’? RICHARD: If it has words I can recall the way they go up and down the scale so as to provide a reasonable facsimile ... this is nothing like how there used to be the capacity to ‘have a tune’ in the head all those years ago (whereupon a snippet of a melody would often lodge and rerun itself over and again). These days consciousness is epitomised as a vast silence and/or stillness. RESPONDENT: If I may please, there is memory of having a tune in the head but the capacity to have a tune in the head is disabled? RICHARD: No, the capacity of having a tune in the head is extinguished, extinct – not merely ‘disabled’ – but the memory faculty is working quite well ... sufficiently well enough to recall that many years ago a snippet of a melody would often lodge and rerun itself over and again. These days consciousness is epitomised as a vast silence and/or stillness. * RESPONDENT No. 27: Do you have to hum or sing it to remember? RICHARD: Yes, though I rarely sing as I have a flat singing voice (music has never been my forté). RESPONDENT: If I may please, how is it known you have a flat singing voice? RICHARD: By listening to it ... and other people also listening to it have corroborated that it is indeed flat (to the point of being rather atonal). RESPONDENT: Would it not be impossible to evaluate music when the ability to hold a tune in the head is disabled? RICHARD: Not at all ... musical appreciation is not dependant upon having the capacity to hold a tune in the head any more than the appreciation of the fine arts is similarly not dependant upon having the capacity to form mental images or pictures in the head. * RESPONDENT No. 27: You talk about thoughts you have, are they ever ‘said’ or ‘pronounced’ in your head? RICHARD: I can think of a particular word or a series of words – if memorising a phrase or verse – as in a silent pronouncing (if that is what you mean). RESPONDENT: If I may please, would it be that the capacity to remember a particular conversation is disabled? RICHARD: No, memory is working quite well ... much better, in fact, now that it no longer gets side-tracked by imagination. RESPONDENT: It is offered that a series of words can be memorized, but in what matter is the silent pronouncing recalled? RICHARD: The silent pronouncing only happens if I think of a particular word or a series of words – as in memorising a phrase or verse – and once it is memorised there is no need to silently pronounce it ... the word or words come forth automatically out of the vast stillness and/or silence already mentioned (further above). * RESPONDENT No. 27: Normally, I automatically say each word as I type it. If I understand correctly – that is not happening for you. Right? RICHARD: When I start a sentence I have no means of knowing in advance what will transpire, let alone how it will end. All I need to know is the topic and the subject matter unfolds of its own accord. I do have a reliable and repeatable format and style, which has developed over the years, so it is not an ad hoc or chaotic meandering. It is all very easy. RESPONDENT: If I may please, would it be that the unfolding of the subject matter would be infallible? RICHARD: No ... I make no claims of infallibility. RESPONDENT: Is it possible for a mistake to arise in the unfolding of the subject matter? RICHARD: Yes, though it is far less likely now that it no longer gets side-tracked by imagination. RESPONDENT: If so, to what in the process could the error be attributed? RICHARD: In a word: fallibility. * RESPONDENT No. 27: Also, in your Journal you give fairly vivid descriptions of what the sky looked like on a particular day, what the breeze was like. It’s amazing to me that can be done without imagination. It seems like I have to pull up a visual image of a memory to describe it ‘properly’. RICHARD: Apparently most people do. RESPONDENT: If I may please, would it be that in describing the sky on a particular day there is no image of what is being described? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... the capacity to form mental images or pictures in the mind is extinguished, extinct. RESPONDENT: Would it be that the description unfolds of itself without any indication of whether or not it corresponds to an actual experience? RICHARD: Not at all ... the actual experience indicates whether the descriptive prose is in accord with the fact or not. RESPONDENT: Or to sight a specific example, when it is written: [Richard]: ‘I am wandering the aisles of a busy supermarket located near the centre of town. It is always a joy to come shopping, so prolific is the supply of food available to all and sundry, at a reasonable cost. The shelves are stacked, from end to end, with a staggering array of viands from everywhere throughout the country ... indeed, from all over the world. Food-stuffs are virtually tumbling into my basket, so loaded are the shelves, and I am extremely happy to be here ...’ [endquote] how is the description personally verified with the capacity to recall ‘wandering the aisles of a busy supermarket’ or ‘the shelves (being) stacked, from end to end, with a staggering array of viands from everywhere ...’ disabled? RICHARD: But I never said that ‘the capacity to recall’ is disabled ... memory is working quite well now that it no longer gets side-tracked by imagination (the extinction of which is what this thread is about in case you have not noticed). It is all very simple here in this actual world ... the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. And imagination keeps one away from, or oblivious to, the actual. To a person in either the real world or the spiritual world the actual world is unimaginable, inconceivable, unbelievable and incomprehensible ... it has to be experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) to be known in all its purity and perfection. Or, to put it another way, the already existing peace-on-earth is always just here right now for the living of it.
RESPONDENT No. 02: You misconstrue actualism if you talk of it as a ‘worldview’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, but that is untrue. RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is indeed true. RESPONDENT: After several years of correspondences with actualists, discussions with self-proclaimed experts in actualism, practicing the exercises prescribed by actualism and studying the website claimed to represent actualism either of the following definition of ‘worldview’ can be honestly applied to actualism: 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. RICHARD: There must be something awry with your ‘practicing’ because if you look even casually through the correspondences and the website in general you will see that the definitions you have numbered 1 and 2 are your definitions, presumably derived from your worldview called actualism, and do not reflect the reports of the actualists you mention. Rather the descriptions would be written the following way (if you are genuine about the points 1 and 2 being ‘honestly applied to actualism’ that is):
Basically you have invented something which does not exist and then criticised your own invention as if you were criticising the actualism which is presented on The Actual Freedom Web Page. RESPONDENT: An example may assist? Actualism – the theory that nothing is merely passive. RICHARD: Interestingly enough you have taken the Oxford dictionary definition of actualism and somehow or other have convinced yourself that it is a proof that the actualism which is presented on The Actual Freedom Web Page is indeed a ‘worldview’ ... here is the way I have oft-times redefined the dictionary definition in question:
The Oxford definition was something I came across when perusing the dictionary one day ... I was well aware, when I went first went public with my experience and understanding, that it would be categorised, judged and labelled anyway (before then I had not named it anything at all). I recall that I discussed the matter with Peter at the time, explaining why I saw the need to pre-empt the freely living of life, in the already always existing peace-on-earth, becoming known, for example, as ‘Richardism’ ... and to obviate anyone who became interested in enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent becoming known, for example, as ‘Richardists’. The word ‘actualism’ is right up there alongside ‘materialism’ and ‘spiritualism’ ... it is a generic word. This is because the already always existing peace-on-earth has nothing to do with me ... I only happened to discover it. RESPONDENT: ... one needs no ‘worldview’ or ‘limiting principals’ when one sees that the universe is perfectly capable of operating without ‘me’ getting in the way. RICHARD: Yet in this comment you are more or less restating the whole point of actualism as if it were a discovery which you have arrived at and actualists have not ... which is: when ‘me’ at the core of ‘my being (which is ‘being’ itself) is no longer extant there is the direct experience that the universe has been eminently capable of operating perfectly well by itself all along. When there is no identity whatsoever lurking about (which identity includes the identity known as GOD) there is the on-going awareness that one is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive flesh and blood body ... as such this universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude. Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT No. 02: You misconstrue actualism if you talk of it as a ‘worldview’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, but that is untrue. RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is indeed true. RESPONDENT: Despite either the dishonest or delusional denial the fact remains that either of the definition’s below aptly fit actualism: 1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. Further, there needs to be no investigation for evidence of the fact beyond the very post that denies it. Perhaps an example will assist? [Richard]: ‘The direct experience of the actuality of people, things and events ...’ [endquote] without question arises from the perspective that people, things and events exist to be experienced ... RICHARD: Speaking of ‘dishonest or delusional’ ... it must be a fascinating experience for you, writing to various people in different parts of the world, if there are no human beings nor any planet earth for them to live on either (aka people, things and events).
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 |
