|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: Richard, have you given any thought that your past state (enlightenment) and present state might have been caused by what is known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) or any other affection of the Temporal Lobe? (snip). (...) RICHARD: [The ... information you posted ... is in no way showing that I am suffering from TLE or any other temporal lobe disorder] whereas the passage I quoted shows that I am, and have been for many a year, well aware of TLE ... do you really think I would not have considered such a thing before this exchange? RESPONDENT: So did your psychiatrist at the time? RICHARD: There were no psychiatrists (or a psychologist for that matter) ‘at the time’ ... the following is from the passage being discussed (above):
The psychiatric assessment (and the psychological monitoring) occurred 13-14 years later. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I meant ‘at the time’ of the consultation(s) not at the time of your experiences. RICHARD: The title you gave to this thread is ‘Jamais Vu’ – and not ‘Temporal Lobe Epilepsy’ (TLE) – thus I could only presume you had made a (tenuous) connection between the fact I had provided, in a re-post of a passage of mine five days previous to you posting your initial e-mail, the name ‘jamais vu experiences’ (amidst the names ‘‘Technicolor Land’ experiences’, ‘nature experiences’, ‘peak experiences’, and ‘aesthetic experiences’) as being descriptive of the same/similar experience as what the moments of perfection I nowadays describe as ‘pure consciousness experiences’ (PCE’s) are and had, as a consequence, asked me whether I had given any thought to having been both spiritually enlightened/mystically awakened for eleven years, and being currently actually free from the human condition for twelve years, as the result of temporal lobe epilepsy or any other affliction of the temporal lobe for no other reason than the fact that some of the peoples who have jamais vu experiences are suffering from TLE. Amnesiacs, for instance, are another grouping which tend to have jamais vu experiences. So I provided a passage of mine which showed that it was in 1980-81 when I was describing such moments of perfection as ‘jamais
vu experiences’ and made the observation that this, plus the detailed reference therein to TLE (amongst references to acute psychotic diagnoses
such as ‘depersonalisation’, ‘alexithymia’, ‘derealisation’, ‘anhedonia’ Now you inform me you meant at the time of the consultations (1994-97) – and not at the time when I was describing such moments of perfection as ‘jamais vu experiences’ (1980-81) – as if there were/was some other time, than at the time of consultation, which the psychiatrists in question might have/could have considered it and, presumably, got in touch with me in these latter years (1997-2004) to inform me of their considerations. Bearing in mind that you have just recently expressed reservations about one of those psychiatrist’s expertise * RICHARD: Although, in light of the following, why you would ask such a question anyway has got me beat:
And:
The following one, coming as it does from the very-same post as your ‘I repeat ...’ admonition
RESPONDENT: TLE or any other temporal lobe affection not being included in DSM IV, they have missed taking into account a possible cause for your condition. RICHARD: Golly ... psychiatrists (and psychologists for that matter) can, and do, have a mind of their own ... they are not necessarily ruled by a manual which is not at all scientific in its formulation (specific mental disorders get included/excluded from that manual by the vote of a select group). RESPONDENT: Is it clear now? RICHARD: It is about as clear as mud ... do you think there is some kind of demarcation dispute, as it were, between the psychiatric profession and the neurological profession (so much so that I ought to hot-foot it to a neurologist on the basis of your amateur diagnosis)? RESPONDENT: Why were you taking that drug (psylocibin) for? RICHARD: I was not ‘taking’ psylocibin ... I (mistakenly) took it on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar in effect to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger). For your information: having personal acquaintance with a person who has suffered from epilepsy all their adult life I was sufficiently well-enough informed about such neurological conditions before both 1980-81 and 1994-97 to make my own appraisal ... even so it was a possibility I raised with the psychiatrist whose expertise you questioned in that other thread and had extensive and free-ranging discussions about same (just as I canvassed many other possibilities with them and they with me). All-in-all it was a most informative and productive association for the entire three-year period ... for example, I subscribed to an on-line university-based ‘Consciousness Studies’ forum at their suggestion after they had initiated discussion into matters pertaining to consciousness in general and pure consciousness events (aka altered states of consciousness) in particular. They were most bemused that various professors, and the ilk, on that forum were of the opinion that consciousness per se did not exist.
RICHARD: ... whatever date it is that archaeologists/palaeontologists/scholars may come up with, as being the earliest emergence of hominids/hominoids, then that is the date I would estimate the human animal being first capable of having a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: What’s the differentiating factor than, if not intelligence, between the early hominids and let’s say a wolf or a giraffe in terms of actualizing a PCE? RICHARD: I am none too sure there is any differentiating factor – the primary factor for pure consciousness experiencing (direct sensate experiencing) is sentience – and as they are feeling beings I see no reason why a wolf or a giraffe cannot have a PCE. * RICHARD: ... the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! RESPONDENT: Yes, I see your point as I remember instances of original comedy in my life, although in the real-world where I currently reside, it’s a serious and sometimes deadly business, mainly because people take themselves so seriously (survival takes precedent over enjoying). RICHARD: And therein lies the nub of the issue (in the real-world life is indeed a serious and sometimes deadly business). RESPONDENT: When the potential for freedom is actualized, there’s no need to build another freedom site or to write a book dedicated to the same subject as it is extensively covered, all the while considering myself a factualist instead of an actualist with all the branding and neo- prefixes. I can simply disappear over the horizon if I so wish when ‘The Game’ is over. RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report, by whatever means, of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings. In other words, if for no other reason than simply because of the inherent character of fellowship regard, here in this actual world, were you not to share your experiencing of what life is in actuality – that is, kept it to yourself, for yourself, whilst all about misery and mayhem rages unabated (plus all the branding and neo-prefixing for that matter) – then it would not be an actual freedom from the human condition. Feeling beings do not have a corner on caring. RESPONDENT: I wonder how all these astronauts, who have seen the Earth from space, haven’t seen the folly of the humans below or if they have seen it why didn’t they say loud and clear what stupidity is played down here everyday. RICHARD: Presuming that you are assuming some of them have a PCE – because of the sheer impact of seeing this azure and verdant planet from such a privileged vantage point perchance – then basically you are asking why anyone who is having a PCE is not saying, loud and clear, why all the misery and mayhem being played-out all around the globe is unnecessary. Speaking personally, that is the very thing I would say, all those years ago whenever the ‘I’ who was inhabiting this body went into abeyance, and anybody I have been with since then, whilst they were having a PCE, has expressed variations on the same theme. RESPONDENT: How can they re-become so easily ‘normal’ with only a whisper about their experience? RICHARD: For the same reason why an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history ... the persistence, and thus dominance, of identity.
RESPONDENT: I’ve had basically two questions in regard to a possible neurological condition for your current state. 1. Were the psychiatrists aware of the possibility of TLE or any other Temporal lobe affection ... RICHARD: You do have a strange way of putting such a question, then, as this is what you actually wrote:
In other words what you asked was if I were aware of the possibility of TLE or any other temporal lobe affliction, not if the psychiatrists were, and then specifically stated that the psychiatrists did not have all the necessary tools to make such a diagnosis as TLE is not included in the DSM-IV ... a statement you repeated in your next e-mail:
Yet a simple search shows that the DSM-IV, under the heading ‘Personality Change Due to a General Medical Condition’ and the coding note 310.1, has the following words:
RESPONDENT: ... [1. Were the psychiatrists aware of the possibility of TLE or any other Temporal lobe affection] and whether or not you have discussed the matter? I understand a ‘yes’ from your below response. RICHARD: I presume you are referring to this:
RESPONDENT: 2. Have you had/have they recommended a brain scan? RICHARD: Before advocating specialist tests of any description a psychiatrist (who, unlike a psychologist, is a duly qualified medical doctor) has to first make their diagnosis from the symptoms and signs being presented in order to warrant such a course of action ... and to recommend a (as yet undesignated) ‘brain scan’ to test for the organic basis – the neurological cause – of TLE, or any other temporal lobe affliction, there does need to be evidence symptomatic of such afflictions so as to reasonably make such a diagnosis. Perhaps if I were to spell it out in no uncertain terms you may finally desist with this beat-up Indeed, the DSM-III-R, which was replaced by the DSM-IV in 1994, the very year I first consulted the psychiatrist in question, specifically used the term ‘Organic Medical Disorders’ for those ailments (whereas both the DSM-IV and the current manual, DSM-IV-TR, use the phrase already mentioned ‘Due To A General Medical Condition’).
RESPONDENT: (...) in the real-world where I currently reside, it’s a serious and sometimes deadly business, mainly because people take themselves so seriously (survival takes precedent over enjoying). RICHARD: And therein lies the nub of the issue (in the real-world life is indeed a serious and sometimes deadly business). RESPONDENT: When the potential for freedom is actualized, there’s no need to build another freedom site or to write a book dedicated to the same subject as it is extensively covered, all the while considering myself a factualist instead of an actualist with all the branding and neo- prefixes. I can simply disappear over the horizon if I so wish when ‘The Game’ is over. RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report, by whatever means, of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings. In other words, if for no other reason than simply because of the inherent character of fellowship regard, here in this actual world, were you not to share your experiencing of what life is in actuality – that is, kept it to yourself, for yourself, whilst all about misery and mayhem rages unabated (plus all the branding and neo-prefixing for that matter) – then it would not be an actual freedom from the human condition. Feeling beings do not have a corner on caring. RESPONDENT: Okay, ‘I’ know that. RICHARD: It would appear that ‘your’ knowing of that – that feeling beings do not have a corner on caring – is but a theoretical knowing as, despite observing that life in the real-world, where ‘you’ reside, is a serious and sometimes deadly business ‘you’ are more than ready to have that flesh and blood body ‘you’ currently inhabit go fishing in a lagoon (further below), under the guise of such an activity being altruistic, upon ‘your’ demise. Might I suggest it is ‘you’ who wants to simply disappear over the horizon? RESPONDENT: I was wondering if there will be any need for the 9th factualist to write a report about the actual freedom experience. RICHARD: Given that a ‘factualist’ seems to be a person who conveniently overlooks/ignores the plight of their fellow human beings, who are similarly living a [quote] ‘serious and sometimes deadly’ [endquote] life, then none whatsoever. RESPONDENT: What use will be for a report if it describes the same experience? RICHARD: If nothing else it will provide a contrast to the report of an actualist ... a discerning listener would be able to choose, then, which label describes an experient actually comprehending actuality and which label describes a theoretical understander of what such a comprehension might be like. RESPONDENT: Can’t he simply choose to altruistically catch fish in a lagoon? RICHARD: I see that I provided the following information to you last February:
Put simply: there is an over-arching benignity and benevolence here in this actual world which makes altruism look like a mere bagatelle in comparison – although there is no comparison, actually, as altruism has no existence here – and an actual intimacy wherein it is an ‘of course’ one freely shares one’s experience by whatever means. An actual intimacy is where there is no separation whatsoever ... and where there is this absence of segregation it is as if one is talking to oneself.
RESPONDENT: I’ve had basically two questions in regard to a possible neurological condition for your current state. 1. Were the psychiatrists aware of the possibility of TLE or any other Temporal lobe affection ... RICHARD: You do have a strange way of putting such a question, then, as this is what you actually wrote: (snip). RESPONDENT: (...) 2. Have you had/have they recommended a brain scan? RICHARD: Before advocating specialist tests of any description a psychiatrist (who, unlike a psychologist, is a duly qualified medical doctor) has to first make their diagnosis from the symptoms and signs being presented in order to warrant such a course of action ... and to recommend a (as yet undesignated) ‘brain scan’ to test for the organic basis – the neurological cause – of TLE, or any other temporal lobe affliction, there does need to be evidence symptomatic of such afflictions so as to reasonably make such a diagnosis. Perhaps if I were to spell it out in no uncertain terms you may finally desist with this beat-up: I have never had, nor am I currently having, any epileptic seizures/auras of any description (...) Apart from the fact that a simple search shows the DSM-IV does indeed refer to Temporal Lobe Epilepsy mystical experiences are not the inevitable and/or only outcome of TLE auras ... according to a source you initially quoted they are rarer than four percent of the cases. Viz.: (snip). RESPONDENT: I see your point, I guess I was carried out by the wave. In retrospect ... I saw myself quietly ignoring/dismissing the data pointing to the contrary, but that’s probably the case when emotions get involved and set on a course to prove something ... RICHARD: Aye ... it is known as ‘cherry-picking the data’ in the lingo. RESPONDENT: ... even though with the justification/g-rationalization of playing the ‘devil’s advocate’. RICHARD: Yet is the ‘Advocatus Diaboli’ (a role adopted by the promoter of the faith in the Roman Catholic Church who critically examines the life of and miracles attributed to an individual proposed for beatification or canonisation and who presents all the facts including everything unfavourable to the candidate) a person set on a course of proving something? Is it not beholden upon them to examine all the data impartially so as to be able to conduct an open investigation, in the manner of a magistrate or scientist, inasmuch as the facts then speak for themselves? Never mind that such impartiality is, quite possibly, observed more in the breach than in practice in real-life ... I am talking of a person sincerely examining such data. * RESPONDENT: Apart from the above, I am amazed that your current state is permanent and unchangeable. RICHARD: Besides immediately knowing via direct apprehension, that this condition is both irrevocable and immutable, more than twelve years have elapsed, now, with nary a whiff of a hint of a even a trace of a suggestion it could or would ever be or have been otherwise ... and I have been most relentless in my examination of myself. After all, I am going public with an outstanding, and outrageous, report that could – and should – set the squalid complacency of the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical communities on their ears ... and after eleven years in the enlightened/awakened state I was determined to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before doing so. Five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not just beyond reasonable doubt – that this is that which is the answer to all the ills of humankind ... and I started publishing my experience. RESPONDENT: When you had those fleeting feelings of the ‘Great Beyond’ while enlightened, was the ‘I’ still present? RICHARD: Yes, specifically the aggrandised ‘Me’ as ‘Being Itself’ ... hence the capitalised nomenclature ‘Great Beyond’ (synonymous with the Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ and the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) at the time. RESPONDENT: Why is it that the final stage in ‘the process’ of (even partial) self-immolation happens in just a matter of seconds (approx. 10-15)? RICHARD: It is instantaneous, actually, and the 10-15 seconds refers more to the after-peak, so to speak, in a way somewhat analogous to an orgasm. RESPONDENT: I’ve read your report to Alan about (the way a PCE devolves into) an ASC, with all the why’s and how’s and it perfectly matches/explains my own past ASC, including the duration. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: There are moments when it is oh-so-easy to live, I’m simply here without any effort. Then, the only thing worthy of the name doing, is to enjoy whatever happens, in a word ... life. I guess it’s one of the reasons why no-one has shouted ‘loud and clear’ as this simple awareness seems obvious to everybody. RICHARD: Ahh ... apperceptive awareness is something else – a PCE is an out-of-the-(real)-world experience – wherein simple awareness is extraordinarily ordinary, as in being apperceptively conscious, and where all is magically pristine and perfect, sparklingly effervescent, brilliantly vibrant ... and with coruscating thoughts (if any) which are a delight to utter out loud and enjoy/appreciate in all their effortless clarity and purity. In a word: clean.
RICHARD: (...) Feeling beings do not have a corner on caring. RESPONDENT: Okay, ‘I’ know that. RICHARD: It would appear that ‘your’ knowing of that – that feeling beings do not have a corner on caring – is but a theoretical knowing as, despite observing that life in the real-world, where ‘you’ reside, is a serious and sometimes deadly business ‘you’ are more than ready to have that flesh and blood body ‘you’ currently inhabit go fishing in a lagoon (further below), under the guise of such an activity being altruistic, upon ‘your’ demise. Might I suggest it is ‘you’ who wants to simply disappear over the horizon? RESPONDENT: Ha ... I was trying to understand why the 110th actualist will publish a report ... RICHARD: Whereas I was speaking of sharing one’s experience by any means ... both further above (now snipped) and further below (not snipped). RESPONDENT: ... about (his way to) an actual freedom from the human condition (the maze) if he has nothing new to say. RICHARD: If he or she has nothing new to say then it would not be his or her way, now, would it? RESPONDENT: An exercise in creativity then? RICHARD: No ... it is an ‘of course’ action of the benignity and benevolence of this actual world and its actual intimacy. Here (from further below):
RESPONDENT: As it is a DIY method (haietmoba?) and actualism is concerned with experiential, not intellectual (a side product) or affective results, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. RICHARD: Hmm ... like it or not human beings *are* interested in and influenced by what others are doing/how others are living and, again like it or not, the snow-ball effect *is* a most efficacious means of ensuring maximisation of result with a concomitant minimisation of delay. Another person’s suffering, even for a moment more than need be, is one person too many and one moment too long. RESPONDENT: Not to mention the post-traumatic issue for me in regard to ‘spreading the word’ even as a chain letter. RICHARD: What could possibly be traumatic about the ‘doubling effect’ wherein all one person needs to do is pass (whatever) on to two other persons in such a manner that, they too, will each pass on the same, in a like manner, to two more each ... and so on, and so on? With but twenty-one transactions the same (whatever) has been passed on, provided there be no break in the chain, to over a million people. RESPONDENT: I can understand what caring means, but it can take many other forms (like sexual intimacy or any other activities involving this body in relation to other bodies). In other words, caring becomes a fact of everyday life and everyday interactions with people, directly caused by intimacy (no separation). RICHARD: In the context under discussion caring means remembering/observing that life in the real-world is [quote] ‘a serious and sometimes deadly business’ [endquote] ... and, if nothing else will get you off your backside, then what about the need for locks on your doors/bars on your windows, and judges, gaols, juries, and an army, a navy, an air force, a coast-guard, and a police force, security guards, watch dogs, and banks, vaults, passwords, and so forth, to wake you up to the fact that, no matter how free you may be, others are not? RESPONDENT: ‘The lagoon’ was an allusion to your intention of watching fish leap in a lagoon somewhere around 2007, and that statement of yours was interpreted by me as meaning there’s no compulsion extant in you. RICHARD: There is no compulsion whatsoever – all sharing is a freely made facilitation with no strings attached at all – and the following is the only occasion the date 2007 appears in all I have ever written:
The reason for that date (2007) was entirely prosaic: I am paying-off my ready-made retreat – which might best be described, somewhat simplistically, as a two-roomed cabin (or three if a closet-size bathroom will qualify as a room) with a full-length sundeck and a small front veranda – and the final payment is not until that year. I can, of course, make the lifestyle move at any time at all (and thus pay it off more quickly) ... here are the references to watching the fish leap in the lagoon:
* RESPONDENT: I was wondering if there will be any need for the 9th factualist to write a report about the actual freedom experience. RICHARD: Given that a ‘factualist’ seems to be a person who conveniently overlooks/ignores the plight of their fellow human beings, who are similarly living a [quote] ‘serious and sometimes deadly’ [endquote] life, then none whatsoever. RESPONDENT: What use will be for a report if it describes the same experience? RICHARD: If nothing else it will provide a contrast to the report of an actualist ... a discerning listener would be able to choose, then, which label describes an experient actually comprehending actuality and which label describes a theoretical understander of what such a comprehension might be like. RESPONDENT: This understanding of mine about actualism (the facts of life) is partially theoretical and partially experiential. RICHARD: It would appear (in view of the above) that the theoretical part is dominating, if not obliterating, the experiential part. RESPONDENT: It is partly so as I haven’t had the opportunity (I remember no instance) of verifying by direct experience (PCE) all the aforementioned facts (the actual world). RICHARD: In which case the theoretical part is actually a 100% whole. RESPONDENT: This does not mean that I don’t possess a discerning mind which can make a difference between, let’s say, imaginatia vera and facts. RICHARD: Aye, I am not bagging a theoretical understanding – far from it – else I would not be writing these explanatory-type e-mails. RESPONDENT: For example, I know that I like movies because my own affective image projection faculty temporarily ceases to function transferring me into another reality (and as a consequence it’s a temporary relief from the burden of the normal ‘me’). Is this theoretical or practical comprehension? RICHARD: The transportation of ‘me’ into another realm – symphony concerts, for example, can do the same – has nothing to do with what is under discussion. * RESPONDENT: Can’t he [the 9th factualist] simply choose to altruistically catch fish in a lagoon? RICHARD: I see that I provided the following information to you last February:
Put simply: there is an over-arching benignity and benevolence here in this actual world which makes altruism look like a mere bagatelle in comparison – although there is no comparison, actually, as altruism has no existence here – and an actual intimacy wherein it is an ‘of course’ one freely shares one’s experience by whatever means. An actual intimacy is where there is no separation whatsoever ... and where there is this absence of segregation it is as if one is talking to oneself. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I can’t clearly see the difference between identification and intimacy. RICHARD: I did say ‘as if’ ... one is not, of course, actually talking to oneself. RESPONDENT: Altruism has to be a genuine impulse coming from being, not a theoretical construct or a charade (sounds like a good idea to a momentarily bored person). And my hint is that it’s activated in life situations where being gets involved, like rescuing a child from a fire. RICHARD: The example I like to give is that of a bumble bee: when it stings, to protect the hive, it dies ... and that is altruism, in its biological/zoological sense, pure and simple. RESPONDENT: By the way, how would you react in a situation like that ... RICHARD: In a word: intelligently. RESPONDENT: ... [how would you react in a situation like that] even when definitely knowing that it will cost your life to save the child’s life? RICHARD: To lose a life to save a life is not intelligent. RESPONDENT: In my view, altruism is (more often than not) selfism in disguise, becoming ‘a self-defeating argument’. RICHARD: I am aware that, to more than a few, the word altruism has come to mean unselfish/selfless ... thus I stress that the word is being used in its biological/zoological sense. RESPONDENT: Can you provide an example of a pure conscious altruistic action without any loss/gain for the one involved? RICHARD: As there is no altruism here in this actual world there is no such thing as a ‘pure conscious altruistic action’ ... any action which has the appearance of being altruistic, in its unselfish/selfless (virtuous) sense, stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species – and is actually selfless in the literal meaning of the word (as in ‘self’-less), as a matter of course, and not virtuously. A virtuous ‘self’ – an unselfish ‘self’ – is still a ‘self’ nevertheless. RESPONDENT: In Peter’s example (the death of his son and his ‘why not me?’) I would not call that altruism, but nurture. RICHARD: As altruism is epitomised by the parental instinct to fight to the death to protect progeny – and, by extension, to defend family-tribe-clan in general – it has more than just a passing similarity to nurture anyway ... altruism is not divorced from the instinctual passions. Other instinctual impulses also come into play ... territoriality and gregariousness (the herd instinct RESPONDENT: It’s better for me to die than to suffer the loss of my child (same with the loss of my past lover). RICHARD: What does the avoidance of grief have to do with nurture? RESPONDENT: The argument being that if it was the neighbour’s son such reaction would not and could not have happened. RICHARD: Ah, I gain an inkling, now, as to why you said you cannot clearly see the difference between identification and intimacy. Just for starters ... bonding is not the intimacy I was speaking of.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I was sitting in my armchair today and thinking ... RICHARD: Ha ... a nice touch, No 25, a nice touch indeed. RESPONDENT: ... about ‘native intelligence’ as the principal motive and driving force why a virtual and an actual freedom from the Humane Condition are possible for each and every individual ... and which can eventuate, in the long run, global peace on Earth. RICHARD: The nearest approximation to ‘native intelligence’, in the real-world, is what the word ‘commonsense’ refers to. RESPONDENT: More to the point, I was thinking that some humans are simply ‘natively stupid’ (not sure if only because they are crippled by the instinctual passions) ... RICHARD: I personally prefer the term ‘stupefied’ as it is less pejorative and more informative. For instance:
RESPONDENT: I’ve met quite a few of them and some even pride themselves with it. RICHARD: Not only was I informed of something similar to this only recently but others, in face-to-face interactions, have verified that it is a quite common enough experience for it to be considered near-universal. RESPONDENT: Stupidly seems to be the lowest common denominator for the human race and not intelligence. Just curious, have you taken this into account? RICHARD: I have, as already indicated, taken stupefaction (and stultification) into account and adjust my expectations
accordingly each interaction again ... with religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, however, my expectation-meter is
automatically pre-set to zero because of their not-knowing principle
RESPONDENT: (...) But the thing is that infinity cannot evolve/ improve and that’s why I’m sticking with this actual-list thing (more the actual than the list). Richard’s experience of life and my clouded glimpses of it, is superior to that of any dead or alive human ... not sure about all would-be humans. Hey Richard, if you state that as a fact or at least as an educated guess, you’ll become more than outrageous ... I’ll invent a new word to describe your claim: orgioutrageous. RICHARD: As the word ‘outrageous’ has the connotations of extraordinary, extreme, extravagant, and so on, and as
your ‘orgi-’ prefix bespeaks of an intemperance characterised by or of the nature of excessive indulgence, it would appear that you do not
fully grasp what a truly wonderful thing it is that infinitude Both evolution and improvement are purely local events.
RESPONDENT: (...) But the thing is that infinity cannot evolve/improve and that’s why I’m sticking with this actual-list thing (more the actual than the list). Richard’s experience of life and my clouded glimpses of it, is superior to that of any dead or alive human ... not sure about all would-be humans. Hey Richard, if you state that as a fact or at least as an educated guess, you’ll become more than outrageous ... I’ll invent a new word to describe your claim: orgioutrageous. RICHARD: As the word ‘outrageous’ has the connotations of extraordinary, extreme, extravagant, and so on, and as your ‘orgi-’ prefix bespeaks of an intemperance characterised by or of the nature of excessive indulgence, it would appear that you do not fully grasp what a truly wonderful thing it is that infinitude is not subject to evolution or that perfection has no better. Both evolution and improvement are purely local events. RESPONDENT: Infinitude and perfection ... intrinsic characteristics of the universe. RICHARD: This universe, having the properties of being infinite and eternal, has no opposite ... hence the quality of perfection (no comparison). RESPONDENT: There’s no evolution for infinitude ... RICHARD: Aye ... a boundless expanse/an unlimited time is not subject to growth, development, progression. RESPONDENT: ... [there’s no evolution for infinitude], but continuous transformation (matter-energy) ... RICHARD: No, the perdurable matter of this boundless expanse/unlimited time can be either in its mass phase or energy phase ... the radiant energy (heat/light) of the nearest star to this planet transforms into mass (woody material) in the process of impingement upon the chlorophyll-impregnated leaves of a tree, for instance, and that woody material (aka stored energy) transforms into heat/light (aka released energy) upon ignition. The consumption of edible material (food), for another example, transforms mass into (calorific) energy ... in the form of (bodily) heat and (muscular) power. RESPONDENT: ... [but continuous transformation (matter-energy)] and propensity to evolve to the best possible ... RICHARD: I presume you are referring to a passage such as this:
RESPONDENT: ... [and propensity to evolve to the best possible] ... locally? RICHARD: No ... the perdurable matter of this boundless expanse/unlimited time has a built-in propensity for the best form to emerge anywhere and everywhere (as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain). Thus, your sentence would now look something like this:
Put succinctly: matter itself, the very stuff of the universe, does not change, transmute, metamorphose or grow, develop, progress (or any other word of that ilk) ... it is the form, the shape or configuration, it takes which does. RESPONDENT: The universe, being infinite and perfect, still aims for betterment ... RICHARD: No ... the perfection of infinitude, being incomparable, has no better. RESPONDENT: ... [The universe, being infinite and perfect, still aims for betterment] but not on the scale of infinitude, yet everywhere locally. But everywhere locally means infinitude. This just does not make sense, a perfect and infinite universe trying to improve itself and thus evolve on a purely local level ... which in fact is universal level. RICHARD: As I never said that the perpetuum mobilis, which this infinite and eternal and perdurable universe is, is ‘trying to improve itself’ or ‘and thus evolve’ it is what you are proposing/inferring which just does not make sense. RESPONDENT: How local is local according to you? RICHARD: In this instance I was referring to planet earth ... in accord with your choice of subject matter (the form known as human beings be they now dead, currently alive, or yet to be born). Viz.:
As there is no mass-energy in the form of human beings elsewhere in the universe (as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain) that is quite local indeed. Meanwhile, back to the subject to hand: do you now see why it need not be so extraordinary, extreme, extravagant, and so on, as to require a new word, that bespeaks of an intemperance characterised by or of the nature of excessive indulgence, were Richard to opine, as an informed hypothesis, that the on-going experience of being actually free from the human condition is superior to that of any human being within the human condition be they now dead, currently alive, or yet to be born? Here is a clue: to have reached the zenith, so to speak, in a universe where matter is not merely passive (inert), does not in any way, shape or form, imply stagnation.
RESPONDENT: Richard, in what way is the ‘sagacity’ of a PCE different than the ‘wisdom’ of God (ASC) or to the ordinary, intermediated ‘understanding’ of the Normal CE? RICHARD: Discernment is unmediated (and therefore perspicuous). RESPONDENT: I’ve read somewhere on your portion of the site that the PCE has some sort of in-built ... umm ... ‘ wisdom’ for lack of a better term. RICHARD: The better term would be perspicacity. RESPONDENT: Do you derive understanding/comprehension in a different way than a scientist/ enlightened/ self-realized person does? RICHARD: Yes ... perspicaciously. RESPONDENT: Also, the intelligence that operated when enlightened (much better/freed than the normal experience of it) ... RICHARD: If I may ask? In what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? What immediately leaps to mind, for instance, is normal human intelligence sussing out that the earth is neither flat nor at the centre of everything ... and yet one could search through all the scriptures, of the enlightened ones over the preceding 3,000-5,000 years, for any reference to such basic information (about the globular shape and non-geocentricity of the planet they omnipotently manifest/ create so as to take on bodily form and thus be able to screw up otherwise intelligent peoples’ lives with their solipsistic narcissism) to no avail. Further to the point: what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? And just in case the latter is not clear enough: if every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person were to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/role-model anywhere to be found. So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ RESPONDENT: ... [Also, the intelligence that operated when enlightened], was it the intelligence of the body or that of Being or was it the intelligence of the body yet operating with/subordinated to the ‘contents’/Knowledge of Being? RICHARD: The intelligence that operated when enlightened was normal intelligence (which is an intelligence crippled by both the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘being’ they form themselves into) further crippled by the passional/intuitional ‘being’ within manifesting as ‘Being’ itself ... replete with the delusion that its extraordinarily-crippled intelligence was a supreme intelligence, an all-embracing, all-knowing, all-creative sapience. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it scary in the woods at night? RICHARD: Ha ... bunyips (aboriginal bogeys), being but fabulous critters, find no habitat in this actual world.
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Ten) 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 |
