|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 25
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: That seems obvious to me from your writing. You seem to come as from another league on this mailing list in regard to discerning the facts of the matter. I guess that when the ‘inside’ clears, the ‘outside’ clarifies as well ... I can only speculate about what happens when both of these categories vanish and intelligence works directly, unmediated by any ‘thinker’/ ‘feeler’. Does that mean that what you write is always and naturally factual/ actual (as it comes directly from the experience of experiencing)? RICHARD: In regards the direct experiencing itself ... yes (bar oversights that is); in regards other matters, such as historical review, current affairs, prospective evaluation, and so forth, being matters of opinion (mostly ill-informed) ... no. * 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? RESPONDENT: The intelligence was not blocked by the many and varied neurotic ‘self’-preoccupations. RICHARD: In what way, then, is intelligence when blocked by the many and varied psychotic ‘Self’-preoccupations [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] than intelligence when blocked by the many and varied neurotic ‘self’-preoccupations? RESPONDENT: We’ve been on this road before ... RICHARD: In keeping with the ‘road’ analogy, then, here is where that discussion stalled:
By your own acknowledgement that state of [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] intelligence, lasting in all of its intensity for less than ten seconds, was like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being:
If I were a gambler, which I am not, I would bet my bottom dollar that this [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] intelligence, even though like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being, did not/could not/can not suss out that Being per se is contingent, eh? RESPONDENT: ... let’s say that the energy of thought was flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/blockages existing in this psyche which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego. RICHARD: Okay ... let us (provisionally) say that then: could/did/can the energy of thought, flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/blockages existing in that psyche, which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego, suss out that Being Itself is a contingent ‘Being’? So as to provide some background information I will refer you to the following:
* RICHARD: 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. RESPONDENT: Yes, or one can alternatively look for the reports of some direct experience of the globular shape of the Earth, or even better, a report about the infinitude of this material universe resulting from an ancient Egyptian/ Assyrian hours-long PCE and subsequently imprinted in letters/ stone/ metal/ paintings. RICHARD: As no such imprinted letters/ stone/ metal/ paintings have any known existence, in stark contrast to the billions – if not trillions – of scribed/ printed scriptural words, your alternate thesis is a non-sequitur. * RICHARD: 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? RESPONDENT: Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it? RICHARD: What is intelligent about having such a realisation and, doing nothing fundamental about it, enabling the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world via facile compliance? RESPONDENT: Or that if it were to turn the slap back, it would turn the situation into a … ummm ….war of countless slaps and thus perpetuate a vicious circle of violence? RICHARD: As all that is needed to do is point to the example of 1939-45 (where responding massively in kind not only did not perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence but resulted in three previously belligerent autocratic states becoming pacific democratic states) then what is intelligent about not using physical restraint/force when necessary? * RICHARD: 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. RESPONDENT: Have you heard of the dark age prior to the ‘dark age’? RICHARD: Yes ... essentially there were two ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened): the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West to the fall of Constantinople and the period between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the historical period in Greece (and other Aegean countries). RESPONDENT: In other words, how can you know what a dark age is if you haven’t went through it? RICHARD: Primarily by studying historical texts in conjunction with archaeological findings and, to a certain extent, sifting through folklore, myths, legends, and so on. RESPONDENT: Is not the very existence of actual freedom dependent upon the existence of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: No, on the contrary, it is the very absence of the affective faculty/ identity in toto which characterises the actual freedom of being a flesh and blood body only. * RICHARD: So much for ‘suffer the little children RESPONDENT: Ha … if it’s not personal, so much for it indeed ... but it is personal (everyone is a child). RICHARD: The three references provided as a footnote unambiguously refer to juveniles ... specifically described as (1) young children ... and (2) little children ... and (3) infants. Viz.:
As for your parenthesised ‘everyone is a child’ comment I see you have expanded on this theme elsewhere:
Just for starters I am not presumptively rejecting When saying ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is not referring to an inner child (and there is no such problematic entity existing in this flesh and blood body anyway) as the accompanying text clearly shows. The properties of what is known in a certain school of psychology as an ‘inner child’ are (not surprisingly) psychological ... of, affecting, or pertaining to the mental and emotional state of a person. The word ‘suffer’, in the context of ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, means allow, permit, and so on. Viz.:
The expression ‘to come unto me’, in the given context, simply means ‘to come to me’ (just as it is in Mr. Mark’s rendition ‘and they brought young children to him’ further above) ... for example:
In regards to taking only the literal meaning out of those spiritual texts instead of the intended metaphorical meaning ... the psychological concept known as ‘inner child’ not only did not exist prior to the twentieth century no first century equivalent was even implied (let alone intended). Viz.:
If you wish to read into ‘as a little child’ (aka being childlike) something other than what is conveyed – as in your ‘inner child’ psychological concept – only to criticise others for not taking what you see as [quote] ‘the intended metaphorical meaning’ [endquote] then that is your business. Incidentally, Mr. Mathew makes no mention (further above) of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene’ homily and reports only that he laid his hands on those children and departed from that place. * 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: I see, so there’s the normal intelligence (crippled) in NCE, the supreme intelligence (which is an extraordinarily crippled normal intelligence) in ASC and freed intelligence in PCE? RICHARD: Aye ... only it is what intelligence is crippled by which is important (and not so much just that it is). * RESPONDENT: How can you explain synchronicity events then? RICHARD: The way I can explain the simultaneous occurrence of events, which appear meaningfully related in the real-world but have no discoverable causal connection, is quite simple ... in a word: happenstance. RESPONDENT: I can understand synchronicity explained in regards to the human/ animal world by the existence of the collective unconscious, but I can’t explain the seeing/forecasting of future events exclusively related to inanimate matter as the work of the human/animal psychic web. Synchronicity in regards to the inanimate matter can only satisfactorily be explained if matter has ‘psychic’, aka ‘electric’ properties (I can’t find a better word). RICHARD: Matter, be it either in its mass phase or energy phase, has no psychic properties. For what it is worth: even though I use the term ‘psychic currents’, to refer to the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations (colloquially known as ‘vibes’), and even though affective feelings are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, it does not necessarily mean they are electric currents ... and neither does it necessarily mean they are currents of water or air, either, as that word (literally meaning ‘to run’ as in ‘flowing’ or ‘streaming’) is nothing more than a convenient word to utilise. RESPONDENT: Although you are freed from the psyche, the flesh and body known as Richard has electric properties (your brain processes work with/on electric impulses, one possible explanation for telepathy). RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body is not at all telepathic your [quote] ‘possible’ [endquote] explanation is an impossible explanation in actuality. RESPONDENT: ... or to put that another way, some of your body processes are cellular, some are molecular and some are electric. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is part cellular (matter as mass) and part electric (matter as energy) ... a ‘molecule’, just like an ‘atom’, is a mathematical model. RESPONDENT: The operating of the electric processes is that which differentiates between a sleeping body and an awakened one (in both cases the senses are operating). RICHARD: As all it takes to bring this flesh and blood body into wakefulness, when asleep, is an unexpected/ unusual touch (the cutaneal sense), or smell (the olfactory sense), or sound (the aural sense), or light (the ocular sense), or taste (the gustatory sense), or posture (the proprioceptive senses) it does not follow that it is the operating of electric processes which differentiates between a sleeping and an awake body ... the operating of *some* electric activity would be what distinguishes. Whether awake or asleep a body subconsciously processes sensation continuously ... there are, if memory serves correctly, on average up to maybe 150,000 nerve impulses firing in any given second. RESPONDENT: As the senses operate in both cases, it results that you are not the senses per se, but the ‘awareness’ of the senses, in other words: consciousness per se. RICHARD: As the first person pronoun is used by the flesh and blood body writing these e-mails (for both convenience and so as not to be unduly pedantic) to refer to this flesh and blood body only it may all become clear if it be put this way: when the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is asleep the flesh and blood body, whilst not consciously aware of being sentient, is subliminally aware of sentience ... or, put differently, upon waking this flesh and blood body’s subconscious awareness of being alive heightens (into being a conscious awareness). In other words ... a difference in degree (and not of kind). * RESPONDENT: This may also explain why in a PCE one is not aware of the infinity of the universe as when one is living an actual freedom. RICHARD: As apperceptive awareness of infinitude can, and does, occur in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) your explanation is irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is infinite (it has no boundaries). RICHARD: An apperceptive consciousness – a flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) being conscious – has no boundaries as it is the centre of normal consciousness (identity) which creates same. RESPONDENT: It’s the same ‘consciousness’ as experienced when enlightened, yet without an ‘Entity’ (Self), it’s infinite, same as the universe, in all respects. RICHARD: It is the same consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious – as when unenlightened yet without either an ‘entity’ (self) or an ‘Entity’ (Self) ... it is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe, as a human creature, being apperceptively aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. * RESPONDENT: These molecular/ electric events are not confined only to your body like the cellular ones are, they are also happening in relation to the outside and future world ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘outside’ world in actuality (nor a future world either): there is only this actual world here. RESPONDENT: ... they [molecular/ electric events] create the physical world (being part of the physical/cellular, but not subject to the intrinsic limitations of cellular matter). RICHARD: If by that you mean matter, either as mass or energy, is the physical world then what you are parenthetically saying is that matter per se is not limited to what matter as a body is. RESPONDENT: These ‘worlds’ are not separate or ‘compartmentalized’, they permeate each other, are interconnected with one another, your body is interconnected with the environment at all levels: physical, molecular and electric and these levels are likewise interconnected. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is more than just ‘interconnected with the environment’: it is the very stuff of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the very stuff of the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed ... in the same way that a mountain, for example, is the very ground it is (apparently) sitting on. There is no separation whatsoever, here in this actual world, such as to necessitate being ‘interconnected with the environment’. RESPONDENT: The DNA is not only a molecular structure embedded in the ‘physical’ cell, it is also electric in nature, a conductor for electric impulses. RICHARD: If what you are saying is that deoxyribonucleic acid (a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms, especially in chromosomes, as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis) is not only embedded in each and every cell which constitutes a body but is as well, by being also of an electric nature, an electric impulse conductor then the relationship you are making between that and matter per se eludes comprehension. * RESPONDENT: On the other hand, by serendipity (luck) I understand the moment when preparedness meets opportunity. RICHARD: There is no such thing as luck here in this actual world: there are, however, opportunities that occur (happenstance) which either may or may not be taken advantage of ... for example: even though Peter describes meeting Richard as being a serendipitous event there are those who also have who do not (more than a few would probably not even remember it). Look, what generally happens is that human beings have a penchant for recalling the few occasions when something they wanted/needed fell into their lap (happenstance) and for forgetting, or rather not even noticing, the many occasions when something they neither wanted/ needed did ... the number of vacant taxicabs, for instance, cruising city streets at a particular time on any given day is more or less the same whether one is currently being sought for or not (as a permanently-on camera at that place would reveal) and which gives lie to the oft-repeated plaint that they are always cruising by when not wanted. There is nothing mystical/ miraculous about it at all ... fortuitousness is simply what humans assess such opportunities as being. To give but a recent example: I had been postponing moving residence for, maybe, more than a year partly because wireless internet connection in this country was downright unsuitable (14 Kbps and 33 cents per minute peak-hour/15 cents per minute off-peak) for what I was requiring and yet I eventually moved anyway, making arrangements with peoples who had wired connections so as to have at least once or twice weekly uploads/downloads, for other reasons ... only to find, almost immediately after having moved/settled-in, that wireless internet connection in this country is coming of age (I now all-of-a-sudden can have 144 Kbps at .50 cents per MB with unlimited time) and by the end of the year what is currently being made available in metropolitan areas (300-600 Kbps) will have been rolled-out country-wide. For those inclined to say that my timing was spot-on all I can say is that it was nothing other than the sensibility of moving/settling in after the heat of summer and before the cold of winter which determined the decision ... the all-of-a-sudden wireless availability is purely circumstantial. But very welcome nevertheless (hence ‘fortuitous’). * RESPONDENT: Where is the star light of the universe going? RICHARD: Nowhere (the universe is a veritable perpetuus mobilis). * RESPONDENT: Why is it that when the Absolute dissipates (temporary experiences), one is falling back to the real-world and not to the actual world (in all cases)? RICHARD: As there were many occurrences too numerous to mention, during the years 1985-1992, when the temporary dissolution of ‘The Absolute’ occasioned a falling-back, as it were, into this actual world your ‘in all cases’ codicil makes no sense. It was those numerous direct experiences of the actual which prompted me to oft-times say to my then-companion (and rather clumsily put into 80,000 or so words on an old-fashioned type-writer) that there is an actual world, the world of the senses, of such pristine perfection and peerless purity that so far exceeded one’s wildest dreams as to be unconceivable/unimaginable, and that spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment was not the summum bonum of human experience ... which, of course, occasioned her to urge me on in the many different ways she had at her disposal (and there is nothing quite like shooting one’s mouth off to others to galvanise having to put one’s money where one’s mouth is). Incidentally, when those PCE’s would dissipate there was a falling-back into ‘The Absolute’ (once enlightened/awakened there is no falling-back to normal). * 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. RESPONDENT: I’ve heard that aboriginal people are somehow retarded. RICHARD: A peoples who invented both the woomera (a short wooden implement by which a spear is thrown in order to increase both its speed and range) and the boomerang (a thin curved hardwood missile that can be thrown so as to return to the thrower upon missing its target), plus a complex duolineal filiation structure (of a complexity which is virtually second-to-none), can hardly be classified as retarded. RESPONDENT: Does that mean that their cognitive abilities are underdeveloped, but that in every other respect they are identical to the modern human? RICHARD: You would be better off asking those questions of the person whom you heard it from, that aboriginal people are somehow retarded, as they would surely be better-placed to be able to provide whatever ethnocentric reason they have for saying such a thing. Speaking both from personal experience – for example as a young man I was, for a while, the first mate on the only supply ship ferrying goods and equipment to remote aboriginal communities in a then largely uncharted area of Australia known as Arnhem Land – and from an ad hoc but extensive private reading (I also chose aboriginal studies as an elective whilst at college) I can readily say that aboriginal peoples are anything but retarded. As a youth I was fascinated by their lifestyle (and also of the peoples of the New Guinea highlands) and sought to understand as much as I could for they were a step or two closer to the raw human condition than either agrarian or urbanised peoples were. Some New Guinea highlanders, being but 70-odd years out of isolation, can still clearly remember the first contact (circa 1932-33).
RESPONDENT: ... 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? (...) RESPONDENT: ... let’s say that the energy of thought was flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/blockages existing in this psyche which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego. RICHARD: Okay ... let us (provisionally) say that then: could/did/can the energy of thought, flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/ blockages existing in that psyche, which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego, suss out that Being Itself is a contingent ‘Being’? RESPONDENT: No, as I was ‘Being’. RICHARD: In what way, then, is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal? * RICHARD: ... 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? RESPONDENT: Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it? RICHARD: What is intelligent about having such a realisation and, doing nothing fundamental about it, enabling the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world via facile compliance? RESPONDENT: I can answer from experience … what I tend to do when a bully boy and/or feisty femme hits me is to hit back with overwhelming force in the moment if the circumstances allow, or if not, at a time of my own choosing and tenfold. RICHARD: If I may point out? The query you are answering is about facile compliance upon realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it and yet doing nothing fundamental about it ... and not about either an immediate, albeit circumstantial, retaliation in kind with overwhelming force or opportunistic retaliation of a tenfold forceful kind despite that realisation. RESPONDENT: In fact, revenge is one of the urges that I can’t resist. RICHARD: What is intelligent about being aware that revenge is one of the irresistible urges and yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about such urges? RESPONDENT: The overwhelming force, as I know myself quite well, would not exclude death for the offender if there’s serious and intentional damage done, like rape or mutilation or attempted murder. RICHARD: Again ... what is intelligent about knowing quite well that either the immediate or opportune vindictive force would not exclude death for the bully boy/feisty femme (depending upon both the intention of that predator and the severity of their predation) yet, even though realising that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, doing nothing fundamental about that irresistible urge? RESPONDENT: However, if I contributed to the slap ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As the query regarding an enlightened intelligence advocating facile compliance to the bully boys/feisty femmes is about realising that one *is* as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it then what you are saying by way of an answer would look something like this when contextualised:
As anyone who nurses malice and sorrow (and thus their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) to their bosom is as guilty as the one impelled by same to deliver the first slap your ‘if’ qualifier has no relevance to the topic under discussion. RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap ], and although I condemn physical violence ... RICHARD: If I may ask? Why do you condemn – ‘censure, denounce, deprecate, disapprove of’ (Oxford Dictionary) – physical violence? Could it be because of realising that, even though one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it, one is not doing anything fundamental about it, perchance? RESPONDENT: ... [However, if I contributed to the slap, and although I condemn physical violence], I won’t fight back and I wouldn’t offer the other cheek either. RICHARD: As ‘offer the other cheek’ is but another way of describing a pacifistic/appeasement type of response it would appear that the intelligence which advocates same is not [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal after all. You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim, eh? * RESPONDENT: [Realizing that one is as much guilty for the first slap as the one that delivered it?] Or that if it were to turn the slap back, it would turn the situation into a … ummm … war of countless slaps and thus perpetuate a vicious circle of violence? RICHARD: As all that is needed to do is point to the example of 1939-45 (where responding massively in kind not only did not perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence but resulted in three previously belligerent autocratic states becoming pacific democratic states) then what is intelligent about not using physical restraint/force when necessary? RESPONDENT: Hmm ... the primary cause of war is the fight by individuals/ groups/ countries over limited resources, in other words: competitiveness. RICHARD: The primary cause of a bully boy’s/feisty femmes’ war, the aggressive fight by that individual’s autocratically-led group/country over (purportedly limited) resources, could indeed be said to be that bully boy’s/feisty femmes’ belligerent competitiveness. RESPONDENT: You’re talking about overt/physical warfare, not about the psychological/ covert type. RICHARD: I did take your usage of the word ‘slap’ to mean the overt/physical wallop-clout-whack-thump-biff type of slap ... and, given that you were responding to me asking just what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, 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, it was quite reasonable to do so. Therefore, as you responded with nothing other than a variation on the scriptural ‘violence begets violence’ adage of yore I, of course, provided a well-known/ well-documented example of what a load of bosh that is. RESPONDENT: These covert wars exist even within the EU between otherwise democratic nations, there are rifts and disagreements as with any union/group. Another Younger Dryas in 100 years, take prosperity away from people, levers and controls collapse and democracies turn into autocracies … while war breaks loose. RICHARD: Even were your futuristic New Ice Age scenario ever to actually come about how would it demonstrate that, by responding massively in kind to three autocratic states’ belligerence between 1939 and 1945, a vicious cycle of violence was thus perpetuated (by turning that belligerent situation into a war of countless slaps) 165 years after the outbreak of hostilities? Quite frankly, whatever causal connection you are seeing between World War II and a hypothetical mini-ice age five generations hence eludes comprehension. RESPONDENT: Humans prefer to compete than to cooperate when survival takes over thinking ... RICHARD: More accurately ... normal human beings are compelled to compete, rather than cooperate, when the savage survival passions have dominion over the tender survival passions. RESPONDENT: ... war is in the flesh and bones. RICHARD: War is not in flesh and bones ... war exists only in the psyche. RESPONDENT: Have you watched ‘Delicatessen’? RICHARD: I have never even heard of it. Meanwhile, back at the subject to hand, in what way is intelligence [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] when enlightened when it advocates 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? * RICHARD: And just in case the latter [now duplicated immediately above] 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. RESPONDENT: Have you heard of the dark age prior to the ‘dark age’? RICHARD: Yes ... essentially there were two ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened): the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West to the fall of Constantinople [more specifically between the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular documents] and the period between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the historical period in Greece (and other Aegean countries). RESPONDENT: Why do you say that there’s a danger for another dark age (with all this information technology)? RICHARD: Ha ... the day may come when this era is more aptly re-named the era of misinformation/ disinformation technology. RESPONDENT: Is there less ‘substance’ conveyed? RICHARD: No, there is actually more substance than ever being conveyed and yet, as it is generally swamped by a prodigious output of egregious factoids, fantasies and fictions endlessly spawned by neo-puritanical social engineers posing as public-health watchdogs, big-brother behaviourists in the guise of left-wing libertarians, religio-political/ religio-philosophical latter-day luddites (adroitly re-inventing themselves in the form of environmentalists/ conservationists/ preservationists), mystico-spiritual shamans masquerading as psychotherapists under the name ‘parapsychology’, and so on and so forth, dominating virtually all channels of communication, both mainstream and marginalised, it largely goes unnoticed. RESPONDENT: In my opinion, the primary cause for the emergence of a new dark age is fear and repression. RICHARD: As a new dark age is mainly coming from the east to the west the primary cause of its emergence is the failure of materialism to provide meaning to life (as epitomised by existentialist thought around the turn of the nineteenth/ twentieth century which, not all that coincidentally, was around about the time when oriental thought began to gain an ever-increasing grip on occidental thought). * RESPONDENT: In other words, how can you know what a dark age is if you haven’t went through it? RICHARD: Primarily by studying historical texts in conjunction with archaeological findings and, to a certain extent, sifting through folklore, myths, legends, and so on. RESPONDENT: But surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during these eras, yet collectively there was a period of chaos and unrest for European people primarily due to the migrations and the ensuing insecurity that followed. RICHARD: Let me see if I am following your line of thought: I point out that were every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person 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 – purely as a way of illustrating that there is nothing intelligent whatsoever 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 your response is to say that surely there were some enlightened/ un-ignorant individuals during the two western ages known as ‘dark’ (ignorant/ unenlightened). Do you realise that it is secular intelligence you are saying must surely have existed during those periods? * RESPONDENT: Is not the very existence of actual freedom dependent upon the existence of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: No, on the contrary, it is the very absence of the affective faculty/identity in toto which characterises the actual freedom of being a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: In contrast to enlightenment (which is dependent upon malice and sorrow being extant). RICHARD: Aye ... or, more specifically, upon ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon self-realisation) remaining extant. * RICHARD: So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ RESPONDENT: Ha … if it’s not personal, so much for it indeed ... but it is personal (everyone is a child). RICHARD: The three references provided as a footnote unambiguously refer to juveniles ... specifically described as (1) young children ... and (2) little children ... and (3) infants. Viz.: [snip biblical quotes]. As for your parenthesised ‘everyone is a child’ comment I see you have expanded on this theme elsewhere:
Just for starters I am not presumptively rejecting everything spiritual (let alone emotionally) ... I experientially explored same, night and day, for eleven years and there was nothing sensible to be found anywhere. When saying ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’ Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene is not referring to an inner child as the accompanying text clearly shows. The properties of what is known in a certain school of psychology as an ‘inner child’ are (not surprisingly) psychological ... of, affecting, or pertaining to the mental and emotional state of a person. The word ‘suffer’, in the context of ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, means allow, permit, and so on. Viz.: [snip dictionary definition]. The expression ‘to come unto me’, in the given context, simply means ‘to come to me’ (...). The psychological concept known as ‘inner child’ not only did not exist prior to the twentieth century no first century equivalent was even implied (let alone intended). Viz.: [snip biblical quotes]. If you wish to read into ‘as a little child’ (aka being childlike) something other than what is conveyed – as in your ‘inner child’ psychological concept – only to criticise others for not taking what you see as [quote] ‘the intended metaphorical meaning’ [endquote] then that is your business. RESPONDENT: What being childlike (‘as a little child’) means to you ... RICHARD: In the context under discussion ... being meek, submissive, dutiful, obedient (as to an earthly father in that era). RESPONDENT: ... and what do you think meant to Jesus Christ? RICHARD: There is no need to think anything ... here it is (straight from the horse’s mouth as it were):
RESPONDENT: Don’t you think that a psychic archetype termed ‘child’ exists in the human psyche in the same way as the anima/ animus or the wise man or the hero are? RICHARD: It makes no difference either way what one thinks: the fact remains that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, all the while insisting that infants/little children/young children be allowed to come to him for a ritual laying-on of hands and an other-worldly blessing, was actively working his will in such a way as to ensure all future babies would be 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’, eh?
RESPONDENT: ... was it [the intelligence that operated when enlightened] 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: I see, so there’s the normal intelligence (crippled) in NCE, the supreme intelligence (which is an extraordinarily crippled normal intelligence) in ASC and freed intelligence in PCE? RICHARD: Aye ... only it is what intelligence is crippled by which is important (and not so much just that it is). RESPONDENT: You say that both intelligence and consciousness are freed in your case. When living a PCE is one intelligent per se, and if yes, is this native intelligence different for different people? RICHARD: The intelligence which operates in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – a flesh and blood body’s native intelligence – is the normal intelligence sans the affective faculty/identity in toto. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is crippled in my experience by both ego and soul, to exemplify: when in a love relationship my intelligence operates better ... RICHARD: If I may ask? In what way is it that intelligence [quote] ‘operates better’ [endquote] when in a love relationship than when not? What immediately springs to mind is seeing the loved one as god-like/goddess-like despite their obvious-to-others all-too-human flaws (the human condition) and being euphoric, ecstatic, blissful – along with all the pining, yearning, longing and heartache when apart – and being subject to covetousness, jealousy, suspicion, distrust and doubt on occasion. RESPONDENT: ... it’s probably a case of the ‘tigers’ being satiated/satisfied and not trotting the stage (intelligence is separated from identity) while the ego is not so much interfering as it is the usual case. It’s the same thing as having a normal sex life for an instinctual driven being in contrast to being obsessed with sex. Does an identity have intelligence per se? RICHARD: No, contrary to popular belief the affective faculty (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) is not intelligent ... besides which intuition, when examined more closely, works out at having about the same accuracy as guess-work does (50% right/50% wrong). RESPONDENT: Also, what is the part played by understanding in a gradual freedom from the human condition? RICHARD: Just so as to keep it topical (and by way of example): understanding that intelligence does not, in fact, operate much better when either enlightened or in love plays a large part in clearing away the nonsense which inhibits one from taking the first step towards even beginning to gradually become free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: I ask this as understanding seems to be intimately related with our perspective of the world … some brief excerpts form the ‘Selfish Gene’ changed the way I perceived and mentally/ emotionally made sense of the world. RICHARD: As the central point of the ‘The Selfish Gene’, being a gene-centred view of evolution (that genes are the unit of selection regardless of the effect they might have on organisms or species and that selection on other levels, such as by organisms and species, almost never opposes selection on genes), can be successfully argued as being an oversimplification of the relationship between genes and organisms then whatever perspective of the world you mentally/emotionally changed through reading some brief excerpts of that 1976 book will most likely not contribute even one iota of assistance in understanding – for example – that intelligence does not, in fact, operate much better when either enlightened or in love than when normal. * RESPONDENT: [So there’s the normal intelligence (crippled) in NCE, the supreme intelligence (which is an extraordinarily crippled normal intelligence) in ASC and freed intelligence in PCE]. How can you explain synchronicity events then? RICHARD: The way I can explain the simultaneous occurrence of events, which appear meaningfully related in the real-world but have no discoverable causal connection, is quite simple ... in a word: happenstance. RESPONDENT: Is it not a simplistic dismissal? RICHARD: As correlation in no way demonstrates the validity of an ‘acausal connecting principle’ (aka a pattern of connection that is not explained by causality) then ... no. The word ‘apophenia’ – the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data – which was coined in 1958 by Mr. Klaus Conrad (who defined it as the ‘unmotivated seeing of connections’ accompanied by a ‘specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness’) is a far more useful term than the word ‘synchronicity’ (a term coined by Mr. Carl Jung to describe the way an abstract world of potential, a psychophysical world where psyche and matter are connected in an undifferentiated unity and called the ‘unus mundus’ in the Middle Ages, operates and out of which causeless new creations can occur) to describe the simultaneous occurrence of events which, whilst having no discoverable causal connection, appear meaningfully related for certain peoples. Incidentally, although Mr. Klaus Conrad originally described the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data in relation to the distortion of reality present in psychosis it has become more widely used to refer to that tendency in any person at all without necessarily implying the presence of neurological or mental illness or disorder. * RESPONDENT: I can understand synchronicity explained in regards to the human/ animal world by the existence of the collective unconscious, but I can’t explain the seeing/ forecasting of future events exclusively related to inanimate matter as the work of the human/animal psychic web. Synchronicity in regards to the inanimate matter can only satisfactorily be explained if matter has ‘psychic’, aka ‘electric’ properties (I can’t find a better word). RICHARD: Matter, be it either in its mass phase or energy phase, has no psychic properties. For what it is worth: even though I use the term ‘psychic currents’, to refer to the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations (colloquially known as ‘vibes’), and even though affective feelings are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, it does not necessarily mean they are electric currents ... and neither does it necessarily mean they are currents of water or air, either, as that word (literally meaning ‘to run’ as in ‘flowing’ or ‘streaming’) is nothing more than a convenient word to utilise. RESPONDENT: I still can’t comprehend how something that is not actual can have effects at an actual distance of 150 miles. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to keep it simple to start off with, by examining what is colloquially known as ‘vibes’ (emotional/passional feelings), it may be more readily comprehended: another person’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling. By going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy, somewhat analogous to a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air, creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling (a vortex of water or air is the very swirling water or air) as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. It is that vortex which is the (affective) force known as a psychic force. RESPONDENT: What is the ‘medium’ via which these psychic currents are transmitted if not the physical one? RICHARD: It is a psychic medium ... a vortical force-field, so to speak. RESPONDENT: Is there a notable difference between psychic vibes and psychic currents? RICHARD: Only in regards to a difference in the range of their effect. * RESPONDENT: ... some of your body processes are cellular, some are molecular and some are electric. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is part cellular (matter as mass) and part electric (matter as energy) ... a ‘molecule’, just like an ‘atom’, is a mathematical model. RESPONDENT: What are the constituents out of which ‘energy’ is made? RICHARD: The constituents out of which the energy of this flesh and blood body is made are the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. RESPONDENT: The human body is an amazing autonomous thing the way it works by itself, with no assistance, yet knowing exactly what needs to be done in an unconscious way. RICHARD: Aye (although, speaking personally, I prefer to say ‘in an autonomic way’). * RESPONDENT: The operating of the electric processes is that which differentiates between a sleeping body and an awakened one (in both cases the senses are operating). RICHARD: As all it takes to bring this flesh and blood body into wakefulness, when asleep, is an unexpected/unusual touch (the cutaneal sense), or smell (the olfactory sense), or sound (the aural sense), or light (the ocular sense), or taste (the gustatory sense), or posture (the proprioceptive senses) it does not follow that it is the operating of electric processes which differentiates between a sleeping and an awake body ... the operating of *some* electric activity would be what distinguishes. RESPONDENT: So the operating of that some electric activity is consciousness. RICHARD: No ... just the same as it does not necessarily mean affective feelings are electric currents, even though they are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, the operating of some electric activity being what would distinguish, in terms of what can be detected by laboratory equipment, between a sleeping and an awake body does not necessarily mean that consciousness – the state or condition of a body being conscious – is electric either. An fMRI scan (a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan), for example, measures the flow of blood in the brain ... surely you would not suggest that flowing blood is consciousness? RESPONDENT: Is it due to electric processes, exactly as thoughts are? RICHARD: As I understand it (and I am not a neurologist) the activity of thought is considered an electrochemical process ... and the state or condition of a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is not due to exactly the same processes as thoughts are. * RICHARD: Whether awake or asleep a body subconsciously processes sensation continuously ... there are, if memory serves correctly, on average up to maybe 150,000 nerve impulses firing in any given second. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is an expenditure of energy by the body, so the need to sleep. RICHARD: Yes, as a body being conscious does use more calorific energy than a comatose body sleep is well-nigh inevitable. RESPONDENT: Why is sleep an energy regenerative process and not a consuming one? RICHARD: As sleep does not regenerate calorific energy – a comatose body simply uses less – your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: Where does the body take its energy from when asleep ... RICHARD: From the same source as when awake (ingestion/absorption). RESPONDENT: ... and what is the actual process by which it manages to replenish it? RICHARD: As sleep does not replenish calorific energy – a comatose body simply uses less – your query has no answer. * RESPONDENT: As the senses operate in both cases [awake and asleep], it results that you are not the senses per se, but the ‘awareness’ of the senses, in other words: consciousness per se. RICHARD: As the first person pronoun is used by the flesh and blood body writing these e-mails (for both convenience and so as not to be unduly pedantic) to refer to this flesh and blood body only it may all become clear if it be put this way: when the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is asleep the flesh and blood body, whilst not consciously aware of being sentient, is subliminally aware of sentience ... or, put differently, upon waking this flesh and blood body’s subconscious awareness of being alive heightens (into being a conscious awareness). In other words ... a difference in degree (and not of kind). RESPONDENT: Same as a rabbit it seems. RICHARD: More or less the same as virtually any sentient creature. * RESPONDENT: This may also explain why in a PCE one is not aware of the infinity of the universe as when one is living an actual freedom. RICHARD: As apperceptive awareness of infinitude can, and does, occur in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) your explanation is irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Does the awareness of infinitude always occur in a PCE? RICHARD: Obviously I cannot speak for everyone ... but, generally speaking, as that is what apperception is (an awareness without centre and thus without circumference), there is no reason why not. * RESPONDENT: Consciousness is infinite (it has no boundaries). RICHARD: An apperceptive consciousness – a flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) being conscious – has no boundaries as it is the centre of normal consciousness (identity) which creates same. RESPONDENT: Can something hit the centre directly and produce the collapse? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: I mean: is there a (particular) Achilles’ heel to each and every identity? RICHARD: Yes. * RESPONDENT: It’s the same ‘consciousness’ as experienced when enlightened, yet without an ‘Entity’ (Self), it’s infinite, same as the universe, in all respects. RICHARD: It is the same consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious – as when unenlightened yet without either an ‘entity’ (self) or an ‘Entity’ (Self) ... it is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe, as a human creature, being apperceptively aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: When felicity arrives, some people seem incapable to embrace it as they can’t believe that it is possible to be so happy here on earth. All manners of strange reactions occur, i.e. fainting. RICHARD: As I am not cognisant of any reports of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) resulting in a faint I am unable to make any comment. * RESPONDENT: These molecular/ electric events are not confined only to your body like the cellular ones are, they are also happening in relation to the outside and future world ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘outside’ world in actuality (nor a future world either): there is only this actual world here. RESPONDENT: ... they [molecular/ electric events] create the physical world (being part of the physical/ cellular, but not subject to the intrinsic limitations of cellular matter). RICHARD: If by that you mean matter, either as mass or energy, is the physical world then what you are parenthetically saying is that matter per se is not limited to what matter as a body is. RESPONDENT: These ‘worlds’ are not separate or ‘compartmentalized’, they permeate each other, are interconnected with one another, your body is interconnected with the environment at all levels: physical, molecular and electric and these levels are likewise interconnected. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is more than just ‘interconnected with the environment’: it is the very stuff of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the very stuff of the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed ... in the same way that a mountain, for example, is the very ground it is (apparently) sitting on. There is no separation whatsoever, here in this actual world, such as to necessitate being ‘interconnected with the environment’. RESPONDENT: So you are not separate from the ‘environment’ in the same way as a mountain is not separate from earth. What’s the difference between identification and no separateness? RICHARD: Identification requires (not surprisingly) an identifier; a flesh and blood body sans identity cannot identify. RESPONDENT: What is it that allows you to ascertain/say that you are separate as a body-individual from the world and at the same time to say that you aren’t? RICHARD: A freed perceptive ability/a freed intelligence. RESPONDENT: And not only to say that, but also to act accordingly. RICHARD: Again ... a perceptive ability/an intelligence not crippled by the affective faculty/identity in toto. RESPONDENT: This seems to be a contradiction to me, the ‘knowledge’ that they are separate is what allowed organisms to differentiate from the environment, live and evolve into what they are today ... the knowledge of ‘me’ and ‘other’. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body’s awareness of being autonomically distinct from anything else (a dog lifting a leg on a tree is aware of the distinction between what we call ‘dog’ and what we call ‘tree’) is in no way contradictory to a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto being aware of the total absence of any separation from everything else. RESPONDENT: It is what the instinctual passions are made for, after all. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the instinctual passions are but blind nature’s rough and ready survival software. RESPONDENT: And they are the culprits in regard to the perceived separation. RICHARD: The instinctual passions are only the culprits in regards the (intuitive) perception of the (affective) separation of identity from the actual (its host body and everything else). RESPONDENT: In short, is that ‘something’ that allows you to say that you are not separate from the environment the same-same thing with that which knows/acts as if you are? RICHARD: Hmm ... the actually free intelligence of this flesh and blood body, which allows this flesh and blood body to say that this flesh and blood body is not separate from the rest of the environment, is the same-same non-crippled by the affective faculty/identity in toto intelligence which knows that this flesh and blood body is autonomously distinct from anything else and acts in the manner befitting being aware of the total absence of any separation from everything else. * RESPONDENT: The DNA is not only a molecular structure embedded in the ‘physical’ cell, it is also electric in nature, a conductor for electric impulses. RICHARD: If what you are saying is that deoxyribonucleic acid (a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms, especially in chromosomes, as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis) is not only embedded in each and every cell which constitutes a body but is as well, by being also of an electric nature, an electric impulse conductor then the relationship you are making between that and matter per se eludes comprehension. RESPONDENT: What I was trying to determine is whether you are aware of all the physical processes taking place within your body, as you say that you are the body. RICHARD: If I might suggest? Why not just ask, for example, whether I am aware of all the physical processes taking place throughout me, rather than telling me that, although I am freed from the psyche some of my processes are cellular, some are molecular, and some are electric, and that those molecular/electric events are not confined only to me, like the cellular ones are, but they are also happening in relation to a [non-existent] outside and [non-existent] future world, plus creating the physical world (being part of the physical/cellular but not subject to the intrinsic limitations of cellular matter), and that those ‘worlds’ are not separate or compartmentalised but permeate each other (are interconnected with one another) inasmuch I am [purportedly] interconnected with the environment at all levels (physical, molecular and electric) and those levels are likewise interconnected and, furthermore, that DNA is not only a molecular structure embedded in the physical cell, it is also electric in nature, a conductor for electric impulses, as it conveys the impression you are doing anything *but* trying to determine whether I am aware of all the physical processes taking place throughout me? RESPONDENT: As you’re not conscious of all the sensations, is it not reasonable to assume that you’re also not conscious of all your thoughts? RICHARD: Again ... the relationship you are making between matter per se and deoxyribonucleic acid (a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms, especially in chromosomes, as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis) being not only embedded in each and every cell which constitutes a body but as well, by being also of an electric nature, an electric impulse conductor, eludes comprehension by way of your reasonable assumption that this flesh and blood body does not necessarily take notice of every thought this flesh and blood body thinks. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that there’s no meaningful subdivision of matter beyond the cellular level ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... else why say it that atoms are only a mathematical model? RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this exchange:
The reason why I said that an ‘atom’, just like a ‘molecule’, is a mathematical model is simply because that is what it is ... and not because there is no meaningful subdivision of matter beyond the cellular level. RESPONDENT: If telescopes can see deeper and deeper into outer space, what makes you think that microscopes can’t peer deeper and deeper at the micro level? RICHARD: As I have never said that microscopes cannot peer deeper and deeper your query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Here’s an interesting link: [snip link]. RICHARD: As computer-generated facsimiles of what microscopic photographs of what mathematical models might look like if they actually existed is irrelevant to whatever the relationship it is that you are making, between matter per se and deoxyribonucleic acid (a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms, especially in chromosomes, as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis) being not only embedded in each and every cell which constitutes a body but as well, by being also of an electric nature, an electric impulse conductor, I will pass without further comment. * RESPONDENT: Where is the star light of the universe going? RICHARD: Nowhere (the universe is a veritable perpetuus mobilis). RESPONDENT: So, we can say that the light emitted by a star is immortal. RICHARD: No ... no more than it can be said that any flesh and blood body (for instance) is immortal.
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Eleven) 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 |
