|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 25
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. RESPONDENT: So an enlightened man is not that far (‘twice removed’) from the actual world ... RICHARD: You are obviously referring to this exchange:
RESPONDENT: ... [So an enlightened man is not that far (‘twice removed’) from the actual world] and not that delusional as previously considered. RICHARD: No ... an enlightened person is indeed that far (twice-removed) from actuality and is most certainly that delusional ... all I said was that, as the temporary dissolution of ‘The Absolute’ occasioned a falling-back, as it were, into this actual world on many an occasion too numerous to mention, during the years 1985-1992, your ‘in all cases’ codicil made no sense. RESPONDENT: I would personally say that he is twice as close to the actual world ... RICHARD: Well now ... as you are most insistent that intelligence operates [quote] ‘much better/ freed’ [endquote] when enlightened than when normal it is not at all surprising you would say that an enlightened person, a person so deluded as to typically testify to not being the body/to physicality having no substance, would be twice as close to actuality as a normal person. RESPONDENT: ... being the affective faculty (secondary processor of information) compared to someone in the real-world living primarily in the mind (tertiary processor of information). RICHARD: Except that, by virtue of the delusion of having become ‘Being’ (born out of the illusion of being nothing other than an affective ‘being’), an enlightened one typically experiences not being the body/ physicality having no substance. RESPONDENT: Did you fall back into the real-world also? RICHARD: I see that I provided the following information almost immediately below:
* RICHARD: 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). RESPONDENT: Hmm ... woomen. RICHARD: As my then-companion may very well have been a male, had my sexual-orientation been homosexual rather than heterosexual, for all the difference gender makes in such a situation and set of circumstances, your (apparently) patronising comment adds nowt to a sensible discussion about why is it not necessarily always the case that, when the Absolute dissipates, there is a falling-back to normal and not to actuality. * RICHARD: 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: I’m the exception to your rule. RICHARD: It is neither my rule nor is your three-hour, and thus temporary, altered state of consciousness (ASC) an exception to the historical reality that, once enlightened/ awakened 24/7, and thus permanently, 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: It is war/competitiveness that allowed us to be where we are today and produced intelligence in the human animal. It is the primary cause/impulse for evolution both in the animal and the human world, look at all the inventions/achievements during WW2 or the Cold War. RICHARD: If what you are conveying is that all human beings are somehow retarded – because of that which is the root cause of war and or competitiveness – then that would make the person whom you heard it from, that aboriginal people are somehow retarded, somewhat selective in their appraisal of just who is tarred by that brush, eh? * 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 ‘raw human condition’ lurking under the urbane surface ... unmanifested, why can’t it remain in that passive condition, why does it has to manifest? RICHARD: Because that is the very nature of the instinctual survival passions when push comes to shove ... and the very word ‘survival’ should make clear why. RESPONDENT: Can’t we grow out of the worst excesses of it with concerted measures, such as a social system, technological advances, education, genetic engineering, space travel, sport? RICHARD: Because the ‘we’ who would (supposedly) do so are those very instinctual survival passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). RESPONDENT: I guess that even if we can do that, malice and sorrow still remain to wreak their havoc. RICHARD: Oh? Yet you wrote the following only a scant two weeks later:
As the contents of the affective faculty (aka ‘the emotional brain’), such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, *are* the emotions per se there is no prize for guessing just what your solution to all the ills of humankind might be as you went on to say (in part):
Oh well ... c‘est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT: Richard, are you saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature? ... and do that by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy? Else why say that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe? RICHARD: The reason why I said that is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe – in contrast to spiritualism (which, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of a supreme being who created or creates the universe) ... and, furthermore, because the extreme version of the materialist position is nihilism where, as a generalisation, it is typically held that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later. I am not saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy – such a teleological matter is something for teleologists to muse over in lieu of actually doing something about the human condition – as I make it abundantly clear on many an occasion elsewhere that it is the answer to the ubiquitous human quest for the meaning of life which is already always out-in-the-open here in this actual world. And what I mean by the ‘quest for the meaning of life’ might perhaps be best summarised by the title of a large painting
(5’ x 12’) Mr. Paul Gauguin executed in Tahiti – after vowing he would commit suicide following its completion – on sized burlap in 1897-98
... to wit: ‘Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?’ (D’où venons-nous ? Que sommes-nous ? Où allons-nous ?). For what it is worth ... the blue idol in the centre-left background apparently represents what he described as ‘The Beyond’. RESPONDENT: What are the differences between ‘universe’ and ‘life’? RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘life’:
The word ‘universe’, of course, refers to all time and all space and all matter (aka mass and energy).
RESPONDENT: Richard, are the terms ‘mahasamadhi’/‘parinirvana’ used in the ancient texts describing a state and/or condition identical to what you’re living now? RICHARD: As the terms ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) and ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) explicitly refer to a bodiless state of being in a timeless, spaceless and formless dimension, only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened Being/Awakened One ‘quits the body’, there is no way it can be identical to what this flesh and blood body is living now. RESPONDENT: Was the condition described by the terms ‘parinirvana’/‘mahasamadhi’ actually based on the gleamings/ flashes of an enlightened one into the ‘Great Beyond’ or are these terms based on speculation rather than experience? RICHARD: As the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was able to have pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) whilst in the enlightened/awakened state there is no reason to presume that other enlightened/awakened beings could not. RESPONDENT: They haven’t followed fully on the trail of these flashes because it would have meant physical death (exactly as it seemed to you), maybe that’s why they said it is only attainable at physical death as a permanent state (condition). RICHARD: The prospect of total oblivion – the existential angst of discovering that one is nothing but a contingent ‘being’ and that one will cease to ‘be’ unless the redemptive straw, of several doomsday straws, be grasped – can be so terrifying/horrifying as to bring about a state of dread of such magnitude as to render intelligent action null and void. I have written about the dread of oblivion before:
RESPONDENT: But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they haven’t lived without the Self (the known unknown) for brief periods, no? Isn’t the resulting state identical to a PCE (the unknowable)? RICHARD: There is no reason to assume that any enlightened/awakened being could not have a PCE ... acting upon it so as to bring about an absolute end to the highly-prized enlightened/awakened state is, of course, another matter. RESPONDENT: How can one become free from the insidious grip of the ‘unknown’ if one doesn’t first begin to know himself in ‘his’ totality? But to know oneself in one’s totality is enlightenment, no? RICHARD: No ... and I draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: You say that there’s a possible route by-passing enlightenment ... RICHARD: I am none too sure I have ever said there *is* a possible route by-passing enlightenment ... what I have said is that the current situation calls for pioneers. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m interested to know how knowing and experiencing your partner changed over the years, as it probably closely mirrors the changes in your condition. I know that love allows one to enter into direct contact with the other’s being and thus experience him/her. RICHARD: As I have been here all along my experiencing/ knowing has been essentially the same all the while (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world) ... to wit: an actual intimacy/an apperceptive awareness. However, as you are obviously enquiring about how the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago experienced/ knew ‘his’ first wife (for 15 years as a normal ‘being’ and for 2 years as an abnormal ‘Being’) and ‘his’ second wife (for 6 years as an abnormal ‘Being’) then the experiencing/ knowing took two main forms ... egoistically (for 15 years) and holistically (for 2 + 6 years). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to put it more to the point ... do you now know/ experience your partner’s character (the third I so-to-speak), the actual person? RICHARD: Aye ... just as I have all along. RESPONDENT: Is someone’s actual character original (in the sense that it’s an unique combination of elements)? RICHARD: Yes ... both hereditarily and environmentally. RESPONDENT: Are your preferences in regards to choosing/ living with a partner mainly influenced by this ... RICHARD: Indeed so ... my current companion has no equal. RESPONDENT: ... or simply by your heterosexual orientation (any partner will do, as you experience intimacy with any body)? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body’s sexual orientation simply determines what gender a potential companion will be; as an actual intimacy is with every body (and every thing/every event) it is that person’s character/ disposition/ constitution/ temperament which appeals. As does their vital interest in an actual intimacy for themselves, of course.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m interested to know how knowing and experiencing your partner changed over the years, as it probably closely mirrors the changes in your condition. I know that love allows one to enter into direct contact with the other’s being and thus experience him/her. RICHARD: As I have been here all along my experiencing/ knowing has been essentially the same all the while (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world) ... to wit: an actual intimacy/an apperceptive awareness. However, as you are obviously enquiring about how the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago experienced/ knew ‘his’ first wife (for 15 years as a normal ‘being’ and for 2 years as an abnormal ‘Being’) and ‘his’ second wife (for 6 years as an abnormal ‘Being’) then the experiencing/ knowing took two main forms ... egoistically (for 15 years) and holistically (for 2 + 6 years). RESPONDENT: Holistically as in whole or holly? What do you mean by whole? RICHARD: The word ‘holistically’ comes from the Greek ‘holos’ (whole, entire) meaning ‘complete, whole; completely, wholly’. Viz.:
However, I am meaning the word ‘holistically’ – essentially as opposed to ‘atomistically’ (to be divided into separate and disparate elements) – in its popular metaphysical sense ... as the following will convey:
* RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to put it more to the point ... do you now know/experience your partner’s character (the third I so-to-speak), the actual person? RICHARD: Aye ... just as I have all along. RESPONDENT: So, it can be said that you experience the third I (actual character) of any other person you come in contact with ... RICHARD: I was responding as much to your ‘the actual person’ description as to that way of putting it. RESPONDENT: ... immediately or only after some time spent with that person? RICHARD: I experience the actual person immediately ... their actual character, being both hereditarily and environmentally determined, becomes more apparent the more the experiencing continues. RESPONDENT: Given the fact that every ‘other’ is different, it must be fun meeting people. What I don’t understand is why you say that no body is special ... yet it is clear that your current partner is a special person and maybe not only to you ... different from the rest by some character traits that you prefer/like. Or maybe you meant something else by ‘special’. RICHARD: Yes ... presumably you are referring to this (re-posted earlier this year):
That was in response to about how I am with children/how I treat children ... I have responded with similar in regards a query about friends:
The same, or similar, applies to both a choice companion and select associates. * RESPONDENT: Is someone’s actual character original (in the sense that it’s an unique combination of elements)? RICHARD: Yes ... both hereditarily and environmentally. RESPONDENT: Are your preferences in regards to choosing/living with a partner mainly influenced by this ... RICHARD: Indeed so ... my current companion has no equal. RESPONDENT: No equal ... in what area? RICHARD: In the area your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] referred to, of course ... to somebody’s actual character being original (in the sense that it is an unique combination of elements both hereditary and environmental). Even identical twins are not exactly alike in that area. * RESPONDENT: ... or simply by your heterosexual orientation (any partner will do, as you experience intimacy with any body)? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body’s sexual orientation simply determines what gender a potential companion will be; as an actual intimacy is with every body (and every thing/ every event) it is that person’s character/disposition/constitution/temperament which appeals. As does their vital interest in an actual intimacy for themself, of course. RESPONDENT: I see ... do you find in the actual world human characters/ dispositions/ constitutions/ temperaments that do not appeal to you or even you personally dislike? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to rephrase the passage you partly referred to (further above) by way of example? Viz.:
Similarly, it is impossible for anybody, whatever that person’s character/disposition/constitution/temperament may be, to not appeal. RESPONDENT: A preference is a discriminatory process ... RICHARD: Here is what that word can mean:
Thus I would rather say that a preference is discriminative – in that it is a process which involves observing distinctions accurately – as the word ‘discriminatory’ has popular connotations such as those especially expressed (racism, sexism, ageism, and so on) ... and the example I most often give is that of preferring to sit upon cushion (if available) than directly on the brick pavers of a patio or the such-like. In other words, a preference sensibly-based upon creature-comforts. RESPONDENT: ... it means assessing the quality of something over something else ... RICHARD: Given that the word ‘quality’ (from the Latin ‘qualis’ meaning ‘of what kind’) literally means ‘character, disposition, nature, constitution, make-up’ a preference for a like-minded companion (to use a colloquial phrase to convey congruity) means assessing both their character/ disposition/ constitution/ temperament and where their interests lie – and in what order of priority such interests take – in terms of compatibility. RESPONDENT: ... does the quality of people’s actual character vary? RICHARD: No, what does vary is different persons’ actual character/disposition/constitution/temperament (and their vital interest of course). RESPONDENT: Is this not the recipe for creating a personal hierarchy in terms of taste? RICHARD: A preference for *a companion*, whose character/disposition/constitution/temperament and vital interest coincides with one’s own (as in having correspondence), is in no way a recipe for creating a personal hierarchy, in terms of taste or otherwise, amongst peoples at large. Speaking personally ... I take people as they come (as in literally accepting them as-they-are). RESPONDENT: The current and democratic thoughts (i.e. multiculturalism, relativism) are quite against hierarchies, but for me they are an intrinsic aspect of life and are linked with judgement and quality, not to mention the possibility for evolution ... I don’t mean hierarchy in the sense of a power structure. A western style society is functionally more advanced/beneficial than its Arab/Chinese counterpart. RICHARD: As you have moved away from what my experiencing/knowing of my companion is, and what my preferences in regards to choosing/living with same are, into the topic of humankind itself, and societies in particular, the following part of a thread may be of interest:
All-told the thread spans several e-mails ... yet that last sentence is the essence of it.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I recently saw a film by Ingmar Bergman, Persona. Here’s a short review: [snip URL]. In the film there is a documentary sequence with a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire, which event had a significant impact in your life. RICHARD: This is the text which describes the significant impact you are referring to:
The physical self-immolation in the documentary sequence you refer to, reproduced in that movie, was three years earlier (June 1963) and was motivated by that particular monk’s desire to bring attention to the discriminatory treatment experienced by members of the Unified Buddhist Church, at the hands of the (Catholic-dominated) government of the day, in the context of a movement by those practitioners to have Buddhism become the national religion, and thus be a religious-cultural vehicle for a negotiated unification and, arising out of a scriptural background (dating back more than 1,000 years) of similar self-inflicted deaths, the deeply-held belief that he would become a bodhisattva for his actions. Two months later (August 1963) another monk, and then two nuns, also physically self-immolated (all-in-all over a hundred monks and nuns immolated themselves between 1963-1974). RESPONDENT: As these images (the movie was produced in 1966) looked to me identical with the event you witnessed in Vietnam and the monk photo on the lite version of the AF website, I wonder if it’s the same event. RICHARD: The photograph you mention was taken in 1963. RESPONDENT: There’s 1 out of 12 probability. Do you remember seeing a film-operator at the scene? RICHARD: The photographer at that 1963 physical self-immolation was Mr. Malcolm Browne. RESPONDENT: Were you present there from beginning to end? RICHARD: I was not even in the military in 1963 (I was working on the land, as a farmer’s son, at that time). RESPONDENT: Why hasn’t anyone tried to contain the fire? RICHARD: Just for starters: an estimated 300 Buddhist monks and nuns blocked all entrances to the main traffic intersection, in Saigon, where that 1963 physical self-immolation took place. Also, such physical self-immolation is a feature of Vietnamese Buddhism – both against previous French and Chinese occupations and the current North Vietnamese occupation – and thus has a religio-cultural precedence/acceptance. Plus, it is not all that dissimilar to, for instance, hunger-strikes-unto-death in other parts of the world for similar reasons (so as to bring about the dominance of the immolator’s own group/ own beliefs over another group/ other’s beliefs). What price belonging, eh?
RICHARD: ... physical self-immolation is a feature of Vietnamese Buddhism – both against previous French and Chinese occupations and the current North Vietnamese occupation – and thus has a religio-cultural precedence/ acceptance. Plus, it is not all that dissimilar to, for instance, hunger-strikes-unto-death in other parts of the world for similar reasons (so as to bring about the dominance of the immolator’s own group/ own beliefs over another group/ others’ beliefs). What price belonging, eh? RESPONDENT: I intended to say that’s more a case of ‘what price believing’, yet the need to belong sometimes creates the believing (in order to belong to a group one has to share its beliefs). It’s an excellent example of the two halves of the identity, both affective and cognitive, working hand in hand, as one. RICHARD: Or, rather, a salient example of what dominance the affections really have over intelligence.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I remember you saying that what the West represents in terms of culture/ civilization (individualism, liberal democracy, market economy, etc.) is threatened/ undermined by Eastern spiritual concepts. RICHARD: You are obviously referring to this:
Or this (a variation on the theme):
The only occasion I have discussed democracy with you was in regards to Christianity (and not eastern mystical wisdom). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: To me, it seems that the danger is broader and includes, above all, demographics. In a few generations, Europe will not be the place we now know ... and not for the better. I also think that the Western Civilization is helping its own extinction via fancy concepts like multiculturalism ... something akin to a suicidal gesture. There’s no better example than the country/ society you currently live ... and I’m speaking of trends. I can see no solutions though ... except maybe for a ‘white Australia policy’. Values are not actual, okay ... but some are better than others. What’s your practical take on this? RICHARD: The following encapsulates my practical take on sociological issues/societal values as well:
Just so there is no misunderstanding ... when I say I have no solutions for life in the real-world I am referring to systematised solutions like political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so forth. For instance:
RESPONDENT: Richard, what would be your preferred method for your body to be dealt with after you die? RICHARD: As your query is based upon a misapprehension
The way in which someone – anyone – chooses to utilise this vital opportunity is, of course, their business ... when they seek to engage me in matters not pertaining to the above clearly stated/ unambiguously articulated purpose, however, they are endeavouring to make their frittering away of an opportunity of a lifetime my business as well. Accordingly, I will repost the following:
RESPONDENT: ‘What beneficent creator would permit the sort of suffering so widespread in nature?’ [Charles Darwin]. ‘The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical’. [David Hull]. ‘The sheer amount of suffering in the world that is the direct result of natural selection is beyond contemplation’. [Richard Dawkins]. [Respondent]: ‘I have noticed that you apply many of the traditional attributes of spirit to
matter: infinite, eternal, benevolent, benign, even, I believe, intelligent in a non-anthropomorphic way’. The last quote, although coming from direct experience, contradicts obvious facts, like the first three quotes above. RICHARD: Ha ... since when has any god/ any theology/ any theory been obvious facts? Here is a more spelled-out way of putting it:
RESPONDENT: I can’t reconcile these ... has anyone managed to? ... and how? RICHARD: It is not a matter of reconciliation Put succinctly: actualism is experiential and not theological/ philosophical or academical/ theoretical. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that the thin red line between Nature (cruel survival instincts in humans, animals, birds, viruses, other life forms) and Universe (matter) is arbitrarily drawn by actualists, it’s an artificial divide. RICHARD: Just for starters I use the phrase blind nature
I use the word universe to refer to all time and all space and all matter ... and that usage is not, of course, inclusive of the emotional/ passional imaginings (fantasies, hallucinations, deliriums, and so on) of the psyche. And the reason why I mention this, up-front, is because some form of, or variation on, what can be called malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is an ubiquitous feature of the world of the human psyche ... as is evidenced, for example, in the ‘existence of evil’ dilemma more than a few theologians/ metaphysicians/ philosophers and/or academics/ intellectuals/ theoreticians wrestle futilely with and which type of quandary might possibly be what you are re-presenting a facsimile of in this e-mail (albeit in the guise of a-cruel/ bloody-nature-versus-a-benevolent/ benign-universe line of thought) just as you did in an earlier post (on Thursday, 10/11/2005, at 10:21 PM AEDST) where you spoke of [quote] ‘the horrors of nature’ [endquote]. There is no line or divide (be it thin, arbitrary, artificial, or otherwise) between blind nature’s very essential survival package and the universe – biological-inheritance is not a miraculous gift bestowed by some inscrutable god/ goddess – as this actual world, the world of the senses, is indeed characterised by benevolence and benignity (there is neither cruelness nor horrors in actuality). However, in the real world, the world of the psyche, any such kindly disposition – as in being well-disposed, bountiful, liberal, bounteous, beneficent (aka benevolent) and being favourable, propitious, salutary (aka benign) – being not readily apparent, as in directly experienceable, requires naiveté for its intellectual ascertainment. I am, of course, using the word ‘kindly’ in its Oxford Dictionary ‘acceptable, agreeable, pleasant; spec. (of climate, conditions, etc.) benign, favourable to growth’ meaning ... and which I generally express by saying I am swimming in largesse. For example:
Or even more specifically:
In short: I do not use the words benevolent/ benevolence and benign/ benignity as antonyms to the words malevolent/ malevolence and malign/ malignity (such as to require reconciliation) as the latter exists only in the human psyche. RESPONDENT: I can’t reconcile the statement that the Universe is benevolent with the fact that a life form (even free from instinctual passions) has to feed on other life forms in order to survive. It has to kill. RICHARD: Oh, there is even more to it than life feeding off life ... and we have touched on it before:
Umpteen numbers of stars (and thus solar systems) are constantly exploding/ imploding, and their resultant gaseous nebulae are coalescing/ amalgamating, all throughout the observable universe and yet you focus only upon life feeding off life in order to justify your how-can-it-be-reconciled stance. For example:
Or even a more simple (if only because it is a more popular or common plaint) example:
Objecting to, or being resentful of, being alive in the first place takes many forms. RESPONDENT: The actualist universe is a benevolent universe. RICHARD: No, it is the actual universe – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which is benevolent (and benign) ... and which actuality includes the very flesh and blood body itself. RESPONDENT: Towards whom is this benevolence manifested? RICHARD: As there is no thing (such as the stones, trees, humans, and other animals, you go on to mention) which is not the universe your [quote] ‘towards whom’ [endquote] question makes no sense. RESPONDENT: Stones, trees, animals or only towards humans? RICHARD: The benevolence (and benignity) of this actual universe is intrinsic to every thing ... no thing is exempt. RESPONDENT: ... seems a little awkward/silly to me. RICHARD: That could quite possibly be because you are considering these matters in a spiritualistic versus materialistic context ... rather than in an actualistic paradigm such as what this mailing list is set-up for. I mean it when I say actualism is the third alternative to spiritualism and materialism. * RESPONDENT: The number of unprecedented advances in the last 200 years, including in the social arena, are due to human effort/ intelligence alone and not some sort of benevolence ... an active force welling endlessly through parsecs of space. RICHARD: As I have nowhere ever mentioned that the technological/ sociological advances are not due to human effort/ intelligence that is what is known as a straw-man argument (wherein one goes about fabricating something another never said and then sets about refuting their own invention as if they are having an intelligent discussion). RESPONDENT: Also, the paradigm that you only have to change one person (you) is a bit far-fetched, war takes at least two parties to break out and so does peace. RICHARD: As I specifically refer to the root cause of war (the elimination of which results in an already always existing peace being apparent) that is another straw-man argument. RESPONDENT: If there’s no mutual understanding, there’s nothing you can do ... RICHARD: Only just recently (on Monday, 30/01/2006, at 1:50 AM AEDST) another subscriber to this mailing list characterised your posts as containing [quote] ‘high quality, thoughtful and relevant items’ [endquote] ... do you consider that to be a fair assessment? RESPONDENT: ... what can I do when a Muslim (someone who ardently believes that Allah is the only and true God) asks me to either agree with that or shut up/die? RICHARD: Has any person at all ever put you in such a life-threatening situation (as in a zealous apparatchik, for instance, with all the life-and-death power of the communistic state at their disposal)? RESPONDENT: It touches on what’s called freedom of speech, it’s violence pure and simple, mental rape. RICHARD: Or, rather, it is the suppression of frank, honest and open communication ... in a word: censorship (be it either overt or covert). RESPONDENT: If there’s no one to stand up and fight that ‘meme’ (ignorant bastard) ... RICHARD: Why do you say [quote] ‘fight’ [endquote]? I have personally experienced covert censorship of my writings – no publisher approached in 1996-97 would have anything to do with them – and have made a judicious use of the internet ever since ... all without any fight whatsoever. RESPONDENT: ... well, we can all live in our own private paradise, heads down, and in a miserable world at that. RICHARD: As you are obviously not referring to this actual world (which is neither a private paradise nor a miserable world) I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: For evil to triumph, it’s sufficient for good men to do nothing. RICHARD: If I may take the liberty of re-arranging your (borrowed) wisdom? For example:
As a matter of interest: would you classify making available the millions of words for free on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – not to forget this directly-into-your-own-home mailing list – to be doing nothing? RESPONDENT: Is freedom of speech ‘good’? RICHARD: If by that you mean beneficial then ... yes, it can be. RESPONDENT: Can the outside ‘bad’ be efficiently tackled by an actualist? RICHARD: To be tackling either bad or good behaviour (efficiently or otherwise) is to be but rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. RESPONDENT: Is the fight between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ a fancy drama, a soap opera, spurred by human imagination? RICHARD: If you are still referring to a behavioural fight then ... yes (inasmuch it is a physical playing-out of the fight between the good and the bad of the human psyche). RESPONDENT: Seriously, why don’t you live in North Korea or China? RICHARD: For much the same reasons I do not live in Rumania (for instance). RESPONDENT: Ahh, you’re not familiar with the social protocols. RICHARD: Amongst other things... yes. RESPONDENT: Yet there’s matter in China and plenty of it ... and where there’s matter there’s happiness ... and freedom. RICHARD: Aye ... there is plenty of matter on Mars, too (or , more correctly, it is comprised of matter). * RESPONDENT: Also, about the imperative that this universe has ... to (constantly?) improve locally, to reach the full of its potential, the best possible outcome .... where is the evidence for this on other planets, stars, comets? RICHARD: In the same place as the evidence there is life on other planets, stars, comets, perchance? RESPONDENT: It’s an anthropomorphic view ... RICHARD: Ha ... when you look about and observe the myriads of life forms do you see them as imperatively having to deteriorate, to reach the least of their potential, their worst possible outcome, then? RESPONDENT: ... if I can’t see any improvement there in the last 3+ billion years, what makes an actualist (another human) see any? RICHARD: Oh? You do not call the arising of intelligence in the human animal an improvement, then? RESPONDENT: Actualism looks in these occasions condimented with the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric views on the universe. RICHARD: Hmm ... actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is anything but an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view on the universe. RESPONDENT: Maybe, just maybe, we have a hard time just accepting the evidence: we live in a meaningless, breathtaking universe. RICHARD: And just what non-anthropomorphic/ non-anthropocentric evidence would that be (that the universe, albeit breathtaking, is meaningless) ... other than the stock-standard materialistic position, that is, as that fancy has already been flogged to death on other forums? RESPONDENT: Thanks for hearing my thoughts. RICHARD: You are welcome ... any chance of them being more thoughtful (as in relating to the actualism actually on offer and not a spiritualistic/ materialistic construal of same) the next time around?
RESPONDENT: Richard, what would be the cause for over-eating and obesity in your experience? RICHARD: As the cause of obesity is (obviously) over-eating then what you are really asking is why eat so much in the first place, is it not? If so, and as you have specifically asked about my experience, I will first draw your attention to the following word:
Then to this:
RESPONDENT: And why this all-mighty trend to tackle the effects and not the causes when dealing with various problems? RICHARD: To paraphrase my initial response in the original thread: the progenitor of compulsive eating – the glutton – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself. RESPONDENT: Is it because it is easier, they are more obvious or maybe because you’re left with no choice when the unpleasant effects arise? RICHARD: You are indeed left with a choice (and at each moment again as well) ... to wit: not eating so much.
RESPONDENT No. 115: Why does the PCE happen? RICHARD: A pure consciousness experience (PCE) happens because the identity, being an illusion/delusion, cannot always sustain its dominance over actuality. RESPONDENT No. 115: Is it a glitch in the matrix? RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to an in utero defect – ‘matrix: the uterus, the womb; a place or medium in
which something is bred ...’ (Oxford Dictionary) – it is handy to bear in mind that virtually
everybody, no matter what age, gender or race, has experienced such moments of perfection at some stage in their life ... usually most often in childhood. RESPONDENT: And maybe, just maybe, such experience (PCE) is virtually universal as everyone is more than eager/ willing to experience the lost intimacy, perfection and unparalleled security of his mother womb ... RICHARD: No ... and anyway, as life in the womb is a life awash with chemicals coming, via the
placenta, from the mother whenever she feels anxious, afraid, angry, and so on and so forth, it is hardly the paradisaical environment you make it
out to be. RESPONDENT: ... and the early years of life where there is no perceived separation between me and my mother ... RICHARD: Have you never heard of separation anxiety, then? RESPONDENT: ... the trauma of gradually becoming aware that I am separate from my toys and surroundings, that I am a separate entity (whatever that entails). RICHARD: Hmm ... have you been reading some populist psychology books by any chance? RESPONDENT: Regression is actualism second name ... RICHARD: It is nothing of the sort. RESPONDENT: ... and some people don’t like to grow-up, taking decisions on their own. RICHARD: Those moments of perfection referred to further above are an exception in childhood ... not the norm. RESPONDENT: I bet that Richard’s mother was a very possessive person, over caring for him. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well I am not a betting person (I never gamble) as you could very well end up losing the shirt off your back with such amateur psychologising. For instance:
RESPONDENT: Btw, nature is a substitute for mother ... RICHARD: Only for those believing in that whole ‘Mother Nature’ fantasy (conveniently ignoring that nature is truly ‘red in tooth and claw’). RESPONDENT: ... and Richard had an enduring love affair with mother nature ... RICHARD: You can only be referring to this:
Nowhere there, or anywhere else for that matter, do I use the term [quote] ‘mother nature’ [endquote] ... the word ‘mother’ is your interpolation. RESPONDENT: ... not to mention his fascination with the ocean. RICHARD: Just so as to inject some semblance of commonsense into this epic saga you are spinning ... are you saying that PCE’s were more common in my childhood because the identity in residence back then had a fascination with the ocean (else why bring it up)? RESPONDENT: It’s a bit surprising that in an infinite universe, we should have the same destiny, no matter how magnificent and perfect. RICHARD: Why is it a bit surprising that, in an infinite universe, all the human animals coming out of the same verdant
and azure planet RESPONDENT: I’ve watched some years ago a TV documentary about someone who suddenly transformed himself from an accounting clerk into a full-blown artist following a physical trauma ... RICHARD: Whereas I gradually transformed myself from an itinerant worker (I worked at maybe 40-50 different jobs during my peregrinations) into a full-blown artist by enrolling at an art-college, full-time for three years, and practising same 12-14 hours a day 6-7 days a week, in the years after graduating, so as to support and provide for five other peoples as well as myself. RESPONDENT: ... describing his fascination with nature, how beautiful it all is, painting most of the day, his life being transformed. RICHARD: And the point you are making with that anecdote is ... what?
RICHARD: The direct experience of the benignity and benevolence which originates from both those
sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves is an apperceptive (unmediated) awareness, and thus comprehension, of the
essential character of the infinitude/ absoluteness RESPONDENT: By the essential character, do you mean the essence of matter/ energy (no meta-physical meaning intended) or the essence of infinitude? RICHARD: Neither ... by that I mean this universe is fundamentally without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless – hence perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) – and thus flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and thus pure/ pristine. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Going a bit further, I was wondering what is my essential character ... RICHARD: In a word: affective. RESPONDENT: ... maybe a useful to go by definition is that if I were stripped of everything non-essential, only the essential traits/ properties will remain, in other words, my integrity would not be affected. Also, what would take for an individual to be subjected to in order for his integrity (intrinsic character) to be damaged (you said you have no trauma)? RICHARD: By being subscribed to this mailing list since July 2001 and (despite engaging in 72 e-mail exchanges with me) still being engaged only in arm-chair philosophising, perchance?
RESPONDENT: Richard, you said in a post to No. 74 a while back that you would not cheat on your partner because that would affect her integrity. RICHARD: I said no such thing. RESPONDENT: Could you please explain why would sleeping with another woman would affect your partner’s integrity? RICHARD: As I never said what you say I said there is no such thing to explain. RESPONDENT: What type of integrity do you have in mind? RICHARD: The type of integrity I parenthetically delineated in the very exchange you are referring to, of course. RESPONDENT: I can’t grasp the point you’re making. RICHARD: The general point I am making is that being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto does not mean I am a robotic/ automated android-like organism speaking in a flat, monotone voice and devoid of both a sense of humour and any fellowship regard (aka caring/ consideration) for other sentient creatures. The specific point I am making is that for my earlier co-respondent to have asked why not change companions every day, as if by having no affective feelings it makes no difference just who it is, is to have cavalierly disregarded the integrity of, not only my current companion, but each and every one of those (365 per year) fellow human beings – adroitly assuming, of course, as that previous co-respondent presumably had, that a steady stream of females would indeed be knocking on my door each morning wanting admission as soon as the previous day’s female-in-residence had departed for places unknown (an instinctually-driven archetypal male-fantasy if there ever was) – and not to forget, of course, the assumed total lack of integrity on my part ... but, then again, a robotic-like automaton would of course be devoid of same anyway. Incidentally, it is not case of having another’s integrity affected – it is a case of (presumably) having so little regard/ no regard at all for the integrity of one’s companion that they could be changed daily – and it speaks volumes for the parlous state of the human condition that such a scenario would even be entertained for a moment ... let alone typed-out and sent to me. RESPONDENT: Where I stand, sex is just an experience in which variety plays an important part, like food or changing residence. RICHARD: Whereas with no separation whatsoever (an actual intimacy) sexual intercourse with a constant companion is a precious experience ... it is both a delight and a privilege that one of the 3.0+ billion females on this planet wants to spend their most irreplaceable asset (their time) living with me/ being with me, twenty four hours a day/ seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. RESPONDENT: Whether I choose to tell my girlfriend about it or not is a matter of personal choice and above all, freedom. RICHARD: For an all-too-brief period a number of years ago my living arrangement was of the ménage à trois variety ... the reward for being up-front and out-in-the-open is exquisite, to say the least, as to be with females being so open and honest together is to be with truly marvellous creatures.
RESPONDENT: Actualism for me is the direct experience of matter by a living organism, a killer whale for instance. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that animals in general – such as the killer whale (Orcinus Orca), a predatory, toothed marine animal – are void of instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and thus any rudimentary animal ‘self’ (aka ‘being’)? RESPONDENT: Not the end result of some lunatic that asks himself Haietmoba for the rest of his miserable life. RICHARD: Yet this living organism – this flesh and blood body – tapping away at this keyboard is only able to report/ describe/ explain the direct experience of matter per favour of the lunatic, who asked himself how he was experiencing this moment of being alive for the rest of his miserable life, in residence at the time. In other words, this mailing list would not exist for you to send that dour outlook (which promotes instinctually-driven animals over intelligently-guided ones) to were it dependent upon killer whales, for instance, to make apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth. (...) RESPONDENT: The truth is that no one here has any idea what they are talking about, with the exception of Richard Maybe. We’re in the DARK ... touching the void ... picking one piece after another of this changing and seemingly never-ending puzzle, trying to find a meaning to it, a way out. There’s no meaning to it, this is the world of the psyche ... but maybe there’s a way out .. it’s up for each man, to let go the thing he most loves. The only real question then is how to get there. I’m afraid there is no sure way ... and Lao Tzu’s words spring to mind ... <the way that can be shown is not the real way>. RICHARD: As Mr. Lao Tzu knew nought of what this living organism – this flesh and blood body – tapping away at this keyboard has to report/ describe/ explain then those words ascribed to his brush are not even worth the rice paper they were first set down upon.
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 |
