|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 27
RICHARD: As for seeing that it could be difficult for one in the ‘real’ world to see their life as pathetic from within: from what I recall the entity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago could see – albeit dimly – that ‘his’ existence was indeed pathetic (as in emotional and passional and liable to suffer) and that, therefore, it was indeed pathetic (as in either miserably inadequate, feeble or useless) ... and my conversations with various peoples these days show that mostly they too can see it (even if also somewhat dimly to start off with) although there are those who decline to acknowledge it for whatever reason. RESPONDENT: I think my confusion of your meaning here was a result of thinking you meant that the existence of a ‘self’ is ‘pathetic’ as in miserably inadequate, feeble, or useless – as in (my paraphrase) meaningless and pointless. Now you have clarified in a previous post regarding the ‘meaning of life’ that you are certainly not saying that a life as a ‘human’ is meaningless or pointless (which by the way I was having a predictably hard time reconciling with an ability to be ‘reasonably happy’). It is indeed quite easy for me to see that ‘my’ life is pathetic (as in emotional and passional and liable to suffer) – but it doesn’t seem to follow for me that it is then pointless or useless. (That sort of interpretation is what would be hard to see by a ‘human’.) Now your reference that you were seeing this inference only ‘dimly’ means to me that you must mean the conclusion was based on a dim glimpse of actual freedom and perfection. So you must be saying that ‘my’ existence is pathetic (as in miserably inadequate, feeble, or useless) merely because it is possible to be rid of the self and in fact ‘I’ am blocking the meaning of life from being apparent. So I take it that this second sense of pathetic would be virtually interchangeable with ‘superfluous, redundant, or unnecessary, or in the way’, and so forth. So you could say (spelled out) that ‘I’ am miserably inadequate for total fulfilment and peace-on-earth, a feeble excuse for perfection, and useless as in superfluous or ‘blocking’ the meaning of life. Is this fairly accurate? RICHARD: Yes ... it is in regards to issues of an ultimate nature (such as total fulfilment, peace-on-earth, perfection, meaning of life) where it can be seen – if only dimly to start off with – that even ‘my’ best endeavours (via personal growth, social change, political reform and so on) are miserably inadequate or feeble or useless. Seeing that the word ‘useless’ has joined the list of other ‘-less’ words this may be an opportune moment to re-visit an earlier e-mail:
I could have as easily said that it is useless, worthless, meaningless, or any other word of that ilk, to try to find the meaning of life in the ‘real world’ ... just as I could have said that it is useless, worthless, meaningless, pointless, etcetera, to seek to establish peace on earth whilst remaining ‘human’. In short: no ultimate solution to the human condition can be found in the ‘real world’. * RICHARD: As for your comment regarding comparison: whenever I discuss these matters with my fellow human beings there is indeed always a comparison with life in the ‘real’ world as contrasted to life in the actual world ... it is what I came onto the internet for. RESPONDENT: Yes, I have no problem with comparison – it would be pointless not to compare the two. What would be pointless is render those in virtual and actual freedom as the only people on the planet who have a life worth living. And this is indeed what I was beginning to wonder if you were saying is the case. What is indeed difficult to swallow is that one’s life is useless – as in pointless or meaningless. It would hardly seem worthwhile to actualise an actual freedom amongst others whose lives are pointless or meaningless anyway. Writing this out makes this interpretation look pretty silly, but it also doesn’t seem so far-fetched when one’s life is called ‘pathetic’ or ‘useless’. RICHARD: As an actual freedom is complete unto itself it would not matter that one was living ‘amongst others whose lives are pointless or meaningless’ (if that were to be the case which it is not) if only because an actual intimacy is not dependent upon either reciprocation or cooperation. There is much that is meaningful or worthwhile in normal human life ... as I have already touched upon in an earlier e-mail:
If this relative/ ultimate issue is now clarified satisfactorily I will take this opportunity to point out that there is, however, one area where ‘I’ am not useless (in the ultimate sense) for it is only ‘me’ who can enable both the meaning of life and the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent ... by either going into abeyance (as in a pure consciousness experience) or by altruistic ‘self’-immolation (as in an actual freedom from the human condition). The (future) quality of human life is all in ‘my’ hands.
RESPONDENT: I do think our usages of ‘socially reprehensible’ diverge. I would reserve the word ‘reprehensible’ for the truly atrocious things that people do – rape, murder, abuse, etc. – but I wouldn’t exclude what are commonly referred to as ‘misdemeanours’ as socially reprehensible either. RICHARD: Putting aside the ambivalence displayed in saying that you reserve usage of the word for major infractions of the social code of conduct whilst simultaneously not excluding usage of the word for minor infractions ... how is this substantially different from saying your usage of the word covers the entire range of antisocial conduct? As a matter of interest only: I have never taken the word as being reserved for the truly atrocious things that people do – I have always understood it as being applicable to anything which incurs criticism – so much so that when your e-mail came in I looked through the various dictionaries I have access to so as to see if I had been overlooking something all my life. The following definition best describes how I have always experienced its usage:
There is no qualification such as you propose ... and ‘to voice disapproval of’ can range all the way through reproval: from chiding, admonishing and rebuking through to reprimanding, censuring and condemning (according to the various thesauruses and other dictionaries I have access to). Where my usage of the word differs from the norm is to also apply it to that which is the cause of the antisocial conduct ... which strikes me as being an entirely sensible thing to do. RESPONDENT: I also don’t doubt there are such things as ‘reprehensible’ vibes – when it is apparent that someone is hating or being aggressive even without overt expression – but there are more subtle vibes that happen all the time which are sorrowful or malicious that I would hardly term ‘socially reprehensible’. RICHARD: Why not? A difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... are you sure you are not being unduly influenced by your preference to reserve the word for the major infractions (the apparent feelings in this instance) so much so that you inadvertently exclude the minor infractions (the more subtle feelings in this instance) despite saying further above that you would not exclude the misdemeanours? RESPONDENT: ‘Insalubrious’ may be a better term. RICHARD: Why? If something is reprehensible, no matter whether it be major or minor, apparent or subtle, what purpose does it serve to relabel it into being something which it is not? Please note that I am not telling you what you should or should not do in any of this ... I am, rather, suggesting that you question why your line of reasoning is following the path it is currently travelling along. RESPONDENT: As an example, my son may try to hit me when he is extremely upset – but I don’t regard that as ‘reprehensible’ – rather it is ‘normal’, yet ‘insalubrious’ as well. RICHARD: Unless one lives as an isolated hermit or recluse it is a fact that one lives amongst other people (aka society) and it is these other people who will disapprove of actions such as trying to hit someone when ‘extremely upset’ even if you do not. And if you do not bring it to your son’s attention that such emotion-backed behaviour is socially unacceptable – in the sense that society requires him to take responsibility for his feeling-fed actions – then other people surely will (and they will try to instil feelings of guilt and/or shame into him at the same time so as to have him control his aggressive feelings with countervailing feelings of remorse and/or contrition) ... for such is society’s way of dealing with antisocial feelings. To illustrate this I will take the liberty of altering your sentence so as to show what it looks like when the situation you describe is taken out of the family setting and other people are brought into the picture:
Of course I do not know what society you live in but the society I am familiar with certainly disapproves of someone trying to hit someone else when extremely upset. Now whilst your son is not to blame for being born with the human condition hereditarily implanted – it is not his fault that he comes into the world with the basic survival passions genetically endowed – somewhere along the line he will be required to be amenable to society’s legal laws and social protocols just like any other human being. Hence reprehension ... it is society’s way of conveying/ reinforcing its conventions to each and every one of its citizens so that some semblance of what passes for peace can prevail. Incidentally, that you consider it ‘normal’ that your son may try to hit you when extremely upset speaks volumes about how ubiquitous the instinctual passions are ... and it is because of attitudes such as this that I take the term ‘socially reprehensible’ deeper into the human condition so as to bring the source of antisocial conduct into the arena of public awareness. This way the cause can be addressed rather than continuing to just treat the symptoms. RESPONDENT: I would agree that being a ‘being’ is personally insalubrious. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this is obvious as it establishes a basis from which to see the communal ramifications of such a lack of well-being (which is where being personally insalubrious is to be socially reprehensible). RESPONDENT: Also, I agree that a ‘being’ has the potential for socially reprehensible deeds. RICHARD: Okay ... my intention, in discussions such as these, is to dig deeper so as to find out how and why the potential exists in the first place (rather than just acknowledging the potential for such deeds exists). Where there is no potential there is no need for checks and balances. RESPONDENT: I suppose my preference is though to reserve the word ‘reprehensible’ for deeds of more severity than common forms of insalubrity. RICHARD: Apart from repeating your ‘reserve for severity’ preference (as if you had never said you would not exclude misdemeanours) I notice that you have written ‘common forms of insalubrity’ rather than ‘common forms of reprehensibility’. If something is reprehensible it is reprehensible whether it be of a severe form or common form ... reprehensibility does not miraculously become insalubrity just because it is a minor infraction rather than a major infraction. RESPONDENT: Use the word however you prefer – I just want to make sure I understand your usage. I do like your convention of sensible vs. silly – it is much better than words that carry blame, like ‘reprehensible’. RICHARD: Essentially all I am doing is taking a word, which denotes the incurrence of disapproval from one’s fellow human beings when one’s behaviour is not in accord with civil order, into an area where it has never been applied before – into where the cause of the aberrant behaviour lies – and it is an area where !Lo! and !Behold! the blaming aspect of the word has no application (it is an exercise in futility to blame blind nature for continuing to provide the instinctual survival passions which were necessary all those thousands of years ago). The release from blame does not release one from consequences, however, hence the word is still applicable when referring to that which is not conducive to living happily and harmlessly with one’s fellow human beings. * RESPONDENT: ... let’s take an example where I am in a car accident and I am deemed ‘guilty’. Now, in this case I am guilty because I am at fault – I ‘caused’ the accident. Yet it would seem to do no good whatsoever for me to blame myself for being the guilty party in the accident. Rather it would be better for me to understand the causes of my negligence and work towards correcting it. I take it you are saying something similar about being ‘guilty at conception’. It is not my fault that I am born as a ‘being’. And it doesn’t help to wallow in feeling guilty, rather one should understand how to rectify one’s negligence and flawed nature. A question arises about this sort of guilt. Does it help to feel guilty? RICHARD: No ... which is the whole point of realising that it is not ‘my’ fault and that ‘I’ am not to blame: it makes no more sense to feel guilty about being born with the human condition in situ than it does to feel guilty about the colour of one’s skin, for example, or any other characteristic which is determined at conception. The same would apply to feeling shame. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that I am not advocating immorality but rather the elimination of the cause of that which requires morality to keep in check ... then one is automatically amoral (neither moral nor immoral). In a word: innocent. RESPONDENT: No one is to blame, so I’m assuming it doesn’t really help to ‘feel guilty’ – so you are not trying to put a ‘guilt trip’ on anyone, rather pointing out the insalubrity of being a ‘being’. RICHARD: I am not only pointing out the insalubrity of being a ‘being’ but also the social reprehensibility of being insalubrious. RESPONDENT: I find that feeling guilt doesn’t help me at all to rectify anything, but seeing the silliness of something and aiming to be more sensible does indeed help. Maybe what is happening here is that you are using language like ‘reprehensible’ and ‘guilty’ and ‘blameworthy’ and ‘culpable’ where all these words normally imply a feeling of guilt – then you come back and say that no-one is to blame – which for me, is a bit confusing. RICHARD: All I mean by the word guilty in the phrase ‘guilty at conception’ is not-innocent ... and I only use the word because so many people over the years have told me that children are born innocent and that adults have lost their childhood innocence (the Tabula Rasa theory). I see that I first used the term ‘guilty at conception’ – and in that very context – in ‘Richard’s Journal’ many years ago:
Not only did I preface it with ‘they are not to blame’ but I see that I even put the word ‘guilty’ in scare quotes to indicate that I did not mean it in the normal sense (a practice which I seem to have later dropped). * RESPONDENT: So ‘guilt’ for you is not to blame, but to point to the cause of socially reprehensible acts. I have to wonder whether it would be better to stick with ‘insalubrious’ or ‘silly’ – rather than ‘reprehensible’ or ‘guilty’ – which do (to me anyway) carry the implication of blame. RICHARD: Yet neither ‘silly’ nor ‘insalubrious’ work to counteract the ‘children are innocent’ claim. Vis.:
The only other antonym to the word ‘innocent’ that I have come across is the word ‘sinful’. * RESPONDENT: ... Rather than leave my conclusion vague, let me summarize. I agree that being a ‘being’ is ‘personally insalubrious’ – as in being a much better decision for one’s own and other’s sake(s) to self-immolate. One is better off whittling away at the social identity and instinctual passions. RICHARD: I do not see how you can draw the conclusion that it is a much better decision for ‘other’s sake(s)’ from the term ‘personally insalubrious’ only ... if there be no term referring to the communal benefit it would be (correctly) seen as being a selfish enterprise to ‘self’-immolate for personal reasons alone. Besides which the necessary ingredient for ‘self’-immolation – altruism – would be missing thus rendering any such endeavour powerless and doomed to failure from the start. I mean it when I say that, with the pristine nature of peace-on-earth being impeccable, nothing dirty can get in. RESPONDENT: Personally, I would stay away from phrases like ‘guilty at conception’ or ‘socially reprehensible’ to describe human nature because they imply blame. RICHARD: I am well aware that words such as ‘guilty’ and ‘reprehensible’ have blaming implications ... and I invite you to undertake the exercise in futility of putting the blame where it rightly belongs (onto blind nature) so that you can see for yourself how human beings have been unnecessarily berating themselves since time immemorial for something they are simply not to blame for. What I have observed over many years is that a normal person has a propensity to blame – to find fault rather than to find causes – when it comes to dealing with the human condition ... if for no other reason than that finding the cause means the end of ‘me’ (or the beginning of the end of ‘me’). Whereas endlessly repeating mea culpa keeps ‘me’ in existence. RESPONDENT: For me, ‘guilty’ is merely a term pointing to a person who caused something (also it is a legal term) – but it has much room for confusion, since one must qualify how it is possible to be ‘guilty’ without ‘blame’. RICHARD: I am at a loss to see how my qualification has ‘much room for confusion’ as I am quite specific about what I mean by the term ‘guilty at conception’ (meaning not innocent at conception let alone born innocent) ... and even without qualification surely it is obvious that one is not personally to blame for that which is determined at conception? RESPONDENT: ‘Reprehensible’ to me carries moral underpinnings. RICHARD: A lot of words can carry ‘moral underpinnings’ – after all they were coined by peoples trapped within the human condition without knowing how or why – yet even so I would rather stay with existing words rather than coining new words. RESPONDENT: There are indeed atrocious and not so atrocious acts and vibes that might be termed ‘reprehensible’, but I don’t see the value in saying that we are ‘socially reprehensible’ at birth or ‘guilty at conception’. RICHARD: Just for starters the value of it lies in setting the record straight in regards the erroneous claims that children are born innocent (and thus irreprehensible) ... which means it has value inasmuch one will cease reaching back into childhood – or back into some projected ‘Golden Age’ – for that which is simply not there ... innocence (and hence irreprehensibility) is entirely new to human history and exists only in the actual world. It has value in that the way is cleared to see what has been just here right now all along.
RESPONDENT: Richard, a question came to me this evening while watching a video of U.G. Krishnamurti. He stated that for him, perception has no ‘depth’. In some sense, everything seen is ‘flat’. This seems to relate specifically to his claim that ‘thought’ is what gives rise to ‘self’. The reason I say this is that it seems that he is saying that his perception has had any mental content stripped away – some sort of pure perception. Of course, I know your position differs with his account on this. An example he gives is of seeing a tree. He says the tree trunk is not round to his eyesight – it is flat. It’s as if all 3 dimensionality has evaporated. To me, it sounds similar to what some psychologists have speculated the perceptual experience of a newborn might be like – seeing ‘surfaces’ only – without concepts. I don’t know what you know of Bernadette Roberts – but she says virtually the same thing – her perception of the world is ‘flat’ – which is very close to the way U.G. describes his perception. Anyway, there is no way for me to know what their ‘non-experience’ is like, but I don’t hear anything from you that is like what they are saying. During my experience of a ‘mini-PCE’ as I’ve called it, I don’t remember perception as ‘flat’ or ‘without depth’. You describe the actual world as there being ‘no separation’, yet still space and time exist. Does that mean that there is still ‘depth’? I’m not sure how better to ask this question, but I think maybe you understand what I’m asking? What is really amazing to me is that Bernadette Roberts and U.G. describe what seem to be very similar ‘states’ – and actual freedom is also likewise without ‘self’ – yet I anticipate that your experience is much, much different. I am guessing you will say that there is ‘depth’ to your perception in the actual world. If I’m correct that your experience is drastically different from U.G.’s in this respect ... do you have any idea at all what might have happened to U.G. that at least partially nullified the working of thought, meaning, mind, etc in his ‘experience?’ Whatever it was seems to be repeated to some degree in Bernadette Roberts. RICHARD: First and foremost: as the physical world is a three-dimensional world, as evidenced by bodily locomotion, three-dimensional perception (stereoscopic vision) is in accord with actuality – whereas two-dimensional perception (flat vision) is not – and even a blind person knows that a tree is round by running their hands around it (perceiving tactually rather than visually). One way to comprehend what flat vision is like is to cover one eye and observe what happens when stereoscopic vision is no longer operating ... which is a device I learned at art college when beginning to draw and paint and initially had difficulty in transcribing the three-dimensionality of objects in the physical world into the two-dimensionality of objects in the representational world of paper or canvas. It will be seen that the depth of stereoscopic vision (depth of field) vanishes and everything is reduced to overlapping two-dimensional planes (as on paper or canvas) with size (near or distant) and chiaroscuro (light and shadow) and distinction (clear or hazy) being the main characteristics of one-eyed visual depth. As to why the people you refer to see the world in a one-eyed way I could speculate that it may be nothing more than an involuntary outcome of dissociation: as the physical world is unreal to a dissociated mind (Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti claims that thought creates time and space and matter) the resultant object estrangement can render everything two-dimensional visually – in a cardboard cut-out dream-like way – even though such a person still behaves in a three-dimensional manner (such as walking around in their visually flat world) ... which should bodily demonstrate to them that their vision is playing tricks upon them. And I only say this because I can recall seeing everything in a cardboard cut-out dream-like way myself, when in a solipsistic state many years ago, where everything was as if it were stage-prop scenery ... as in painted back-drops. Locomotion soon disabused me of this notion, however. I would suggest taking Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s ruminations on the subject of visual perception (as in a flat perception somehow being a pure perception) with a grain of salt ... as I would suggest doing with virtually all his explanations. For example, as he claims that thought creates the tree referred to (a tree is matter located in space and existing in time) it follows that when thought is not operating there would be no tree at all – a non-dimensional tree as it were – yet it turns out that there is a tree after all ... albeit a two-dimensional tree. O what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive. Put simply: stereoscopic vision has nothing to with whether there is an identity present inside the body or not and has everything to do with two side-by-side eyes x-distance apart being able to converge on the same thing simultaneously – in contrast to those animals with eyes on either side of their head being unable to converge – which provides for depth of field vision. This is born out by aerial mapping where two cameras mounted under each wing provide photographs in relief as contrasted to a single camera providing photographs without relief. Lastly, my experience is that, irregardless of whether thought is happening or not, stereoscopic vision operates anyway.
RESPONDENT: I do think our usages of ‘socially reprehensible’ diverge. I would reserve the word ‘reprehensible’ for the truly atrocious things that people do – rape, murder, abuse, etc. – but I wouldn’t exclude what are commonly referred to as ‘misdemeanours’ as socially reprehensible either. RICHARD: Putting aside the ambivalence displayed in saying that you reserve usage of the word for major infractions of the social code of conduct whilst simultaneously not excluding usage of the word for minor infractions ... how is this substantially different from saying your usage of the word covers the entire range of antisocial conduct? RESPONDENT: All I can say is that I don’t know exactly where the ‘line of demarcation’ is to be drawn between the ‘minor’ and the ‘major’. But these distinctions are drawn in common discourse, but I doubt they are drawn in any entirely clear manner. My comment regarding not excluding ‘misdemeanours’ was not to negate my prior statement – it was merely meant to indicate that the line between major and minor ‘antisocial’ behaviour is not always clearly demarcated. That is, some of what is considered ‘minor’ may very well be ‘reprehensible’, but not necessarily all. RICHARD: Okay ... I took it that you were not excluding the minor infractions of the social code (it was your ‘I wouldn’t exclude what are commonly referred to as ‘misdemeanours’ as socially reprehensible either’ sentence which conveyed that impression) whereas you actually do exclude most of them. As for your observation regarding ‘common discourse’ ... off-hand I could not say that the word is all that commonly used – I cannot recall having heard anybody using it at all in recent memory – so out of idle curiosity I typed it into the search function of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is a 32 volume set with over 83,000 articles, and found it used only 11 times:
Furthermore, I do not see that the distinctions you talk of, between ‘the truly atrocious things that people do’ and ‘misdemeanours’, are being drawn at all ... not in the liberal theological ideas referred to in No. 2, not in the smoking of tobacco referred to in No. 3, not in the conversion to the Catholic Church referred to in No. 4, not in the subtler form of power referred to in No. 5, not in the following of Zoroastrianism rather than the Prophet’s teachings referred to in No. 6 and certainly not in the ballet music referred to in No. 8 nor in the relationship between certain linguistic forms referred to in No. 11. In short I see that the word is widely used to cover the entire range, of what is considered to be socially unacceptable, without any line of demarcation whatsoever (and No’s 8 and 11 are so banal that by no stretch could they even be called misdemeanours). * RICHARD: As a matter of interest only: I have never taken the word as being reserved for the truly atrocious things that people do – I have always understood it as being applicable to anything which incurs criticism – so much so that when your e-mail came in I looked through the various dictionaries I have access to so as to see if I had been overlooking something all my life. The following definition best describes how I have always experienced its usage: [quote]: reprehensible: worthy of or deserving reprehension; reprehension: the act of reprehending; reprehend: to voice disapproval of. (©Merriam-Webster Dictionary). There is no qualification such as you propose ... and ‘to voice disapproval of’ can range all the way through reproval: from chiding, admonishing and rebuking through to reprimanding, censuring and condemning (according to the various thesauruses and other dictionaries I have access to). RESPONDENT: I’m glad to better understand your usage of the word – that alone helps me understand what you are saying much better. RICHARD: So as to pre-empt any false impression: the above definition/denotation is how I have always understood the word in everyday usage and does not mean that other peoples’ appraisal sets the standard in regard to what is required to live peacefully and harmoniously – communal tranquillity and congeniality will never happen if it is left up to human beings to decide what is fit and proper or not – as it is the already always existing peace-on-earth which sets the criteria each moment again. As I have observed before: the pristine nature of peace-on-earth is impeccable ... nothing dirty can get in. RESPONDENT: I would add though that ‘reprehensible’ does (or may) carry the connotation of severity. From the Cambridge International Dictionary: reprehensible: (of a person’s behaviour) extremely bad; not acceptable; deserving blame. From Wordnet 1.7 (from www.onelook.com): reprehensible: condemnable, criminal, deplorable; reprehensible – (bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure). RICHARD: For sure the definitions ‘extremely bad’, ‘condemnable’, ‘criminal’ and ‘deserving severe rebuke or censure’ carry the connotations of severity ... but you seem to have overlooked the fact that ‘not acceptable’, ‘deserving blame’ and ‘deplorable’ do not. Furthermore, the examples of usage provided by Wordnet 1.7 include ‘a criminal waste of talent’ and the following sense in which it is used:
Unless, of course, you consider that wasting talent, taking advantage, cheating and lying are on a par with the rape, murder, abuse, etc., examples of severity you provided at the top of this page. RESPONDENT: I also decided to question my wife to see if her usage of the word differed from mine – to see whether I was just being stubborn. I was careful not to divulge the reason for my questions, but simply asked for how she understood the word and the concept of severity quickly came tumbling out. RICHARD: Just for the fun of it I asked a few people what the word meant to them ... one person recalled being told as a child that putting their elbows on the table at dinner was reprehensible. The consensus was that it could be used as the user saw fit ... with no exceptions. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if this is a difference between usage in Australia and America (I doubt it), but I certainly do find severity as an important part of being reprehensible. RICHARD: Whereas I do not ... and the examples from Wordnet 1.7, which originates in Princeton University, show that there is essentially no difference in usage between Australia and the USA (and the examples in the Encyclopaedia Britannica show that there is essentially no difference in usage between Australia and the UK either). May I ask why you find it important that severity be part of being reprehensible? RESPONDENT: Now, it may be true that ‘reprehensible’ doesn’t necessarily carry the connotation of severity, so that is how I plan to interpret your usage of the word. RICHARD: Perhaps it will have become apparent by now that the only area where my usage differs from the norm is to also apply it to that which is the cause of the antisocial conduct? * RICHARD: Where my usage of the word differs from the norm is to also apply it to that which is the cause of the antisocial conduct ... which strikes me as being an entirely sensible thing to do. RESPONDENT: Yes, I agree that pointing to the cause of antisocial conduct is quite sensible. RICHARD: And just what are you agreeing with? I propose that classifying the cause of the antisocial conduct (the instinctual passions) as being socially reprehensible is an entirely sensible thing to do ... and you respond by saying you agree that ‘pointing to the cause’ is quite sensible. I am only highlighting the straw-man nature of your agreement because immediately below you make it quite clear that there are subtle vibes happening all the time, which are sorrowful or malicious, that you would not term socially reprehensible. * RESPONDENT: I also don’t doubt there are such things as ‘reprehensible’ vibes – when it is apparent that someone is hating or being aggressive even without overt expression – but there are more subtle vibes that happen all the time which are sorrowful or malicious that I would hardly term ‘socially reprehensible’. RICHARD: Why not? A difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... are you sure you are not being unduly influenced by your preference to reserve the word for the major infractions (the apparent feelings in this instance) so much so that you inadvertently exclude the minor infractions (the more subtle feelings in this instance) despite saying further above that you would not exclude the misdemeanours? RESPONDENT: I am absolutely being influenced by my preference to reserve the word for more severe infractions. RICHARD: Okay ... it was my misunderstanding which occasioned me to respond as I did (when you said in your previous e-mail that you ‘wouldn’t exclude what are commonly referred to as ‘misdemeanours’ as socially reprehensible either’ I took it to mean that you were not excluding misdemeanours). RESPONDENT: You are right that a difference in degree is not a difference in kind – yet don’t think I was being ‘unduly’ influenced, since I’m quite satisfied that severity plays a substantial role (even if not always necessary) in common usage of the word ‘reprehensible’. RICHARD: May I ask? How has tolerance in regard misdemeanours helped you towards becoming the ‘stellar’ person you have always wanted to be? Vis.:
My usage of the word, when applied in the area where it has never been applied before (in the area where the cause of antisocial behaviour lies), stems from innocence ... and unless there is innocence there is no peace-on-earth. Needless is it to say that peace-on-earth has zero tolerance? * RESPONDENT: ‘Insalubrious’ may be a better term [for the more subtle vibes that happen all the time which are sorrowful or malicious that I would hardly term ‘socially reprehensible’]. RICHARD: Why? If something is reprehensible, no matter whether it be major or minor, apparent or subtle, what purpose does it serve to relabel it into being something which it is not? RESPONDENT: It would serve no purpose, but that would assume that I agree with your usage of the word ‘reprehensible’. RICHARD: Again ... this response of mine was a result of me misunderstanding what you meant when you said that you ‘wouldn’t exclude what are commonly referred to as ‘misdemeanours’ as socially reprehensible either’ in your previous e-mail. RESPONDENT: I am willing go along with your usage, but I find that I must change it slightly from the way I commonly understand the word to do so. RICHARD: Hmm ... only slightly? * RICHARD: Please note that I am not telling you what you should or should not do in any of this ... I am, rather, suggesting that you question why your line of reasoning is following the path it is currently travelling along. RESPONDENT: Understood. RICHARD: Good ... and what did you discover when you questioned why your line of reasoning is following the path it is currently travelling along? * RESPONDENT: As an example, my son may try to hit me when he is extremely upset – but I don’t regard that as ‘reprehensible’ – rather it is ‘normal’, yet ‘insalubrious’ as well. RICHARD: Unless one lives as an isolated hermit or recluse it is a fact that one lives amongst other people (aka society) and it is these other people who will disapprove of actions such as trying to hit someone when ‘extremely upset’ even if you do not. And if you do not bring it to your son’s attention that such emotion-backed behaviour is socially unacceptable – in the sense that society requires him to take responsibility for his feeling-fed actions – then other people surely will (and they will try to instil feelings of guilt and/or shame into him at the same time so as to have him control his aggressive feelings with countervailing feelings of remorse and/or contrition) ... for such is society’s way of dealing with antisocial feelings. To illustrate this I will take the liberty of altering your sentence so as to show what it looks like when the situation you describe is taken out of the family setting and other people are brought into the picture: [illustration]: my son may try to hit someone when he is extremely upset but society doesn’t regard that as reprehensible. [end illustration]. Of course I do not know what society you live in but the society I am familiar with certainly disapproves of someone trying to hit someone else when extremely upset. RESPONDENT: Well, to change my wording is to change the context. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... which is why I specifically said that I was taking the situation you describe out of the family setting – so as to have other people brought into the picture – to make the point that if you do not bring it to your son’s attention that such emotion-backed behaviour is socially unacceptable – in the sense that society requires him to take responsibility for his feeling-fed actions – then other people surely will (and they will try to instil feelings of guilt and/or shame into him at the same time so as to have him control his aggressive feelings with countervailing feelings of remorse and/or contrition) ... for such is society’s way of dealing with antisocial feelings. I was the father of four children myself many years ago – so this is not something theoretical I am talking about – and I oft-times found that it was expected of me that I would act as a probity policeman towards them so as to bring them into line with what was considered socially acceptable ... it is called instilling values into one’s children. In extreme cases, if the parent does not fulfil these social obligations, a wayward child can be removed from the negligent parent’s custody and made a ward of the state ... thus by and large, at approximately seven years of age, the child knows the basic difference between what each particular society regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the parent’s attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated ‘you should know better by now’). I do not see how you can be unaware of all this. RESPONDENT: As long as we still have the question of whether ‘reprehensible’ involves severity, then this is a moot point. RICHARD: Am I to take it from this comment that you have not questioned why your line of reasoning is following the path it is currently travelling along? RESPONDENT: Changing who his frustration is directed towards gives the implication of changing the severity of the offence. RICHARD: Why? Are you not a fellow human being just as everybody else is and are to be treated with identical regard? Furthermore, why is it that you give your son two standards to operate by (in that it is not reprehensible to try to hit somebody when extremely upset, when that somebody is family, but that it is reprehensible to try to hit somebody when extremely upset when that somebody is not family)? Does not confusion beget further confusion? RESPONDENT: Obviously, my son is not encouraged in this sort of behaviour ... RICHARD: As this sort of behaviour is not reprehensible, according to you, then why do you not encourage him in it? Or, to put that another way, what is the criterion (to which a label can be applied for convenience) which persuades you not to encourage him in this sort of behaviour? Methinks if you look more deeply into this you will find something operating anyway which may surprise you. RESPONDENT: ... but it also does not mean that I regard it as reprehensible. RICHARD: As a matter of interest: as you do not encourage your son in this kind of behaviour does this mean that you do not approve of it? Also, do you discourage this kind of behaviour ... and if so does this discouragement mean that you disapprove of it? I only ask because more than a few parents these days bend over backwards so as to not be considered as being judgemental. But more to the point: do you only not encourage this kind of behaviour or do you not encourage this kind of feeling (feeling frustrated and extremely upset) as well? There is a lot that a parent can do to influence the child to choose for the world of the felicitous feelings, by both example and precept, wherein they can experientially understand, each moment again, how being happy and harmless is the superior modus operandi. Then the well-meaning attempts of other peoples, such as grandparents for instance, to instil feelings of guilt and/or shame and remorse and/or contrition and so on will not have their usual effect (of nurturing a blame-ridden entity). None of this negates the necessity of complying with the legal laws and observing the social protocols, of course. RESPONDENT: If I am to agree with your usage of the word, then I have no problem regarding it as reprehensible, though I (and apparently many others) don’t use the word that way. RICHARD: Do these ‘many others’ fit the bill in regards to being ‘stellar’ persons such as you have always wanted to be? In other words: is their understanding/advice worthwhile in the sense of being practically based upon empirical expertise? * RICHARD: Now whilst your son is not to blame for being born with the human condition hereditarily implanted – it is not his fault that he comes into the world with the basic survival passions genetically endowed – somewhere along the line he will be required to be amenable to society’s legal laws and social protocols just like any other human being. Hence reprehension ... it is society’s way of conveying/ reinforcing its conventions to each and every one of its citizens so that some semblance of what passes for peace can prevail. Incidentally, that you consider it ‘normal’ that your son may try to hit you when extremely upset speaks volumes about how ubiquitous the instinctual passions are ... and it is because of attitudes such as this that I take the term ‘socially reprehensible’ deeper into the human condition so as to bring the source of antisocial conduct into the arena of public awareness. This way the cause can be addressed rather than continuing to just treat the symptoms. RESPONDENT: Addressing the cause of antisocial behaviour is certainly sensible. I should say at this point that for the purposes of this list, it’s neither here nor there for me how we use the word ‘reprehensible’. RICHARD: Never mind about ‘the purposes of this list’ ... what about for the purposes of being free of the human condition? RESPONDENT: I am fine agreeing to your usage of the word, but I will have to remember that it is used in a ‘special sense’. RICHARD: It is only being used in a ‘special sense’ inasmuch it is being taken into an area where it has never been applied before – into where the cause of the aberrant behaviour lies – whereas you are somehow seeing it as being used in a ‘special sense’ in regards to misdemeanours (as contrasted to felonies). Vis.:
Can you not see that you are using it in a ‘special sense’ by reserving it for felonies and excluding (at least some) misdemeanours and not me? The problem in reserving it for felonies (and some ill-defined misdemeanours) is that this reservation applies when taking it into an area where it has never been applied before – into where the cause of the aberrant behaviour lies – thus perpetuating the tolerance which you apply to some antisocial behaviour. I will say it again for emphasis: the pristine nature of peace-on-earth is impeccable ... nothing dirty can get in. * RESPONDENT: I would agree that being a ‘being’ is personally insalubrious. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this is obvious as it establishes a basis from which to see the communal ramifications of such a lack of well-being (which is where being personally insalubrious is to be socially reprehensible). RESPONDENT: Also, I agree that a ‘being’ has the potential for socially reprehensible deeds. RICHARD: Okay ... my intention, in discussions such as these, is to dig deeper so as to find out how and why the potential exists in the first place (rather than just acknowledging the potential for such deeds exists). Where there is no potential there is no need for checks and balances. RESPONDENT: I suppose my preference is though to reserve the word ‘reprehensible’ for deeds of more severity than common forms of insalubrity. RICHARD: Apart from repeating your ‘reserve for severity’ preference (as if you had never said you would not exclude misdemeanours) I notice that you have written ‘common forms of insalubrity’ rather than ‘common forms of reprehensibility’. If something is reprehensible it is reprehensible whether it be of a severe form or common form ... reprehensibility does not miraculously become insalubrity just because it is a minor infraction rather than a major infraction. RESPONDENT: Unless ... you use the word the way I commonly use it :o). And I don’t think I’m alone. RICHARD: You may have gathered at this stage that I am not particularly impressed by the quality of the understanding/advice conveyed by the peoples you are being not alone with ... but enough of that for now: did you see what I was getting at when I said (three paragraphs above) that being personally insalubrious is to be socially reprehensible? If you did not (because of the word) what if I were to say that being personally insalubrious is to be antisocial? Or does your severity preference apply to the word ‘antisocial’ as well? * RESPONDENT: So ‘guilt’ for you is not to blame, but to point to the cause of socially reprehensible acts. I have to wonder whether it would be better to stick with ‘insalubrious’ or ‘silly’ – rather than ‘reprehensible’ or ‘guilty’ – which do (to me anyway) carry the implication of blame. RICHARD: Yet neither ‘silly’ nor ‘insalubrious’ work to counteract the ‘children are innocent’ claim. Vis.: [Typical Statement]: ‘All children are born innocent. [Response No. 1]: ‘I beg to differ: all children are born silly (or are silly at conception). [Response No. 2]: ‘I beg to differ: all children are born insalubrious (or are insalubrious at conception). [end examples]. The only other antonym to the word ‘innocent’ that I have come across is the word ‘sinful’. RESPONDENT: LOL! I’m not sure if ‘all children are born guilty’ is any better than ‘all children are born silly or insalubrious’ – or for that matter, ‘all children are born innocent’. RICHARD: If different peoples did not claim innocence at birth I would have no reason to counteract it with anything at all ... I simply take the antonym of what they claim in order to refute their point (and neither ‘silly’ nor ‘insalubrious’ are antonyms). ‘Tis they that set the agenda by watering down what innocence is. RESPONDENT: (I certainly wouldn’t like to see you adopt the term ‘sinful’. :o) RICHARD: Interestingly enough I sometimes do when talking to a person of a certain religious persuasion (I usually adapt my language somewhat according to where the other is at). It works quite well, actually, as it is in accord with dictionary definitions of innocence:
Also one of the meanings ascribed to the word ‘irreprehensible’ is the word ‘innocent’:
Plus the MS Word Thesaurus has the word ‘innocent’ as the antonym for the word ‘reprehensible’. This is all so much fun. RESPONDENT: I can at least identify with the innocent claim, because children who are newly born haven’t ‘done’ anything yet! RICHARD: It seems that you have a behaviour-only criterion regarding what innocence is ... I will re-post a section from a prior correspondence in case you missed its import the first time around:
Put succinctly: innocence is something entirely new to human experience. RESPONDENT: (I realize they don’t have the sort of innocence you refer to as actual freedom – but they ARE at least relatively more innocent than most adults). RICHARD: Not only do they not have the innocence I refer to as an actual freedom from the human condition ... they are not even ‘at least relatively more innocent than most adults’ either ... naiveté is not innocence. All people – which of course includes children – are guilty (as in not-innocent) at conception. RESPONDENT: How about ‘all children are born with instinctual passions’, or ‘... with the cause of the human condition’, or ‘all children are born with a tendency for antisocial behaviour – therefore not as innocent as they may seem’. RICHARD: I did try various terms before settling upon the antonym most people are familiar with ... my experience showed that anything else lacked the impact which a direct refutation has. RESPONDENT: I’m sure there are other possibilities. RICHARD: Do they have sufficient impact though? * RESPONDENT: ... Rather than leave my conclusion vague, let me summarize. I agree that being a ‘being’ is ‘personally insalubrious’ – as in being a much better decision for one’s own and other’s sake(s) to self-immolate. One is better off whittling away at the social identity and instinctual passions. RICHARD: I do not see how you can draw the conclusion that it is a much better decision for ‘other’s sake(s)’ from the term ‘personally insalubrious’ only ... if there be no term referring to the communal benefit it would be (correctly) seen as being a selfish enterprise to ‘self’-immolate for personal reasons alone. Besides which the necessary ingredient for ‘self’-immolation – altruism – would be missing thus rendering any such endeavour powerless and doomed to failure from the start. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure if ‘personally insalubrious’ necessarily precludes altruistic motive. I’ll have to think more about this particular point. RICHARD: Just in case you did not get around to thinking more about it: as you consider that (at least some of) what I classify as being reprehensible are only insalubrious I cannot see how you can say that any action arising out of insalubrity can be altruistic (of communal benefit) unless you tacitly allow that, whilst you may say it is insalubrious only, it is actually reprehensible in practice. Again I would say that if you were to look more deeply into this you will find something operating anyway which may surprise you. * RESPONDENT: For me, ‘guilty’ is merely a term pointing to a person who caused something (also it is a legal term) – but it has much room for confusion, since one must qualify how it is possible to be ‘guilty’ without ‘blame’. RICHARD: I am at a loss to see how my qualification has ‘much room for confusion’ as I am quite specific about what I mean by the term ‘guilty at conception’ (meaning not innocent at conception let alone born innocent) ... and even without qualification surely it is obvious that one is not personally to blame for that which is determined at conception? RESPONDENT: I understand your meaning – and much better now after this exchange, but I’m not sure that it’s obvious that one is not personally to blame for what is determined at conception. RICHARD: Let me see if I understand you correctly: you are saying that you are not sure it is obvious that one is not personally to blame for what happens when the spermatozoa penetrates the ova (which is where there is a mixing of the chromosomes and a rapid shuffling of the genetic material wherein various characteristics such as skin colour and instinctual passions are determined by blind nature and not by any person or persons let alone you personally)? Do you realise that you are talking about not being sure it is obvious that no personal blame is incurred by a single-cell embryo (just prior to the doubling of cells that goes on for eight weeks before it is called a foetus) at the precise moment it comes into existence via copulation? What would it take to make you sure? RESPONDENT: Pushing the ‘blame’ back on blind evolution does much at removing ‘personal blame’ ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It does more than just doing ‘much’ at removing personal blame ... it removes it altogether. Totally. RESPONDENT: ... but it seems to me there can be confusion on just what one ‘should feel bad about’. Saying one is reprehensible (if interpreted as severe) and guilty, can give one the impression that one is a menace to the human race, and reinforce feelings of inadequacy and guilt. RICHARD: But one is a ‘menace to the human race’ – there are no ifs and buts about it – and it was seeing this fact which impelled the entity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago into altruistic action (rather than sitting around feeling inadequate and guilty instead). Now do you see why personal insalubrity is not sufficient motivation? RESPONDENT: Not that it must, only that it seems to me that it can (and probably does). [Addendum]: After re-reading the last post, I realized there is one spot that is ripe for misunderstanding ... I’m not at all saying that ‘one should feel bad about’ anything. I mean this to apply only to the common conception of guilt as one that implies that one should feel guilty. I want to clarify this, since this could lead to a radical misunderstanding if you understand me to say in fact that ‘one should feel bad’. RICHARD: Sure ... feeling bad about the human condition is counter-productive: further to the point about feeling inadequate this may be an apt moment to re-post something from another thread. Vis.:
Simply replace the word ‘useless’ with the word ‘inadequate’ and an entirely different light will be thrown upon what seeing that one is a ‘menace to the human race’ can mean. * RESPONDENT: There are indeed atrocious and not so atrocious acts and vibes that might be termed ‘reprehensible’, but I don’t see the value in saying that we are ‘socially reprehensible’ at birth or ‘guilty at conception’. RICHARD: Just for starters the value of it lies in setting the record straight in regards the erroneous claims that children are born innocent (and thus irreprehensible) ... which means it has value inasmuch one will cease reaching back into childhood – or back into some projected ‘Golden Age’ – for that which is simply not there ... innocence (and hence irreprehensibility) is entirely new to human history and exists only in the actual world. It has value in that the way is cleared to see what has been just here right now all along. RESPONDENT: Clarifying the motive is certainly helpful. I’m just not entirely sure that one has to move from the incorrectly positive claim ‘innocence’ to it’s opposite of ‘guilty’ or ‘reprehensible’. One could simply say that ‘the cause of antisocial or reprehensible behaviour is present at conception’. RICHARD: I do not see that your phrasing reaches deep enough: the instinctual passions are not only ‘the cause of antisocial or reprehensible behaviour’ (and thus antisocial or reprehensible by extension or potential) as they are antisocial or reprehensible of themselves – via vibes and psychic currents as already described – and this is what most peoples do not comprehend, let alone realise. For example, you yourself said (further above) that children who are newly born have not done anything yet and that they are at least relatively more innocent than most adults. Vis.:
I will put it this way this time around: as the pristine nature of peace-on-earth is impeccable – nothing dirty can get in – innocence is something entirely new to human experience. RESPONDENT: I should say that now that I understand your meaning a bit better, this issue isn’t all that important. RICHARD: I would suggest digging deeper and you may very well find why it was important enough for you to write several posts on the subject. RESPONDENT: I’m not invested in changing your vocabulary – my reason for saying my preferences in word choice is not to change yours, but rather to allow you to see where my confusion in understanding you lies, so that I can understand you better. RICHARD: More importantly ... do you understand yourself better now? RESPONDENT: I am invested in understanding what you are saying, since this is a chance of a lifetime for me to be free from the human condition. RICHARD: Good ... if nothing else please bear in mind that it is peace-on-earth which sets the standard and not me. For an example of this someone once said to me, some years ago, that an actual freedom from the human condition would be much better if only I would let love in – which is a classic example of what I mean when I say that communal tranquillity and congeniality will never happen if it is left up to human beings to decide what is fit and proper or not – as if I were the guardian at the gate, as it were, and could decide what was permissible and what was not. Similarly it is not up to me on the issue of tolerancy ... it is innocence which establishes the criteria.
CORRESPONDENT No. 27 (Part Five) 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 |
