On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
with Correspondent No. 49
RESPONDENT: Prayer seems to be in direct confliction to everyday sense, in my experience. There have been reports of an overwhelming force circulating through human beings via prayer that are not connected to the ego-self, yet it is of the mind and ‘heart’. It is an incomprehensible experience. This force has been known to grant those who bear witness to it powers that cannot be considered of earthly origin. Belief transcends the will at some point where it becomes a glimpse of limitlessness. Existence is undefinable, but we simply believe that the undefinable exists apart from us. Adjusting the sensory apparatus so that it is in a perfect correspondence to the physical self does not necessarily mean that human beings have mounted the summit of knowledge in the meaning of existence, which is in fact, indefinitive ... but only to us and other beings of approximate order. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, there is no true difference in nature between you and I except that you are egoless and I have ego among us, the perceived difference comes from seeing the actualist and the ego-self as the only two kinds of human being. In believing this, you would be incorrect. Hence, actualism is nothing more than a very remote point of view from humanity. That’s all it is. Considering phrases like, ‘nothing to do with the ... business of being alive’ as what Peter hinted to me in his last post actually says nothing about the meaning and direction ... of life. We may as well say, ‘nothing to do with ... the liveness of being alive’. So the question becomes: can you say that actualism says it all?
RESPONDENT: Um ... how do you know?
RICHARD: Intimately ... I lived that/was that ‘limitlessness’ which you refer to, night and day for eleven years, and had ample opportunity to suss out whether such a state of being ‘says it all’ or not. It does not. And in the twelve years since going beyond that state I have similarly had ample opportunity to suss out whether an actual freedom from the human condition ‘says it all’ or not. It does.
RESPONDENT: Did you make some kind of ultimate deduction of existence that if tested, can explain everything including the unexplainable aspects of existence?
RICHARD: I see you are now referring to the subject matter of following unfinished exchange:
Over to you.
RESPONDENT: [Russell E. Rierson] ‘1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that randomness is logically absurd. 2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames of reference. 3. Ergo, even if .. .physical randomness is true, physical randomness would not exist without time, or ‘change’ – from one state to the next. 4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise ‘randomly’. 5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles. 6. The only true example we have of an organizing principle is that of a ‘MIND’. 7. The universe came from a MIND’. [www.cerebrals.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=15414#15414]. 1. is true. 2. says that even if physical laws gave the appearance of consistency (time-dependency), they would still be consistent independently of time. If this is true, then randomness or ‘change’, takes place ‘defining time’. 3. is true. Since randomness defines time, and the physical laws are time-independent, then where did they come from? 5. is true. Since the only organizing principle that can(?) exist is a mind then 7. must be true.
RICHARD: If I am correctly understanding what you are conveying then ‘the unexplainable aspects of existence’/‘the aspects which defy awareness’ you are referring to are the cosmogonical – ‘of or pertaining to theories or accounts of the origin of the universe’ (Oxford Dictionary) – aspects as distinct from the cosmological (of or pertaining to theories or accounts of the structure of the universe).
If so, this is what your latest query would look like:
First of all, I never said I could explain everything: you asked me if actualism ‘says it all’ in the context of a monologue about prayer vis-à-vis everyday sense ... specifically in regards to (a) an overwhelming force and (b) unearthly powers and (c) belief transcending will and (d) glimpsing the limitlessness and (e) the belief that the undefinable exists apart from humans and (f) the meaning of existence and (g) the difference in nature between you and I and (h) the kinds of human being and (i) a point of view and (j) the meaning and direction of life.
Whilst on the topic of cosmogony ... this is what your earlier queries would look like:
An actual freedom from the human condition is indeed a freedom from the cosmogonical aspects of existence and it is most certainly testable ... this is how:
RESPONDENT: Also, can does your state of being reveal anything about the actual nature of being aware of physical events in the absence of them as described earlier by Respondent No 60 n’ me?
RICHARD: First of all, an actual freedom from the human condition is not a ‘state of being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – is no longer extant) as it is the condition which ensues when identity in toto altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... which means that the psyche is no more. Vis.:
Secondly, you have asked this question before:
RESPONDENT: Assume the following statement is true: [if your flesh and blood body can be called a sort of ‘universe’ necessary to house your blood cells] then would it not be quite the dilemma if every single blood cell operated on instructions not given by your flesh and blood body? Yes or No?
RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 49, nice try indeed.
RESPONDENT: Richard, no offence but, do you find yourself to be alone? I do not mean ‘lonely’ in the sense of feeling alone, but actually alone in the world.
RICHARD: Never ... there is no separation whatsoever here in this actual world (be it any body, any thing, or any event).
RESPONDENT: Richard, consider this: [quote] ‘Existence is a definition, a predication, which is why Kant so vehemently denied that existence is a predicate, but alas, existence is a definitive constraint as is all definitions. To exist means ‘to be’. So infinite paradox becomes infinite freedom from constraint, and reality itself is an infinitesimal difference, from perfect equilibrium. The ‘Ein Sof’ is an infinity that cannot be comprehended. For every set A there is a choice function, f, such that for any non-empty sub set B of A, f(B) is a member of B, and so we see that there may be an infinite number of sets B within A, and as such the Banach-Tarski paradox is created. A single sphere is decomposed and re-assembled into two spheres, each with the same radius as the original sphere. (R.E. Rierson). So we see that: [paradox] = not-[paradox] is a paradox of course! Therefore: paradox = paradox is absolutely true. Alpha = Omega.
RICHARD: As the term ‘Ein Sof’ is a way of referring to the Cabbalistic ‘Infinite God’ (or, more properly, the very essence or infinite light of that god which enacts the creative process) I have no interest whatsoever in considering ‘this’ or anything of similar ilk.
RESPONDENT: This [name deleted] also claims to have found a way to free oneself from the human condition, he can be found here: cerebrals.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1539&start=0. (snip).
RICHARD: I have snipped the remainder of your e-mail as the person referred to does not claim anything of the sort: they clearly state they are clairvoyantly receiving (aka channelling) the information being presented … which is information about tapping into [quote] ‘the part of you that feels a higher compassion, a higher love, a higher self worth. It is your HIGHER SELF’ [endquote] anyway.
In regards to the title of this e-mail (‘Would The Real Owner Of Af Pls Stand??’): no body owns an actual freedom from the human condition (which is what the acronym ‘Af’ refers to) … it is the condition which ensues when identity in toto (both the lower self and the higher self) altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.
RESPONDENT: Now that we have a logical foundation for the existence of God … (snip).
RICHARD: I have snipped the remainder of your e-mail for obvious reasons.
RESPONDENT: Questions: 1. If a totally omnipotent entity existed, how will you expect it to behave? 2. Why is there the reasonable pattern of reasonably smart people being atheists and super-brains people being theists these days? 3. Does actual freedom cover all this too? [www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000395-p-2.html]. If not, then af has gone a little ahead of itself now hasn’t it?
RICHARD: Answers: 1. It will behave as such entities have behaved since time immemorial (maliciously/lovingly and sorrowfully/compassionately). 2. The same reason as always (the human condition). 3. As the link provided is to a on-line discussion forum regarding ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) – and whether the ‘Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe’ (CTMU) and a ‘Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language’ (SCSPL) are valid proofs of such a … um … a totally omnipotent entity having created the universe or not – then an actual freedom from the human condition (which is what the acronym ‘af’ is short for) not only covers ‘all this’ it lies beyond it all (beyond the state of being, popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, which is the genesis of such entities).
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘By its very nature a belief is not factually true ... otherwise it would not need to be believed to be true. A fact is obvious; it is out in the open’. [www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listacorrespondence/lista12.htm]. Your regard for belief and fact as indifferent raises one of many irrational (leading to delusional) contradictions.
RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word <indifferent> into the search function of this computer and sent it through everything I have ever written and could not find where I have said that I regard belief and fact as ‘indifferent’ anywhere at all.
If you could provide the text where I do say such a thing it would be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: If a fact is not out in the open for you means not that it lacks an existence of its own elsewhere.
RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
RESPONDENT: In some cases a belief is a necessary prerequisite to a fact is it not?
RICHARD: As I have been incapable of believing for nigh-on twelve (12) years now I have no hesitation at all in reporting that there are no cases where a belief has been, or is, a necessary prerequisite to a fact.
RESPONDENT: By the process of suspicion and discovery, belief almost inevitably becomes fact.
RICHARD: It does no such thing ... for just one example, many and various peoples have believed/do believe in the existence of a god or goddess (and there are at least 1200 of them to choose from) and none of them have ever become fact.
RESPONDENT: How does a fact that has escaped your experience at one point become a fact at another without the trust of Richard’s experiences?
RICHARD: A fact that one is not cognisant of does not ‘become’ a fact upon its cognisance – one becomes aware of its existence – and to be trusting that awareness, that cognisance, is not all that different from believing that awareness, that cognisance, to be correct, valid, true, and so on.
As I have been incapable of trusting for nigh-on twelve (12) years now I have no hesitation at all in reporting that there are no cases where trust has been, or is, necessary in establishing facticity.
RESPONDENT: Here’s an example of what I mean by contradiction: Richard will grant x as false on one day due to it being outside his field of understanding, then, suddenly on another understands x and grants it as true.
RICHARD: Where do I say that I grant x as false on one day, due to it being outside my field of understanding, then suddenly on another day, understand x and grant it as true?
RESPONDENT: Could the problem be linked to only regarding time by the moment?
RICHARD: As there is no ‘the problem’ – all of the above has no existence outside of your skull – there is nothing of substance in your speculation for me to respond to.
RESPONDENT: This may have its advantages for you as a sensate being but there are the disadvantages of ignorance without questioning oneself as to any ‘Truth that lay Beyond’.
RICHARD: As I lived that/was that ‘Truth that lay Beyond’, night and day for eleven years, I do look askance at your use of the word ‘ignorance’.
RESPONDENT: Do you grant the possibility of the statement, ‘Truth that lay Beyond’ as true or false indifferently?
RICHARD: I have no need to either ‘grant’ or not ‘grant’ any such statement ... I had intimate knowledge of the ‘Truth that lay Beyond’, night and day for eleven years, which first-hand familiarity leaves all theorising, all intellectualising, all philosophising, all theologising, and so on, flapping feebly on the arid shores of academia.
RESPONDENT: Because it seems to be one of the only and most truthful realizations that any human being can claim. Which, of course would mean, that any ‘Truth that lay Beyond’ is true indifferently (without doubt or question). Hence, the greatest possible ‘Truth that lay Beyond’ is the greatest possible truth of all. Therefore, from a scientific perspective of actual freedom would I be right in saying that the only difference between you and the majority of human beings is that you regard life by the moment of which everything else you report is a direct and (secondary?) consequent of this state of being?
RICHARD: No, you would not be right in saying that.
RESPONDENT: Since you refuse to expend your time and energy on my simple questions directly ...
RICHARD: Here are the questions which you are referring to (complete with my responses):
RESPONDENT: ... [since you refuse to expend your time and energy on my simple questions directly] instead of through half-assed methods I decided to respond to interject into your more favoured Q&A’s.
RICHARD: Whilst it is, presumably, of at least some importance to you (else why inform me) that, ‘instead of through half-assed methods’ you have decided to respond to my detailed answers (now copy-pasted further above) by interjecting into an e-mail exchange with another, you may find, upon closer inspection, that your assertion regarding that particular exchange as being my ‘more favoured’ questions and answers is as commentitious as your assertion that I refused to expend my [quote] ‘time and energy’ [endquote] on your (now copy-pasted further above) simple questions.
If I might suggest? In any future exchanges (if there be any) why not just get on with your responses and drop any and all such commentaries in the trash bin where they belong before you click ‘send’?
‘Tis just a suggestion, mind you.
RESPONDENT No 44: Richard you can never agree with anyone ...
RICHARD: I have found it always pays to do a little research before making categorical assertions ... for example: (snip 7 referenced quotes) There are many more instances in a similar vein (of me saying ‘agreed’ or ‘yes’ to what my co-respondent had to say) – 596 occasions in fact – but maybe that will do for now.
RESPONDENT No 44: ... [you can never agree with anyone], this is your sickness. I don’t know how is called scientifically, but I will find out. Is impossible for you to agree with anyone because you think you are the world teacher ...
RICHARD: As your basic premise – ‘you can never agree with anyone’ – has no substance any conclusions drawn are baseless.
RESPONDENT No 44: ... if I say white you will say black, and if I say black you will say white.
RICHARD: Ahh ... could this be the nub of the issue (Richard not agreeing with No 44), perchance?
RESPONDENT: I see you can admit that actual freedom indeed does not say it all beyond the realm of human matters, eh?
RICHARD: If you could point out any such admittance on my part in the above exchange it would be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: Hence, you are subject to being unsure at all about any ‘Truth that lay Beyond’ your sensate experiences. So, actual freedom has at least one disadvantage after all eh?
RICHARD: As your basic premise – ‘I see you can admit that actual freedom indeed does not say it all beyond the realm of human matters’ – has no substance any conclusions drawn are baseless.
RESPONDENT: Some would say that no two men are equal in their worth as human beings.
RESPONDENT: I was wondering if you were familiar with the mechanism of modality in logic referred to by Godel ...
RICHARD: I see that I have provided the following information:
Incidentally, not only do I mean what I say I also say what I mean.
RESPONDENT: Here is an excellently famous website which provides a crash course if you care to be a little more qualified in passing judgment on Langan’s CTMU ...
RICHARD: Here is the only occasion that I have ever referred to CTMU:
If you could point out how that constitutes ‘passing judgment’ it would be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: I spoke to my psychic friend today for a while on the phone.
RESPONDENT: FACT: Psychics are for *real*. (snip)
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.