|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RICHARD: ... and the warm summer sun on the back of the neck is bathing everything in this wondrous playground we all live in with its friendly embrace. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Ah, to be sure! This description has the ambience of that day, nearly two summers ago now. I remember now that even the passing cars seemed to be pleased with themselves, as if they were amused and delighted by their own brilliant colours and curves. (Every street was Easy Street that day! How unreal* it was). I think for now I’ll just put this issue of imagination aside. It sure wasn’t important that day, and it was a magical day – so I guess that ought to tell me something. *) Unreal. To an Australian kid in the 70s, the word ‘unreal’ meant excellent, marvellous, great, fantastic, wonderful. RICHARD: I am pleased you not only recognise the ambience from the description but also recall that, it being a magical day, imagination was not important ... and indeed that (your own experience) ought to tell you something. Before you do put the issue of imagination aside, however, I would draw your attention to the following (for reasons which will become apparent):
As you specifically refer to ‘melodies on a flute’ then what was relayed to you second-hand probably came from a TV programme aired only 10 days before you posted your e-mail (on the weekly Australian TV programme ‘Catalyst’) entitled ‘Baroness and the Brain’. However, the experiment mentioned in that programme was not about flute-playing but piano-playing – and a simple one-handed five-finger exercise at that (for two hours a day over a five-day period) – designed to study, via trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), the role of plastic changes in the human motor system in the acquisition of new fine-motor skills ... specifically the modulation of the cortical motor areas targeting the contralateral long finger flexor and extensor muscles. The reason I am cognisant of all this is because I watched that programme and, because the scenario presented was so implausible (and because ‘Catalyst’ has presented many such quasi-scientific shows before), I did a little research. The baroness referred to in the title is Ms. Susan Greenfield, a professor of physiology awarded a life-peerage in 2001 and a (current) government-sponsored ‘Thinker In Residence’ at the University Of South Australia, who has attracted both praise and criticism over the years for being a populist speaker-educator on neuroscience. Here is an example of the criticism (from ‘The Observer’):
And here is the relevant portion of the ‘Baroness and the Brain’ programme:
The [quote] ‘really interesting study’ [endquote] she referred to can be found both at PubMed and in the Journal of Neurophysiology: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7500130 http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/3/1037. The study has been cited many times ... here is but one instance:
And here is a paragraph from an on-line article which refers to a media report on the study:
The abstract of the study itself can be found here: http://www.uth.tmc.edu/apstracts/1995/jn/May/158n.html Here is the relevant portion of that abstract (straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were, and not what others have made of it):
‘Nuff said?
RESPONDENT: (...) I am still at a loss to understand how or why a relativistic universe and a universe in which space and time are absolute would present themselves any differently to the human senses. Regardless of whether one is having a PCE or not, if there is no discernible difference between the ways in which a relativistic and non-relativistic universe would present themselves to the senses under ordinary circumstances here on Earth (and indeed that is what relativity would predict), precisely what faculty is it that allows an actualist to say with certainty: space and time are absolute? RICHARD: First of all, in physics to say that ‘space and time are absolute’ (aka universal) is to say that length, time, and mass are independent of the relative motion of the observer (as determined in the Galilean/Newtonian transformation equations) whereas to say that ‘space and time are not absolute’ (not universal) is to say that length, time, and mass depend upon the relative motion of the observer (as determined in the Lorentz transformation equations) and the observed. Thus to answer your question as-is: the faculty which allows an actualist to say with certainty that space and time are absolute/universal is the faculty of reason ... ‘the ability to think out, think through, consider, deliberate, analyse, come to a conclusion about’ (Oxford Dictionary). Howsoever, presuming that you might have been enquiring as to precisely what faculty it is that allows an actualist to say with certainty that space is infinite and time is eternal then the answer is: apperception. And apperception – ‘the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford Dictionary) – occurs when identity in toto is absent and thus, by not being a centre to consciousness, is no longer creating a boundary to awareness.
RESPONDENT: This is how things look from my piece of the real world: ‘Time’ and ‘temporal duration’ are one and the same thing. RICHARD: Time as a convention – as in past/present/future – is one and the same thing as temporal duration: time as an actuality (as in time itself) is one and the same thing as temporal eternity. RESPONDENT: It is no more conceivable to me that time could exist without temporal duration than that space could exist without volume. RICHARD: Space as a convention – as in length/breadth/width – is one and the same thing as spatial volume: space as an actuality (as in space itself) is one and the same thing as spatial infinity. RESPONDENT: One defines the other. RICHARD: The measurement of one defines the other (as a convention). RESPONDENT: One is the other! RICHARD: The measure of one is only the other in the real world. RESPONDENT: If time doesn’t have duration, why call it time? RICHARD: For the same reason that space, whilst having no volume in actuality, is called space. RESPONDENT: Why grant it [time] any existence at all? RICHARD: For the same reason that space has existence: just as space itself (aka infinity) is the dimension, or arena/ area/ sphere/ realm/ domain or any other word of that ilk, in which matter – either as mass or energy – be extant so too is time itself (aka eternity) the dimension in which matter permutates. RESPONDENT: How could it [time] be distinguished from space only? RICHARD: Even though time and space (and matter) are seamless time can be distinguished from ‘space only’ inasmuch it is the dimension of periodicity and/or sequentiality. [Editorial note: the word permutates refers to matter altering or changing its state, nature, properties, form, appearance, sequence, etcetera, in the dimension of eternal time ... as exemplified in the birth-growth-senescence-death sequence of events] RESPONDENT: Richard, do you think it is even possible to understand this when one is not in a PCE? RICHARD: As I recall the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body would worry away at/puzzle over just what the actual nature of time and space (and matter) was after a pure consciousness experience (PCE) to no avail ... yet there was one thing ‘he’ did know: as ‘he’ was forever locked out of time and space as an actuality (aka eternity and infinity) there was only one thing to do. To wit: get out of the way. Hence what has now become known as the actualism method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude/a wordless approach to life – being first put into practice in January 1981. RESPONDENT: I don’t seem able to. RICHARD: There are some peoples who do ... the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body did not have the words and writings on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list to refer to/obtain affirmation and/or confirmation from. Also (and to put in an opportune plug for one of the many benefits of a virtual freedom) it is a lot more comprehensible when identity has become decidedly thin around the edges.
RESPONDENT: Richard, does the kind of non-affective liking you have for your fellow humans extend to other animals? RICHARD: Yes ... all sentient beings. RESPONDENT: Can you enjoy playing with a dog, for instance? RICHARD: Yes, although I rarely do (more on this below). Besides which, by virtue of them being far, far, more mutually responsive, I prefer playing with my fellow human being ... and the same applies in regards a clear preference for adult interactions (rather than interacting with juveniles). The latter is no big deal ... it mainly has to do with reciprocal interests (like recognises like). RESPONDENT: Also, do animals react differently to you now that you’re actually free? RICHARD: Yes ... by and large they stay away in droves; dogs, for example, hardly ever come out barking, chasing and snapping at the wheels of the bicycle, as I ride by their (owner’s) territory and I have not had a cat, for another instance, come unbidden and sit in my lap (whereas that was quite common ... common enough, in fact, for some persons to have remarked about it). RESPONDENT: Are they puzzled by the absence of psychic ‘vibes’? RICHARD: I do not know about ‘puzzled’ ... more like unresponsive; unmoved, indifferent.
RESPONDENT: I remember Respondent No. 53 reporting a 4-hour PCE-like state, together with physical symptoms similar to Richard’s ‘process’. RICHARD: Just to refresh your memory then:
RESPONDENT: He asked Richard what its significance might be, and Richard’s response was ... less than friendly or helpful. RICHARD: My response was written on Monday 22 November – in deference to the ‘I will let some time pass’ comment – and, of course, took into account what was written by my co-respondent in those eight days which followed ... here are but a few examples of that which was written in the period immediately after what you remember as being a ‘PCE-like state’ (and to which event you obviously consider my response could have been more friendly or helpful):
Some of the outstanding characteristics of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) are that it is ... (a) patently obvious it be different than the freedoms lived by the countless other searchers since the beginning of time ... and (b) it is seen for oneself that the instinctual passions are indeed the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... and (c) having had direct experience of uncaused happiness and harmlessness there is no need to ask what it is (a truly marvellous freedom from sorrow and malice). Just in case you might still prefer to consider it a ‘PCE-like state’ (and to which event you obviously consider my response could have been more friendly or helpful) you may care to consider the following:
And this:
This one is a doozie:
There is more of similar ilk ... but maybe you will have got the drift by now (and thus have a better understanding of why I responded as I did)? RESPONDENT: As far as I can see, that was the turning point for both Respondent No. 53 and Respondent No. 56. RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right?
RESPONDENT: For my own sanity, I’m beginning to compile an informal catalogue of techniques, tactics and antics that I find most detrimental to mutual understanding. RICHARD: As you have entitled this e-mail ‘The Art of the Mind-Fuck’ then pride of place, in your list of techniques, tactics and antics most detrimental to mutual understanding, would go to the technique/tactic/antic which could, perhaps, be described as a ‘reductio ad falsum’ argumentum, surely? Here is the only definition of the (hyphenated) word ‘mind-fuck’ a search of all the dictionaries at my disposal could find:
To reify what is generally known as logical fallacies – such as the ‘strawman’ and the ‘ad hominen’ fallacies you refer to further on in your e-mail – into being a masterly virtuosity (the art) in a brainwashing (the mind-fuck) of one’s fellow human being cannot possibly be conducive to mutual understanding. RESPONDENT: (...) The likelihood that new mindfucks will be discovered here is small. RICHARD: Here is the only definition of the (non-hyphenated) word ‘mindfuck’ a search of all the dictionaries at my disposal could find:
To reify what is generally known as logical fallacies (such as the ‘strawman’ and the ‘ad hominen’ fallacies you refer to further on in your e-mail) into being a masterly virtuosity in the giving of a mentally overwhelming and disorientating experience to one’s fellow human being cannot possibly be conducive to mutual understanding. RESPONDENT: Most of them are ancient, but there may be a few that are specific to actualism. RICHARD: How on earth can actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – have a few logical fallacies that are specific to it? RESPONDENT: If you repeatedly encounter a technique that drives you up the wall, let me know. RICHARD: As no repeatedly encountered technique ever drives me up the wall I am unable to let you know of such ... and maybe, just maybe, therein lies a clue as to why the technique/tactic/antic you employed both in and by this e-mail escaped your attention prior to clicking ‘send’.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote: [quote] ‘I see that extracting myself from the Altered State Of Consciousness and finding out an alternative way of living, outside of any psychic consciousness at all, is the optimal choice, a freely selected way to live no matter how macabre and gruesome this transition phase is proceeding.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-asc.htm). I am intrigued by the words macabre and gruesome ... RICHARD: The word ‘macabre’ comes from the Old French ‘macabré’
The following probably best describes its morbid connotation:
My use of the word ‘gruesome’ is to convey the sense of a grisly/ ghastly morbidness or a macabre preoccupation with death:
RESPONDENT: .... [I am intrigued by the words macabre and gruesome] and I’m curious as to which aspect of your new condition made you choose words that are usually (AFAIK) associated with fear, revulsion or horror, even though fear could not have been present. RICHARD: Yes ... and I have elsewhere used the words ‘mental anguish’ to depict the cranial agitation which went on for 30+ months after the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body expired. Here is an explanation of why:
RESPONDENT: Was it mainly the shock of being unable to locate any ‘self’ whatsoever? RICHARD: No (that was expected): it was mainly two things: not having any feelings whatsoever – with the apparent, if erroneous, interpretation of being sociopathic (popularly known as psychopathic) – and having been insane, night and day, for eleven years (along with the intimate comprehension that all the revered wisdom of humankind was lunatic) ... with the corresponding, if erroneous, implication that the current condition might possibly be an even deeper insanity. There is, of course, a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity is but an extreme form of sanity) ... but that was only determined in hindsight. RESPONDENT: (Having no answer whatsoever to ‘who am I?’ must be pretty freaky, no matter how much preparation and/or anticipation is involved). RICHARD: No (that was quite matter-of-fact): it was the stark realisation that nobody – absolutely no person anywhere alive or dead – could possibly help me (as in providing confirmation/affirmation or elucidation/explanation, and so on, through precedent) ... I was truly on my own in this. For just one example ... in lieu of any other option I booked myself into a local hospital (a small-town hospital) on the weekend when the neuronal excitation first started occurring and the nursing sister on duty – who, incidentally, gave me the expression ‘mental anguish’ – took it upon herself to give me a 10 mg injection of diazepam (which sent me into deep sleep) until a doctor could be located: upon coming to, at 2.00AM, with no change whatsoever in the intensity of the cerebral agitation I (groggily) found the duty doctor, a learned man of Indian heritage, leaning over me and earnestly informing me that it was all to do with kundalini arising and that self-realisation could be imminent ... and gave me a cassette-player with meditative (atonal) music on it and (borrowed) words of wisdom. Needless is it to say that I booked myself out of the hospital forthwith (at 8.00AM that very morning)? RESPONDENT: Or was it perhaps the shock of the intense physicality of post-psychic existence? RICHARD: Actually, an incident occurred much later on which threw a lot of light onto the neuronal excitation itself (and thus to all the useless introspection detailed further above and elsewhere) ... I have described it this way:
I go into in far greater detail here: RESPONDENT: Does the sheer immediacy of the flesh and blood and eyeballs and tongues and sex organs etc seem ‘gruesome’ in its intense physicality after all those years of thinking of oneself as a person and/or a spirit? RICHARD: No, not at all ... the sheer immediacy of the flesh and blood and eyeballs and tongues and sex organs, etcetera, was a delight (that was the strange part about it all as obviously nothing was actually amiss). RESPONDENT: Or was it something else? RICHARD: Yes, put expressively, it was akin to having what is colloquially known as a bad trip on acid (all physical) ... primarily the main symptom were a saturated sensuosity of such brilliance and vividity (as in psychedelic), which satiation can be likened to a television set receiving 4 or 5 channels all at once (inasmuch thought, and thus speech, was unable to keep up with the resultant cacophonic ‘white noise’), that the brain cells themselves were undergoing a non-volitional (chemical) excitation of such a magnitude as to be almost impossible for awareness to sustain itself (as in too much to bear). It was altogether unpleasant, to say the least. RESPONDENT: Also, do you think the macabre and gruesome nature of the transition phase is an inevitable consequence of going through psychic disintegration ... RICHARD: No, not at all ... it was mostly idiosyncratic (pertaining to this flesh and blood body’s physical make-up). RESPONDENT: ... or did the fact that you had been in an altered state for the preceding 11 years make it more macabre and gruesome than it would be for a ‘normal’ person? RICHARD: Definitely ... which is why I advise that nobody should attempt to follow ‘my’ footsteps – to go through enlightenment/ awakening and beyond – but to be a pioneer instead:
And (further on in the same e-mail) the modified version/addendum:
RESPONDENT No. 68: As for myself, I already know actualism ‘works’ in making me happier and more harmless ... RESPONDENT: As for myself, I know that it doesn’t. My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs). RICHARD: May I ask? Where you intending to write IMBO For instance:
For another instance:
And again (twice):
Lastly:
Just for the record, here is what a dictionary has to say:
VINEETO: ... only when I experienced in a PCE that ‘I’ as ‘being’ do not exist in actuality – and therefore this ‘being’ is nothing at all that would survive the death of this body as an actuality – did I know with 100% certainty that any investment in a life after death is definitely a waste of time and energy. RESPONDENT No. 68: Yes, it is an extraordinary waste of time and energy. I think what’s happening in my mind is like: ‘sure you seem to disappear in a PCE, but is that really a fact, maybe a certain part of your brain is shut off that lets you experience your soul, but your soul is still alive to live on when you die’. This is of course abstract ‘what-ifing’ and I don’t believe that. RESPONDENT: I don’t believe it either (i.e. a soul that survives death), but in the general case this reasoning is sound. RICHARD: In what way is that reasoning sound? What your co-respondent is replying to is clearly delineated as ‘I’ *as* ‘being’ (aka ‘soul’) ... which means that what you are responding to looks something like this when written in accord with what is being replied to:
In short: when written without the dissociative shift it does not make sense. RESPONDENT: If a certain perceptual/cognitive faculty is switched off it will not perceive what it usually perceives, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there to perceive. RICHARD: As what is switched-off in a PCE is the entire affective faculty, and not a certain perceptual/ cognitive faculty, it makes no sense to propose that ‘me’ as ‘being’ (which is what the affective faculty intuitively feels itself to be) is not necessarily no longer there to be perceived but has, instead, become imperceptible. RESPONDENT: If I gouge out my eyeballs, light disappears. RICHARD: If the entire affective faculty gouges itself out, ‘me’ as ‘being’ disappears. RESPONDENT: Could I conclude that light never actually existed? RICHARD: Could I conclude that ‘me’ as ‘being’ never actually existed? RESPONDENT: I could, but I’d be a loony. RICHARD: I can ... but then again I am a loony.
RESPONDENT: (...) My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs). RICHARD: May I ask? Where you intending to write IMBO RESPONDENT: Am I my brother’s speaker? RICHARD: As your older sibling is now around 43 years of age, and as you have said elsewhere you have had 30-odd years of experience of him, it follows that he was already a teenager during your formative years. RESPONDENT: The possibility that a rare neurological condition was the driving force behind the remarkable events of your post-1980 life, and that your ‘followers’ were having themselves on, occurred to me right from the start. RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘a rare neurological condition’ you are meaning something similar to what terms such as ‘a freak of nature’/‘a sport of nature’ refer to – and that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to emulate – when did it occur to you that ‘a rare neurological condition’ = ‘an actual pathological process’ (involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness)? RESPONDENT: As far back as December 2003 I was asking questions in an online neurology-related forum trying to find out what kind of conditions could result in the complete loss of imagination and affect. RICHARD: It did not occur to you to ask (for instance) what kind of conditions could result in a totally peaceful and harmonious life ... as in a veritable peace on earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: (None of the information I received was fully consistent with what you report though). RICHARD: Could that be, perchance, because the very nature of the questions you asked is what produced the answers you received? RESPONDENT: As those inquiries predate <Respondent’s brother’s> awareness of your existence, he could not have planted the idea in my mind. RICHARD: Which idea are you referring to ... the ‘rare neurological condition’ idea or the ‘actual pathological process’ idea? RESPONDENT: Moreover, I would be surprised if anybody had not considered the possibility that your enlightenment and ‘self’-immolation had a pathological cause. And if they have considered that possibility, all the rest (i.e. the idea that actualism is a ‘religion’ based on ‘faith’ ... though it tries hard not to be) follows naturally from this. RICHARD: Speaking of all the rest ... did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)? Furthermore, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to being fully committed to a single goal also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)? Moreover, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to practising a happy/harmless morality also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)? * RESPONDENT: Before we close the subject of pathology, do you remember when you discussed TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) with No. 25 recently? RICHARD: Aye, that was the discussion which elucidated how mystical experiences are not the inevitable and/or only outcome of TLE auras ... according to the source my co-respondent initially quoted they are rarer than four percent of the cases. Viz.:
More to the point, however, is nowhere was it ever explicated that actual experiences have anything to do with the temporal lobe. RESPONDENT: In wrapping up the discussion, you mentioned that the issue had been tabled with your psychiatrist ... RICHARD: I canvassed numerous issues, of course, yet the only issue professionally diagnosed by two specialists in the field as having a demonstrable causative effect was my war-time experiences ... a diagnosis – ‘the process of determining the nature of a disease etc.; the identification of a disease from a patient’s symptoms etc.; a formal statement of this’ (Oxford Dictionary) – which clearly illustrates, by the way, that your older sibling’s assertion that Richard has [quote] ‘a severe and incurable psychotic disorder of *unknown aetiology*’ [emphasis added] is nothing but rhetoric (the art of using language so as to persuade or influence others). RESPONDENT: ... and, I can’t quite remember how you put it, but I was left with the impression that you were somehow familiar with TLE at the time. RICHARD: Just as I was familiar with a momentary other-worldly crystalline-like clarity which can immediately precede an acute migraine attack (for example) via extensive discussions with a next-door neighbour of my first wife’s parents ... or just as I was familiar with a similar uncanny acuity which can occur in persistent malarial attacks (for another instance) from numerous ad hoc discussions with quite a few peoples over many years. RESPONDENT: Are you able to say whether you have a close blood relative with TLE? Or a close blood relative with some other significant neurological abnormality? RICHARD: For obvious reasons I will not be responding, either in the negative or the affirmative, to any such queries about any living person having a genealogical linkage ... what I will say, though, is this: I do find it cute that both you and your elder sibling are saying, in effect, that peace-on-earth is a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause. RESPONDENT: As for my ‘near certainty’ that your condition is pathological, I am of course talking through my hat. RICHARD: I see ... and were you also talking ‘foolishly, wildly, or ignorantly; bluffly, exaggeratedly’ (Oxford Dictionary) when you wrote the following? Viz.:
The reason I ask is that, otherwise, not only is peace-on-earth a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause but even the very intent itself to actually be peaceful and harmonious is just as much a sickness. RESPONDENT: Instead of saying I am ‘nearly certain’ that your condition is/was pathological, I should say that I simply have not ruled it out ... RICHARD: I see ... so you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention involves, is caused by, or is of the nature of disease or illness, then? RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum. RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum? * RESPONDENT: [Addendum] BTW, although I didn’t mention it in my first reply, the general idea of the influence of ‘borrowed wisdom’ and of having one’s innate naiveté driven away by cynicism has not been lost on me. RICHARD: Okay ... having been the second-youngest of four siblings myself, plus having also been a parent of more than one progeny, I am well aware how the eldest child is the only one to get total parental care-giving, role-modelling, and training (simply by virtue of being the first-born) and, furthermore, has the status of being a proxy care-giver/role-model/trainer imposed upon them by the parents in regards any later-born siblings. If I might suggest? Whether you discard actualism or not it would surely be in your best interests (and your older brother’s) to make sure you have thoroughly rid yourself of the demigod-like status an elder sibling can have. ‘Tis only during a younger sibling’s formative years that the eldest is more knowledgeable.
RESPONDENT No. 66: Something I read made me think: virtual freedom saves one from ‘all or nothing’ (also called black and white thinking in cognitive therapy) type thinking that is in spiritualism; I asked myself if I can settle for virtual freedom – and I found some resistance; if one is really interested in being happy and harmless, virtual freedom is a great solution. So why resistance? I think the answer is that I may not be really interested in peace ... I just shoot for the impossible to block myself from progressing that is typical of all or nothing thinking; actual freedom has a curious requirement; but virtual freedom is in one’s hands I realize. (...) RESPONDENT: ... IMO, it is *only* the magical quality of a PCE/AF that makes an emotion-free life worth contemplating. To be caught half way, unable to participate fully and feelingly in the human drama, yet unable to go forth into the clear open spaces beyond ‘humanity’ ... that is not something to aspire to, as I see it. RICHARD: Perhaps you might consider re-titling your next e-mail ‘Re: Virtual Cynicism’ ... for the following includes your description of being [quote] ‘caught half way’ [endquote] a scant twelve months ago:
For what it is worth: the impression conveyed by your e-mails is that the worm began turning somewhere between 1:28 and 8:54 PM (AEST) on Wednesday 04/05/2005.
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Six) 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 |
