|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 64
RESPONDENT: The universe itself does not distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality this is hardly surprising. RESPONDENT: The universe contains physical things, and some of these physical things (eg. human bodies) give rise to metaphysical entities (eg. minds, souls, ‘selves’). RICHARD: There is nothing metaphysical about minds ... a mind is a human brain in action in a human skull. As for ‘souls’ and ‘selves’: each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) for rough and ready survival reasons ... which passions automatically form themselves, in a process somewhat analogous to an eddy or a vortex forming itself *as* swirling water or air, into an amorphous feeling being, an inchoate intuitive presence, popularly known as a ‘self’ or a ‘soul’ (or ‘spirit’) in the human animal, within the flesh and blood body. More than a few human beings, taking themselves to truly be this eddying ‘being’, this vortical ‘presence’, rather than the flesh and blood body they actually are, imaginatively/ intuitively manifest/ realise all manner of destinies for that affective phantasm (the eddy or vortex, as it were, which is the instinctual passions in motion) in all manner of metaphysical dimensions inhabited by all manner of affective deities ... a deeply-felt divine and/or sacred being/presence of some description which/who is the timeless and spaceless and formless source or origin of the universe and/or universes. Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal those blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation). No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: Hence, the universe generates metaphysical beings who are capable of creating metaphysical simulations of themselves and the universe. RICHARD: It is the amorphous feeling being, the inchoate intuitive presence, who generates metaphysical beings/metaphysical simulations and not the universe per se ... ‘I’ as ego is born out of ‘me’ as soul (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) or, to put that another way, ‘the feeler’ gives rise to ‘the thinker’ and, as ‘being’ itself has a vested interest in ‘self’-preservation, it readily sacrifices ‘the thinker’ upon the altar of survival-at-all-costs and transmogrifies into being the loving and compassionate ‘Being’ who (supposedly) is, or who (supposedly) creates/ created, the universe for some enigmatic purpose that only such a ‘Presence’ can know. RESPONDENT: This is what the actual universe does. Is the universe doing something wrong? RICHARD: As the universe is not doing what you conclude it is doing – as in your ‘hence’ – your follow-up question is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Implicit in actualism is the value judgement that the physical is superior to the metaphysical. RICHARD: Ha ... implicit in actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is that there is only the physical in actuality and, as an appraisal requires comparison, no such value judgement as you speak of can take place in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ‘You’ (the metaphysical entity) decide this. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the direct experience that matter is not merely passive there is no ‘you’ (no ‘metaphysical entity’ whatsoever) ... there is only this actual world (aka this actual universe). RESPONDENT: And having decided this, the totality of the universe is then divided up into the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’. RICHARD: I would hazard a guess that it is ‘you’ (the ‘metaphysical entity’ who decides) who has decided that ‘the ‘actual’’ and ‘the ‘real’’ together make up a whole ... otherwise known as ‘the totality of the universe’. RESPONDENT: The ‘real’ is minimised to the point where only the ‘actual’ remains. RICHARD: In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site Hence, with the actualism method, when one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception) ... and apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. In short: there is no ‘the ‘real’’ in actuality to minimise (let alone to the point that only ‘the ‘actual’’ remains). RESPONDENT: So this (actually non-existent) division between the physical and the metaphysical becomes a concept in the mind of ‘you’, a metaphysical entity. RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), there is no division to be either existent or non-existent ... the entire argument being presented (above) is but a conceptual contention created in the feeling-fed mind of ‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’ – for reasons as yet unstated but bearing at least some of the hall-marks of the ‘Tried and True’ (as in when the division is seen to be false there is only the totality/whole) as made popular by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. RESPONDENT: The division only exists in the minds of metaphysical entities. The universe knows nothing of such divisions. RICHARD: Possible translation: that which is the totality (the whole) knows nothing of such divisions. RESPONDENT: From your place in the ‘real’, ‘you’ decide that there should be no metaphysical entity in the body ... RICHARD: It could also be said that, from your place in the real-world, ‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’ – decide there should be no division between the physical and the metaphysical. RESPONDENT: ... and so you aim to strip away the naturally-occurring metaphysicality because you think it is ‘better’ that way. RICHARD: May I ask? Are you of the school of thought which maintains that, just because something is natural, it is somehow better than that which is unnatural? I only ask because it is natural, for example, to injure, maim, or kill one’s fellow human being in a fit of anger and I am somewhat nonplussed as to how that is better than, say, there not being any anger in the first place (nor any ‘self’ which is the anger in motion of course) such as to occasion that course of action. RESPONDENT: The question is why? RICHARD: Is it because it is actualism which is being discussed, and not spiritualism in yet another guise, perchance?
RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. RICHARD: As it is so obvious to you Then again, maybe the above is nothing more than a device to embed the following self-serving question and answer into a pre-arranged context. RESPONDENT: And why wouldn’t it? It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. RICHARD: The word ‘moral’, from the Latin ‘moralis’ (rendering Greek ‘ethikos’ or ethic) from the Latin ‘mor-’/‘mos’ meaning custom (plural ‘mores’ meaning manners) + the suffix ‘-al’ with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’, refers to the values – ‘the principles or moral standards of a person or social group’ (Oxford Dictionary) – instilled from birth onwards to direct/ guide human behaviour and/or conduct ... and the word ‘injunction’ (from the Latin ‘injunct-’ meaning prohibit or restrain) refers to ‘the action of enjoining [to prescribe/ forbid] or authoritatively directing someone; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order’ (Oxford Dictionary).How actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – can, even to the most jaundiced eye, be ‘simply a moral injunction’ has got me beat. * RESPONDENT: (...) Would you say that ‘altruistic self-sacrifice’, or ‘self-immolation for the good of this body, that body and every body’ lies outside the scope of morality? RICHARD: Indeed so ... only I tend to say altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice, and ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body, that body and every body, as I follow the useful convention of putting references to the identity within in scare-quotes so as to distinguish same from references to the flesh and blood body. Put briefly: although the word ‘altruistic’ has also come to mean the same as ‘unselfish’ (and thus moralistic/ ethicalistic) it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list in its instinctive self-sacrificial meaning. Viz.:
As this instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee – when using its sting to defend the hive it dies – there is no way morality (or ethicality) comes into it ... it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). Put simply: moral injunctions/ morality have never set anybody free from the human condition – and never will – as they cannot.
RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. RICHARD: As it is so obvious to you RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: If that be the case then I would suggest you refrain from snipping out some parts of a post yet leave such a line as that in as it conveys the impression that it is indeed what is obvious to you. Vis. (quoting Mr. Ahmed Baki from www.ahmedbaki.com/english/books/rosarium): ‘It is like a hereditary cross-eye viewing to see the ‘creation’ separated from and afar off a ‘creator.’ There is neither a ‘god’ that created the universe and then rose up to heavens; nor is there a ‘creation’ created by a god, and never have any of them ever been. [...] Hence, there is and has been nothing aside from ‘Allah’, at all. [...]. • [Respondent]: So obvious, but so foreign to most westerners. (‘Re: Allah is Alone Without Companion’; July 14, 2004 PDT). RESPONDENT: What was, and is, ‘obvious to me’ is that ‘... there is neither a ‘god’ that created the universe and then rose up to heavens; nor is there a ‘creation’ created by a god, and never have any of them ever been’. There is no god and no created universe. For Islamic mystics (of which I am not one), Allah is the universe and the universe is Allah. RICHARD: This is what you snipped out (between ‘... ever been’ and ‘hence ...’):
Far from indicating that a particular god is the universe and the universe is that god it alludes to the universe *serving* the oneness within a person’s essence that makes up their existence and which *originates* all things (inasmuch that everything which dwells in the universe takes their *origin* from that limitless, endless, and the unseparated whole god within the flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is not new in human history. RICHARD: Yet that is not what is being referred to ... for example (from the ‘Hidden Rosarium’ website which the above quote came from) :
And:
And:
There are many more of similar ilk ... but maybe that will do for now. RESPONDENT: What you call ‘matter’ or ‘the universe’, they call ‘Allah’. RICHARD: They do no such thing ... they know naught of what I report/ describe/ explain (this actual world). RESPONDENT: However, you will not acknowledge this. RICHARD: If I may point out? There is nothing to acknowledge as they are forever locked-out of actuality by their very nature. * RICHARD: ... [As it is so obvious to you that there is and has been nothing at all aside from a particular god] it would appear that there is no other way you could comprehend it (than as a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do). RESPONDENT: As the premise is bogus, the conclusion is a non-sequitur. RICHARD: I am only too happy to amend my sentence so that it be in accord with what you have to say by way of explanation in this e-mail:
Just in case it is not obvious: nothing you have to say by way of explanation above demonstrates that actualism is indeed what you claim (a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do). * RICHARD: Then again, maybe the above is nothing more than a device to embed the following self-serving question and answer into a pre-arranged context RESPONDENT: And why wouldn’t it? It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. RICHARD: The word ‘moral’, from the Latin ‘moralis’ (rendering Greek ‘ethikos’ or ethic) from the Latin ‘mor-’/’mos’ meaning custom (plural ‘mores’ meaning manners) + the suffix ‘-al’ with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’, refers to the values – ‘the principles or moral standards of a person or social group’ (Oxford Dictionary) – instilled from birth onwards to direct/guide human behaviour and/or conduct ... and the word ‘injunction’ (from the Latin ‘injunct-’ meaning prohibit or restrain) refers to ‘the action of enjoining [to prescribe/forbid] or authoritatively directing someone; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order’ (Oxford Dictionary). How actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – can, even to the most jaundiced eye, be ‘simply a moral injunction’ has got me beat. RESPONDENT: The ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is certainly not a moral injunction, I agree. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however ...’ qualifier)? The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is the actualism which is both presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and discussed on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... any other ‘actualism’ that what is so obvious to you persuades you to see in lieu of this is not what is being presented and discussed. RESPONDENT: ‘Actualism’ as taught and discussed by people on this mailing list has very little to do with the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is As you are demonstrably confused about related matters I will, of course, keep my own counsel on the matter. * RESPONDENT: (...) Would you say that ‘altruistic self-sacrifice’, or ‘self-immolation for the good of this body, that body and every body’ lies outside the scope of morality? RICHARD: Indeed so ... only I tend to say altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice, and ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body, that body and every body, as I follow the useful convention of putting references to the identity within in scare-quotes so as to distinguish same from references to the flesh and blood body. Put briefly: although the word ‘altruistic’ has also come to mean the same as ‘unselfish’ (and thus moralistic/ethicalistic) it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list in its instinctive self-sacrificial meaning.
As this instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee – when using its sting to defend the hive it dies – there is no way morality (or ethicality) comes into it ... it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). Put simply: moral injunctions/morality have never set anybody free from the human condition – and never will – as they cannot. RESPONDENT: Precisely. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that at least that matter is cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Have you wondered why nobody other than yourself has become ‘actually free from the human condition’? RICHARD: No (and that is because I know why) ... but, more to the point, do you see that you are now negating what you have to say, further above, about certain mystics? Oops.
RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. RICHARD: As it is so obvious to you that there is and has been nothing at all aside from a particular god ... RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: If that be the case then I would suggest you refrain from snipping out some parts of a post yet leave such a line as that in as it conveys the impression that it is indeed what is obvious to you. RESPONDENT: Sure. Now let’s not compound the problem by expanding on what need never have been introduced. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you that introduced the ‘as other religions’ topic – not me – and in the following context (with the above portion highlighted):
As your very last e-mail to this mailing list was the one with your [quote] ‘so obvious but so foreign to most westerners’ [endquote] comment about a particular god vis-ŕ-vis the universe – and as I am not a mind-reader – surely it is germane to the topic you introduced to expand upon just whom you are referring to with your ‘it’s supposed to be brand new in human history’ comment ... especially as in that e-mail you specifically went on to say that the ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is hardly new and that neither is it a ‘third alternative’ (to either materialism or spiritualism). * RICHARD: (...) Just in case it is not obvious: nothing you have to say by way of explanation above demonstrates that actualism is indeed what you claim (a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do). RESPONDENT: Just in case it is not obvious: nothing in the elided section was intended to demonstrate that. RICHARD: Now that you have made that clear how about getting on with demonstrating just that (that actualism is indeed a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do) ... and, whilst you are at it, just who those people are whom you are referring to with your ‘it’s supposed to be brand new in human history’ claim. In other words, you have made some assertions yet expended two opportunities on ducking the obvious. * RICHARD: Then again, maybe the above is nothing more than a device to embed the following self-serving question and answer into a pre-arranged context RESPONDENT: And why wouldn’t it [‘work’ just as well as other religions]? It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. RICHARD: The word ‘moral’, from the Latin ‘moralis’ (rendering Greek ‘ethikos’ or ethic) from the Latin ‘mor-’/’mos’ meaning custom (plural ‘mores’ meaning manners) + the suffix ‘-al’ with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’, refers to the values – ‘the principles or moral standards of a person or social group’ (Oxford Dictionary) – instilled from birth onwards to direct/guide human behaviour and/or conduct ... and the word ‘injunction’ (from the Latin ‘injunct-’ meaning prohibit or restrain) refers to ‘the action of enjoining [to prescribe/forbid] or authoritatively directing someone; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order’ (Oxford Dictionary). How actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – can, even to the most jaundiced eye, be ‘simply a moral injunction’ has got me beat. RESPONDENT: The ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is certainly not a moral injunction, I agree. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however ...’ qualifier)? The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is the actualism which is both presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and discussed on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... any other ‘actualism’ that what is so obvious to you persuades you to see in lieu of this is not what is being presented and discussed. RESPONDENT: Is the daily business of trying to abort one’s psyche identical to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive? RICHARD: The moment-to-moment experience of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) is not, of course, ‘identical’ – synonyms: the same, indistinguishable, impossible to tell apart, one and the same, matching, alike, equal – to the direct experience of actuality but the nearest one can whilst remaining an identity. Here is an example of how another subscriber described such a state only four months or so ago:
RESPONDENT: Both seem to go by the name ‘actualism’. In case it is unclear, I am referring to the daily process of aborting oneself and one’s feelings, not the ‘direct experience that matter is merely passive’. RICHARD: Oh, what you are endeavouring to do is most certainly not ‘unclear’ ... it just seems to be such a convoluted way to draw attention to a truism (that a person not actually free from the human condition is not actually free from the human condition) that it is a wonder why you are going on with it. * RESPONDENT: (...) Would you say that ‘altruistic self-sacrifice’, or ‘self-immolation for the good of this body, that body and every body’ lies outside the scope of morality? RICHARD: Indeed so ... only I tend to say altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice, and ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, as I follow the useful convention of putting references to the identity within in scare-quotes so as to distinguish same from references to the flesh and blood body. Put briefly: although the word ‘altruistic’ has also come to mean the same as ‘unselfish’ (and thus moralistic/ ethicalistic) it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list in its instinctive self-sacrificial meaning. Viz.: altruism: 2. (zoology) instinctive cooperative behaviour that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. (©The American Heritage® Dictionary). And: altruism: 2: behaviour by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. (©Merriam-Webster). As this instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee – when using its sting to defend the hive it dies – there is no way morality (or ethicality) comes into it ... it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). Put simply: moral injunctions/morality have never set anybody free from the human condition – and never will – as they cannot. RESPONDENT: Precisely. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that at least that matter is cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Have you wondered why nobody other than yourself has become ‘actually free from the human condition’? RICHARD: No (and that is because I know why) ... RESPONDENT: Because the ‘instinctive self-sacrifice’ of which you speak above has not been activated at all? RICHARD: As it is patently obvious that the once-in-a-lifetime altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto (for the benefit of this body and that body and every body) has not activated itself in anyone else than the identity who inhabited this body all those years ago then ... no, that is not why. RESPONDENT: Because your ... students ... RICHARD: As I am not a teacher – I am simply sharing my experience with my fellow human being for them to do with whatever they wish – I do not have any students. RESPONDENT: ... [Because your ... students ...] are living out what amounts to a ‘happy/harmless’ role playing game ... RICHARD: No ... and does that not look somewhat trite to you upon sober reflection? RESPONDENT: ... [Because your ... students ... are living out what amounts to a ‘happy/harmless’ role playing game] that has no more power to affect the brain stem than a moral precept ... RICHARD: As likening it to the effect of ‘a moral precept’ – rather than asserting that it is ‘a moral injunction’ (to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs and to arrange one’s life accordingly) – is an indication of a move away from your hard-line approach there is a possibility you may be able to have a sensible discussion after all. If so, then ... no, it is not because my fellow human being is living out what amounts to a ‘happy/ harmless’ role playing game that has no more power to affect the brain-stem than a moral precept. RESPONDENT: ... [Because your ... students ... are living out what amounts to a ‘happy/ harmless’ role playing game that has no more power to affect the brain stem than a moral precept] (though it be a comfy and cosy place to sit back and smirk at the world)? RICHARD: Oh well ... ‘twas but a short-lived move away from triteness after all, eh? * RICHARD: ... but, more to the point, do you see that you are now negating what you have to say, further above [now snipped], about certain mystics? RESPONDENT: No, but I don’t regard this distraction as ‘more to the point’ either, so it’s hardly worth pursuing. RICHARD: So be it then ... and thus does yet another nonsensical set of assertions come to its inevitable end.
RICHARD: (...) nothing you have to say by way of explanation above [now snipped] demonstrates that actualism is indeed what you claim (a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do). RESPONDENT: Just in case it is not obvious: nothing in the elided section [now snipped] was intended to demonstrate that. RICHARD: Now that you have made that clear how about getting on with demonstrating just that (that actualism is indeed a religion which ‘works’ just as well as others do) ... RESPONDENT: It’s not something I can demonstrate. RICHARD: I am starting to get the hang of how you use the English language ... just as your ‘so obvious but so foreign to most westerners’ observation, coming immediately after an isolated-by-snipping sentence and which had the effect of conveying the impression that it is so obvious to you that there is and has been nothing at all aside from a particular god, is really a coded way of saying that is not at all what is so obvious to you as what is indeed so obvious to you is that ‘there is no god and no created universe’, and that ‘for certain mystics’ – of which, you say, you are not one – that particular god ‘is the universe’ and ‘the universe is’ that particular god, so too does your ‘nothing in the elided section was intended to demonstrate that’ (that actualism is indeed a religion which works just as well as others do) turn out to be nothing other than a coded way of saying that it (that actualism is indeed a religion which works just as well as others do) is not something you can demonstrate. At this stage my attention is, not all that surprisingly, drawn to part of what you have to say, in a later portion of your response, in reply to my wondering why it was that you are going on with all this (with such a convoluted way of drawing attention to the truism that a person not actually free from the human condition is not actually free from the human condition). Viz.:
Strangely enough it had never occurred to me that you were typing your replies single-handedly. Anyway, the long and the short of it all is that, although you may say actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions (and, by way of explanation, that actualism is simply a moral injunction to avoid malice and sorrow at all costs and to arrange one’s life accordingly), you do acknowledge you cannot demonstrate that actualism is indeed a religion. Which means you cannot provide the evidence for the very basis of your many and various assertions, claims, and comments ... yet what do you go on to aver (immediately after your ‘to amuse myself by observing the games people play’ disclosure)? None other than this gem:
Needless is it to mention, being a trifle nonplussed by this adroit sleight-of-hand, I looked for the ... um ... the evidence being referred to? Being somewhat handicapped, of course, by not having your capacity for independent thought, this is all I could find:
Now that I am getting the hang of how you use the English language here is an example of what it all might look like when summed up in plain English:
RESPONDENT: (...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. And why wouldn’t it It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. (...) RICHARD: (...) although you may say actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions (and, by way of explanation, that actualism is simply a moral injunction to avoid malice and sorrow at all costs and to arrange one’s life accordingly), you do acknowledge you cannot demonstrate that actualism is indeed a religion. Which means you cannot provide the evidence for the very basis of your many and various assertions, claims, and comments ... yet what do you go on to aver (immediately after your ‘to amuse myself by observing the games people play’ disclosure)? None other than this gem:
Needless is it to mention, being a trifle nonplussed by this adroit sleight-of-hand, I looked for the ... um ... the evidence being referred to? RESPONDENT: Look around you. The evidence being referred to is the dozens of people who practice your method with varying degrees of dedication ranging from casual interest to rabid fanaticism without becoming actually free. The method doesn’t work any better than moral precepts/injunctions. RICHARD: Perhaps an every-day-life metaphor might be of assistance: a person, wanting to be a concert pianist, asks a concert pianist how they changed from not being a concert pianist into being a concert pianist (as in ‘what did you do to become a concert pianist’ for instance) and the concert pianist says, amongst many other things about intent and dedication, for example, and practice and perseverance and diligence and application, for another, that they practiced a method of their own devising which has nowadays become known as the pianism method (for instance) and yet, after x-number of years of doing all that, the person concerned – whilst having achieved a level of excellence way beyond normal expectations – was still not a concert pianist. Here is my question: how does that make pianism a religion (albeit devoid of metaphysical dogma and overt moral trappings)? And here is my follow-up query: how does that make the pianism method not any better than moral precepts/injunctions?
RESPONDENT: (...) The evidence being referred to is the dozens of people who practice your method with varying degrees of dedication ranging from casual interest to rabid fanaticism without becoming actually free. The method doesn’t work any better than moral precepts/injunctions. RICHARD: Perhaps an every-day-life metaphor might be of assistance: a person, wanting to be a concert pianist, asks a concert pianist how they changed from not being a concert pianist into being a concert pianist (as in ‘what did you do to become a concert pianist’ for instance) and the concert pianist says, amongst many other things about intent and dedication, for example, and practice and perseverance and diligence and application, for another, that they practiced a method of their own devising which has nowadays become known as the pianism method (for instance) and yet, after x-number of years of doing all that, the person concerned – whilst having achieved a level of excellence way beyond normal expectations – was still not a concert pianist. RESPONDENT: The standard of ‘concert pianist’ is a somewhat arbitrary fine line, but surely there is a striking discontinuity between being a ‘self’ and being extinct? RICHARD: There is no fine line – let alone a somewhat arbitrary one – between a work of art (masterwork/masterpiece) and a work of craft (no matter how excellent the craftsmanship may be) ... there is, to deliberately use your phrasing for effect, a striking discontinuity between the one and the other. To explain: I was not only a trained art teacher, in the fine arts, but a practicing artist for a period in my working life and honed my skills to a high level of craft (so much so that I was eventually able to discontinue teaching and support both myself and my then wife plus four children all the while paying off a mortgage and a car on hire purchase) yet it was only when ‘self’ was absent during the process of putting paint on canvas (or moving a pencil on paper or shaping clay on a pottery-wheel or whatever) that the product became art – as distinct from craft (and ‘I’ was a good craftsman) – inasmuch the expression ‘the painting painted itself’ was how I would respond, with no false modesty whatsoever, when complimented/praised/admired for my supposed genius. I have written about this before (where I explain how my wanting to have my life live itself, in the same way that the painting painted itself, is what started me on this whole business) but I happen to have to hand a transcribed interview with Mr. John Lennon, where he is talking about ‘Across The Universe’, which says much the same as above. Viz.:
And (where he is talking about ‘John Sinclair’):
* RICHARD: Here is my question: how does that make pianism a religion (albeit devoid of metaphysical dogma and overt moral trappings)? RESPONDENT: It doesn’t. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: And here is my follow-up query: how does that make the pianism method not any better than moral precepts/injunctions? RESPONDENT: Both piano exercises and the daily observance of moral precepts/injunctions are ways to condition oneself. RICHARD: Speaking personally I spent three years in full-time art college, plus two years full-time practice after that, in painstakingly acquiring the necessary skills so that the painting could paint itself (and the drawing draw itself and the pot form itself and the sculpture sculpt itself and so on) ... if you see the acquisition of skills, the honing of talent, as conditioning oneself then it is doubtful whether you will comprehend what I am talking about. RESPONDENT: I do see your point, though. Let me think about it some more. RICHARD: Sure ... I am going to be otherwise engaged, for the next nine-ten days, so it will be a while before I can write again anyway.
RESPONDENT No. 53: Lets take a look at the actual track record of your method: (...) And last but certainly not least, you had one very sincere and devoted practitioner who is now under the care of one of No. 66’s colleagues at an undisclosed location. Any acts demonstrating the care you go on and on about for your fellow human being has been sorely lacking in this case, not to mention any care from those 2 chimps who were known to converse with him at length dispensing their expert wisdom until his departure which was precipitated by what you like to call a PCE. RESPONDENT No. 18: Yep ... so far for actual caring. RESPONDENT: Why be surprised? These people are actively trying to abort their souls. They’re deadly sincere. Did you think they were joking? Actualism is all about cutting themselves off from their own and other people’s suffering. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT No. 25: I thought to be a ‘given’ that everyone takes responsibility and cares for himself, instead I get the distinct impression that actualism and this list should become some kind of nursery. RESPONDENT: But that isn’t the point. There are people here who claim that their ‘actual caring’ is superior to affective caring. But what does this superior brand of post-human ‘actual caring’ amount to? In practice it amounts to nothing at all. RICHARD: Again I draw your attention to the following:
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 |
