|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 89
CO-RESPONDENT: No. 53, No. 87 & Nos. 60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what an intellectualist wrote at the three URL’s you provided ... RESPONDENT: I am not an adherent of the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason. I am not an intellectualist. RICHARD: Okay ... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist? Viz.:
Just as a matter of interest ... what is a suitable word for a person of this ilk? Viz.:
CO-RESPONDENT: No. 53, No. 87 & Nos. 60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what an intellectualist wrote at the three URL’s you provided ... RESPONDENT: I am not an adherent of the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason. I am not an intellectualist. RICHARD: (...) Just as a matter of interest ... what is a suitable word for a person of this ilk? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Rene Guenon is a metaphysician par excellence. RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature:
I am pleased that this matter, at least, has been settled to our mutual satisfaction.
RESPONDENT: I am not an adherent of the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason. I am not an intellectualist. RICHARD: Okay ... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist? RESPONDENT: I don’t understand your question. What do you mean with ‘in the same way’? RICHARD: In the same way that you are not a spiritualist even though the prevailing theme, of 215 e-mails you wrote over the 36 days (31/03/2005- 6/05/2005) you were writing to this list, was about [quote] ‘genuine spirituality’ [endquote] ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: I am simply not a spiritualist. RICHARD: Perhaps, then, what you simply are might be better served by you not writing such things as the following (as it all-too-easily conveys the impression that you are):
RESPONDENT: I am not evoking spirits ... RICHARD: I am not referring to spiritism – ‘the belief that the spirits of the dead can communicate with the living, esp. through a medium; the practice of this belief’ (Oxford Dictionary) – but to spiritualism ... here is an example of the way I mean the word ‘spiritualist’:
Plus here is an example of the way I mean the word ‘spiritual’:
And here is one example of what the word ‘spirit’ means to you:
RESPONDENT: ... nor do I adhere to Eastern belief systems (karma, reincarnation, etc.). RICHARD: Obviously I cannot comment on an etcetera ... here is an instance of what you do believe:
RESPONDENT: I am just a simple man trying to make my way through life. RICHARD: Sure ... do you now understand what I mean with ‘in the same way’ in my question [quote] ‘and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist’ [endquote]?
RICHARD: ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature:
RESPONDENT: I think No. 97 basically wants you to inform people that what this (‘actualism’) is about is ‘superstition of facts’. RICHARD: It does look to be more like something that you would want to inform me about ... be that as it may: when Mr. Henry Thoreau used that term in ‘The Spirit of the Times’ (15 February 1848), nearly forty years before Mr. Rene Guenon was born (1886), he had the following to say:
I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical. For an unambiguous explication of this:
RESPONDENT: It is, to quote Rene Guenon, a ‘peculiar delusion, typical of modern ‘experimentalism’, to suppose that a theory can be proved by facts whereas really the same facts can always be equally well explained by a variety of different theories’. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, not theoretical, there is no theory to be proved. RESPONDENT: Your facts might be right ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As there are no such things as ‘your facts’ (or ‘my facts’ or ‘his facts’ or ‘her facts’, and so on) and neither is a fact either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – might it be possible that you are really referring to ‘truths’? RESPONDENT: ... but your theories about what these facts mean, and your conclusions regards the ‘ultimate questions’ still can be utterly wrong. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to specify what those [quote] ‘ultimate questions’ [endquote] are then whatever it is you are wanting to convey might be more comprehensible.
CO-RESPONDENT: No. 89 gives a short resumé of the essentials at: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911984875 RICHARD: Did you notice that the e-mail at that URL has, towards the beginning, the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method – after stating that an actual freedom from the human condition is not at all beyond what the different traditions teach – yet finishes with references to [quote] ‘the Principle or Self. Itself is undying and never born but it brings everything into existence’ [endquote] by any chance? RESPONDENT: There is no contradiction here; the words ‘Self’ resp. ‘Principle’ are not identical with your usage of the word ‘Self’ (passionate instincts etc.); they denote that (‘noumenon’) from which everything (‘phenomenon’) arises. RICHARD: Here the text at that URL which I was referring to by pointing out (further above) that there is ‘the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method’ in that e-mail:
There is an enormous difference between merely stopping instinctive and affective behaviour and eliminating the [quote] ‘passionate instincts etc.’ [endquote] themselves ... for the extinction of the latter is the end of the noumenon from which everything (supposedly) arises. RESPONDENT: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. RICHARD: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. Incidentally, it was not a [quote] ‘lofty goal’ [endquote] ... it was a very down-to-earth, sensible, and practical goal. RESPONDENT: At best your method has helped people to reduce the effects of their instincts and affections on their behaviour. RICHARD: Again, what the actualism method did was rid this flesh and blood body of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto. RESPONDENT: From a practical point of view, it does the same like Buddha’s method. RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method did not, does not, and never will, rid flesh and blood bodies of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto. RESPONDENT: Besides, no neurological state and no extinction of whatever (psyche, ego, instincts etc.) can end the noumenon. RICHARD: There is no noumenon whatsoever here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: No phenomenal change of any kind can have an effect on the noumenon. RICHARD: Where did I say that the extinction of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto was a [quote] ‘phenomenal change’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: The noumenon is a metaphysical truth. RICHARD: There is no metaphysical truth in actuality. RESPONDENT: Your superstition of facts simply blinds you from seeing this truth. RICHARD: I do not have a [quote] ‘superstition of facts’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: How can a phenomenal world exist without a noumenon from which it arises? RICHARD: Where have I ever said that a phenomenal world arises?
RICHARD: ... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist? RESPONDENT: I don’t understand your question. What do you mean with ‘in the same way’? (...) RICHARD: ... do you now understand what I mean with ‘in the same way’ in my question [quote] ‘... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: If somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude, if such a person is a spiritualist and an intellectualist for you, then you can label me just that. RICHARD: Ha ... after having just read that whitewash
RICHARD: Here the text at that URL which I was referring to by pointing out (further above) that there is ‘the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method’ in that e-mail:
There is an enormous difference between merely stopping instinctive and affective behaviour and eliminating the [quote] ‘passionate instincts etc.’ [endquote] themselves ... for the extinction of the latter is the end of the noumenon from which everything (supposedly) arises. RESPONDENT: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. RICHARD: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. RESPONDENT: Not you, of course ... RICHARD: The only thing which is an ‘of course’ is you having to exclude the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail ... otherwise that would stuff up your craftily-concocted justification for ignoring the fact that the course of action this flesh and blood body offers, being the one the identity in residence all those years ago both devised and utilised to full effect, was demonstratively effective in achieving the expected goal – enabling the already always existing actual world into being apparent – as contrasted to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method being not the way Mr. Gotama the Sakyan effected ‘his’ goal (of becoming more spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened than any of ‘his’ peers, who are generally characterised as being ‘Brahmins’, had been up until then). (...) RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method did not, does not, and never will, rid flesh and blood bodies of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto. RESPONDENT: Sure not ... RICHARD: I am pleased that your question of Monday 2/05/2005 10:45 AM AEST – your ‘What is so different here to Richard?’ query quoted further above – has been finally answered to your satisfaction. (...) RESPONDENT: Besides, no neurological state and no extinction of whatever (psyche, ego, instincts etc.) can end the noumenon. RICHARD: There is no noumenon whatsoever here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Yes, sure not. RICHARD: I am also pleased that this matter has been settled as well. * RESPONDENT: No phenomenal change of any kind can have an effect on the noumenon. RICHARD: Where did I say that the extinction of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto was a [quote] ‘phenomenal change’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: You didn’t say that. RICHARD: Indeed I did not ... I am on record on many an occasion as reporting/ describing/ explaining that it is all an illusion/ delusion being played-out. RESPONDENT: I say that. RICHARD: You can, of course, say whatever you will ... the saying of it, however, does nothing to alter the fact that there is no affective faculty/identity whatsoever in this actual world (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here). RESPONDENT: The extinction of the entire affective faculty is a phenomenon. RICHARD: It is nothing of the sort ... the extinction of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto is but a playing-out of the illusion/delusion. RESPONDENT: It takes place in the phenomenal world, or does it not. RICHARD: It does not ... it takes place in the noumenal world (to couch it in the terminology you are using). RESPONDENT: Because the noumenon is, per definition, untouched by whatever takes place in the phenomenal world the extinction of whoever’s affective faculty proves nothing regards the noumenon. RICHARD: As the noumenon/ the noumenal world is nothing but the affective faculty (which term includes its intuitive/imaginative facility) writ large, so to speak, the extinction of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto is, simultaneously, the ending of its noumenon/ its noumenal world. Put succinctly: it is but a drama being acted-out in the illusion/ delusion ... ‘my’ demise, in toto, is as fictitious as ‘my’ existence is, in its entirety. * RESPONDENT: The noumenon is a metaphysical truth. RICHARD: There is no metaphysical truth in actuality. RESPONDENT: Yes, I understand your position. RICHARD: That is not my [quote] ‘position’ [endquote] ... that is a report/ description/ explanation coming from actuality. What issues forth from this keyboard in regards life here in this actual world comes immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as this form of perpetual matter ... there is this which is happening and the words write themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and not from some nebulous [quote] ‘position’ [endquote] such as you would have be the case. Just so that there is no misunderstanding: nothing coming from here regarding life in this actual world is a standpoint either ... and neither is it an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, a postulation, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways you may come up with of overlooking a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. RESPONDENT: Your superstition of facts simply blinds you from seeing this truth. RICHARD: I do not have a [quote] ‘superstition of facts’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Ok. RICHARD: Good ... that makes it three issues settled in one e-mail, eh? * RESPONDENT: How can a phenomenal world exist without a noumenon from which it arises? RICHARD: Where have I ever said that a phenomenal world arises? RESPONDENT: I said that. RICHARD: In which case I will leave it to you to answer. RESPONDENT: What do you say? RICHARD: This (for instance):
CO-RESPONDENT: I just discovered No. 89’s messages. I agree with him in what he writes about eastern mysticism – having done more or less the same reading circuit – but not on his scientific opinions on evolution apparently close to ‘intelligent design’ should I not have misunderstood something there, which is quite possible. I didn’t look into it closely. No. 89 gives a short résumé of the essentials at: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911984875 RICHARD: Did you notice that the e-mail at that URL has, towards the beginning, the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method – after stating that an actual freedom from the human condition is not at all beyond what the different traditions teach – yet finishes with references to [quote] ‘the Principle or Self. Itself is undying and never born but it brings everything into existence’ [endquote] by any chance? RESPONDENT: There is no contradiction here; the words ‘Self’ resp. ‘Principle’ are not identical with your usage of the word ‘Self’ (passionate instincts etc.); they denote that (‘noumenon’) from which everything (‘phenomenon’) arises. RICHARD: Here the text at that URL which I was referring to by pointing out (further above) that there is ‘the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method’ in that e-mail:
There is an enormous difference between merely stopping instinctive and affective behaviour and eliminating
the [quote] ‘passionate instincts etc.’ [endquote] themselves ... for the extinction of the latter is the end of the noumenon Put simply: neither ‘Self and/or Principle’ have any existence in actuality
RICHARD: ... do you now understand what I mean with ‘in the same way’ in my question [quote] ‘... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: If somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude, if such a person is a spiritualist and an intellectualist for you, then you can label me just that. [Addendum 22 hours later and after the response immediately below was posted]: No, seriously. That is what I do. RICHARD: Ha ... after having just read that whitewash RESPONDENT: I don’t know why I should be labelled as a ‘spiritualist’ or an ‘intellectualist’ by doing what I do. I don’t see, for example, the postulation of a ‘noumenon’ as the outcome of an intellectual and/or a spiritual attitude. RICHARD: In regards to an intellectual attitude I will draw your attention to the following:
And then this:
In regards to a spiritual attitude I will draw your attention to the following:
And then this:
That last one is a real doozie, eh? RESPONDENT: I’d rather consider that to be a ‘working hypotheses’. That is, ‘a working hypotheses’ of somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude. RICHARD: As that is essentially a rewrite of what I already responded to previously, with my observation about what I would rather label a person who dissembles/ dissimilates as, I will pass without further comment.
RICHARD: ... do you now understand what I mean with ‘in the same way’ in my question [quote] ‘... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: If somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude, if such a person is a spiritualist and an intellectualist for you, then you can label me just that. [Addendum 22 hours later and after the response immediately below was posted]: No, seriously. That is what I do. RICHARD: Ha ... after having just read that whitewash I would rather label you a dissembler and a dissimulator. RESPONDENT: I don’t know why I should be labelled as a ‘spiritualist’ or an ‘intellectualist’ by doing what I do. I don’t see, for example, the postulation of a ‘noumenon’ as the outcome of an intellectual and/or a spiritual attitude. RICHARD: In regards to an intellectual attitude I will draw your attention to the following: [snip three quotes]. In regards to a spiritual attitude I will draw your attention to the following: [snip three quotes]. That last one is a real doozie, eh? RESPONDENT: I’d rather consider that to be a ‘working hypotheses’. That is, ‘a working hypotheses’ of somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude. RICHARD: As that is essentially a rewrite of what I already responded to previously, with my observation about what I would rather label a person who dissembles/ dissimilates as, I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: I copy and paste my answer to No. 74’s comment because I think it applies equally to your observations above: Ok. In this case, everybody except of Richard may well be termed intellectualist. RICHARD: Just so as to inject a modicum of commonsense into all this here is the dictionary definition of that word from my first e-mail:
Just for the record ... here is another way of putting it:
Or even this way:
And this is why I provided the Oxford Dictionary definition in the first place:
Surely you are not suggesting that everybody except me agrees with Mr. Rene Guenon that a genuinely
transcendent knowledge – as in containing no trace of any phenomenalism
RESPONDENT: I don’t know why I should be labelled as a ‘spiritualist’ or an ‘intellectualist’ by doing what I do. I don’t see, for example, the postulation of a ‘noumenon’ as the outcome of an intellectual and/or a spiritual attitude. (...) RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that everybody except me agrees with Mr. Rene Guenon that a genuinely transcendent knowledge – as in containing no trace of any phenomenalism and which alone is pure spirituality – of the Universal (the ‘Self’) is dependent only on pure intellectual intuition? RESPONDENT: You would have to read Rene Guenon’s writings to understand that ‘pure intellectual intuition’ is not identical with the intellect or with reason. RICHARD: As I have no intention of reading all that Mr. Rene Guenon ever wrote perhaps you could provide some text of his where he explains why, then, he uses the word ‘intellectual’ and does not just say ‘pure intuition’ instead? For example:
RESPONDENT: Guenon himself attacked intellectualism vehemently. RICHARD: Okay ... you do realise, do you not, that had it not been for the word ‘intellectual’ in that edited quote of Mr. Rene Guenon’s you provided I would never have assumed he was speaking of intellectualism? RESPONDENT: What you call intellectualism is called ‘pseudo-intellectualism’ by Rene Guenon. RICHARD: Ah, maybe there is the clue to it all ... what is true-intellectualism, then, according to Mr. Rene Guenon? RESPONDENT: ‘Pure intellectual intuition’ is closer to contemplation than it is to reasoning. RICHARD: What manner of contemplation – as in does it involve thought (and therefore intellect) – and how much closer (as in how far away from reasoning) is it?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I found this link on the actual freedom webpage. I’d be interested whether you wrote the text (which I have reason to doubt) or somebody else: [quote] ‘If no-one was bold enough to say that the accepted ‘truth’ is a mistake, then the sun would still be revolving around the earth!’ [endquote]. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/fact.htm). It takes imagination to come up with the ‘idea’ that the earth revolves around the sun, does it not? RICHARD: First of all, my exclamatory jest in the sentence you have quoted above (which is a reference to Mr. Galilei Galileo having to publicly recant) was only to emphasise the boldness required to openly say that an accepted truth is a mistake ... the sun and the earth have, of course, been doing what they do all the while. I do not know whether it took imagination for Mr. Aristarchus to extend the speculations of Mr. Philolaus and Mr. Hicetas two centuries earlier, that the earth was a sphere revolving daily around some mystical ‘central fire’ which regulated the universe, by proposing that the earth and other planets moved around a definite central object (the sun) ... what I do know is that imagination is not required to have ideas, to suppose (to presume/assume), to conceptualise, to formulate theories, to calculate mathematically, and so on, as I have many years experience in doing so sans the imaginative/intuitive facility. RESPONDENT: Kopernicus didn’t start out with ‘I know for fact that the earth revolves around the sun’? RICHARD: What Mr. Nicolaus Copernicus started out with was ‘Disputations Against Divinatory Astrology’ by Mr. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola – a book which challenged the very basis of planetary divination (in particular the charge that, because astronomers could not agree on the actual order of the planets, astrologers could not be certain about the strengths of the powers issuing from them) – and the acquired knowledge of a thirteenth century mathematical device, formulated by a group of astronomers in Persia, which attempted to resolve a problem (planetary ‘wobbles’) caused by the equant in Mr. Claudius Ptolemy’s model. RESPONDENT: No, he started out with ‘I have an idea … I have a hunch … I believe ... I am convinced that ... I have the feeling, … it could be, … imagine … my intuition tells me … I have a theory … my mathematical calculations show me … - that the earth revolves around the sun’. RICHARD: May I ask? Does that precise amount of detail, about how Mr. Nicolaus Copernicus worked out his postulation (that if the sun is assumed to be at rest and if the earth is assumed to be in motion then the remaining planets fall into an orderly relationship whereby their sidereal periods increase from the sun) come from acquired historical knowledge or your imagination? If it be the former the provision of (suitably referenced and attributed) text to that effect would be appreciated. * RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘A fact is obvious ...’. [endquote]. And [quote] ‘A fact is patently true, manifestly clear’. [endquote]. How is this obvious that the earth revolves around the sun? RICHARD: It was obvious to Mr. Galilei Galileo that the earth must revolve around the sun because he had telescopically observed hills and valleys on the moon, that satellites orbited Jupiter, that the planet Venus had phases, and that the face of the sun had sunspots moving across it. RESPONDENT: If they had not told you in school the patently true and manifestly clear fact that the earth revolves around the sun how would it be patently true, manifestly clear to you? At what moment in time – if you can remember back – became it patently true and manifestly clear to you that the earth revolves around the sun? Based on what kind of ‘direct experience’ (or did you use imagination or made some mathematical calculations or did you simply believe authorities (teacher, parents, experts)) did it become patently true and manifestly clear to you that the earth revolves around the sun? RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of assistance::
RESPONDENT: To me the fact that the earth revolves around the sun is not at all patently true and manifestly clear. RICHARD: What part of what was explained to you at school about heliocentricity is it that you still do not comprehend? RESPONDENT: If there had not been mathematicians and astronomers used their imagination to question the accepted ‘truth’ (as you like to call it), yes, in this case indeed, the sun would still be revolving around the earth! RICHARD: Again, my exclamatory jest in the sentence you quoted was only to emphasise the audacity required to publicly blow the whistle on an accepted truth. * RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘The criterion of a fact is that it works, it produces results’. [endquote]. What kind of ‘results’ do you refer to? RICHARD: In the specific instance on that particular web page: a penetration into the ‘Mystery of Life’ and the discovery of the ultimate fulfilment ... here on earth. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: What do you mean with ‘it works’. RICHARD: In the specific instance on that particular web page: the actualising of the insight (that one is mortal) so that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If this is the criterion, would you agree then that ‘quantum physics’ is a fact, or is it not? RICHARD: If you wish to extrapolate from what is clearly about matters pertaining to the human condition (mortality and the ending of ‘being’) and apply that criterion to, for example, mathematical models such as quantum theory then that is your business. For what it is worth: that passage, taken from ‘Richard’s Journal’, was written circa 1994-1995 – well before coming on-line and discovering, via feed-back, that I needed to considerably tighten the way I wrote, in general, and to avoid generalisations, like the above, in particular – and is not the way I would necessarily write today. With the benefit of hindsight it might have been better to have written it thisaway (for example):
There is, of course, a difference between intellectually seeing the fact of mortality (which produces realisations not to be sneezed at) and actually seeing it ... as actualisation happens of its own accord (it being not of ‘my’ doing). In the actual seeing of the fact of mortality there is only action (the ending of ‘being’ itself).
CORRESPONDENT No. 89 (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 |
