|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 13): ‘I’, as an ‘identity’, as a ‘being’, must become extinct. One
is then spontaneously happy and harmless; one is automatically blithe and benevolent; one is candidly carefree and considerate.
Thus, for the one who dares to go all the way, individual peace on earth for the remainder of one’s life is immediate and
actual. RESPONDENT: One is this and one is that, and yet one’s being has been extinguished. What are you talking about? RICHARD: There is a generally accepted convention around the world that, when referring to the psychological or psychic entity within the body, small quotes are used. To wit: ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’. When wishing to refer to this flesh and blood body bereft of this entity, it is convenient to revert to the first person pronoun: I, me, my ... or even more impersonally ... one. Otherwise the above paragraph would wind up looking like this:
One’s ‘being’ is that sense of ‘presence’ that all sentient beings are born with. ‘I’, as an ego, can dissolve ... but one’s intuition of ‘being’ remains intact. For a person in an altered state of consciousness – such as the eastern spiritual ‘Enlightened Being’ – that intuition of ‘being’ has become heightened to the point of grandiosity. ‘Being’ has become paramount, in fact, and capitalisation is used to lend weight to the solemnity of the achievement. They invariably speak of an intuitive sense of ‘Presence’ that is ‘All-Encompassing’ ... ‘Pure Being’ and ‘Eternal Being’ are other expressions that spring to mind. ‘Unborn and Undying’ ... ‘Birthless and Deathless’ ... and so on. It is this ‘being’ that I was talking about. This capitalised ‘Being’ is the ‘spanner in the works’ ... and has been for century upon century. The reverence and respect accorded to these ‘Great Ones’ has only encouraged them to stop halfway in their search for the ultimate condition. Indeed, who would easily give up the fame and fortune and adulation that accrues to one in the Divine State? Who would readily relinquish the glamour and the glory and the glitz of that which is Sacred, Holy? Who would freely abandon the safety and security and protection of Love Agapé? Who would voluntarily forsake Rapturous Bliss, Ineffable Ecstasy and Exalted Euphoria? Yet if there is to be global peace-on-earth, there is no other course of action.
RICHARD: There is a generally accepted convention around the world that, when referring to the psychological or psychic entity within the body, small quotes are used. To wit: ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’. When wishing to refer to this flesh and blood body bereft of this entity, it is convenient to revert to the first person pronoun: I, me, my ... or even more impersonally ... one. RESPONDENT: I really can’t make sense of this. A psychic being in the body. Can you be clearer about this? Is it like an organ or a cell or a virus? RICHARD: There are two entities who have taken up residence in each human being: a psychological entity and a psychic entity. Just as there are those Christians who are said to be ‘possessed’ by an entity that requires exorcism, so too is every human being ‘possessed’ ... except that it is called being normal. These entities go by many names, according to the culture, but it is generally accepted in English speaking countries that each individual has both an ego and a soul. The ego is the psychological entity and the soul is the psychic entity. And, no, an entity is not like an organ, a cell or a virus. These entities are not actual, they exist in the psyche as emotional-mental constructs and are not at all substantive. They are born out of the instinctual fear and aggression that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth to aid the survival of the species. There are those peoples of scientific bent who have tentatively located these basic emotions in what is known as the ‘Lizard brain’ or ‘Reptilian Brain’ situated at the top of the brain-stem. Of course, there is contention about this primitive brain, just as there is contention about all matters scientific ... I mention it as an illustration only and not as a statement of fact. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that ‘one’ refers to ‘the flesh and blood body’? RICHARD: In the context that I was using it – yes. It saved me writing in this manner: ‘This flesh-and-blood body is then spontaneously happy and harmless; this flesh-and-blood body is automatically blithe and benevolent; this flesh-and-blood body is candidly carefree and considerate. Thus, for this flesh-and-blood body, which dares to go all the way, individual peace on earth for the remainder of this flesh-and-blood body’s life is immediate and actual’. RESPONDENT: I don’t know about your body, but this body is always spontaneous, but what does it mean, to say that it is benevolent or carefree? The mind is benevolent, and what is flesh and blood about the mind? RICHARD: If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish. But if by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘Consciousness’ (with a capital ‘C’) to denote an ‘Immortal Intelligence’ that is ‘Timeless and Spaceless’, ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Beginningless and Endless’ then no, it is not flesh and blood. It is a delusion born out of an illusion ... and not at all substantial. When this flesh and blood body is rid of the psychological and psychic entities that live a parasitical existence in their unwitting host, one is able to appreciate that what I am (‘what’ not ‘who’) is this body. Then I am automatically benevolent and carefree ... and happy and harmless, for one has eradicated malice and sorrow with the demise of the ego and the soul. * RICHARD: One’s ‘being’ is that sense of ‘presence’ that all sentient beings are born with. ‘I’, as an ego, can dissolve ... but one’s intuition of ‘being’ remains intact. RESPONDENT: Yet you earlier said that being was extinguished . RICHARD: No, I said that ‘being’ is only extinguished with the ‘death’ of the soul ... not at the dissolution of the ego. This has been the cause of all the ills of humankind remaining unresolved despite thousands of years of Enlightened Beings being on this planet. * RICHARD: For a person in an altered state of consciousness such as the eastern spiritual ‘Enlightened Being’ – that intuition of ‘being’ has become heightened to the point of grandiosity. ‘Being’ has become paramount, in fact, and capitalisation is used to lend weight to the solemnity of the achievement. They invariably speak of an intuitive sense of ‘Presence’ that is ‘All-Encompassing’ ... ‘Pure Being’ and ‘Eternal Being’ are other expressions that spring to mind. ‘Unborn and Undying’ ... ‘Birthless and Deathless’ ... and so on. RESPONDENT: Yes, we won’t get into that muddle will we? RICHARD: No, indeed we will not. Because millions of well-meaning followers have already diligently put their Teachings into practice, prostrating and belittling themselves like all get-out in a hopeful attempt to live the unliveable. Yet no-one, it seems, dares to question the Teachings themselves; instead the humiliated penitents obligingly blame themselves for failing to achieve release from the human condition. To seek freedom via profound and lofty thought or sublime and exalted feelings is to blindly perpetuate all the horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time immemorial. The time has come to put to an end, once and for all, the blight that has encumbered this fair earth for far too long. It behoves one to question all of the received ‘wisdom’ of the centuries, all of the revealed ‘truths’ ... all of the half-baked inanities that pass for understanding. Then, and only then, there is a fair chance that one can come to an actual freedom – a freedom the nature of which has never been before in human experience. * RICHARD: It is this ‘being’ that I was talking about. This capitalised ‘Being’ is the ‘spanner in the works’ ... and has been for century upon century. The reverence and respect accorded to these ‘Great Ones’ has only encouraged them to stop halfway in their search for the ultimate condition. Indeed, who would easily give up the fame and fortune and adulation that accrues to one in the Divine State? Who would readily relinquish the glamour and the glory and the glitz of that which is Sacred, Holy? Who would freely abandon the safety and security and protection of Love Agapé? Who would voluntarily forsake Rapturous Bliss, Ineffable Ecstasy and Exalted Euphoria. Yet if there is to be global peace-on-earth, there is no other course of action. RESPONDENT: So you are saying give it up? Give up the search for the ultimate condition? Is that it? That is an important point. To give up all those ideas of enlightenment. Yes. They are a problem for world peace, peace in our relationships, and inner peace. RICHARD: Give up the search for the ultimate condition? No, not at all ... I am saying that the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Masters, the Avatars and the Saviours gave up the search for the ultimate condition. They settled for second best ... and humankind has suffered enormously as a result. Enlightenment is not the ultimate condition. RESPONDENT: Thanks for clarifying the earlier post. It does read better, my comments not withstanding. RICHARD: You are very welcome.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 24): ‘I’ cease to be, period. Then what I am (what, not ‘who’) is this
flesh and blood body as an actuality. No sense of identity, no feeling of being whatsoever ... no psychological or psychic entity
anywhere at all within or without the body to wreak its havoc. Needless to say, one has no need of aspiring to become a ‘healthy
ego’ ... or a healthy soul. RESPONDENT No. 22: Yes. This is close to what I was pointing to. Even though we may have had many insights and experiences and realised this and that, there maybe more room for inquiry. It seems there are many subtle misconceptions concerning an ‘me’ or the dualism between those that see versus those that don’t that can be exposed and dropped without adding a new sense of ‘me’ or any other image to replace it. RESPONDENT: Having had these insights or that, these experiences or that, are all dead. They are knowledge, not different than any other knowledge. Having had the insight into the ‘me’ is like having had the insight in which stock to pick. It isn’t that there is more room for inquiry. The inquiry is the only real insight, for it is still alive. RICHARD: When one has an insight into an aspect of the Human Condition, there is action ... and this action is the actualising of the experience so that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably. Otherwise, I agree, the experience, the insight, becomes knowledge ... and knowledge is dead. Dead, that is, until it is activated and lived in one’s daily life. Sagacity lies in the living of a realisation ... unless one is satisfied with being a pedant for the remainder of one’s life. Having said that, I gained the impression that No. 22 was saying that he sees that there is more to discover. This is what I took ‘more room for inquiry’ to indicate. If this is the case, then the inquiry is indeed alive and flourishing! RESPONDENT: Yes there are many subtle misconceptions concerning the concept of ‘me’, one of them is that we can get away with all the problems by calling ourselves a ‘flesh and blood body’. RICHARD: No, not at all. One can not ‘get away with all the problems by calling ourselves a ‘flesh and blood body’. This physical universe, being perfect and pristine, has so arranged itself that nobody can get away with anything. If one is at all dishonest – as in intellectually unscrupulous – about ferreting out anything detrimental to one’s salubrity, that aspect of one’s personality that one has conveniently overlooked has the charming habit of sneaking up behind one and tapping one firmly behind the knees. If one is at all desirous of living a blameless and carefree life, one can not fudge a single issue. Thus, to merely call oneself a ‘flesh and blood body’ achieves nothing – unless one is so stupefied as to be so easily fooled by one’s own mendacity. Only when both the ego and the soul are extinct is this appellation veritable ... and the results of doing so are deliciously lived out in one’s daily life.
RICHARD: There are two entities who have taken up residence in each human being: a psychological entity and a psychic entity. Just as there are those Christians who are said to be ‘possessed’ by an entity that requires exorcism, so too is every human being ‘possessed’ ... except that it is called being normal. These entities are not actual, they exist in the psyche as emotional-mental constructs and are not at all substantive. RESPONDENT: I don’t get this. They exist in the psyche? But don’t you go on to say that these two are not substantive? You said now two entities in the human being, not body. That I understand. RICHARD: The word ‘substantive’ means: ‘essential, necessary, indispensable’. Therefore, the sentence reads: ‘they exist in the psyche as emotional-mental constructs and are not at all essential, necessary and indispensable’. Just like the ‘Possessed Christians’ that I gave as an example, both the ego and the soul can be ‘exorcised’. They both arise out of the rudimentary self, intrinsic to the instinctual fear and aggression, that all sentient creatures are endowed with by ‘blind nature’ as a means of ensuring the survival of the species – and any species at all will do, as far as ‘blind nature’ is concerned. Human beings, with their thinking, reflective brain, have the ability to trace back through the emotional-mental line to this rudimentary self ... and eliminate it along with its instincts. These instincts are but a rough and ready ‘package’, or ‘programme’, that ‘blind nature’ provides as a start in life. They are not set in concrete and they are, most definitely, not essential, necessary or indispensable. In fact, for peace-on-earth to ensue, their eradication is imperative. * RICHARD: These entities go by many names, according to the culture, but it is generally accepted in English speaking countries that each individual has both and ego and a soul. The ego is the psychological entity and the soul is the psychic entity. They are born out of the instinctual fear and aggression that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth to aid the survival of the species. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that the ego and the soul are bogus? RICHARD: Yes. They may seem to be real – very real, at times – but they are not actual. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that ‘one’ refers to ‘the flesh and blood body’? RICHARD: In the context that I was using it – yes. RESPONDENT: So it’s just shorthand for something far more complex? RICHARD: No. This ‘flesh and blood body’ is very simple. It is the identity that is complex ... because it is a mental-emotional construct. Being thus imaginary, it can be almost infinitely complex. RESPONDENT: What is flesh and blood about the mind? RICHARD: If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: Are you a materialist? Certainly all evidence points to the dependence of mind on body, but that does not mean that the one is the other. I am dependent on eating food, but I am not the food. RICHARD: Well, speaking personally, I am indeed the food. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots, lettuce, celery, and etcetera. When I eat cheese, it is made from milk which the cow produces by eating grass – which comes out of the ground. The same goes for eggs and meat ... everything edible. This body is, literally, of the ground. Along with water, sunlight and air, everything comes out of the ground – from this very earth under my feet. As this earth is hanging in space, then it is clear that I am made of the very stuff of the physical universe. I was not created ‘outside’ of this universe by some mysterious god and planted ‘in’ here for some inscrutable reason. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am this body only ... and this body is of this physical universe. If that makes me a ‘materialist’ then so be it ... I am certainly not a ‘spiritualist’. However, I find the word ‘materialist’ too restrictive, for it implies deadness, inertness. I would rather call myself an ‘actualist’. An actualist is a person who sees that matter is not merely passive. * RICHARD: When this flesh and blood body is rid of the psychological and psychic entities that live a parasitical existence in their unwitting host, one is able to appreciate that what I am (‘what’ not ‘who’) is this body. Then I am automatically benevolent and carefree ... and happy and harmless, for one has eradicated malice and sorrow with the demise of the ego and the soul. RESPONDENT: Does not the body suffer? Feel pain? RICHARD: No, there is no suffering at all. There is physical pain, but no suffering. Physical pain is essential ... if it did not exist, one could be sitting on a hot stove and not know that one’s bum was burning until one noticed the smoke rising! Suffering is psychological ... only the entities suffer. Thus they forever seek consolation, commiseration and solace. Hence the neediness for the whole gamut of pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion and love. When one is actually free, none of these products of pathos are necessary ... in fact, with the ego and soul’s demise, they cease to exist. They, too, are bogus. * RICHARD: ‘Being’ is only extinguished with the ‘death’ of the soul ... not at the dissolution of the ego. This has been the cause of all the ills of humankind remaining unresolved despite thousands of years of Enlightened Beings being on this planet. RESPONDENT: So you are saying now that there is a soul, that it is not an idea. RICHARD: There is a soul ... as an idea. There is not a soul ... as an actuality. RESPONDENT: So you are saying give it up? Give up the search for the ultimate condition? Is that it? That is an important point. To give up all those ideas of enlightenment. Yes. They are a problem for world peace, peace in our relationships, and inner peace. RICHARD: Give up the search for the ultimate condition? No, not at all ... I am saying that the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Masters, the Avatars and the Saviours gave up the search for the ultimate condition. They settled for second best ... and humankind has suffered enormously as a result. Enlightenment is not the ultimate condition. RESPONDENT: But why search for what must be an idea? RICHARD: An actual freedom – living the perfection and purity of this moment in time and this place in space – is not an idea, it is a fact. It exists right here and just now irrespective of whether one experiences it or not. It is only ‘I’ who is forever cut off from being here in this purity and perfection by ‘my’ very existence. To embark upon a search is to take a journey through the human psyche – which is what ‘my’ psyche is. ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. Both ‘I’ and ‘humanity’ are the ideas – not freedom. An actual freedom, here on earth, in this life-time, as this body is not an idea – it is an actuality. This can be ascertained apperceptively via a pure consciousness experience (PCE) which can occur in a peak experience. (Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – Oxford Dictionary) A peak experience is when everything is seen to be already perfect – it always has been and always will be – and that ‘I’, the self, have been standing in the way of the perfection being apparent. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. In a PCE there is apperception operating. Apperception happens when the ‘who’ inside abdicates its throne and a pure awareness occurs. The PCE is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever. One is able to see that the ‘who’ of one has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ are extirpated. Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is (the actual world) by ‘my’ very presence. Any identity whatsoever is a delusion. RESPONDENT: Why not give up the search? Is not the search an obstacle to the ultimate condition revealing itself? RICHARD: Far from being an obstacle, it is essential that one searches, for if one does not seek, one will never find. If one does not investigate, one will not uncover. If one does not explore, one will never discover. One will never become free by sitting in a deck-chair on the patio and waiting for the ‘Grace of God’ to descend.
RESPONDENT: You said that there is an insight which is not knowledge: ‘When
one has an insight into an aspect of the Human Condition, there is action ... and this action is the actualising of the experience
so that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably’. RICHARD: We surely can. The insight reveals what conceptual thinking was unable to arrive at by the use of – sometimes laborious – sequential thought. An insight is direct seeing, unmediated by a ‘thinker’ ... and when the moment of insight is over, then the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards what the insight disclosed. However, one has had the insight, and the insight galvanises one into matter-of-fact thought instead of merely conceptual thought. Thinking is still linear, of course, but one now has the advantage of being able to see the obvious. Seeing the obvious relieves one from believing, trusting, hoping and having faith. There is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of the insight, that enables one to actualise the insight in one’s daily life ... and this actualisation means that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably. (This is a potential sticking point, incidentally, for people want to be free without having to change ... but that is another topic). It is this confidence that effects actual change, for there is an impelling movement of actualisation ... being pulled from ahead ... which is what comes from the choiceless action that ensues with being activated from the insight. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement ... being pushed from behind ... which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by conceptual thought. There is always a smidgen or two of doubt in conceptual thought, you see. RESPONDENT: No. 32 and No. 12 recently spoke about dropping fear. They each claimed an insight that put an end to that particular fear they had. Now when we look at these fears, we see they are irrational, meaning the causal object is not actually a substantial danger. Having insight into the irrational nature of this sort of fear does dispel it irrevocably. And No. 32 running up and down the ladder seems to suggest that the mind was reinforcing the now rational belief that there was nothing to be afraid of. But this has to do with the nature of irrational beliefs. What would happen to a person who says they overcame the fear of heights where the danger was real and present, say in mountain climbing, is left unexplored. RICHARD: A good point ... one can be rid of ‘irrational fear’ by applying reasoned examination born out of the insight that the particular fear was irrational because the causal object was not an actual danger. So far, so good. Now, you say, what about the ‘rational belief’ that there is indeed something to be afraid of, where the danger is real and present, as in mountain climbing? What then of the insight into the nature of ‘irrational fear’, eh? You seem to be saying: What use is that insight where ‘rational fear’ is concerned? And the answer, of course, is: No use whatsoever. So, can one have an insight into the nature of a ‘rational fear’? The question therefore is: Is the term ‘rational fear’ nothing but a justification for the continued existence of fear itself? RESPONDENT: When we investigate an insight into the human condition it seems to me that we are bringing up not simply irrational beliefs, but the habits, dispositions, in-built emotional structure. It is the conditioning of perhaps one hundred thousand years. RICHARD: It is more than the ‘conditioning of perhaps one hundred thousand years’, for sincere investigation strikes at the very basis of the ‘self’. The ‘self’ is the product of the instincts that one was born with ... and fear is but one of these basic instinctual passions. However, when one first starts rooting around into the make-up of the Human Condition, one comes across social conditioning and begins dismantling, step by step, all that was put into one by the – albeit well-meaning – peoples who were already here on this planet when one arrived as a baby. However, after some time engaged in this endeavour, one has the realisation that one is merely paddling around on the surface and, given the desire to pursue investigation all the way, one decides to go deep-sea diving. Accordingly, one puts on a face-mask and snorkel (fondly imagining it to be an aqua-lung outfit) and goes looking around under the surface. One discovers conditioning going back many thousands of years. One can spend a life-time examining this atavistic conditioning, for it is the product of billions of human minds and hearts. This is where an insight born out of a pure intent is essential in order to realise that, whilst one has gone deeper than before, there are stygian depths to plumb, for one comes across universal malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: Can an insight, one moment of insight, have an effect here? Does this not call for something that is from moment to moment, ongoing. RICHARD: Yes, indeed it can. One fundamental moment of insight can alter the entire course of one’s
life wherein becoming free of the Human Condition is no longer a matter of choice – it is an irresistible pull. And, yes, then
there is something that is from moment to moment, ongoing. I choose to call this something: ‘Pure Intent’. Pure intent is a
palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness
that is the essential character of the infinitude of this physical universe. One can bring about a benediction from that
perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of
naiveté This connection is what I call pure intent. Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. Pure intent is not to be confused with being a ‘do-gooder’, or being full of ‘righteousness’, or being ‘moralistic’. Pure intent is the quality that encompasses what morals and ethics aspire to but never reach. ‘Good’ fails to reach its desired goal because it opposes ‘Bad’ ... the fight between Good and Evil has raged for centuries. Pure intent enables one to be liberated from both Good and Evil. Pure intent renders morality redundant ... which is good news, as morality – although well-meant – never works successfully. Morality seeks to control; pure intent eliminates the need for control. With pure intent operating twenty-four-hours-a-day in one’s life, one can safely get out from being under control without going off the rails. One is then able to be virtually free from the resentment, the guilt, the remorse, and all the other factors which are the hall-mark of a wayward self under control. Pure intent is the highway to this utter freedom, to one’s destiny ... and it is a wide and wondrous path. RESPONDENT: For example, let us take the subject of anger. Will an insight dispel it? RICHARD: Yes, if the insight is actualised. RESPONDENT: And let us take the subject of the self, the psychological reactions that come forth when someone insults us, the search to be something, the becoming. Is that dispelled? RICHARD: There are too many subjects mixed up in one sentence. May I separate them?
Yes, if the insight is actualised.
The search to ‘be something’ is dispelled, yes ... but the search to not ‘be’ is intensified. One can pay intense attention – single minded attention – to one’s insight. This unwavering attention, without mincing words, amounts to an obsession; for how can a person possibly allow themselves to be discontented and disturbing when this world is such a marvellous place to be in? One can intensify the search to the point of addiction ... then, and only then, there is some guarantee of success. What a shame, what a pity ... no, what a sin it is to be disconsolate and disagreeable when this world is so glorious. To be here, intimately here as this body only, is a satisfaction and fulfilment unparalleled in the annals of history.
Ah! Herein lies the rub ... ‘becoming’ what? Becoming an enlightened ‘Self’? One can cease ‘becoming’ and start ‘being’, but that is to stop half-way. To go all the way, one ceases ‘being’ at all.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): I do not know whether there is any other ‘Richard’ on this List or
not ... but whoever wrote the two paragraphs was not me. RESPONDENT: I believe they are to be attributed to Konrad. But what does a mistake matter if one sees that that there is no ‘I’. RICHARD: I give in ... why does it matter? To me it is a case of common courtesy to advise No. 12 ... otherwise he could be waiting for ever for a response from me and wondering why. What does having consideration for the other have to do with one seeing that there is no ‘I’? There is most definitely a place for good manners whether one sees that there is no ‘I’ or whether one does not see that there is no ‘I’ ... is this not so? The question is: Why would someone misconstrue an otherwise innocuous social protocol? Why would someone attempt to read into an ingenuous service an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda? That is what matters.
RESPONDENT No. 6: No. 1: The man that really knows, doesn’t speak. No. 2: The man that speaks, doesn’t really know . RICHARD: Who first spoke these ancient ‘Words of Wisdom’? Man No. 1? or Man No. 2? I am just
curious. Because it can not be Man No. 1 ... he does not speak. Therefore it must be Man No 2. As Man No. 2 does not really know
what he is talking about, then this pithy aphorism is not worth even the paltry piece of rice-paper that it was written upon all
those years ago. Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon some hallowed but specious ‘wisdom of the
ancients’? RESPONDENT: It was man No. 3. The man that knows sometimes and speaks sometimes. RICHARD: Man No. 3 must be The Phantom: The Ghost Who Walks And Can Never Die. (Popular fiction). RESPONDENT: The pithy aphorism is only worth what you put into it. RICHARD: That is the trouble with humanity at large ... people put all kinds of things into it and
other adages
RICHARD: The question is: Why would someone misconstrue an otherwise innocuous social protocol? Why would someone attempt to read into an ingenuous service an ulterior motive, a hidden agenda? That is what matters. RESPONDENT: I do not want to make of your comment more than it is. As far as I am concerned it was completely in order to ask for the correction. My point has to do with some of the funny consequences of the perspective that there is no actual difference between one person and the next. For if this is so, then what does it matter? To be concerned with getting the author right on a posting is a very simple thing. It is also a good indicator that these things do matter. It is unfair to you to believe that you said things that you do not agree with. But in this view of respect towards the person involves a number of values that we must give attention to. We cannot say on the one hand that these values have significance and on the other that the existence of the person is nonsense. Does this make sense to you? RICHARD: I am happy to agree with your suggestion not to make more of my comment than it is, for I see that you wish to explore something else instead. By all means let us go into the ramifications of this perspective that there is no actual difference between one person and the next. First we would need to ascertain if this is a fact ... and then we could look at what values inhere – if any do – and what significance they have where there is no person for them to apply to. Is this what you are referring to when you ask: ‘does this make sense to you?’ So, let me rearrange your paragraph to take out all reference to the other issue: No. 20 wrote: ‘What are some of the funny consequences of the perspective that there is no actual difference between one person and the next? In this view, respect towards the person involves a number of values that we must give attention to. We cannot say on the one hand that these values have significance and on the other that the existence of the person is nonsense’. Firstly: Is there no actual difference betwixt one person and the next? There is that truism that states: ‘We are all unique’. I say ‘truism’ deliberately, for I am immediately reminded of that scene in ‘The Life Of Brian’ where Brian addresses the crowd saying: ‘You are all individuals’. The crowd roars back in unison: ‘We are all individuals’. Down the back a lone voice cries out: ‘I’m not!’ Of course, the Monty Python crew were making a social comment, when they wrote that scene, about the conditioned identity of the average citizen when it comes to following a spiritual leader, but one can consider whether it holds well for humankind at large. Human beings are all born with the same basic instincts and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world have the same emotions and passions. Anger and forbearance, for instance, is anger and forbearance wherever it lives. There is no difference between English anger and forbearance and American anger and forbearance and African anger and forbearance and so on. Or love and hatred, enmity and alliance, jealousy and tolerance ... whatever the emotion or passion may be, they all have a global incidence. The same applies to cerebral energisation like imagination, conceptualisation, hypothesising, believing and
so forth. Once again, ubiquitous in its occurrence. As for psychic phenomena like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination So one can conclude that the perspective that there is no actual difference – other than superficialities – between one person and another is correct. Secondly: What values inhere – if any do – where there is no person to apply them to? Immediately, the picture changes ... where there is no person, none of the above characteristics apply. Where there is no person, there are no basic instincts; there are no emotions or passions; there is no cerebral energisation; there is no psychic manifestations. With all these similarities null and void, there is now an actual difference between this person and the other. Therefore no values inhere. Thus, no ‘funny consequences’ occur. Now I will gather together the parts of your paragraph taken out in the rearrangement: No. 20 wrote: ‘As far as I am concerned it was completely in order to ask for the correction. My point has to do with ... what does it matter? To be concerned with getting the author right on a posting is a very simple thing. It is also a good indicator that these things do matter. It is unfair to you to believe that you said things that you do not agree with’. These ‘values’ existed only in your mind ... not mine. This is what matters.
RICHARD: No. 20 wrote: ‘As far as I am concerned it was completely in order to ask for the correction. My point has to do with ... what does it matter? To be concerned with getting the author right on a posting is a very simple thing. It is also a good indicator that these things do matter. It is unfair to you to believe that you said things that you do not agree with’. These ‘values’ existed only in your mind ... not mine. This is what matters. RESPONDENT: Sorry but nothing you said here undercuts the humour, except to say that you cannot see the joke. RICHARD: There is no ‘the’ joke. I can see a joke in my humour ... but not a joke in your humour. It is too pathetic to be funny. RESPONDENT: That these values exist in my mind and not in yours, would indicate basic differences. The fact that there are universal psychic structures does not imply that there are not personal ones. Indeed, if thought is based on a connection to memory, and given the particular histories, the set of memories are unique, this points towards mental differences. Each person interprets things in accordance with these personal and not simply universal conditions. RICHARD: It was you who proposed that there is ‘the perspective that there is no actual difference between one person and the next’ ... not me. I was merely exploring your notion to see where it would lead to. RESPONDENT: I find it funny and absurd to sweep everyone’s individual characteristics under the rug of superficiality, only to accommodate a picture of the world where people are all cut from the same cookie cutter. RICHARD: Surely you are not in a state of denial towards the fact that all human beings are born with
the same basic instincts and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world
have the same emotions and passions? Or the fact that all human beings have the same cerebral activities like imagination,
conceptualisation, hypothesising, believing and so forth? Or the fact that all human beings encounter psychic phenomena like
prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination You may wish to deny that the Human Condition is universal in its spread, but denial will not make a fact go away. RESPONDENT: As for your claims that this universal inner mental life no longer applies to anyone’s particular case that is still living and breathing and functioning, I find to be unsupported by science and experience. RICHARD: So submissions to this list must have the support of some ego-bound and soul-ridden fallible human being in a white coat in a laboratory somewhere churning out their ‘scientific findings’ ? Findings that quite often later on turn out to be faulty? Is exploration into the workings of the human psyche to be ruled by some boffin in horn-rimmed glasses? Since when has science eliminated the self? Since when has science discovered purity and perfection? Since when has science eliminated sorrow and malice from anybody? Since when has science implemented peace-on-earth? And also, submissions to this list must be supported by other people’s experience, must it? If humans had followed this advice all those years ago, we would still be sitting in a cave dressed in animal skins gnawing on an un-cooked brontosaurus bone! RESPONDENT: And now getting back to your position . RICHARD: It is not my position, it is – as it always has been – your position. RESPONDENT: I still see quite funny implications of your concern that someone else’s statements were attributed to you. RICHARD: It is not my concern ... it is your projection. I was simply being courteous, so that the other would not be waiting in vain for a reply. RESPONDENT: Based on your beliefs, why do you expect consideration? RICHARD: But I do not have any beliefs ... I have made that abundantly clear. As for expecting consideration; I do not have any expectations whatsoever for anything – let alone consideration – as I am fully autonomous. Thus, not only do I not expect it ... I have no need for it. RESPONDENT: Or that there is someone out there to give it to you? RICHARD: Of course there is someone out there. There are, at the latest estimate, five point eight billion human beings on this planet. This is a fact. Do you doubt the evidence of your own eyes? RESPONDENT: What is there for you to point to? RICHARD: I give in ... what is there for me to point to?
RICHARD: But I do not have any beliefs ... I have made that abundantly clear. As for expecting consideration; I do not have any expectations whatsoever for anything – let alone consideration – as I am fully autonomous. Thus, not only do I not expect it ... I have no need for it. RESPONDENT: Well your post certainly shows a person without beliefs and emotions. RICHARD: That is good to hear. We have a chance – a vital opportunity – of direct communication through candid conversation instead of all that sparring around that can go on in the posts some peoples fire at each other. It is refreshing, is it not, to be able to be sincere, frank and free in one’s interchange with another instead of all those tricky intellectual ripostes that are the hall-mark of most mailing lists and news groups? I, for one, thoroughly enjoy it all. RESPONDENT: Now what is your next trick? RICHARD: Perhaps you would care to explore, through sincere dialogue, the mechanism most conducive to ridding one’s body of the pernicious and insidious ‘self’ that has taken up residence within. In fact, it is the only tool that will do the job successfully. I am referring to thought. In particular: apperceptive thought.
RICHARD: Perhaps you would care to explore, through sincere dialogue, the mechanism most conducive to ridding one’s body of the pernicious and insidious ‘self’ that has taken up residence within. In fact, it is the only tool that will do the job successfully. I am referring to thought. In particular: apperceptive thought. RESPONDENT: What sort of sincere dialogue already presupposes the answer? RICHARD: The best kind of sincere dialogue, of course. Why grope around in the dark, thrashing hither and thither, when the obvious is staring one in the face all along? Anyway, this is a mailing list; all we have to communicate with is words ... and words mean thought. What else can happen? We can not do a ‘sitting in silence’ at the keyboard in world-wide unison. RESPONDENT: By the way in that I am not a robot, I am not in need of a mechanism by which to be repaired. RICHARD: Many years ago I saw, in an edifying moment, that I was nothing but a marionette dancing on the strings of social conditioning. Once I started digging under the layers of that conditioning, I found that I was pre-programmed by blind nature to instinctually react with fear and aggression. I was not too disdainful to see that I was indeed ‘a robot’ ... and most certainly in need of ‘a mechanism by which to be repaired’. That mechanism is that which sets the human animal apart from all other animals: reflective thought. And reflective thought led to contemplative thought, which led to apperceptive thought, which ensures freedom from the Human Condition. Hubris, however relatively satisfying, is a poor substitute for such a magnificent freedom. Apperceptive thought is the wide and wondrous mechanism that enables one to be here – fully here – at this moment in time and this place in space. RESPONDENT: Please conduct your exorcisms with someone else. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. RICHARD: Is that how you see it? An analogous remark I made some time ago has become, in your mind, my modus operandi? Good grief – I am neither religious nor spiritual, let alone a Christian! Anyway, you started this thread ... not me. If, according to your theory I am indeed the resident exorcist and you did not want to be exorcised, then why did you write to me in the first place? I made my position abundantly clear in my very first post to this List ... a fact which you know very well, as you have been straining in vain to cut me down to size, in your last few posts. To resort to sarcasm (‘well your post certainly shows a person without beliefs and emotions ... now what is your next trick?’) indicates an intellect in rapid retreat from intelligent dialogue. And I agree with you. A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste. May I ask: Do you have what is called an attitude problem? The whole purpose of this List, being under the auspices of the teachings that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti bought into the world, is to converse deeply together with the avowed aim of setting ‘humanity’ free, surely. As ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’, then this entails sincere and candid conversation, otherwise discussion devolves into being intellectual masturbation. RESPONDENT: Thought is thought. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet (I do have however a number of roses that don’t smell at all, and this may be one of them.) RICHARD: You say that ‘thought is thought’? Do you really see it like that? There are many types of thought: intuitive thought; imaginative thought; conjectural thought; logical thought; irrational thought; crazed thought ... to name but a few. As well as reflective thought, contemplative thought and apperceptive thought. Not all of these ‘other names’ smell as sweet to me as you say they do to you. This last thought of yours may very well be one of those.
RESPONDENT: There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at. RICHARD: Maybe there are simply these different ways of thinking thoughts ... and that is all there is to it. Maybe we need to look at what the factor is that inclines you to assume that there is something more. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is my question as well. RICHARD: Good ... so what is the factor that inclines you to assume that there is something more? RESPONDENT: Let us first differentiate thought from perception and from feeling. There are, however, many mental events that combine these: emotions combine thought and feeling, and may be triggered by perception. There is also some interpenetration of our categories: perception does involve some mental processing, and this too can be called thought, but we will simplify our discussion, by allowing this to fall under the heading of perception. RICHARD: Can you actually separate the perceptive function and the affective function out from thought just like that? I would say that the entire range of a normal, average person’s thinking could be summed up as being dictated by the relative intensity of intrinsic and extrinsic influences. When intrinsic processes dominate, and are virtually free of environmental concerns, a person thinks expressively: they imagine, fantasise, dream, hallucinate, or have delusions, for example. When one’s thinking is activated by external stimuli, one tends to think rationally: one appraises, conceptualises, ruminates and solves problems in a reasonable, directed and disciplined way. Generally speaking, this is mostly what people tend to do with their mind. RESPONDENT: When we look at the varieties of thought we can posit at least six basic forms:
Would you like to add any before we begin our discussion on whether there is a common structure to all? RICHARD: Is it actually possible to make an exhaustive list of all the varieties of thought? And if it was ... is it going to explicate anything substantive? Can we therefore simplify your list? Because it is the distinction between the expressive and rational functions that is what contrasts primary and secondary process thinking, is it not? One’s impulses and wishes arise from affective sources and determine primary process thinking, while the pursuit of exterior objects and goals determines secondary process thinking (planning, rational control, and continuous organisation). As I understand it, these two aspects of thinking are conventionally called autistic (subjective emotionally-motivated activities) and realistic (objective environmentally-motivated activities). The terms are not mutually exclusive, of course, but rather correspond to relative degrees of the influence of different conditions that enter into thinking. In a broad sense then, the activity called thinking is adaptive responses to intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli; not only does it express inner impulses but it also serves to generate environmentally effective, goal-seeking behaviour. But, let us not become bogged down by a scholarly debate. Remember that your original question was: ‘There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at’. It would seem that the ‘something more’ that you were getting at lies in the autistic field, as extrinsic influences are rather straight-forward and obvious. Does this clarify something?
RESPONDENT: Let us first differentiate thought from perception and from feeling. There are, however, many mental events that combine these: emotions combine thought and feeling, and may be triggered by perception. There is also some interpenetration of our categories: perception does involve some mental processing, and this too can be called thought, but we will simplify our discussion, by allowing this to fall under the heading of perception. RICHARD: Can you actually separate the perceptive function and the affective function out from thought just like that? RESPONDENT: Like what? I felt it simplified matters for the purpose of our discussion. As you can read above, I did not say they are separate. RICHARD: I took it that you did ... it is all in the choice of words. You see, when you wrote: ‘let us first differentiate thought from perception and from feeling’, I understood you to be meaning ‘differentiate’ as in ‘separate out’. ‘Differentiate’ means to mark or show a difference in or constitute a difference that distinguishes; to develop differential characteristics in or to cause differentiation of in the course of development; to express the specific distinguishing quality of or to recognise or give expression to a difference; to become distinct or different in character. The only time there is perception without thought or feeling is in apperception. The only time there is thought without feeling is when one is without instincts. The only time there is feeling without thought is when one is deluded. I am pleased that we sorted that one out. RESPONDENT: When we look at the varieties of thought we can posit at least six basic forms: 1. There is memory, which we will say is sensual or conceptual, and includes images we have of things or people, as well as factual knowledge 2. There is belief: as in what we take to be true or false. 3. There is cogitation, which is the activity of thinking which can be in words or symbols. 4. There is mental processing: as in interpretation, reading, selecting and picking, writing, skills, any activity that involves knowledge in its performance. 5. There is abstract reasoning: including spatial and temporal projection, generalisation, logical analysis. 6. There is reflection: which involves second order thought, thinking about thinking, which ties into theorising, philosophising, self-observation contemplation, and even humour. Would you like to add any before we begin our discussion on whether there is a common structure to all? RICHARD: Can we simplify your list? Because it is the distinction between the expressive and rational functions that is what contrasts primary and secondary process thinking, is it not? RESPONDENT: No. If we take this line of analysis then we are forced to introduce a third level: which is reflective. There is rational thought and the reflective capacity to look at it. RICHARD: By all means let us introduce a third category: Reflection. Which is rational thought and the reflective capacity to look at it and expressive thought and the reflective capacity to look at it. In fact, I consider that this would be the optimum way to approach this whole question: via reflective thought. Otherwise we will get bogged down in the quagmire of the affective versus cognitive debate that has been raging for centuries. Yes, reflection ... after all, that is what we are doing now, thinking about thinking. Which is: we are reflecting upon expressive and rational thought. * RICHARD: The pursuit of exterior objects and goals determines secondary process thinking (planning, rational control, and continuous organisation). RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that rationality is only an exterior pursuit? What about No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6? RICHARD: In a way, yes. To illustrate what I am getting at, I would make the analogy to the man/woman ‘battle of the sexes’. That is, intuitive thought versus logical thought. Neither man nor woman has got it right. Male logic is as useless as female intuition. Loosely speaking, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 fit more into the category of the third alternative: Reflection. Reflection needs to be neither logical nor intuitive in order to be reflective. * RICHARD: Remember that your original question was: ‘There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at’. It would seem that the ‘something more’ that you were getting at lies in the autistic field, as extrinsic influences are rather straight-forward and obvious. RESPONDENT: No. I think we cannot dismiss the extrinsic. The reason that I say this is because the extrinsic seems to be closely tied to what we can call practical thinking or problem solving. And we tend to believe that this sort of thinking is not effected by the same sorts of issues that are inherent in the autistic. In other words, our problems are generated not only inside us, but in our relationship to the world. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that the ‘something more’ might lie in the external world? Can that not be seen at a glance? Then one puts all that to one side immediately. * RICHARD: Does this clarify the something? RESPONDENT: Well, we are unfortunately not yet agreeing on what we are going to count as thought for the purpose of our discussion. This sort of pre-discussion discussion, is very helpful. However, it is going to require some more input from both of us to be comfortable with it. RICHARD: Maybe this post will go some way toward agreeing on what the optimum line to pursue is. I plunk for reflection, any day, as being the means to straddle the eternal divide.
RICHARD: The only time there is perception without thought or feeling is in apperception. RESPONDENT: We have yet to come to define apperception. It can mean the mind being conscious of its own consciousness. Which can involve thought or feeling. I take it that you want to define apperception for the purpose of our discussion to be perception of consciousness without thought or feeling as a content. Is that correct? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... it is more that there is no ‘thinker’ or a ‘feeler’ with their feelings. I will explain more later in this post. * RICHARD: The only time there is thought without feeling is when one is without instincts. RESPONDENT: I do not much like the intuition-intellect-instinct distinctions, but I guess one can say that thought is without feeling when it is without both instinct and intuition. I probably share your doubts that such a thought context is an actual event. RICHARD: Okay, let us leave that for now and come back to it another day. All I want to do is lay my cards on the table from the beginning. Speaking personally, my thinking is without both instinct and intuition. (I am hereby declaring my interest so that there is no hidden agenda to this discussion). * RICHARD: The only time there is feeling without thought is when one is deluded. RESPONDENT: There are sensations without thought, perhaps you are alluding to this. But delusions seem to me to always involve thought coming to an inference as to what the meaning of those sensations are. RICHARD: No, I was referring to affective feelings, not sensate feelings. If there is only feelings and no thought, one is swamped with whatever the contents of the psychic component of the unconscious are thus able to throw up at random. Without the control of thought itself (which is a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic influences) then there is delusion. One is said to have ‘lost touch with reality’ (meaning the objective world as ascertained sensately). There does not have to be thought operating, just images, symbols, visions and so on. * RICHARD: By all means let us introduce a third category: Reflection. Which is rational thought and the reflective capacity to look at it and expressive thought and the reflective capacity to look at it. In fact, I consider that this would be the optimum way to approach this whole question: via reflective thought. Otherwise we will get bogged down in the quagmire of the affective versus cognitive debate that has been raging for centuries. RESPONDENT: Would you not agree that this debate is confused, for the affective and cognitive are two aspects of the same event? That there is no thought without an attitude towards that thought, and no attitude without a thought. RICHARD: I take it that by ‘attitude’ you are indicating a feeling about that thought (as in ‘that thought feels right’)? Then, conversely, a thought about a feeling (as in ‘that is the appropriate feeling’)? It is a way of thought checking on feeling and feeling checking on thought. A balance of power, as it were, to produce the optimum decision for the desired result. If this is so, then to be able to ‘think about thinking’, we definitely need the third party. To wit: reflection. * RICHARD: Yes, reflection ... after all, that is what we are doing now, thinking about thinking. Which is: we are reflecting upon expressive and rational thought. RESPONDENT: Yes , we are thinking about thinking, rather than seeing or perceiving thinking. RICHARD: Ah, yes ... ‘seeing’. By ‘seeing’, do we mean as in an insight? Which is an understanding in a flash? Which is to short-cut the thinking process? If so, then, no ... that is not reflection. But you lose me with the ‘perceiving thinking’. The only ‘perceiving thinking’ that I know of is apperceptive thought. And apperceptive thought is not reflection. * RICHARD: To illustrate what I am getting at, I would make the analogy to the man/woman ‘battle of the sexes’. That is, logical thought versus intuitive thought. RESPONDENT: Notice you have brought in intuition here. The third part of the intellect-instinct categorisation. RICHARD: Actually, I was being polite ... I was referring to the ‘you’re just being logical’ and the ‘you’re just being illogical’ accusations that men and women throw at each other! (Men like to think that they are being rational when in fact they are being logical. Women like to think they are being intuitive when they are actually being irrational). * RICHARD: Neither man nor woman has got it right. Male logic is as useless as female intuition. Reflection needs to be neither logical nor intuitive in order to be reflective. RESPONDENT: But does it need to be affective in someway? Is there pure rationality outside of some mechanical calculus? RICHARD: Neither affective nor rational ... if by ‘pure rationality’ you mean logic. I take ‘rational’ to mean ‘matter-of-fact’ or ‘common-sense’. Neither logic nor intuition fit this category. (Just because something is logical, it does not make it sensible. The same applies to intuition). * RICHARD: Are you suggesting that the ‘something more’ might lie in the external world? Can that not be seen at a glance? Then one puts all that to one side immediately. RESPONDENT: I am saying that there is a mind-mind relationship (involves the intrinsic), and a mind-world relationship (involves the extrinsic). And thought operates in both. And therefore if we are investigating whether thought has a common structure, we need to look also at the mind-world. The mind-world is unfortunately not obvious to many people, for as you can see on this list there is the view that it doe not even exist. RICHARD: I am in full agreement with your introduction of the phrase ‘mind-world’ relationship (which involves the extrinsic) into this discussion, for by this I understand you to mean ‘mind-environment’. I do, however, have difficulty with ‘mind-mind’ as being the appropriate phrase for what involves the intrinsic. What would be the satisfactory word instead of the second < mind >? Mr. Sigmund Freud, of course, postulated ‘The Id’ a being the source of the intrinsic ... Mr. Carl Jung favoured ‘The Collective Unconscious’ as to be the origin of the intrinsic. Either of these could be an appropriate starting point, because, as I said in an earlier post, when intrinsic processes dominate, and are virtually free of environmental concerns, a person thinks expressively: they imagine, fantasise, dream, hallucinate, or have delusions, for example. This would fit in with the unconscious world of the Id’s psychic content related to the primitive instincts of the body, notably sex and aggression, fears, desires and so on. The Id, devoid of organisation, knowing neither rationality nor reason, has the ability to harbour acutely conflicting or mutually contradictory impulses side by side. The Id (Latin for ‘it’, by the way) is oblivious of the external world and unaware of the passage of time. The expressive characteristics of the intrinsic would also fit in with the collective unconscious world common to humankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain (according to Mr. Carl Jung). The collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas ... it is the world of the bizarre and haunting and fantastic myths and legends that are contained in the human psyche ... coupled with access to the mystical and miraculous dimensions of one’s imaginative faculties. There may be other areas ... I offer these two a starting point. We could then blur the two expressions and use the phrase ‘mind-unconscious’ to indicate the thought that involves the intrinsic as contrasted to the thought that involves the extrinsic. (The extrinsic being when one’s thinking is activated by external stimuli, where one tends to think rationally; where one appraises, conceptualises, ruminates and solves problems in a reasoned, directed, disciplined way.) * RICHARD: Maybe this post will go some way toward agreeing on what the optimum line to pursue is. I plunk for reflection, any day, as being the means to straddle the eternal divide. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we can then simplify things by using the mind-mind and mind-world, and we can take reflectivity to be mind >(mind-mind). And we can leave open the question of whether by mind we mean thought, perception or feeling, or any mix thereof. Can we also agree that consciousness be taken as that state where there is direct apprehension of contents. And subconscious as when these contents are not directly apprehended, though they can be apprehended. I leave it to you to continue with the designation of intuition, apperception, and awareness. That should be sufficient vocabulary to continue our investigation. RICHARD: Now here I am encountering some difficulty. To understand what you are getting at, I have to substitute my language thus: ‘Perhaps we can then simplify things by using the mind-unconscious and the mind-environment, and we can take reflectivity to be ... to be what? I do not comprehend your ‘mind >(mind-mind)’ phrase. Could you expand, please. What does your use of the symbol > indicate? You say to leave open as to whether ‘mind’ means thought, perception or feeling. For me, ‘mind’ indicates the brain being aware. That is, one is alive and awake and conscious. In being conscious, there are thoughts, perceptions and feelings happening. Is not being reflective to be conscious? That is, thinking is neither rational nor non-rational. You come to this where you say consciousness is a direct apprehension of contents ... the contents being thought (rational and expressive), perception and feeling. This, to me, is reflective thought. As I said, it straddles the eternal divide between logic and intuition. (I am taking it that you are in agreement that, as a basic starting point, we have established that ‘male logic’ is as useless as ‘female intuition’?) Therefore, reflective thought is awareness ... conscious of being conscious. Apperception is another ball-game entirely and has nothing to do with any of the above. I take the Oxford Dictionary definition as an established ‘given’: ‘apperception is the mind’s perception of itself’. This means that there is not an ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious, but it is an un-mediated awareness of itself. Thinking may or may not occur ... and apperception happens regardless. Thought does not have to stop for apperception to happen ... it is that the ‘thinker’ disappears. As for feelings in apperception; not only does the ‘feeler’ disappear, but so too do feelings themselves. Apperception is the direct – unmediated – apprehension of actuality ... the world as-it-is.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Two) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
