Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: What exist exists independently of our belief in it.

RICHARD: The pristine purity of this actual world is beyond belief ... it is unimaginable, inconceivable, and incomprehensible, to a normal person, that such peerless perfection could exist.

I walk around in constant amazement and wonder that it does.

RESPONDENT: The universe is or finite or infinite, independently of what I think.

RICHARD: Not when the infinitude, which this universe indubitably is, is apparent in all its wondrous amazement – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – for then this infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is stunningly aware of its infinitude ... and thus thinking, on occasion, how enormous infinitude is.

Because nothing comes bigger than that.

RESPONDENT: What good is for me, if is infinite or finite?

RICHARD: When its space is (experientially) known to be infinite, its time (experientially) known to be eternal, and its matter (experientially) known to be perpetual, the ‘good’ for you is blessed oblivion ... and the benefit for the body you are inhabiting is, not only peace-on-earth in this life-time, but to be living the meaning of life as an on-going experiencing (plus making it more likely for other people to emulate).

A win-win situation, in other words.

RESPONDENT: The agnostic is in better position, because he does not loose energy for things that will not make him better.

RICHARD: As a person who is agnostic is still experiencing self-induced suffering, just as anyone else trapped in the human condition is, the question of anyone being in a better position or not is moot.

RESPONDENT: 5) Lastly, if I were setting out to discover whether the universe is infinite/eternal or finite – just how would I do it? What observations would I make? What reasoning would I use? Precisely, how would I investigate the issue if I don’t already know the fact?

RICHARD: Again I would recommend accessing the above link (where I go into some detail about this which you ask).

RESPONDENT: Is there a way to avoid being an agnostic on the issue – since if I’m investigating – then I’m open to finding out the fact of the matter? Does being agnostic necessarily mean being open to belief? Can’t I be agnostic and be open to finding out a fact? Or do I just have to get rid of current scientific theory to find that I already know the answer?

RICHARD: The question of agnosticism applies to all subjects, of course, not only the subject of the infinitude of the universe (which has tended to split the current, and previous, discussions on this mailing list into two separate issues).

For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble) until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/truth/idea/philosophy/whatever’).

But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

I now know.

RESPONDENT No. 37: You say that there is no soul or self but just flesh and bones therefore no life after death. Therefore how do you explain Outer body experiences (OBE’s) and near death experiences where people report seeing events and their own physical bodies in Real Time. It would be impossible for a thought or a feeling (self) to experience an OBE. Happy days.

RICHARD: ... I would explain OBE’s (out of body experiences) and NDE’s (near death experiences), where the identity residing inside the flesh and blood body locates itself outside the flesh and blood body, in the same way I explain altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) and any other paranormal, supernatural or suprasensory experiences ... they are all the product of identity, the psychological and psychic entity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: Are you ambivalent about that statement (use of ‘would’) or firm?

RICHARD: Oops, I see now that the word ‘would’ is misleading ... because I do explain OBE’s and NDE’s in the same way I explain ASC’s and any other paranormal, supernatural or suprasensory experiences.

RESPONDENT: The reason I ask is as an offshoot of a recent thread I (probably shouldn’t have) started re advanced science and technology. Because No. 37 posits a pertinent question, I’m going to throw it out once again.

RICHARD: If you look more closely you will see that it is not a pertinent question but a straw man question ... which is to posit something that somebody did not say, as a premise, and then ask ‘therefore how do you explain ...’. I do not say [quote] ‘that there is no soul or self’ [endquote] ... on the contrary I am most specific that it is that very entity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body who is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which stuffs up life on this otherwise fair planet we all live on (that it locates itself either in the head, in the heart, in the body, out of the body, in a heaven, in a hell, in between bodies or wherever else it may dream up is of minor concern compared to all the suffering it causes).

Just because there are no identities here in this actual world does not mean there are no identities in the real world – in fact it is those very identities who create the real world – and the latest count estimates the figure to be in excess of 6.0 billion.

RESPONDENT: Is it not possible for such phenomena as OBE’s to be our interpretation of sensory input of a form that is incomprehensible to us, given our present state of understanding of the physical universe?

RICHARD: As all such phenomena abruptly ceased when the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body ceased to exist – meaning that if it were sensory it would still be happening – my answer is an unequivocal no.

RESPONDENT: It’s quite possible that some of these matters could be explained by some scientific understanding of the physical universe gleaned in say, the 25th century.

RICHARD: It is equally quite possible that the majority of the humans 500 years from now will be free from the human condition and thus valuable scientific resources will no longer be frittered away on pursuing such will o’ the wisps.

RESPONDENT: I’m not talking about anything remotely spiritual here, but perhaps electromagnetism (e.g.) may some day explain some of these matters.

RICHARD: Whereas I would suggest freeing oneself from the human condition first – for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – and thus find out for oneself that there is nothing to explain.

RESPONDENT: I do agree that likely many of these phenomena are the product of the identity, I’m just inclined to never say never.

RICHARD: For something like twenty five years I would never say never also (which can be called being agnostic) and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in – maybe it makes one feel intellectually comfortable – until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/truth/idea/philosophy/whatever’). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than a ‘never say never’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

I now know.

RESPONDENT: Richard, now I question from my own mind: I remember Vineeto saying she is ‘100% certain’ that there is no God or afterlife. I remember thinking then (and still basically thinking the same thing) that it is impossible to ‘100%’ prove a negative.

RICHARD: Or so the epistemologists are prone to claim ... yet as one can indeed prove, for oneself and beyond any doubt whatsoever (not just beyond reasonable doubt), that no afterlife/deity does or can even possibly exist there is at least that (major) exception to their rule.

RESPONDENT: Of course I don’t believe in Gnomes or trolls (internet trolls are a fact of course) and as an actualist I don’t consciously engage in any kind of believing, but that does not ‘100% prove’ that they do not exist.

RICHARD: Indeed not, but what disbelief does prove, however, is that belief is not an essential prerequisite for a comparatively successful life (and thus society) – comparable to believer’s lives (and thus societies) that is – and that is not something to be dismissed lightly.

RESPONDENT: It is of course very improbable that Trolls or a God exists.

RICHARD: Yet improbability is not proof per se, eh?

RESPONDENT: Don’t get me wrong, I find the notion of believing in God, and afterlife, or any spiritual belief to be unobjective, nonfactual, and a silly waste of one’s precious time.

RICHARD: Given that believers do not have a corner on (relatively) successful lives/successful societies that is demonstrably true.

RESPONDENT: I understand that the notion of anything apart from this physical universe is unconceivable in a PCE, but that still does not seem to warrant Vineeto’s ‘100% certainty’ argument (which seems strangely fundamentalistic in the manner of fundamentalist Christianity to me).

RICHARD: Ahh ... in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not so much that it is inconceivable, that there be anything other than this physical universe, it is patently obvious there be not.

RESPONDENT: I don’t remember you saying exactly ‘I’m 100% certain there is no God’ ...

RICHARD: I may not have said it in those words.

RESPONDENT: ... (as you may have guessed this does go into the Karl Popper view that 100% certainty is impossible for certain topics/questions).

RICHARD: For certain topics/questions ...yes (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen); for the topic/question of an afterlife/a deity ... no, not at all impossible.

RESPONDENT: I remember you saying something to the affect of ‘As for myself, I am certain there is no God or afterlife’. Now to me that is not exactly the same statement as Vineeto’s.

RICHARD: I would rather say it this way: here in this actual world it is as plain as the nose on one’s face that all deities/any afterlife have no existence whatsoever outside of the human psyche.

It is all so peaceful, here, where there are no gods/goddesses to meddle in human affairs.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that you did not entirely dismiss the Popperian view that some things cannot be known with 100% certainty.

RICHARD: The following may be of interest in this regard:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Please point us in the direction of your actual/factual and thus irrefutable evidence. Thankyou.
• [Richard]: ‘As all it would take to refute my report (of being the first flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition) is a recorded instance – be it on paper, carved in stone, impressed into clay tablets, or painted on a cave wall, for example – of another flesh and blood body being so prior to 1992 it can be equally said that the evidence to the contrary is remarkably unforthcoming.
We have been down this path (of abstract logic) before, you and I, in previous discussions inasmuch as, similarly, the evidence that Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay were not the first to have ascended Mt. Everest, on May 29 1953, has yet to be found ... to say, by way of illustration, that someone from Tibet/Nepal/Mongolia/Wherever may have already done so 10/100/1000/10,000 years ago (and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings) is to also say they may not have done so, too, as the usage of ‘may’ in such an argument automatically includes ‘or may not’ when spelled-out in full.
As does the word ‘might’: for example, if a person were to argue that someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland might have already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen travelled there they are also saying they might not have, too.
For an instance of spelling-out such an argument in full:
• [example only]: ‘Mr. Yuri Gagarin may, or may not, have been the first human being to leave the planet’s atmosphere. [end example].
And:
• [example only]: ‘Mr. Neil Armstrong might, or might not, have been the first human being to set foot on the moon. [end example].
In short: it is a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist.
Or not, of course, which is why, by and large, Mr. Karl Popper’s logic has been discarded as merely abstract and/or irrelevant and/or useless by many thoughtful human beings’.

RESPONDENT: To me what you were saying is that you are sensibly certain (not 100%/godlike/absolutic certain) that there is no God or afterlife.

RICHARD: Ha ... it is not an omniscient certainty, if that is what you mean by ‘godlike’, for that is what Mr. Karl Popper’s logic is based upon (no human can ever be all-knowing).

RESPONDENT: Speaking of the God and afterlife debate, I can easily see the ridiculousness of the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Being.

RICHARD: Aye, the religionist versus rationalist debates, both on the internet and elsewhere, have flogged that topic to death via the ‘existence of evil’ dilemma.

RESPONDENT: As for an ‘afterlife’ I suppose there could be some small probability for a physical/energetic ‘survival’ of some aspect of human consciousness.

RICHARD: About a year and a half ago someone posted reams and reams of words on this mailing list from a web site which proposed that an afterlife was to be found in the (theoretical) dark matter of the (mathematical) universe. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I had put in the list some subjects on metaphysical facts.
• [Richard]: ‘If you are referring to the 12, 027 words you copy-pasted from an after-death survivalist’s web site then you are using the word ‘facts’ very, very loosely ... so loosely that your usage of it is indistinguishable from what the word ‘beliefs’ commonly refers to.
For example, the author you quoted at length first proposes there are two bodies (the finite physical body which contains the brain that dies and an infinite etheric body which contains a mind which does not die) and two worlds (the physical world and an etheric world) and then proposes that etheric body/mind is made-up of the sub-atomic particles of quantum theory and that etheric world is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics ... specifically the neutrino.
In short: an after-death abode which lies in an invisible nine-tenths of the universe.
Moreover the author then proposes that invisible universe is what is creating the visible universe:
• [Mr Michael Rolls]: ‘The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox, scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics. Even a cursory glance at the subject shows that the physical universe is being produced from the invisible – the etheric universe’. [endquote].
As his proof for survival after death comes from materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums I did not consider there was anything in what you copy-pasted to answer ... especially as nowhere on his web page did I see any mention of the meaning of life, peace on earth, happiness and harmlessness, freedom from malice and sorrow, or anything else of that ilk.
Not that those subjects are of particular interest to you, of course, but they are to me’.

RESPONDENT: It would not be ‘spiritual’, but rather a different manifestation of this physical universe. Now, since I don’t engage in believing, I am not proposing that I believe this (not only do I not, I never will again), just saying I don’t see the possibility or even need for an actualist to say with ‘100%’ certainty that such a course of events is impossible.

RICHARD: Oh, there is indeed the possibility to say that ... as for the need to: as more than a few peoples have been horrifically put to death (ostensibly so as to save their immortal souls) over the years, and as more than a few wars have been religious wars, there are certainly some very beneficial reasons to do so.

RESPONDENT: Of course, if my identity ever self-immolates, perhaps I would see things differently. Yet, I presently think I’d reject this ‘100% certain’ notion even after I had attained a actual freedom (or a virtual freedom for that matter). I’d simply say: ‘As for myself, I am sensibly certain that there is no God or afterlife, and that is that’.

RICHARD: Someone once earnestly said to me, quite a few years ago and after having utilised their interaction with me over many, many months to their advantage, that were they to become free they would never speak of it, never mention it to another, but go about living their life in humble obscurity (no doubt being strongly influenced by that ‘he who knows does not speak/he who speaks does not know’ aphorism).

Upon me saying it was just as well that was not the case with me, then (else they would never had even heard of such a freedom), there was a stunned silence.

*

RESPONDENT: It is of course very improbable that Trolls or a God exists.

RICHARD: Yet improbability is not proof per se, eh?

RESPONDENT: Yes, that’s what I was getting at.

RICHARD: As probability is not proof per se, either, then the score stands at nil-all.

*

RESPONDENT: (...) as you may have guessed this [a 100% certainty there is no God] does go into the Karl Popper view that 100% certainty is impossible for certain topics/ questions.

RICHARD: For certain topics/questions ...yes (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen); for the topic/question of an afterlife/a deity ... no, not at all impossible.

RESPONDENT: Is this because the first example is something physical and the second not?

RICHARD: Not particularly ... it is mainly because the second example is something which is indeed possible for there to be 100% certainty about.

*

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that you did not entirely dismiss the Popperian view that some things cannot be known with 100% certainty.

RICHARD: The following may be of interest in this regard: (snip quote). In short: it [that some body or some thing or some event which may or may not/might or might not have been/is being/ will be doing/ being or happening/ occurring or whatever wherever/whenever] is a variation on what is known as an agnostic argument (that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty) such as what Mr. Karl Popper made popular and stems, as I understand it, from the occasion wherein, prior to the exploration of Australia’s west coast, all (European) swans were white ... meaning that, somewhere, somewhen, in an infinite and eternal universe a purple swan may very well exist. Or not, of course, which is why, by and large, Mr. Karl Popper’s logic has been discarded as merely abstract and/or irrelevant and/or useless by many thoughtful human beings’.

RESPONDENT: It is abstract, irrelevant, and useless in many ways. Its even absolutistic as well and yet it has a knack for being hard to fully disagree with as well.

RICHARD: As all it takes to knock any absolutistic principle for a six is but one exception to the rule you may find the following to be of interest (the very first occasion I had ever even heard of Mr. Karl Popper’s logic):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘My background is science of the Popper kind. His basic assertion is, that we can never be certain about anything positive.
• [Richard]: ‘Well, he is wrong ... just like you. One thing you can be certain of is that you are going to die.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘For no amount of positive evidence can prove a general statement.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes it can ... people are dying everywhere. There is not one single person alive today that is born more than 150 years ago. Ergo: every person’s inevitable death is an absolute and positive statement.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘However, we CAN be certain of something negative, for only ONE counterexample is enough to disprove the generality of a general statement.
• [Richard]: ‘Yeah ... well it looks as if I have just given you something positive that you will never be able to give a ‘counterexample’ to, eh? For who do you know that is 60,000 plus years old?

Just as a matter of interest ... here is the rather lame-duck response (of an avowed logician to a boy-from-the-farm’s pragmatism):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I was talking about the Popperian school of thinking. I did not say that I back it up. So here I agree with you. I agree that I was not clear enough in my dismissal of it. So this misunderstanding is my responsibility. No discussion. You are simply right here.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) you are ducking for cover as you made quite a big thing of this theory on the Mailing List last week (...)’.

*

RESPONDENT: As for an ‘afterlife’ I suppose there could be some small probability for a physical/energetic ‘survival’ of some aspect of human consciousness.

RICHARD: About a year and a half ago someone posted reams and reams of words on this mailing list from a web site which proposed that an afterlife was to be found in the (theoretical) dark matter of the (mathematical) universe. Vis.: (snip quote).

RESPONDENT: Tis all very ‘fantastical’ stuff, is it not? While it *might* not be disprovable, it would be silly to believe in nonetheless.

RICHARD: It not only might be disprovable it is so easily done is it is a wonder you even contemplate it might not: as the word ‘consciousness’ refers to a flesh and blood body being conscious – the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition – it is as patently absurd to propose that some (undefined) aspect of a body being conscious physically survives that body’s demise in some (theorised) physical after-life as it does to propose that some (undefined) aspect of a body being conscious physically precedes that body’s conception in some (theorised) physical before-life ... in fact it is as blatantly ludicrous as proposing that the warmness of a body (the state or condition of a body being warm) continues to subsist forever even though a body be as cold as ice (as in a morgue).

For those peoples who are unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity – be it both/either the ego/ self and/or the soul/ spirit – then it would quite possibly be of no avail to point out that, as any such identity is born of the instinctual passions (genetically endowed at conception by blind nature as a rough and ready survival package), upon the cessation of all affections when the body dies so too does any identity formed thereof cease and that, therefore, death is the end, finish ... kaput.

For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘As you haven’t died physically yet, you cannot know what actually happens once you die until you die.
• [Richard]: ‘I beg to differ ... as there is no longer an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting this body then when this body dies it is patently obvious that all what will happen is that this body will die.
Thus I can know what actually happens without having to die to find out.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So your belief that its the end – (ego ends) is based on belief but not on actual experience (...).
• [Richard]: ‘I am having some difficulty in following your line of reasoning ... as the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) has already ended how can you then say that I have a belief that when this body dies the ego will end?

*

RESPONDENT: I think I will have to back off the ‘it’s not possible [to 100% prove a negative] line’ for that would just make me an absolutist non-absolutist.

RICHARD: Ha ... so endeth the epistemologists’ autocratic reign, eh?

RESPONDENT: It may be possible, I’m not there yet.

RICHARD: To allow that it *may* be possible is but the first step (away from it being not possible); to intellectually comprehend how it *is* possible is the next step (towards the actuality of the proof).

The third step is a cards-down misère.

RESPONDENT: All I’ve even seen in Richards writings is ...... an absolute belief that there is no such happening as God or other dimension besides the human body which he is.

RICHARD: May I demonstrate something basic about egocentric interaction masquerading as mutual understanding and reciprocal communication? Vis.:

Version 1:

• [Person No. 1]: ‘I believe in Santa Claus and that he lives at the North Pole’.
• [Person No. 2]: ‘There is no such entity as ‘Santa Claus’ outside of passionate imagination let alone a ‘North Pole’ home where such a phantasm lives’.
• [Person No. 1]: ‘All I’ve even seen in Person No. 2’s writings is an absolute belief that there is no such happening as Santa Claus nor that Santa’s home at the North Pole’.

Version 2:

• [Person No. 1]: ‘I believe in Santa Claus and that he lives at the North Pole’.
• [Person No. 2]: ‘There is no such entity as ‘Santa Claus’ outside of passionate imagination let alone a ‘North Pole’ home where such a phantasm lives’.
• [Person No. 1]: ‘All I’ve even seen in Person No. 2’s writings is that he does not believe in such a happening as Santa Claus or that his home at the North Pole’.

It is not possible to proceed very deeply at all in a sensible discussion about human suffering with the person in version No. 1 (which is what this Mailing List is purportedly set up for) ... whereas it is possible with person No. 2 (who understands the basic principles operating in regards belief in the metaphysical and the faith required to maintain trust in that which is not physical) and is prepared to investigate.

RESPONDENT: Have it your way, Richard. Either way it still boils down to a belief, absolute or not.

RICHARD: I was not endeavouring to have you remove the ‘absolute’ part of the ‘absolute belief’ phrase ... rather I was paving the way to pointing out the distinction between believing and knowing by using the Santa Claus example of an egocentric viewpoint (Version No. 1) blocking a sensible discussion.

Because no mature adult believes that Santa Claus does not exist ... they know such a phantasm does not exist as a fact.

RESPONDENT: As I’ve stated before, you have no proof that your brand of actuality is really all there is to life.

RICHARD: I find variations of this line of debate on the Christian versus Rationalist discussion boards (where the Christians challenge the Rationalists to prove that their god does not exist). It is futile to take up a challenge wherein the challenger first proposes something (such as a god or a goddess or an other dimension) and then says: ‘prove me wrong’.

Needless to say, I do know for myself that there are no gods or goddesses or an after-life outside of passionate imagination.

RESPONDENT: You may be willing to accept your belief of atheism and actuality, but I’m not.

RICHARD: If I may point out? You are doing it again here ... you persist in a turn of phrase (‘your belief’) that leads nowhere fruitful ... unless you find to-ing and fro-ing satisfying enough.

RESPONDENT: I’m the one who truly has no beliefs, for I state that I just don’t know.

RICHARD: This position is called ‘agnostic’ ... given that the definition of the word ‘agnostic’ is that such a person maintains that the subject under discussion can not be known one way or another (‘agnostic’ can also mean ‘undecided’). The people I have met personally, over many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics or mystics ... maybe it is a variation on that hoary adage: ‘he who says he does not know really knows’. I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable.

For something like twenty five years I was agnostic and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in ... until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ under the rug and going around deftly cutting the ‘believers’ down to size (which is all so easy to do). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than ‘it is unknowable’ – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – all about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

I now know.

RESPONDENT: I do know this flesh and blood body from moment to moment and all the pleasures of thereof. It is indeed spectacular in all that it can sense and enjoy ...

RICHARD: So far so good ... there is a ‘but’ coming, however.

RESPONDENT: ... but that is such just a small part of the infinite.

RICHARD: ... and here you betray your own avowed ‘I just don’t know’ position by implying there is indeed something beyond the physical.

RESPONDENT: You may be willing to accept ‘second best’, but I’m not.

RICHARD: Again you betray your own avowed ‘I just don’t know’ position by categorising the physical as ‘second best’. It is extremely difficult to maintain an ‘I just don’t know’ stance consistently ... you would make yourself look very silly in your own eyes to maintain an ‘I’m the one who truly has no beliefs, for I state that I just don’t know if Santa Claus exists or not’ stance, eh?

RESPONDENT: But I do understand your belief system, but I think it’s based on assessment of your own experience, which ... it should be.

RICHARD: As I have no ‘belief system’ I am somewhat bemused in regards to what it is that you understand.

RESPONDENT: But that doesn’t mean it’s final, you too are in a condition of development, which will change.

RICHARD: Yet a fact is always final ... a fact never changes (otherwise it is not a fact). It is a fact that there is only heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on ‘within’ this flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: And you may in the future find yourself, as you have in the past, needing to revise your assumptions.

RICHARD: Indeed ... any and all assumptions I make are ever open to revision or discarding. Usually I preface my words with ‘I assume ...’ or ‘As an opinion ...’ or ‘Presumably ...’ or ‘Theoretically ...’ and so on. An hypothesis is always a ‘working model’ until the fact is ascertained. As for my past: a ‘truth’ is not a fact nor is ‘The Truth’ factual ... facts are pretty thin on the ground in the religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical world ... which is one of the many things that made me suss ’way back then.

RESPONDENT: We’ll just have to see whether death is in fact final, won’t we?

RICHARD: Maybe it would be best to only speak for yourself ... I already know for a fact that ‘death is final’. Incidentally, this stance (‘we’ll just have to see whether death is in fact final’ ) is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this ‘I don’t know’ approach is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics or mystics ... is it a variation on that hoary adage: ‘He who says he does not know, really knows’? I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable.

Do you want to know? Do you want to find out?

RESPONDENT: I tend to accept Yogananda’s version that death is in fact only relative to the physical body and that there is in fact a spiritual form (though not physical) that we continue on in.

RICHARD: This ‘a spiritual form (though not physical)’ phrasing indicates that there may very well be a psychological and/or psychic entity still inhabiting the body that is writing these words to me. Hence you presumably have no alternative but to see what I write as being ‘a belief system’ or ‘an assumption’ ... which process, if this is what is happening, is called egocentricity (viewing another through one’s own experience and/or standards).

*

RICHARD: Mr. Mukunda Lal Gosh’s (aka Paramhansa) visionary experience (non-factual) ...

RESPONDENT: You can’t be sure of this.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I can be sure of this. You accurately described his experience as being ascertained by ‘telepathic mental pictures ‘and’ words’ ... which is the clue that his experience is not a sensorial actuality but a visionary prescient reality. Only sensate actuality is factual.

RESPONDENT: What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: interpretations) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke.

RICHARD: So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ...

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you refer to? What pivotal word do you mean?

RICHARD: I am referring to the word on which your sentence hinges ... and which can have at least two meanings even without scare-quotes: ‘see: perceive with the eye (...) have the faculty of sight’. And: ‘see: perceive mentally (...) attain to comprehension, understand’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: If you mean to ask why I put the word ‘sees’ in scare-quotes here is the answer: [quote] ‘Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually ‘made up’ by the brain’. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html).

RICHARD: Hmm ... if that is the line you would like to pursue then obviously we cannot say what you want us to say as the person you postulate may very well be making up all manner of things about the proposed object (that it might really be a wheelbarrow, for instance, and not a bottle after all).

RESPONDENT: The person’s brain might be mistaken – due to dim light – and ‘sees’ a coke bottle if in fact it is a ‘sprite bottle’, such errors happen often.

RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you: why not just drop the last two words off your sentence (so as to do away with your scare-quotes)? For example: [example only]: ‘Let us say a person sees a bottle’. [end example]. All that remains now is to clear up the matter of whether it can be known to be a bottle or not and you can get on with whatever it is you are wanting to convey.

RESPONDENT: Ok fine.

RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter is settled.

*

RICHARD: Provided there be, of course, an object in the first place (as that would require being able to know that objects exist).

RESPONDENT: Your brain ‘sees’ an object ...

RICHARD: No, this brain sees an object.

RESPONDENT: What exactly do you mean when you say ‘the brain sees’?

RICHARD: Just the same as with the cutaneous, aural, olfactory, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensations ... sensory perception.

RESPONDENT: I understand that you have direct experiences how that seeing takes place.

RICHARD: As ‘direct experience’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then ... yes, there is indeed apperceptive awareness of ocular sensation taking place.

RESPONDENT: Do you also have a ‘theory’ how that seeing takes place?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Are you aware of modern scientific theories how that seeing takes place?

RICHARD: Some years ago I read-through some of what is presented in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ... as I recall it such studies are incomplete (as in still a lot to be learnt/ discovered).

RESPONDENT: If your brain sees an object (‘coke bottle’), can your brain carry on and see something else like ‘glass’, or ‘molecules’, or ‘quantum states’?

RICHARD: This brain sensately sees objects in the same way it touches, smells, tastes, and hears same ... recognition of an object, as ‘bottle’ and/or ‘glass’ (molecules and quantum states are mathematical models), requires cognition in the form of discernment, discrimination and so on.

RESPONDENT: Or are these reinterpretations already part of the ratiocination process, which cannot be done without an intact entity?

RICHARD: By putting the word [quote] ‘reinterpretations’ [endquote] into your query it cannot be answered as-is.

What I can say is this: cognition and/or recognition, in the form of discernment, discrimination, and so on, does not necessarily require ratiocination – ‘the action or process of reasoning, esp. by using syllogisms; an instance of this; a conclusion arrived at by reasoning’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as it mostly operates on ‘automatic pilot’, so to speak.

*

RICHARD: ... [so far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will] ... (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest).

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand that.

RICHARD: You want us to say something (as per your abbreviated form of ‘let us say ..’ further above) do you not?

RESPONDENT: The sentence ‘Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’ does not mean I want you to literally say ‘A person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’. Can you not see that I give an example?

RICHARD: Of course I can see that you give it as an example.

RESPONDENT: Ok, cool.

RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point: for a meaningful discussion to take place the re must be a mutually agreed upon basis, and/or parameters, to what is to be discussed ... and in this case you want us to say something about something which, according to you, cannot be known.

Put succinctly: I am not interested in discussing your interpretations of the way you interpret your reinterpretations of your brain’s interpretations of what goes by the name ‘bottle’.

*

RICHARD: Yet the something you want us to say is, according to you, unable to be known as knowledge is interpretation.

RESPONDENT: I don’t see your point.

RICHARD: How can you know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation?

RESPONDENT: Your knowledge is ...

RICHARD: If I might stop you right there? I specifically asked you a question about how *you* can know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation (according to you) ... I did not, repeat not, ask you for yet more of your statements-as-if-they-were-fact about how your interpretations of the way you interpret your reinterpretations of your brain’s interpretations might or might not apply to this flesh and blood body.

Look, I am well aware of the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical injunction to be in a state of ‘not-knowing’ (because of the realised/ enlightened/ awakened ones saying that nothing can be known) so I will take this opportunity to point out that this is an actualist mailing list, and not a spiritualist one, and that despite what the realised/ enlightened/ awakened ones say things can indeed be known.

*

RICHARD: Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge’ is ‘interpretation’, either the brain’s interpretation or the entity’s reinterpretation of the brain’s interpretation’. [endquote]. It is your call.

RESPONDENT: I am not sure what I am called for.

RICHARD: You are the one making the claim that knowledge is interpretation – not me – so it is up to you to deal with the consequences ... one of which is that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who does not know anything.

RESPONDENT: Maybe that helps in your understanding of what I mean when I say ‘we cannot know anything’ ...

RICHARD: I am already cognisant of what you mean when you say that *you* cannot know anything: ... I am making it clear that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who maintains, via fallacious reasoning, that nothing can be known yet insists on discussing things as if they can be.

You just cannot have it both ways ... either admit that you can (and do) know things or cease writing/ talking/ thinking forthwith.

It is your call.