Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On ‘I’ as an ‘Identity’, ‘I’ as a ‘Being’
RESPONDENT: I have yet to get an answer for how to detect ‘I’ ...
RICHARD: As you got an answer for your multiple queries on how can ‘you’ get rid of the ‘I’, how can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs, how can ‘you’ destroy ‘yourself’ and how can ‘you’ reject ‘yourself’ then surely you can figure that one out for yourself?
Nor can ‘you’ get rid of ‘yourself’.
Neither can ‘you’ walk away from ‘your’ pleasures and needs.
And ‘you’ cannot destroy ‘yourself’, either.
Plus, of course, ‘you’ cannot reject ‘yourself’.
Nevertheless, what ‘you’ can do is become exquisitely aware, each moment again, of the way in which ‘you’ experience ‘yourself’ in regards to ‘your’ situation and circumstances.
However, as that requires you actually putting the actualism method into practice – something you are yet to do – rather than asking me all those endless ‘What if ...’, ‘How can I ...’ and ‘Suppose I ...’ type of questions I will be refraining from reposting my most succinct précis of it for the umpteenth time around.
RICHARD: By putting ‘I’ into smart quotes I was following the convention that one is referring to that ‘self’ inside the body that is causing all the ills of humankind. It is this ‘I’ that can transform itself – often with ‘grotesque or humorous effect’ – into a ‘Me’. This ‘Me’ is usually capitalised to indicate divinity and the resultant ‘Enlightened State’ is either ‘grotesque’ (when one considers all the religious wars with the hideous hatred and bloodshed ... what is happening in Israel, for example) or ‘humorous’ (when one considers the degree of megalomania involved in proclaiming oneself to be God ... Mr. Franklin Jones, for example).
RESPONDENT: You talk about the three I’s. In your terminology that would be the ‘ego’ I, the grand (or transcendent) I, and the actual I, which is simply the awareness of the body/blood organism. I had not come to the understanding of the actual I, as you define it, but I had found that I could find no real me, either self or Self. There was an undeniable capacity for ‘subjectivity’ available to me as a human person, but when I followed it back, it didn’t point to anyone or anything. In other words, there was no subject, only the activity of subjectivity. I very much like the simplicity and the utter lack of separation in your ‘actual I’. Like you, I find no evidence for a soul. I think I may differ from you in that I don’t find the ego I to be quite the problem that you do because I don’t see it as a thing, but more a way of seeing or being aware. But, we’ll see.
RICHARD: That you find no evidence for a soul (self/Self) is a blessing in that you will be able to remain ‘seriously non-delusional’ yourself ... a rarity in this day and age! Even if you ‘don’t find the ego I to be quite the problem’, upon investigation you may find that ‘the ego I’ is but the tip of the iceberg of ‘being’; the deeper levels of ‘being’ reverberate throughout every cell in the body, as it were. Why I say this so confidently is that if there are affective feelings current, then in conjunction with ‘the ego I’ there has to be ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) ... you may experience this as ‘a way of feeling’ ‘ego I’ and not solely ‘‘a way of seeing’ ego I’ or ‘‘a way of being aware’ ego I’, perhaps?
What I would do is ask myself ‘do I have a deep feeling of being’? ... and sit with the question, feeling out the answer, not coming to any thought-out conclusion (which stops the question dead) so as to find out experientially just ‘who’ I am.
RICHARD: Would this not indeed be the very opening needed to find out why this ‘a way of seeing’ ... ‘ego I’ or this ‘being aware’ ... ‘ego I’ (which you do not find to be ‘quite the problem’) is swayed by those ‘patterns of feeling, emotional memory that still hold a certain amount of influence over me ... at times’? I only ask because peace-on-earth cannot become apparent if one is still swayed by feelings ... even if only at times. Where is one’s autonomy if something has influence into one’s innate intelligence ... preventing it from operating unencumbered? Which means: even if you ‘don’t find the ego I to be quite the problem’, upon sincere investigation (motivated by the desirability of total peace and harmony once and for all) you may find that ‘the ego I’ is the more obvious aspect to the feeling of ‘presence’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘being’ (not ‘a being’ but ‘being’ itself). I do note that you wrote ‘I no longer feel that there is a deep core of me that is more me than my usual me’ yet if there be affective feelings at all then the more subtle levels of ‘being’ itself must percolate throughout the body (feelings in the amygdala stimulate the release of hormones such as adrenaline). Again I might suggest that you may experience this as ‘a way of feeling’ ... ‘ego I’ (or some other description) and not solely ‘a way of seeing’ ... ‘ego I’ or this ‘being aware’ ... ‘ego I’? I only make this suggestion again because I am very interested to compare notes as I find the presence of affective feelings to be indicative.
RESPONDENT: Since I read the above paragraphs (and you’ve asked the same question in one form or another in all your letters to me), I’ve taken the time to quietly observe and sense into what it is I am feeling or, perhaps more accurately, who or what is feeling. I honestly can’t say, as you do that there are no feelings, either positive or negative. So, yes, I definitely can discern a feeling ‘self’.
RICHARD: Okay, an affective ‘self’ is otherwise known as ‘the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’ ... according to the Oxford Dictionary. Furthermore, and in other words, the deep and abiding human ‘spirit’ (which is ‘being’ itself) is from whence ‘hope springs eternal in the human breast’.
RESPONDENT: The thought occurred to me during this process of really examining myself that at one time I thought that at the heart of me was God. That in its time was a huge breakthrough.
RICHARD: Aye ... this is why I tend to talk of ‘me’ as soul realising itself as ‘being’ itself (in mystical and/or spiritual terms) to be the fundamental issue to go beyond rather than going deeper than ‘I’ as ego seeking meaning in ‘God’ or ‘Truth’ (in religious and/or metaphysical terms).
RESPONDENT: Now I find that the heart of me is animal. I suppose that should be a sobering reflection, but actually there is something light and free about it. I don’t know exactly why.
RICHARD: Yes, other people have reported similar relief and liberation. For example:
RESPONDENT No 84: The human nervous system is endowed (or afflicted) with natural mechanisms or innate tendencies that can be called ‘instinctual passions’ for convenience.
RESPONDENT No 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’.
RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/psychic entity’.
RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/incipient intuiter.
RESPONDENT: You see it is not that Richard stops ‘being’.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not do anything: the affective ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, self-immolated in toto and has long-been extinct ... which is to be as dead as the dodo, in fact, but with no skeletal remains (there is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes),
RESPONDENT: He stops being an entity.
RICHARD: Again, this flesh and blood body does not do anything ... this flesh and blood body has been here all along simply having a ball (it was the identity within who did all the work).
RESPONDENT: There is a difference here.
RICHARD: There is no difference there, other than the one you have interpolated, at all.
RESPONDENT: If he stopped ‘being’ altogether he would dissolve into oblivion without leaving a trace.
RICHARD: Not so ... it was the identity who had residence who stopped ‘being’ altogether (and dissolved into oblivion without leaving a trace).
RESPONDENT: But obviously Richard still is here.
RICHARD: Not only is this flesh and blood body still here ... this flesh and blood body has been here all the while (since conception).
RESPONDENT: He is the mortal body.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is indeed mortal ... nothing more and nothing less.
RESPONDENT No 84: The feeling of ‘being’ would not exist anywhere in the universe without these instinctual passions which are the body's biological inheritance.
RESPONDENT: Without passions no feeling of ‘being an entity’ ...
RICHARD: If I may interject, for the sake of clarification, before you go on? Your co-respondent was right on the nose again ... without passions there is no feeling of ‘being’, period.
RESPONDENT: ... but this doesn’t mean that you are not ‘present to yourself’ (’conscious’) without these instinctual passions.
RICHARD: A flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/identity in toto, when being conscious is not being conscious in a present-to-itself manner as such a body is being conscious apperceptively (aka apperceptive awareness) ... and the word apperception is utilised here, as in all actualism writings, to refer to direct (unmediated) perception.
And what this means is that, as there is no mediator present, there is no presence to be present-to-itself.
RESPONDENT: Richard is still present to himself.
RICHARD: This (apperceptive) flesh and blood body is not only *not* still present-to-itself it never has been and never will be ... the affective ‘being’ however, who used to have residence all those years ago, was indeed present-to-itself (right up to the instant of oblivion) thus this flesh and blood body is well aware of the distinction, between such a presence being present-to-itself, and apperceptive consciousness.
RESPONDENT: He states to be the mortal body.
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body ... but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this (mortal) flesh and blood body only. For example (just one instance among many):
RESPONDENT: Now in order to state something like that you have to be still present to yourself ...
RICHARD: If I may interject again? In order to report something like that a (mortal) flesh and blood body only does not have to be present-to-itself (let alone ‘still’ that).
RESPONDENT: ... and your present to yourself is independent from the instinctual passions ...
RICHARD: If I may ask? What is [quote] ‘your present to yourself’ [endquote] ... did you mean to convey ‘and your present to yourself-ness (consciousness) is independent from being the instinctual passions, perchance?
Be that what it may ... as you go on to say, further below in your e-mail, that the only thing you really know is that you are present to yourself (and that is the only real knowledge you have) and then ask why you should not remain present to yourself when the body is gone (and further go on to say, in effect, that even though human consciousness/flesh and blood body will be gone it does not change a thing about the metaphysical truth that ‘I’, the Mind, the Transcendent, Infinite and Etcetera, is your real nature and indestructible) it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/describing/explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to steam-rolling over nearly anything anybody else has to say.
RESPONDENT: ... otherwise Richard wouldn’t be able to state to be the mortal body.
RICHARD: Hmm ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and flailing about and tread water for a while ... so as to catch your breath, so to speak, and be able to have a good look around.
RESPONDENT: While we’re on this topic – I recently read where you (Richard) regard having an ‘I’ as socially reprehensible – as in blameworthy. I’m curious as to just what constitutes being ‘socially reprehensible’ for you ... a mere thought or ‘temptation’ – or more concrete action. You have even gone to the point of using the term ‘guilty at conception’. I wonder what guilt could possibly consist of if not in action? To take this to the extreme – would an aborted foetus be ‘guilty’? Or possibly ‘socially reprehensible’? Is one guilty just because they have the potential to do harm?
RICHARD: First of all a normal person does not have an ‘I’ (or have a ‘me’) as they are an ‘I’ (or are a ‘me’) ... and ‘I’ exist inside the body only because all human beings are genetically endowed at conception with a package of instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which gives rise to emotions (such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) and this emotional and passional package is ‘me’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
And irregardless of whether ‘I’, who am the emotional and passional impulses, persuade the body to physically act or not ‘I’ involuntarily transmit emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore ‘I’ am not harmless even when ‘I’ refrain from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.
Children also involuntarily transmit emotional and passional vibes (thus they are not born innocent as certain peoples maintain) ... and a foetus would too (albeit in a very rudimentary form).
There is nothing that can stop other sentient beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence.
For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that charismatic leaders ride to power on such ‘energies’.
Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’ as the emotions and passions fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (à la the ‘lion shall lay down with child’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to the whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms.
RESPONDENT: For example, I don’t think I’ve done anything that would be considered ‘socially reprehensible’ by most people. Sure, I’ve stolen small amounts of money from my parents when I was a kid – not always told the whole truth – not always been the ‘stellar’ person I’ve wanted to be – but I have never hurt someone in a ‘reprehensible’ way. When I think ‘reprehensible’, I think murder, rape, abuse – all the atrocities in the human world. Now it’s possible that I’ve done something in my past that is ‘reprehensible’ and that it’s not currently coming to mind, but I’m curious just how you intend your usage of ‘socially reprehensible’?
RICHARD: I do not necessarily mean it only in the way you describe – there are already enough people censuring behaviour without me joining in the chorus as well – as I am more interested in pointing the finger at the root cause of all the misery and mayhem: the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... and this entity is not only socially reprehensible by its very existence but individually insalubrious as well.
No matter how well-behaved and well-adjusted a normal person is – urbane, polite, civilised, educated – they cannot help but generate malicious and sorrowful feelings from time-to-time ... and neither malicious feelings towards another nor sorrowful feelings towards oneself, or vice versa, are conducive to a happy and harmless life (be it the communal life or an individual life). And to then become loving and compassionate, either towards another or towards oneself, is to but gild over the negative with the positive ... with less than satisfactory results.
And such has been the case for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history ... the ‘tried and true’ is demonstrably the tried and failed.
RESPONDENT: I’m not out murdering, raping, abusing people and that sort of thing – as many people are not. Is one ‘guilty’ just by having a ‘human nature’?
RICHARD: Not by having a human nature ... by being human nature (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’): ‘I’ am guilty by virtue of ‘my’ very presence: it is ‘me’ as a psychological/psychic ‘being’ (at root an instinctual ‘being’) who is guilty of being harmful just by existing ... but it is not ‘my’ fault as ‘I’ am not to blame for ‘my’ existence (if anything it is blind nature which is at fault or to blame).
In the normal human world one is considered guilty where one does nothing about one’s human nature. Traditionally people try to avoid this ‘doing nothing’ guilt by living in accord with culturally-determined morals and ethics and values and principles and mores and so on. However, when push comes to shove, this thin veneer of civilised life can vanish in an instant and the instinctual survival passions can come surging out in full force (such as in peoples being trampled to death in the stampede for the exit in a theatre or cinema when there is a fire).
I have had personal experience of the veneer of civilised life vanishing: I happened to be in New Delhi in October 1984 when Sikh bodyguards assassinated India’s Hindu Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi after the assault by the Indian army on the Harimandir of Amritsar, the Sikhs’ holiest shrine. This set off a rampage of terror and violence that closed down the city for three days ... the normally ubiquitous police were nowhere to be seen for the entire period. I was there – with a nine year old daughter – and saw with my own eyes what happened: it was out-and-out internecine conflict ... after three days of unrestricted rioting the military came in with helicopters, planes, tanks, armoured vehicles, machine guns and so on and eventually law and order was restored by sheer brute force. The atmosphere – and the destructiveness I personally witnessed – was identical to my experience in a war-torn foreign country in 1966 when I was a serving soldier in a declared war-zone.
The solution to all this is to be found in the actual world: in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), where ‘I’ as ‘my’ feelings am temporarily absent, it will be experienced that one is innocent for the very first time ... in a PCE there is not the slightest trace of guilt whatsoever to be found.
‘Tis a remarkably easy way to live.
RESPONDENT: If the reason is that one is guilty by one’s ‘potential’ – wouldn’t it be smart to throw people in jail who fit the demographic for criminal behaviour – regardless their actions?
RICHARD: Ha ... if people were to be gaoled for their potential then all 6.0 billion peoples on this planet would find themselves behind bars: anyone and everyone who nurses malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, to their bosom has the potential to act, not only in socially reprehensible ways, but in ways which are personally insalubrious as well.
RESPONDENT: Guilt by ‘potential’ is a strange concept – and I’m not sure it would fit any common usage of the word ‘guilt’ or ‘reprehensible’.
RICHARD: Well ... as I said, the potential to act in socially reprehensible (and individually insalubrious) ways is traditionally held in check by morals and ethics and values and principles and mores and so on – all backed-up either by public censure and/or ostracism or by legal laws enforceable at the point of a gun – so it would appear that there is at least a tacit agreement that ‘guilt by potential’ is in common usage ... if only by implication.
RESPONDENT: I realize this must be balanced with your view that nobody is to blame for having a self – though I’d like to read just how you balance the two, if you don’t mind.
RICHARD: Perhaps this e-mail will show that there is nothing to balance after all as nobody is at fault or to blame for the human condition (and it is pointless to fault or blame blind nature for continuing to provide the instinctual survival passions which were necessary all those thousands of years ago).
Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal those blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (altruistic ‘self’-immolation).
No other animal can do this.
RESPONDENT: I also don’t intend these comments as an attempt to pin you down under self-contradiction – I know there are ‘ways out’ of these quandaries – I’m just curious about your view of these issues. Thanks.
RICHARD: Sure ... I have always sought for that which is non-contradictory and would always look askance at any attempt to gloss over something contradictory by someone saying that it was a paradox one just had to live with.
I have been unable to find anything paradoxical here in this actual world.
P.S.: I am aware that words like guilty, reprehensible and culpable carry the implication that some person or persons (or peoples collectively) decide or have decided what is right and what is wrong or what is good and what is bad or what is correct and what is incorrect and so on ... a standard to be judged by, in other words. The following exchange should be helpful in this regards (especially so as you say in this e-mail that you have wanted to be a ‘stellar’ person):
RICHARD: ‘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 feeling 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 a 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?
RESPONDENT: Bettering oneself? Don’t you think that is the essence of illusion: thinking one has achieved something great and that others, for that reason, should follow one?
RICHARD: Hmm ... it is a standard convention that when referring to an identity one uses little quotes – like ‘I’ or ‘me’ or ‘one’ or ‘you’ or ‘oneself’ or ‘myself’ for example – and the word < oneself > is but a means of referring to the body empty of identity so as to avoid confusion. Of course, some dilettante comes along every now and then and tries to score some cheap points by trying to make out that they are wise. Although this can be done only by ignoring the fact that I wrote ‘bettering oneself ... especially totally’. Another way to dismiss what may be valid findings is to say ‘you think that you are ...’ or ‘you believe that you are ...’ or ‘you feel that you are ...’ and so on. A third way is to accuse the person – who actually gets off their backside and does something about their human condition – of desiring followers when they report to others of their experience ... that he/she is setting himself/herself up to be a guru or whatever.
RESPONDENT: Don’t play the language game with me.
RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not ‘playing a language game’ at all ... it was you who was. It is simple: for the first 33 years of my life I lived what is described as a normal life. Then I had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that lasted for four hours. I lived perfection personified for that four hours ... then reverted to being normal. This experience changed the entire course of my life and I indeed set out to better myself ... and totally. The ‘I’ that I was then knew that perfection already always existed here ... now. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ must self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – and ‘I’ did.
RESPONDENT: Bettering oneself, as I see it is comparing oneself to some standard and trying to reach that standard.
RICHARD: Precisely. The standard for the ‘me’ that was, was the perfection of the PCE. To reach that standard required ‘me’ to better ‘myself’ until ‘I’ reached the point of whatever purity is humanly possible wherein ‘I’ could safely self-immolate. To venture into the purity of the actual ill-prepared – too much and too fast and too soon – would ‘blow the fuses’ and lead to madness.
RESPONDENT: It would be more productive to under-stand what one is, not try to better it.
RICHARD: One must start where one is at. In the PCE I saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. I saw how ‘I’ was treating ‘my’ wife, ‘my’ children, ‘my’ friends, ‘my’ acquaintances, ‘my’ colleagues and – most of all – ‘myself’. When the PCE finished and ‘I’ was again dominating this body, ‘I’ set out to better ‘myself’. It is of no avail to sit in a deck-chair on the patio waiting for the grace of god to descend. One must start where on is at. A grumpy person has no chance of becoming free.
RICHARD: You say that you have had ten years of acquaintance and friendship with Konrad ... and have never known him to be a liar. You also say:
This is good, because I was very much struck by the honesty that shone through his posts to the Mailing-List, and in particular his experience of seventeen years ago that started the ‘process’ that is with him to this very day. He had written:
What caught my attention, apart from the valuable on-going ‘process’, was the understanding:
This, and only this, is of the utmost importance ... this is the actuality of the nature of ‘I’. ‘I’ am nothing in that ‘I’ do not exist ... period.
Why I am corresponding with him is that he is a fellow human being who has an opportunity to rid himself of this pernicious and enduring entity because of this very ‘process’ that he is under-going. ‘I’ can not get rid of ‘I’ unaided ... and the ‘process’ is that aid. I would like to be able to convey to him to not see the ‘process’ as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Consequently, his theories and philosophies – although intriguing – carry little weight as his ‘I’ is still in there doing the theorising and philosophising. Hence his attraction to logic. Thus, the other correspondents to the Mailing List rather chopped him to bits in regards to the contents of his posts. Most people, however, failed to recognise the significance of either his direct experience of the actuality of the nature of ‘I’ or the value of his on-going ‘process’. In fact, they derided him for likening his experience of the ‘process’ to that which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also underwent. In doing so, they missed the point entirely.
RICHARD: Now, as we have already agreed in our previous posts, as an ‘I’ inside this head, ‘I’ am alone ... ‘I’ am lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning. ‘I’ will do anything in order to end ‘my’ aloneness ... whilst staying in existence, nevertheless. ‘I’ will invent all manner of psychic adumbrations with which to seek union with and thus create an illusion of ending separation through oneness. In fact, ‘I’ will go to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate ‘my’ very ‘being’ for all eternity. The way it works is like this: first of all there the passionate instincts for survival that ‘blind nature’ endows us with as a start to life ... and a rather clumsy start at that. These express themselves as emotions inside the heart which give rise to the feeling that there is a ‘feeler’ in there. This feeling creates the illusion that there is a ‘thinker’ inside the brain. The ‘thinker’ then attempts the impossible: To eliminate the ‘I’ by stopping thought, permanently. Of course, thinking recommences as it must. When practiced assiduously however, and a rare success ensues, ‘I’, as the ‘thinker’, disappear from the head. ‘I’ then identify solely as the ‘feeler’ in the heart. The resultant oceanic feeling of ‘Oneness’ and ‘Unity’ and ‘Wholeness’ gives rise to the misconception that the separate self has been eliminated.
It has not. ‘I’ still survive, self-satisfied. Now that ‘I’ have made a connection with the ‘other’, by whatever name, via love, ‘I’ feel that there is nothing further to be done – yet it is only that the separation has been bridged. Having made a quantum leap from the head to the heart, there is nothing to stop illusion turning into delusion. The ‘self’ now manifests itself as a humble ‘soul’ that is charged with bringing ‘Teachings’ into the world. And whence come these ‘Teachings’? From ‘that which is sacred, holy’, of course. Which is the Eastern way of saying what in the West is called: ‘I have come to bring God’s word to all mankind’. Eastern spirituality turns out to be nothing more than Western religion in another guise.
RICHARD: When one sees all this ... when one is freed from all conceptual and selfish living, it is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight.
RESPONDENT: If there is a ‘one’ that seems to be living freely in and apart from the world, that seems like duality, i.e.: – delusion.
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 >, < my >, < me > ... or even more impersonally ... < one >.
Otherwise the above paragraph would wind up looking like this: ‘When this flesh and blood body sees all this ... when this flesh and blood body is freed from all conceptual and selfish living, it is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight’.
RICHARD: When ‘I’ first saw ‘myself’ in a peak experience, ‘I’ saw a lost, lonely frightened and very, very cunning entity. The moment ‘I’ saw ‘myself’, I was immediately not that person any more ... I was this flesh and blood body only being apperceptively aware.
RESPONDENT: Of course that person was no more. There is immediate change because the controller is an image that drops off.
RICHARD: Yes ... but ‘I’ am much, much more than an image. An image – although remarkably persistent – is relatively easy to see through ... getting down to the roots of ‘me’ requires a very deep concern about the utter necessity of personally putting and end to malice and sorrow once and for all. Not only for oneself, but for all humankind ... whether anyone else does it or not matters not at all. ‘I’ do this for myself and everyone anyway ... but ultimately for the universe itself. This is actually why one is here. Finally the universe will be able to experience itself as a sensate reflective human being. As me, the universe can look around and see itself in all its wondrous splendour and marvel at what is possible.
RICHARD: It never goes away – nor has it ever been away – it was just that ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ was standing in the way of the meaning of life being apparent.
RESPONDENT: It seems that in order to see this for myself, I have to see what this ‘I’ is. I probably do not see it right now for the same reason a fish does not see the water. What do you say?
RICHARD: Hmm ... I have heard this so-called wisdom before. As a fish not seeing the water amounts to the same thing as humans not seeing the air (the atmosphere is our ocean) this inanity has no value at all. The reason you do not see it for yourself is that you are standing in your own way.
RESPONDENT: I can see that when the mind becomes aware of itself ‘I’ and ‘me’ disappears and that I am the senses. I also see that this sensuousness produces a PCE. I can also see that thru increased awareness it is possible to do this on a consistent basis. My question is: Can I permanently disappear the ‘I’ and the ‘me’?
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not ‘permanently disappear the ‘I’ and the ‘me’’ ... it was the identity that did all the work. Who you think and feel and instinctively ‘know’ yourself to be has a job to do: When ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.
There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. This trait can be observed in almost all animals – it is especially easy to see in the ‘higher-order’ animals – mainly with the parental defending of the young to the point of fatal injury leading to death. Defending the group against another group is also simple to observe ... it manifests in humans in the way that one will passionately defend oneself and one’s group to the death if it is deemed necessary. Speaking personally, as a youth this self-sacrificing trait impelled me to go to war for ‘my’ country ... to ‘willingly lay down my life for kith and kin’. It is a very powerful passion indeed ... Christianity, to give just one example, values it very highly: ‘No greater love hath he that lay down his life for another’. Also, all of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, linking ‘my’ survival with the body’s physical continuation. Nothing could be further from the truth for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence. ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die for a cause – and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality
This trait is called altruism ... albeit misplaced.
Thus it is ‘I’ that is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ that is the cause of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself ... now. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already here ... it is always now. ‘I’ was merely standing in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent.
RESPONDENT: That which is alive can hardly breath without bringing harm or destruction to some aspect of the environment, yes? The whole exercise of personal existence must be a heavy measure on the side of silliness when a larger view is taken toward its effect. Does it not seem silly that this body should eat while another starves?
RICHARD: [...] All this is predicated upon there being an enduring ‘I’ that is going to survive the death of the body and go on into the paradisiacal After-Life that is ‘my’ post-mortem reward for being a ‘good’ person during ‘my’ sojourn on this planet earth. It is ‘I’ who is the ‘believer’, it is ‘I’ who will cause this flesh-and-blood body to go into all manner of contorted and convoluted emotion-backed thoughts as to what is ‘Right’ and what is ‘Wrong’, what is ‘Good’ and what is ‘Bad’. If it were not for the serious consequences of all this passionate dreaming it would be immensely humorous, for ‘I’ am not actual ... ‘I’ am an illusion. And any grand ‘I’ that supposedly survives death by being ‘Timeless and Spaceless’, ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Immortal and Eternal’ am but a delusion born out of that illusion. Thus any After-Life is a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion ... as I am so fond of saying.
When ‘I’ am no longer extant there is no ‘believer’ inside the mind and heart to have any beliefs or disbeliefs. As there is no ‘believer’, there is no ‘I’ to be harmful ... and one is harmless only when one has eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in. One is then free to kill or not kill something or someone, as the circumstances require. Eating meat, for example, is an act of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the taste bud’s predilection, or the body’s ability to digest the food eaten, or meeting the standards of hygiene necessary for the preservation of decaying flesh, or the availability of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage necessary to support the conversion of vegetation into animal protein. It has nothing whatsoever with sparing sentient beings any distress.
RESPONDENT: Other statements commonly used, and often preached in schools and mental health facilities, that present similar difficulties are Self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-respect. Each is unquestioningly accepted as a desirable state of existence, while, in fact, the pursuit of any of the positions implied by the respective statements leads to absolute paranoia. It has been said of one of the Beautiful Children here that she has low self-esteem. The difficulty is not that she thinks lowly of her self, but that she thinks about her-self at all, and more, that she is involved, on a daily basis, with an education and health care system that bombard her with non-sensible and unexamined crud. Thinking about your-self is to indulge in the schizophrenic fantasy that you stand outside your self. You can not possibly live at peace while entertaining the thought that you have an alternate self that needs your constant attention, correcting, and defending.
RICHARD: Methinks you are making a popular mistake with this misuse of the word that describes that terrible affliction called ‘schizophrenia’ and are really meaning ‘split-personality’, eh? Nevertheless, it is not so that ‘thinking about your-self is to indulge in the schizophrenic fantasy that you stand outside your self’ ... any identity – a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting the body like a ‘walk-in’ – is already a ‘split personality’. It is not just ‘thinking about your-self’ that creates the two ‘I’s (which is falsely blaming thought like all the mystics do) ... the rudimentary animal self is a product of the survival instinct and, as such, is a passionate self charged by blind nature to survive at any cost. It is fondly imagining yourself to be immortal that creates the two ‘I’s (an ‘I’ as ego and an ‘I’ as ‘Immortal Soul’) ... and imagination is feeling-fed thought.
RESPONDENT: And if I may, please explain the ‘I’ and make evident the ‘I’ of which you speak as something other than then the current actions pointed to by saying ‘I’.
RICHARD: As ‘I’ am self-evident (even Mr. René Descartes knew this) then any attempt at answering this query of yours is to become embroiled in a convoluted and tortuous and tautological academia-like quibbling and nit-picking and squabbling over of differing intellectual spasms of apparently pulchritudinous gems of such scintillating brilliance as to cause any hoary eastern mystical pundit to blush with shame at his ineptitude ... and I decline.
KONRAD: There are people on this list who claim that they can become aware of their ‘I’ at the moment it is active, without such a process being present. Richard is such a person ... ... who apparently has gone through some kind of transformation, that has made certain things clear to him. But contrary to me, there is not a constant ‘process’ going on within him, that is a left-over from it, and that renews this insight. This makes that if I try to communicate with him, I see from his reaction that there are differences in his understanding of the conditions of becoming aware of the ‘I’-thought and what I myself become aware of. It looks like he is talking from an experience of the past, and conclusions that were once drawn that form his present ‘I’, and not from an actually unfolding awareness of ‘I’ at this very moment. These differences make me conclude that Richard ... does not really know what it means to become aware of the ‘I’-thought at the moment it functions, although apparently he was once aware of it.
RICHARD: You are way, way off the mark ... there is no ‘I’ in any way, shape or form inside this body. This is an egocentric viewpoint (‘egocentric’ as in the way the word ‘ethnocentric’ is used) and shows that your appraisal of others is coloured by your own experience. Having an ‘I’-thought’ is your experience, not mine. Apart from that, you are unwittingly dead right where you say: ‘Richard does not really know what it means to become aware of the ‘I’-thought at the moment it functions, although apparently he was once aware of it’.
RICHARD: ‘I’ create the illusion of a ‘bottle’. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out?
RESPONDENT: Are you asking now for a definition of the ‘I’ or a defence of the existence of the ‘I’? This word ‘I’ is so theory laden. Which sort of an ‘I’ are we speaking about?
RICHARD: The ‘I’ in this metaphor is the ego ‘I’ that arises from the soul ‘me’ that is born of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with when blind nature equips one with the basic survival instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire.
RESPONDENT: If all sentient beings are born with it, is that ‘I’ an illusion?
RICHARD: But sentient beings are not born with an ‘I’ ... they are born with a rudimentary self. (Which is a non-verbal awareness of bodily self as distinct from other bodies and the environment at large ... this can be observed in animals). Blind nature equips sentient beings with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... as basic survival instincts. These passions can be observed in animal infants ... and in human babies before they can think and talk. Thus malice and sorrow are intrinsic and not dependent upon conditioning. (These kind of things can be seen in the comfort of your own living-room via those fascinating National Geographic videos of the apes. These animals display passions and behaviour that is almost uncanny in their – albeit very basic – similarity to the human species.)
Because humans can both feel and think and communicate their feeling-fed thoughts to other humans via language they can ruminate – as distinct from animals – upon the results of letting the instincts run free. Whereupon the infant’s rudimentary and passionate non-verbal self is persuaded, through reward and punishment and precept and example, to take on a socially-responsible identity known as a conscience ... in order to control the socially-wayward rudimentary self the baby was born with. By and large this is usually fairly well established by somewhere around the age of seven years ... according to those who study these things. One has been inculcated with the values of the particular culture one was born into and has both a feeling apprehension and a mental knowledge of what is decreed to be ‘Right and Wrong’.
(This is somewhat analogous to Mr. Sigmund Freud’s ‘Id’, ‘ego’ and ‘Superego’ ... but the analogy definitely ends with his solution: A well-balanced personality is one that can juggle these conflicting demands in a compromise between social responsibility and personal gratification. His result: A troubled personality could, with analysis, be returned to normal. His definition of normal: ‘Common human unhappiness’.)
Concomitant with this socialising process, a sense of identity as a personal ‘I’ percolates through feeling-backed thoughts as the rudimentary self asserts itself as a passionate ego by about age two years ... according to those who study these things. This is a naturally-occurring process in response to the demands of the environment ... natural insofar as the instincts are natural. This ego ‘I’ arises, out of the contradictory savagery and tenderness of the soul ‘me’ – the core of ‘being’ – which is born of the rudimentary self of the instinctual passions, in a vain attempt to steer the ship forcefully by infiltrating and arrogating the very necessary will. (Will is the operative thought function of the bodily consciousness). This makes the will’s otherwise smooth functioning problematic ... according to Richard who studied these things experientially.
RESPONDENT: If there is one Will and all follow it, that will be unity for man.
RICHARD: It is apposite that you use ‘if’ ... at the latest count there have been over twelve hundred gods throughout human history. And all gods were immortal.
RESPONDENT: As long as any man seeks to do his own will over the higher will there will always be conflict.
RICHARD: It is not will that is the problem ... it is ‘I’ arrogating control over will that is the spanner in the works. Will is a necessary function of this flesh and blood body ... an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. The ‘I’, as ego – or even the soul as spirit – is not to be confused with will. The bodily needs are what motivates will – and will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function ... not an identity. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the identity is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of the ego and soul – which are born out of instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence. This intelligence is the body’s native intelligence ... and has naught to do with any disembodied ‘Intelligence behind the Universe’. It is a joy to be me going about my business with freed-will in this wonderful physical world. It is only people who, believing themselves to be an identity, that wreak havoc in this otherwise marvellous playground that humans all live on.
RESPONDENT: To know what is right means we must be subject to it, and it is this bone we choke on.
RICHARD: To seek freedom via puerile servitude to some fictitious deity is to blindly perpetuate all the horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time immemorial. Eliminate the subject and all power battles are over and done with. There is no hierarchy here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: I think you are making a serious error here to eliminate the subject of a higher power than yourself. While it is true that if you can eliminate it, you can get rid of inner conflict, you will never get rid of suffering or the horrors of the world this way.
RICHARD: Actually, I did not eliminate the higher power myself ... when ‘I’ and ‘me’ became extinct, the higher power vanished. From this I can draw the only obvious conclusion. To wit: the higher power was but a psychic projection of ‘my’ own self.
The horrors and the suffering of the denizens of the real world continues unabated. It is only in this actual world that there is a total absence of animosity and anguish ... and it is already here for the living of it.
RESPONDENT: There is a hierarchy here in this world and it can be observed within to be so. It is of the utmost importance to see our relationship with this power.
RICHARD: I can agree that there is indeed ‘a hierarchy’ in the real world ... when ‘I’ was in charge of this body ‘I’ observed and it was so. The hierarchy existed ‘within’ also, just as you report. ‘I’ saw ‘my’ relationship with this power ... and self-immolated, psychologically and psychically. Exit ‘me’ in any way, shape or form and exit power in any way, shape and form. ‘I’ was the source of that power.
RESPONDENT: If you have convinced yourself that it does not exist, than it is you who will write your own script, but will it really mean anything in the long run?
RICHARD: Yes, in the long run – maybe in five thousand years – there will be global peace-on-earth. Also, I do not write my own script ... the situation to hand does that quite nicely. In the jargon it is called being the experience of the doing of what is happening.
RESPONDENT: There is no implication that we should not discriminate, just seeing the nature of what takes place.
RICHARD: Do you mean just seeing as in a PCE? Otherwise, it is ‘I’ who is doing the ‘just seeing’.
RESPONDENT: That ‘thinker’ or ‘feeler’ is imputed by thought on the basis of ever-changing thoughts and feelings. If there is a belief in a real ‘thinker’ or ‘feeler’ or some real ‘me’, that just another passing thought. Watching thoughts, feelings, and beliefs all come and go as they do, what can be pointed to as some real ‘thinker’?
RICHARD: The ‘I’ who is doing the ‘watching’ ... that is who can be pointed to as some real ‘thinker’. The belief in a real ‘thinker’ and ‘feeler’ is not ‘just another passing thought’. It is emotion-backed imagination at work. ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. However, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality.
RESPONDENT: The perception of ‘egotistical persons’ seems to involve the labelling process of thought that imputes a ‘person’ on to the observable activities of an ever-changing body/mind.
RICHARD: It is not merely a labelling process; thought does not just ‘impute a ‘person’ on the observable activities’ ... there is indeed an ego – and a soul – operating in that ‘egotistical person’. Hence the egotistical behaviour ... or whatever another displays.
RESPONDENT: Yes. Seeing has nothing to do with an ‘I’.
RICHARD: Okay, I want to go into this very, very carefully, for it is oh-so-easy for the mind to befool itself. Remember what you said towards the beginning of this thread: ‘The dualism of those who see versus those who don’t seems to rely on the same discriminating activity of thought as that of the division between ‘me’ and not ‘me’’?
Now you are saying: ‘seeing has nothing to do with a ‘me’. Could it be that one has fallen foul of that common spiritual trap of the mind splitting off a segment of itself to form a non-judging watcher? Because then one can rightly say that there is ‘just seeing the nature of what takes place’. If this is so, then one is in a state of detachment ... not freed of the ‘me’. This is an impersonal ‘I’ who simply sees thoughts come and go; who simply sees feelings come and go; who simply sees psychic phenomena come and go ... and does not interfere. From this detached position, an ‘I’ is nowhere to be found ... it is ever-elusive. A detached self is still a self, nevertheless.
I say this because you also said towards the beginning of this thread: ‘We can glimpse or think about how the ‘me’ is but a dualistic notion, but still see a distinction between a ‘me’ that knows this as opposed to a ‘me’ that doesn’t. This is a manifestation of the very misconception that was supposedly realised’.
RESPONDENT: Individuality of Richard is the effect of his learning, his environment, etc. and so is mine.
RICHARD: Richard’s idiosyncrasies are ‘the effect of his learning, his environment, etc.’ ... the ‘individuality of Richard’ is the effect of the elimination of all the genetically-inherited instinctual passions ... the extinction of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that is umpteen thousands of years old and carried in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova.
RESPONDENT: The two are not the same: cannot be the same. Even identical twins must be different because they are exposed to different stimuli and hence grow differently.
RICHARD: The study of identical twins certainly demonstrates that differences such as gender, racial and era cultural beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and so on are the result of ‘different stimuli’ ... one such study was of orphaned twins accidentally separated at birth in the immediate post-war Germany: one was sent for adoption in the USA and the other was raised in the West German culture. When re-united in their thirties there was the one who was self-righteously triumphant at winning a just war ... whilst the other carried the self-deprecatory guilt at waging an unjust war. Such superficial studies are used to justify the ‘nurture versus nature’ view-point over the ‘nature versus nurture’ view-point ... but I ask: where in all this is their precious ‘individuality’?
How is any person ‘unique’ when each and every one of the perhaps 10.0 billion human beings – 6.0 billion human beings now living and the maybe 4.0 billion now dead – on this otherwise fair earth that we all live on are all robotically run by being, at root, a ‘self’ born of the same-same instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically endowed by blind nature?
RESPONDENT: So, when you say ‘hence no separation whatsoever’ that is a very general statement, based upon the argument ‘human brain in action in the human skull is the carrots and the beans and the cheese (or whatever food) eaten and the air breathed and the water drunk, then there can never be ‘a separate ‘mind’ (as in separate from this body)’.
RICHARD: It is not a ‘very general statement’ ... it is an exact and easily observable fact. Put it this way: you demonstrate to me that the flesh and blood body (which includes the mind that is the human brain in action in the human skull) that answers to the name <No. 33> came from ‘outside’ this universe and I will sit up and take notice of the observing that you are, presumably, making with the objectivity of a scientist that you are indeed separate from everyone and everything.
RESPONDENT: Human reality, human identity, the brain, the perceiving mind is not just the carrots and beans and cheese eaten: it is a lot more complex and involved phenomena than that.
RICHARD: Yet, physiologically, there is no separation whatsoever between this body and that body or anything ... it is the lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity known as the ‘self’ that feels separate and desires ‘oneness’ with ‘All That Is’ (a super-self by any name) to supposedly end the aching void within.
RICHARD: (...) it is also to no avail to vociferously state, for example, that [quote] ‘‘I’ have NEVER been king of the show’ [endquote] because it is ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), who fundamentally determines behaviour/ appearance by ‘my’ very presence (‘my’ affective vibes/psychic currents are ‘me’). Put succinctly: there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more.
RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it.
RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
RESPONDENT: Are you referring to the instinctual animal passions – the soul – with the ‘much, much more’ in your last sentence?
RICHARD: The soul, or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), is the instinctual passions ... here is one way of putting it: [quote] ‘soul: the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’. (Oxford Dictionary).
RESPONDENT: Has there been any potentially extremely emotional event in your life, since the death of your soul, at which the absence of such instinctual passions or emotions has become apparent?
RICHARD: It does not take a dramatic event as the absence of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto is markedly apparent 24/7 ... there is a peerless purity of such pristine perfection, here in this actual world, which is beyond any identity’s most vivid dreams/ most flamboyant imaginings.
RESPONDENT: Such as the death of a close and beloved (in the days when you still loved) family member or a dear friend?
RICHARD: The affective connections one ‘being’ forms with another ‘being’ – the unity of relationship, the bonds of friendship, the ties of kinship, the union of nuptiality – have no existence in actuality: here in this actual world there is an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event (no separation whatsoever) such as to render the affective oneness of the most beautiful love possible (Love Agapé) a mere bagatelle by comparison.
RESPONDENT: If yes, what was your reaction to and experience of it?
RICHARD: With no ‘being’ in situ to react – and with no affective connection/ unity/ bond/ tie/ union/ oneness extant – nobody’s death diminishes me. Look, the very fact you are asking about extremely emotional events/beloved family members/ dear friends, and the such-like, must surely show you that (for all your justifications elsewhere about the ‘scientific non-existence’ of identity) you are indeed a feeling being and that any and all attempts to intellectually abjure same by thinking you have made the problem of life disappear detracts nothing whatsoever from the reality of whom you instinctually know/intuitively feel yourself to be at the very core of your own existence. Put succinctly: there is much more to who you really are than mere behaviour/appearance-only.
RESPONDENT: Of course I am an emotional human being ...
RICHARD: If I might point out? As I clearly refer to a feeling being (an emotional/ passional entity inhabiting a sensate creature), in the above response to your query about just what the soul is and what effect the absence of same has, and not to a feeling human being (a sensate creature hosting an emotional/ passional entity) your ‘of course’ does not follow-on from anything I wrote but is, rather, indicative of the dissociative train of thought which has been thematic to most, if not all, of your e-mails.
RESPONDENT: ... [of course I am an emotional human being] with passions and brain, heart and mind. The topic of this mail: I can’t conceive how my passions create ‘me’ as ‘being’.
RICHARD: First of all, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions are not something you have or possess – as in your ‘with passions’/ ‘my passions’ phraseology – as you are them/ they are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
Second, the word ‘being’ (be + -ing), in this context, refers to the instinctual feeling of presence – an indubitable intuition of the action or process of being present – as in the affective certitude that you do exist, as that presence (the suffix ‘-ing’ forms a noun from the verb denoting a (subjective) thing involved in an action or process), in that you are the very instinctual/ intuitive presence you instinctually know/ intuitively feel yourself to be at the very core of your own existence.
Third, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not so much create you but, rather, automatically form themselves as you by the very movement or motion of being extant/being in situ (in a process similar to an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water).
RESPONDENT: As I wrote in an earlier email, this piece of actualism still seems like pure spiritualism to me. A ‘vortex’???
RICHARD: This is what I mean by that word:
Why that word has invoked connotations of spiritualism (let alone pure spiritualism) in you has got me beat.
RESPONDENT: But, whilst still awaiting further elucidations about the process of how ‘being’ arises from the passions ...
RICHARD: The feeling of ‘being’ does not so much arise from the genetically-inherited instinctual passions but, rather, forms itself (in a process similar to an eddy forming itself in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water) as the very movement or motion of same being extant/being in situ.
RESPONDENT: ... I’d like to get an experiential insight into the ‘self’/’being’ as that vortex of the passions.
RICHARD: As it is whom you instinctually know/intuitively feel yourself to be, at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’), it is something to be felt out affectively (intuitively).
RESPONDENT: If this a hallucination, I’d like to know how to create it ...
RICHARD: As the difference between imagining and hallucinating is a difference in degree, and not of kind, all you need to do is to .. (a) imaginatively feel that who you are at the very core of your own existence (the soul as the seat of the emotions or sentiments) is an immortal being ... and (b) add a dash of faith, a sprinkling of hope, a modicum of trust, a soupçon of belief, a splash of certitude ... and then (c) stir thoroughly before baking under a slow heat until crusty.
RESPONDENT: ... if it’s a reality, I’d like to know how to perceive it.
RICHARD: In a word: affectively (rather than cognitively).
RESPONDENT: In case you’ll tell me that for this I need to have a PCE (...)
RICHARD: No, all what is required is to get out of your head (the cogitations) and into your heart (the affections) – specifically down past the superficial feelings (the emotions) into the deeper feelings (the passions) – and start feeling it out, for yourself and by yourself, as yourself.
RESPONDENT: In case you’ll tell me that it’s all obvious in a PCE (...)
RICHARD: No, all what is required is to focus less upon the conceptional – as in your [quote] ‘I can’t conceive how ...’ [endquote] phrasing further above – and more on the experienceable.
RESPONDENT: (...) whilst still awaiting further elucidations about the process of how ‘being’ arises from the passions ...
RICHARD: The feeling of ‘being’ does not so much arise from the genetically-inherited instinctual passions but, rather, forms itself (in a process similar to an eddy forming itself in currents of air/a whirlpool forming itself in currents of water) as the very movement or motion of same being extant/being in situ.
RESPONDENT: ... I’d like to get an experiential insight into the ‘self’/’being’ as that vortex of the passions.
RICHARD: As it is whom you instinctually know/ intuitively feel yourself to be, at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’), it is something to be felt out affectively (intuitively).
RESPONDENT: If this a hallucination, I’d like to know how to create it ...
RICHARD: As the difference between imagining and hallucinating is a difference in degree, and not of kind, all you need to do is to ... (a) imaginatively feel that who you are at the very core of your own existence (the soul as the seat of the emotions or sentiments) is an immortal being ...
RESPONDENT: This hallucination of imaginative feeling, to me, is what defines spiritualism. Would a non-human animal also imaginatively feel the seat of its emotions or sentiments to be an immortal being?
RICHARD: What the primary requisite is, in order for a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter – to imaginatively feel itself to be an immortal being, is self-consciousness and although there is some evidence to demonstrate that chimpanzees (and maybe even dolphins) are thus aware of being a self, distinctly so and separate from other selves, it is not necessarily conclusive.
The secondary requisite is, of course, being capable of having that imaginative feeling cross the line into being an hallucinatory intuition ... namely: the ability to believe (to have faith), to hope (to have trust), and to have certitude (be capable of delusion).
Over and above all those requisites, however, is the essential ingredient: the fore-knowledge of death’s inevitability ... and, as the archaeological/ palaeontological evidence to date shows that homo sapiens did not have that apprehension until about 50-70,000 years after sapience, it is apparent that non-sapient animals do not have that capacity.
RESPONDENT: ... Would a non-human animal also imaginatively feel the seat of its emotions or sentiments to be an immortal being?
RICHARD: What the primary requisite is, in order for a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter – to imaginatively feel itself to be an immortal being, is self-consciousness and although there is some evidence to demonstrate that chimpanzees (and maybe even dolphins) are thus aware of being a self, distinctly so and separate from other selves, it is not necessarily conclusive. The secondary requisite is, of course, being capable of having that imaginative feeling cross the line into being an hallucinatory intuition ... namely: the ability to believe (to have faith), to hope (to have trust), and to have certitude (be capable of delusion). Over and above all those requisites, however, is the essential ingredient: the fore-knowledge of death’s inevitability ... and, as the archaeological/ palaeontological evidence to date shows that homo sapiens did not have that apprehension until about 50-70,000 years after sapience, it is apparent that non-sapient animals do not have that capacity.
RESPONDENT: So non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’ ...
RICHARD: If I might interject? What animals in general (other than chimpanzees, that is, and maybe even dolphins) lack is self-consciousness – the awareness of being a self (distinctly so and separate from other selves) – and not the instinctual/intuitive feeling of presence that they do indeed exist, as that presence, in that they are the very instinctual/intuitive presence they instinctually/ intuitively feel themselves to be at the very core of their existence.
The word ‘being’, in this context, is but another way of referring to that very instinctual/intuitive feeling of presence (an instinctual/intuitive feeling of being) – albeit a rudimentary affective ‘self’ (aka ‘being’) inasmuch it is an inchoate/ elementary presence, an amorphous/ embryonic feeler, a nebulous/incipient intuiter – as the suffix ‘-ing’, forming a noun from the verb ‘be’, denotes a (subjective) thing involved in an action or process.
And the action or process, in this instance, is the very movement or motion of the instinctual survival passions.
RESPONDENT: ... [non-sapient animals lack that ‘being’] and, consequently, the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me ...
RICHARD: It was your [quote] ‘consequently’ [endquote] which occasioned my interjectory explication as it is as a consequence of the lack of self-consciousness that animals, in general, also lack a distinct and separate affective ‘self’/‘being’.
RESPONDENT: ... [the ‘alien identity’ which inhabits me] and makes that my perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality ...
RICHARD: If I might again interject? All animals are at least once-removed from actuality (in the perceptive process sensitive perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary).
RESPONDENT: ... [my perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality] because they are mediated by ‘it’ ...
RICHARD: Again, your perceptions are at least once-removed from actuality because of the way the perceptive process works (per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival package).
RESPONDENT: ... while in Actual Freedom perceptions are immediate, the identity having abdicated, altruistically self-immolated?
RICHARD: The altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto, which enables an actual freedom from the human condition, *is* the extirpation of the entire affective faculty – which of course includes its intuitive/psychic facility – as the extinction of the one is the (simultaneous) extinction of the other ... ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.
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.