Richard’s Selected Correspondence
Re: Humanity: My God
RICK: I do not know how much longer you will be communicating on this board, Richard, so I wish to grasp the opportunity while there still seems to be one to converse with you about an issue or two that’s been bugging me as of late.
I am beginning to realize who and what God is for me personally.
It seems that society, humanity, and its various and particular individuals have dominance and authority and power over me. I desire to please these people, gain their graces, get their approval. I feel so good-and-high when I accomplish that (a yummy carrot). I live in constant, living fear of falling from their graces, or not being good enough (a painful stick). These people have power over my sense of self-worth, my pride (why do I need to have a sense of self-worth in the first place?), they have power over my sense of shame and embarrassment. My sense of security and insecurity is in their hands. I have given them the power. I don’t know when I did because it seems as if they have always had it ... since my earliest memories.
Feelings of duty, responsibility, obligation, loyalty, shame, pride, superiority, inferiority, security, insecurity, lust, beauty, anger, fear, tenderness, family, friendship, community, love, union, terror, terror, and more terror ... can be traced to the relation- ship I have with my fellow human beings. I also suffer from the pining and longing for and missing those beautiful feelings that are the result of relationship.
I want to end, for good and totally and completely, this relation-ship. This relationship with my fellow human beings is not and has never been a healthy one. (why this pervading need/instinct to maintain at all costs this relationship?) My relationship with my fellow humans is the cause of so much strife, and conflict, and disharmony. (I have to go now for powerful feelings of duty, responsibility, and obligation are welling up inside me ... driving my every move). [Addendum]: While it is fresh in my head, there are a couple other very related aspects of Humanity that really fucks with me: The power or authority and submission or surrender aspect of humanity as well as the offense and insult and flattery and adulation aspect.
Are those directly tied to my relationship with humanity ... or do those go deeper? To put it another way, if I were to release myself from the psychic ties that bond our species, would power and submission and flattery and offense disappear?
I am tired of the power plays that I submit to and I am tired of the feeling of compassion I have for others submitting to power plays brought on from myself and/or others. I am tired of being an adulation-fiend and am tired of the fear of and pain of insult and offense and the resulting hurt to my ego. I am tired of being superior or inferior to my fellow human being. I am tired of submitting to this Powerful Force that rules with fear yet soothes with its lying security. All this psychic shit has just got to go ... Got to go. I can’t enjoy and delight in my surroundings when I have this God Authority pushing me around with it’s iron fist.
Am I making any sense? Humanity has got me by the balls and it’s not letting go. I can’t, as of now, find a successful way to abandon this abusive relationship (a relationship where I am both the abused and the abusing). There is a vague fear of being tortured and/or killed or institutionalized for psychically turning my back on Humanity and its inhabitants ... Not to mention ostracized (I won’t get to eat those yummy, addictive carrots no more). Maybe I am too crazy, too human, too animal, too evil, too immature to break free yet from Big Daddy and Mommy and go off on my own. All are welcome to comment, add, or share ... and all are welcome to ignore and discard without compassion and/ or sympathy.
RICHARD: G’day Rick, As the operative-word in all the above is ‘self-worth’ (and self- worth as derived from others’ opinion at that) perhaps a personal anecdote may be of assistance.
(If nothing else it will provide some light relief/ entertainment).
Many years ago, back when I was a normal bloke and making my living as a practising artist, a minor art gallery in a major city approached me with a proposition to stage a one-man exhibition of my idiosyncratic ceramic work – with the selection to be entirely of my own choice – complete with metropolis-wide advertising, an opening night with the usual razzamatazz (wine and cheese, etc.), invitations to various art-critics, quite liberal terms of commission, and a guaranteed-to-be-exclusive three-week run.
I was a big frog in a small provincial pond, at the time, and this was an opportunity to be a small frog in a large urban pond – to put one foot on the bottom rung of a potential ladder of national success – so the rather generous offer with its opportune entrée into the inner-city art establishment was readily accepted and a firm date was set for three months hence.
Without any thought at all it was obvious to me the exhibition would comprise entirely of fresh pieces – even though there was already more than enough high quality items at hand (which the art gallery had in mind) – as that way a cohesive body of work, with a yet to be discovered theme, would bring about the integrity necessary to carry the day.
Now, with ceramics there is normally a five-to-six week lead-in time (due to the process of making, carving, drying, first-firing, glazing, decorating, and second-firing) yet the days became weeks until, despite the frequent reminders and promptings of my then-wife, only three weeks remained before the big night.
And three weeks was the absolute minimum time-span; if the eighty-odd pieces were not formed today then the afore- mentioned hodgepodge stock-at-hand would have to be pressed into service.
Not that the art-gallery would mind, of course, but I would.
For most of the morning I wedged, kneaded and balled the highest quality (the most-aged and ripened) clay from my extensive stocks of hand-dug and hand-mixed local clays; it was one of those quite marvellous days of lightly overcast skies and a gentle, misty rain; there was no wind at all, not even the slightest zephyr of a breeze; the quietly gleaming hand-made copper kettle was sitting, steaming gently atop the cheery pot-bellied stove in my studio; music from a nowadays-superseded four-track cartridge player was piping through all its strategically placed speakers; the dank, swampy aroma of the well-matured clay was filling the nostrils as it began to bounce elastically beneath my well-practiced kneading hands; and soon all was well, within my world, as any and all stress from time-pressure softly ebbed away.
Settling myself onto my home-made pottery wheel, and kicking it into action, I swiftly and easily formed a few small throwaway pieces so as to get my hand in.
Then, without any further ado, I reached for the first of the eighty- odd different-sized balls of finely-prepared clay; dropping it onto the still slowing-turning wheel-head I kicked up the momentum of the heavy wheel beneath my feet; moistening my hands in the bowls of warm, muddy water to either side I then centred the clay ball and began throwing the first of the many individual pieces which would eventually comprise the whole.
Being well-dug, well-prepared, well-aged, well-wedged and well- kneaded the clay, whilst supremely elastic, was taut and springy beneath the hands; there would be no slumping, no sagging, no bulging, just this easy pulling up to maximum height; just this graceful setting of bellied form; just this elegant rolling of lip just this effortless forming of the base; just this ready pass of the cutting thread detaching it from the wheel-head; just this gentle placing of it on the ready-to-hand shelf-tray nearby; just this regular reaching for the next ball; just this easy kicking keeping the momentum rolling.
Upon placing the third or fourth newly-formed piece alongside its predecessors, and whilst reaching for the next ball, it is evident the clouds are clearing a trifle; the sun is shining fitfully through a gap onto the translucent full-height screens immediately to the front; some chickens are clucking and scratching around in the ground just beyond them; ducks are quacking and nosing into the mud of the small pond nearby; off in the near-distance the pigs are snorting and snuffling for roots; one of the goats is bleating; a couple of the geese are honking; and ... and a by-now-familiar and oh-so-subtle shift is occurring in the brain-stem.
All-of-a-sudden there is a vast stillness – there is absolutely no movement of time – and in that perfect peace the piece of pottery is making itself.
The foot is kicking the massive wheel of its own accord; the hands are dipping themselves into the warm, muddy water; the eyes are eying the bellied form all on their own; the hands, one on the inside and the other on the outside just below the former, are gently coaxing the perfect shape without command (or is the perfect form gently coaxing the hands to its bidding); and the whole world – nay, the entire universe, itself – is a magical fairytale-like wonder- land where nothing, but nothing, ever ultimately goes wrong.
And then, with the sun sinking spectacularly in the west behind banked clouds, the one-hundredth pot has made itself (so much for the planned eighty-odd) and the one-man exhibition is in the bag ... guaranteed to be a fantastic success.
It is now three weeks later: all the pieces have been carved, dried, first-fired, glazed, decorated, second-fired, packed, transported, unpacked and selectively placed upon their pedestals in the major city art gallery.
It is opening night and the place is packed with peoples from many walks of life; all milling around, glasses in hand, seeing and being seen. Being the star of the show I am, accordingly, a trifle late in arriving (as is the fashion). With orange juice in hand I mix and mingle; a word or two here; a tilt of the head there; a small chat here; a wink and a grin there; a murmured response here; and all the while noticing those little red stickers appearing, first on this piece, then on that piece, more on those pieces, until almost every single piece is snapped-up.
It is shaping up to be a sell-out ... and all on opening night!
The curator is tapping on his glass, calling for attention, and the speechifying begins; soon it is my turn to speak and every eye is turned toward me, every ear is listening to me, everybody’s rapt attention is directed towards the ... well, towards the star of the show, of course.
But I am not the star of the show – the pieces made themselves, remember, back in that magical wonderland – and yet all of the accolades, all of the applause, all of the (yes) adulation, is centred solely upon me.
It was at that moment I understood something so profound it is permanently etched into the memory banks ... to wit: I did not and could not value their collective/ individual opinions one iota, one jot, for they knew not of what they spoke.
And even if they were to be told, that the pieces magically made themselves, they would lavish praise for being so gifted/ so blessed/ so whatever.
Moreover, they did not, and would not ever, comprehend that the esteem they bestowed so lavishly slid straight off me like that proverbial water off a duck’s back ... as, at that very moment, self-esteem and all its associated vanity and humility vanished out of my life forever, never to return, even unto this very day.
RESPONDENT: I’m retracting my post about personality. I came to my own conclusion that personality is relative. Aristotle said that personality is nothing but the actions taken my a protagonist.
RICHARD: Whereas what personality, or character, really is has more to do with traits, quirks, idiosyncrasies, features, peculiarities, flavours, mannerisms, gestures, and so on, which develop over the years (on top of the nature/ disposition one is born with) than with what actions a protagonist may or may not take.
RESPONDENT: I am upside down the last couple of days. Socializing has become very different. I don’t know what to focus on as I’m marvelling at the sensations and associated feelings/ thoughts.
RICHARD: The thing to focus upon, each moment again and regardless of events, is one’s goal ... and the requisite pure intent to have that come about.
RESPONDENT: It’s like an ASC because if I’m talking to someone I can’t escape the ‘magical insanity’ of having my nerves innervate/ coordinate so much at once. Even when I’m by myself, which is easier but lonely, I’m in shock and awe. Reading a book I could stay on one word or letter and not be able to proceed without switching off the magical insanity that my brain understands the tiny, black print.
I’m desperate here.
RICHARD: In which case it is handy to remember that desperation is a feeling and, like all feelings of that ilk (such as anxiety/ panic attacks), as such it never goes anywhere ... provided, that is, one does not act upon it.
In other words, by keeping one’s hands in one’s pockets, such feelings amount to zilch ... they are much ado about nothing.
As for the ‘magical insanity’ itself: is it not amazing that not only is all this (life, the universe, and everything) happening but that one has the marvellous ability to (simultaneously) be aware of being aware of it all whilst it is occurring?
Moreover, is it not truly a cause for wonderment that one can thus share experience, compare notes as it were, with one’s fellow human being?
RESPONDENT: I usually refrain from posting my doubts and fears as up until now I have been able to come to a conclusion on my own. But I feel myself at a critical point. I feel like I’m living a character for the sake of my intimates.
RICHARD: By preceding it with that indefinite article/ determiner you are using the word character (aka personality) in a different sense there ... for example:
Incidentally, the word identity can also be used to indicate the assemblage of qualities or characteristics which makes a person a distinctive individual/ the collective peculiarities or qualities distinctive of an individual – inasmuch it is used to indicate a set of collective characteristics by which a person can be known (as in the phrase ‘public identity’ for instance) and/or a set of behavioural characteristics by which a person can be definitely recognisable – and is not to be confused with the way it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site/ The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list to refer to the emotional/ passional entity/ being within (the ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’).
RESPONDENT: I mean, how does an actualist refrain from talking about actuality all of the time when it applies so importantly to every single situation?
RICHARD: For what it is worth I do recall going through a period where, when not even speaking and even when on my own, it was not possible to cease making a moment-to-moment commentary ... to the point that the very noticing of that ceaseless commentary occurring became yet more commentary (yet another commentary layered on top of the commentary itself).
RESPONDENT: Richard, couldn’t we be hypnotizing ourselves to believe that we are only our senses?
RESPONDENT: The novelty of the quest you propose here is that the Self is also to vanish (or not to arise altogether), and you say that the method for this to happen is by deleting the instinctual program (and thus avoiding the ‘trap’ of enlightenment when deleting only the self-social construct with the instinctual passions left intact).
RICHARD: The ‘social construct’ part of what you describe as the ‘self-social construct’ is what I call the social identity ... it is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within (anybody who is or has been a parent will know that it is considered the parents’ duty to instil cultural values in their off-spring).
The identity within is a two-part identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) and enlightenment is when the ego-self collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (whereupon there is a rapid expansion of identity until it becomes All That Is, or Self, God, Truth, Being, That, Suchness, Isness and so on and so on) ... whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when the identity in toto becomes extinct.
As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’ then altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is the deletion of the instinctual passions ... in other words you cannot delete ‘the instinctual programme’ without deleting yourself.
RESPONDENT: I must confess that it sounds logical and sane enough.
RICHARD: Okay ... one starts where one is at: the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason.
It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount.
RESPONDENT: And a few more questions ... what was the difference in experiencing sleep when enlightened compared to your actual present state of consciousness?
RESPONDENT: Richard, if I were to knock-knock on your brain there will be no-one to answer, let alone your heart?
RICHARD: My previous companion would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with.
She would also say that Richard does nor support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also (correctly) reported this absence of consideration.
Put simply: I am unable to support some-one who does not exist (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world).
RESPONDENT: And from what stuff are we made of (our identities) anyhow that it cannot be determined by any magnetic scanning?
RICHARD: Primarily the identity within is the affections (the affective feelings) – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as the instinctual passions form themselves into a ‘presence’, a ‘spirit’, a ‘being’ ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself.
MRI scans, and all the rest, cannot detect a phantom being, the ghost in the machine.
RESPONDENT: Are we as Shakespeare put it ‘... such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep’?
RICHARD: No ... put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself.
Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle ... hence the word ‘void’.
RESPONDENT: Please feel free to reply to the whole post, if your views do not fundamentally differ from Peter’s.
RICHARD: This part of your initial post seemed to be addressed to me:
First, it is not a question of whether I am ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ – I am simply describing what is actual – as my communications are expressed in a way which give a clear description of the direct experiencing of being this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and this report is a factual account.
That which is actual is neither right nor wrong: it is evident.
A fact cannot be argued with ... it can only be reported. For example, if I were to say ‘this glass and plastic object you are reading these words on is a computer monitor’ I am reporting a fact which cannot be argued with (without being silly. And when I say ‘this is a computer monitor’ no one talks about ‘a lack of consideration’. No way ... Richard only has ‘a lack of consideration’ when he points out a fact that pulls the rug from under another’s elaborate belief system slyly dressed up as truth and masquerading as being genuine, authentic and valid.
It is the fact which pulls the rug ... not me.
Second, the ‘lack of personal ‘touch’ in our email exchange’ which you were quite irritated by is easily explained: if you were to knock-knock at this brain there would be no-one there to answer ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out.
You may find this exchange helpful:
In all fairness to my previous companion it must be remembered that the person she met, and initially formed an (undying) relationship with, was an enlightened being – she was showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and not this actual Richard ... whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss).
Third, as ‘qualia’ (qualities) are sourced in properties – and not in the perceiver as some peoples contend – it is the percepts, and all the feeling memories associated with the percepts, which prevent the direct experiencing ... actual values are derived from qualities.
Lastly, I am a strict teetotaller – I do not take any mood enhancing or mind altering drugs at all – as even caffeine (a chemical cousin to cocaine) has a psychotropic effect. Back when I was a normal person a fine port after a meal was my favourite tipple – these days I thoroughly enjoy a short black (decaffeinated) instead – and a sparkling apple-juice in a stemmed glass satisfies the social occasion admirably.
RESPONDENT: As identifications below the level of conscious thought are exposed and fall away, there is a sense of attention sinking into the centre of the body or the mid-section so that observation stems from there.
RICHARD: Yes, the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is but a generic term as, for just one example, the Japanese use of the word ‘hara’ or ‘hari’ (which translates as ‘belly’) serves to locate the centre of attention, the core of ‘being’ itself, more precisely as being four finger-widths below the navel ... the everyday English equivalent would be the common expression ‘gut-feeling’ (when referring to an intuitive hunch).
Another way of saying it is that there are the more superficial feelings (emotional) and that there are the deeper feelings (passionate) and that the emotions are what one has and that the passions are who one is.
RESPONDENT: There the psyche has space for something new to enter in perception that is outside the field of the known.
RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, where ‘being’ is all there is ... truth reveals itself, unsolicited.
RESPONDENT: It is not localized in its operation to any particular part of the psyche.
RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is the psyche itself (albeit centreless).
RESPONDENT: There are no attachments or identifications and that attention/energy has unlimited space.
RICHARD: The following paragraph speaks for itself:
All the while you have been speaking of being ‘freed of identification with even an aspect of the known’ I have been speaking of identification as the unknown ... and where you say that ‘identity is not in the known’ but that ‘true identity lies in the energy of creative intelligence’ leaves no room for misunderstanding.
RESPONDENT No. 4: ... there is an inside as anyone who has mediated has experienced. K on meditation said: ‘First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe. (...) First of all sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax, I will show you. Now, look at the trees, at the hills, the shape of the hills, look at them, look at the quality of their colour, watch them. Do not listen to me. Watch and see those trees, the yellowing trees, the tamarind, and then look at the bougainvillea. Look not with your mind but with your eyes. After having looked at all the colours, the shape of the land, of the hills, the rocks, the shadow, then go from the outside to the inside and close your eyes, close your eyes completely. You have finished looking at the things outside, and now with your eyes closed you can look at what is happening inside’. – Pg 22, 36; ‘K on education’. Go further and the inner and outer dissolve and there is only awareness.
RICHARD: Yet when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does ‘go further’ he says the following words (also on page 36): [quote]: ‘Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed. (Page 36, ‘K on Education’). Do you see that where you say ‘go further and the inner and outer dissolve’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that where you say ‘and there is only awareness’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the observer is the observed’? Furthermore, upon reading what ‘the inside’ is (because ‘the outside’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert inside is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? Or, to put that another way, upon reading what ‘the observer’ is (because ‘the observed’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not?
RESPONDENT: Yes, I would say that it is an unambiguous statement. The way I see it is that when there is no inside (no observer) then the outside (observed) is the inside.
RICHARD: Ahh ... where there is no inside (‘no observer’ ) is there an outside? Or, to put that another way, does not the presence of an inside create an outside?
Which means that there may just be the possibility that the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on all exist in their own right ... and that a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer fully engaged in being the observed (as in ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’) is nothing other than more chicanery on the part of an ‘inside’ fixated upon being a presence come what may.
An impersonalised identification is still identification, is it not?
RESPONDENT: I think I see your point here. I agree that the trees, hills, rocks, etc. exist in their own right without the observer.
RICHARD: Yes, if nothing else palaeontology evidences that the physical world existed prior to human beings (in other words it exists in its own right) which establishes a firm basis in regards to determining what is fact and what is fancy.
RESPONDENT: You also seem to be saying that it is chicanery for the observer to claim to be the observed which is still identification even though impersonalised.
RICHARD: In the context of being the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on ... yes (an impersonalised possessiveness is still possessiveness when all is said and done).
RESPONDENT: What I am trying to say is that without an identity inside (observer) then there is only the trees, rocks, etc.
RICHARD: Okay ... going the one step further: where there is no ‘identity inside (observer)’ is there an inside (other than heart, lungs, liver and so on of course)? And in this (impersonalised) context I am using the word ‘inside’ as being synonymous with ‘being’ itself ... otherwise known as ‘presence’.
RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. Arguing one culture’s ideals over another culture’s ideals is a distraction away from the real culprit.
RESPONDENT: The parasite assumes the identity we think of as ‘me’, through which it lives and acts at the expense of the host. The host in return seeks victims in order to retrieve a sense of autonomy and lost power, which in reality is done in service to the foreign identity. That which we think of as the ‘me’ is the ‘it’.
RICHARD: Sometimes in deep despair and desperation the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body involuntarily splits off the dark side of itself and anthropomorphises it ... the resultant magnification of its malice and sorrow into an horrific being existing independently of itself is so terrifying that a splitting off the light side of itself, and the anthropomorphising of this antidotal love and compassion out of desperate hope and despairing faith, happens coincidently and with awesome consequences (the flip side of dread is awe) as the two aggrandised beings engage in a titanic battle for supremacy.
RESPONDENT: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion.
RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’).
RESPONDENT: ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ is a simple observable fact – observer is the observed!
RICHARD: As the ‘observer’ you refer to is an illusion how on earth can such an identification be observable as a fact? Only further illusions – or delusions such as ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ – can be observable by an illusion.
Maybe you were meaning ‘truth’ and inadvertently wrote ‘fact’ instead?
RESPONDENT: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core.
RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects.
RESPONDENT: Within the realms of causality and temporality things are rotten and non-rotten. For example, dependence on chemicals, anger, violence, etc. are rotten while a wholesome, serene and a healthy life are not-rotten.
RICHARD: I am using the word ‘rotten’ in the sense of ‘corrupt’ and/or ‘tainted’, of course, and there is nothing of that description here in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – as nothing illusional or delusional can get in.
The realms you describe sound like the pits.
RESPONDENT: I am referring to a realm that is beyond causality and temporality – in that realm, there is nothing that is rotten or non-rotten.
RICHARD: As that realm is the projection of a rotten illusion it is a rotten realm ... so rotten, in fact, that it has deluded you into viewing all the wars and deaths and so on as an illusion. Vis.:
To say that ‘all this is but illusion’ demonstrates a blatant lack of engagement in being here on this verdant and azure planet now ... and maybe the best way to show that such estrangement is a sickness would be to suggest that you try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone whose fellow human has just been murdered; try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who has just been tortured; try telling that to someone on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to someone who is the victim of child abuse; try telling that to someone who is sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide.
More specifically: if your daughter or mother or grandmother or sister was being raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘all this is but illusion’ ?
RESPONDENT: There is no core even.
RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche.
RESPONDENT: Brahma has no existence outside or inside of the human psyche.
RICHARD: As what the word ‘existence’ can mean is easily equated with what the word ‘ubiety’ means it would be more useful for the purposes of communication to rephrase what I wrote above. Vis.:
No core means that Brahma has no presence outside of the human psyche.
RESPONDENT: That which is beyond existence is Brahma.
RICHARD: As the illusory core is an illusory presence your connotative point is a moot point ... and going beyond an illusory presence and being a delusory presence instead only magnifies its rottenness (as is evidenced by your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on).
A dissociated presence can only deal with abstractions.
RESPONDENT: The core isn’t this infinitude either ...
RICHARD: Oh? What does ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ mean to you, then?
RESPONDENT: ... nor the universe.
RICHARD: As the ‘infinitude’ you speak of is a delusory infinitude this physical universe is certainly not that ... this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is an actual infinitude.
RESPONDENT: The core, like Brahma, doesn’t exist. Try peeling an orange to get to the core. It doesn’t exist! Same with the human beings – there is no ‘core’: just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’.
RICHARD: I am adaptable enough in this instance to use your terminology if doing so will assist communication: in the same way that there is no core – just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’ – there is no Brahma: just a bunch of delusions that masquerade as ‘Brahma’.
And a rotten bunch of delusions they are, too.
RESPONDENT: In summary: the core – like Brahma – is neither rotten nor non-rotten and it doesn’t exist.
RICHARD: Despite your ‘neither-nor’ avowal the evidence of the rottenness of Brahma’s presence is plain to see in its rotten effects ... I am, of course, referring once again to your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on.
RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion.
RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’).
RESPONDENT No. 33: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core.
RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects.
RESPONDENT No. 33: There is no core even.
RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche.
RESPONDENT: If we believe there is a rotten core we make efforts to chip away at it and remove it. If we see directly that in fact there is no core, there is no effort to sustain what is really illusion.
RICHARD: As one can only ‘see directly that in fact there is no core’ when that coreless condition is actually happening – else the word ‘directly’ is being misused – the remainder of your sentence is irrelevant ... because then there is no illusory identity in situ to either sustain itself or not sustain itself (be it with or without effort).
Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway.
RICHARD: Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway. As will any other advice you may come up with.
RESPONDENT: The confusion is one of establishing identity in psychological time. That confusion may actually be occurring but that doesn’t mean there ever was a separate entity in time. Is the observer really separate from the observed? No.
RICHARD: Here the presence of the corrupting seer – the identity who is that ‘confusion’ (despite trying to redefine it out of existence further above) – becomes even more evident than what your ‘separate identity’ and ‘fragmented consciousness’ phraseology displayed. Not only has the coupling of the word ‘separate’, to what was initially a stand-alone identity/entity, crept in twice – thus implying divided from or split off from something as yet unnamed – but the implication of divided from or split off from also contained in the word ‘fragmented’ has been adroitly established by coupling it with what was heretofore a stand-alone consciousness as well. Thus with the stage comfortably set up to produce the desired result ... now comes the blatant identification of the seer (aka the observer) with the seen (aka the observed).
This is but a hop, skip and a jump away from realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom ... which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion.
RESPONDENT: All at once the division ends and truth or the other which is undivided is realized.
RICHARD: Did you notice that what ends is the division (aka the separation) and not the identity itself ... and that an undivided identity is still an identity nevertheless?
RESPONDENT: Ok, I think I understand what you are saying: The instinctual passions are genetically inherited and have a perception of self which becomes the feeling of self.
RICHARD: No, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not have a perception of self ... what they do is usurp the sensate perception of self and create the feeling of ‘self’.
RESPONDENT: It is the feeling of self (‘me’/soul/core) which is illusory which gives rise to the ‘I’/ego or thinker. In other words, the instinctual passions are genetically inherited and they give rise to the illusion of the ‘me’ and the ‘I’.
RICHARD: Exactly, and what is vital to comprehend is that the feeler is primary and the thinker is secondary ... and that the thinker is but the tip of the iceberg.
I kid you not ... the feeler automatically creates its own feeling reality, usurping sensate actuality as already explained, which reality is so all-pervasive that it is only in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that this actual world becomes apparent.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that in order to eliminate the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the instinctual passions themselves have to be eliminated ...
RICHARD: No ... and the reason why not is this simple: who would be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions? As ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ it is an impossibility because the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’).
Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ and so on – and has repressed the others.
RESPONDENT: ... and in order to do that the layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to be peeled back in order to uncover the raw instinctual passions?
RICHARD: In the end, only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, will release the flesh and blood body from its parasitical resident and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the end of ‘me’ is the end of ‘my’ feelings (aka the instinctual passions and all their cultivated derivations).
Of course, one does not psychologically and psychically self-immolate just because it seems like a good idea at the time. It requires a rather curious decision to be made – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – as it is a once-in-a-lifetime determination and takes some considerable preparation.
So, in the meantime, what one can do is choose to be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible each moment again – the means to the end are not different from the end – and with this pure intent, as one goes about one’s normal everyday life, each moment again provides an opportunity to find out what is preventing one from living in the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE).
RESPONDENT: The layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ consisting of beliefs and identity.
RICHARD: Well, as the word ‘identity’ is used to delineate the entity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), it is clearer to say that the layers of identity consist of, not only beliefs, but all the rest of what constitutes identity. Asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive will incrementally reveal what ‘all the rest’ is made up of ... and of particular importance is the beliefs masquerading as truths.
RESPONDENT: There is an interchange between Richard and a respondent in Emotions, Passions, and Calentures where Richard says ‘You are not Jewish, by any chance are you, answering a question with a question?’ Is that an example of someone ‘devoid of feelings who has the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ from Richard’s own words several paragraphs later. He goes on with ‘if there is insufficient information I can certainly form an opinion, or make an interpretation but then I will clearly state this is only an opinion or an interpretation when I speak about it’. Is this an example of someone devoid of an identity? Is this a benign non-malicious form of humour as what Richard claims in his own right?
RICHARD: Here is the interchange in question:
It will be seen that it was a rhetorical question – when faced with an often used debating technique – designed to draw attention to the fact that my co-respondent had not answered my entirely sensible query regarding the typical spiritual practice of detachment. I had some time previously watched a television documentary of religious students in a Jewish Yeshiva (an orthodox Jewish college or seminary; a Talmudic academy) who were trained to debate their religious scriptures, and the commentaries on their scriptures, in this very manner – a manner which, if my memory serves me correctly, is also used by the Tibetan Monks in their seminaries – and also discovered that it was a time-honoured technique.
I have had literally thousands of exchanges with many, many people on the subject of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being and quite often it becomes apparent that the other person would rather debate than discuss. If you read through all my e-mail exchanges you will find more than a few examples of me endeavouring to shift the exchange from argumentation to dialogue.
As for ‘the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ ... I am quite ecumenical in my endeavours because at other times I have pointed out to peoples that I discuss these issues with that they are quibbling over trivialities like an Hindu Pundit or hypocritically disputing the issue like a Born-Again Christian and so on.
Lastly, it is certainly not funny so any attempt to ascertain whether it be ‘a benign non-malicious form of humour’ or not is besides the point.
RESPONDENT: I wonder if the readers of this site realize that when Richard glowingly puts up his diagnosis by psychiatrists of psychosis and depersonalisation that this is not a light fickle assessment.
RICHARD: I was not aware that I was ‘glowingly’ putting up the psychiatrist’s diagnosis ... are you sure you are not reading something into it here that simply does not exist outside of your imagination?
RESPONDENT: This is a very serious affliction which is encompassed by delusions of thinking oneself to ‘not exist or to be perfect’.
RICHARD: You apparently know more about the matter of depersonalisation than the psychiatrists I consulted as neither of them ever said to me that I had delusions of thinking myself to ‘not exist or to be perfect’ ... can you provide the source from which you obtained this quote?
RESPONDENT: Does anyone see how analogous this is to thinking oneself is Christ or Napoleon?
RICHARD: No ... such delusions of grandeur as you refer to here are in a different category entirely to depersonalisation.
RESPONDENT: If the individual alone can claim they have no identity, and uses whatever ‘pretzel logic’ to refute any evidence to the contrary ...
RICHARD: I am not familiar with the term ‘pretzel logic’ so I will assume it means ‘twisted logic’ (and please correct me if I am in error) and thus ask you to provide some substance to your allegation. I will proffer the following exchange for your consideration:
Now I ask you ... where is the ‘pretzel logic’ in this exchange?
RESPONDENT: ... even though in their writings it is evident that they have particular tastes, preferences, & judgements and assess situations all unique to a ‘person’ with an identity!!
RICHARD: Indeed I have ‘particular tastes, preferences, & judgements and assess situations’ ... how does that demonstrate that there is an identity inhabiting this body? You may be interested to read the following:
RESPONDENT: Richard has talked of he alone being in this state or non-state devoid of ego or soul. Now since he is supposedly doesn’t want followers or financial support I guess the whole matter is more or less benign. Yet that shouldn’t preclude the ability to question him even when you show evidence to the contrary.
RICHARD: Indeed not ... when you get around to providing the ‘evidence to the contrary’ I will be very interested to read it.
RESPONDENT: A person can clearly choose to ignore whatever they don’t care to address, even when it is evident in their own verbiage.
RICHARD: If you will provide the evidence I will be only too happy to address your concerns.
RESPONDENT: If Richard chooses to ignore or be oblivious to the fact that he has an identity, does that mean that everyone should also pretend that they don’t see, that the ‘Emperor has no clothes’.
RICHARD: Yet I am not choosing to ignore anything of the sort – nor am I oblivious to it – as this is an experiential matter ... again I will draw your attention to the following exchange:
RESPONDENT: If you read the writings you can clearly see evidence where he calls things nonsensical ...
RICHARD: Aye, if something someone states is nonsense then I will say so ... I make no claims of being politically correct.
RESPONDENT: ... dismisses things that don’t align with his worldview ...
RICHARD: Where it is a matter of an actual freedom from the human condition I do not have a ‘worldview’ ... I simply provide a report from direct experience.
RESPONDENT: ... and clearly has less than benign or delicate commentary on anything that is in contrast to his pronouncements.
RESPONDENT: I had a friend who constantly use to tell me rather argumentatively that she also had ‘no identity’. I would query, ‘then who is arguing so adamantly for their particular point of view’. She was oblivious to the fact that she was a definitive person, who was born at a specific time, had a particular life history, and occupied a particular physical space. She would continually pronounce that she didn’t exist.
RICHARD: Unlike your friend I am a definitive flesh and blood body, that was born at a specific time, that has a particular life history and occupies a particular physical space ... I most certainly exist as a flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: She had been sexually abused at an early age and certain boundaries were beyond her perceptive abilities.
RICHARD: I was not sexually abused at an earlier age – nor at any age – and I am well aware of all the normal human boundaries ... plus I rather fail to see why you would want to be likening me to someone you know personally who is oblivious to bodily existence.
RESPONDENT: Do any of you realize the magnitude of what it is when someone is called psychotic.
RICHARD: Well, I certainly do (as I have personal experience of being diagnosed thus).
RESPONDENT: It is not a haphazard, cutesy, light state of affairs.
RICHARD: I have never said that it is a ‘haphazard, cutesy, light state of affairs’ ... what I have repeatedly said is that I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition – meaning peace-on-earth in this lifetime – should be classified as a psychotic illness ... it speaks volumes about the lack of salubrity in what is called sanity.
I am using the word cute in its ‘quaint, fascinating’ meaning. (Oxford Dictionary).
RESPONDENT: It’s a serious disturbance in one’s ability to perceive reality on Planet Earth!
RICHARD: You are now speaking about derealisation – losing contact with reality – and I make no secret of the fact that I am living in the actuality of the world as-it-is ... and not in the reality that the identity imposes over it as a veneer.
Your appeal to the status-quo does not cut ice with me.
RESPONDENT: If you still have feelings extant and this person through accident, breakdown or some unknown explanation doesn’t, it seems a little foolhardy follow their blueprint as to how to navigate your life to optimal existence.
RICHARD: In my case it was no ‘accident, breakdown or some unknown explanation’ ... I clearly delineate how, when and where I came to be in this condition.
RESPONDENT: I’ve been wanting to stay on board in this enterprise but the more I’m reading the more disturbing it seems.
RICHARD: You are not the first person to be initially pleased to discover actualism only to later on find it disturbing ... and I dare say you will not be the last.
RESPONDENT: My brother a bona fide born-again Christian reports that his life is wonderful. He weighs in at 300lbs, his wife 400lbs as well as the accompanying health, wealth and relationship problems.
RICHARD: Whereas I am the normal weight for my height and age and have no health, wealth or relationship problems.
RESPONDENT: I’m not going to argue with him. I’m not starting a group. Moonies and Daidists, as well as people connected with Osho all report feeling wonderful at various times along a continuum. I don’t think that life’s answers lie there.
RICHARD: I agree completely ... I lived that/was that enlightenment experience, night and day, for eleven years and thus have intimate knowledge that it is not the answer.
RESPONDENT: I’m not about to debate someone so convinced they don’t exist.
RICHARD: Then why are you writing this e-mail – and your previous ones – to this mailing list? The Actual Freedom Mailing List was set-up to discuss these very matters. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I remember when Richard Bandler from NLP and several other therapists hit a guy who thought he was invisible. He wasn’t!
RICHARD: As I am not invisible this is a pointless comment.
RESPONDENT: There is benefits to this work. But for chrissake you guys exist. You all have identities and tastes as unique as a snowflake.
RICHARD: If you say then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as the examples and analogies and so on that you provide have nothing to do with what I experience.
RESPONDENT: If the circumstances were right we could all prove that very easily!
RICHARD: What circumstances do you require?
RESPONDENT: You all know it too!
RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I do not have a clue as to how you can prove it.
RESPONDENT: There’s some great stuff on this site but cut the silliness, and pretence.
RICHARD: And just what ‘silliness, and pretence’ is it that you would like me to cut?
RESPONDENT: Just cause someone doesn’t have feelings or ‘an identity’ that they are unaware of doesn’t make them the third coming!
RICHARD: Yet I make no claims of being ‘the third coming’ (whatever that is).
RESPONDENT: I was born at night but not last night.
RICHARD: Perhaps this may be an apposite moment to refer you to your own writing:
RESPONDENT: First I should like to ask you why you are breaking a question and you don’t copy and paste it in its integrity. And then to answer it.
RICHARD: Just for starters ... if the premise in first part of a sentence is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect and, as a person asks their queries from their (incorrect) conclusions, based upon their (invalid) premises, then for the sake of clarity in communication I usually set the record straight right from the start.
Also, you may find the following exchange helpful:
Perhaps if I were to put it into words you might relate to: I pay attention to what it is you have to say.
RESPONDENT: Here I am obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity. [Respondent]: ‘And to end, I should like to say what I think is happening. I think that the sense of existence, is common to all humankind. After with the different conditionings and identities, we think we are separate human beings. Right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else. May be now I am swimming and you have headache. But the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY. [endquote]. Your answer in the last part of the question is: [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same). [endquote]. I had mention in my question WITHOUT THE IDENTITIES. You agreed with the above statement and you added also IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. As I had also stated with capital letters EXACTLY. Take that answer of yours under consideration. Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here? You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings. You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive. Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish. What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity? That’s why I said that I exist in every baby. If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE. So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?
RICHARD: I have not only left your ‘whole question in its integrity’ intact but also the entire section ... now may I respond to the points you raise and the assumptions you make on the way through? Vis.:
The reason why I responded to the first sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that there is a vast difference between the sensitive (sensate) sense of existing and the affective (intuitive) sense of existence ... which is why I provided the following explanation:
In the jargon: you are talking about chalk and I am talking about cheese. Here is the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that, as you have bought Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s insight that society and its conditioning is to blame, you were pointing the finger at thought thinking the ego-self is separate and not feelings feeling the soul-self/spirit-self which the ego, or ego-self is born out of, is separate by its very nature.
In the jargon: you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. Here is the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it should be patently obvious if (note ‘if’) you had actually paid attention my responses to you ... as exemplified by this exchange:
I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Here is the second part of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the second half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was because it is one thing to make a blanket statement (such as ‘right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else’ for example) and quite another to back it up with something substantial ... therefore, if you could provide the evidence that you and everyone else are also sans the intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive, ‘sense of existence’ you are referring to I would be most chuffed.
Either that or cease making such outlandish claims. Here is the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:
The reason why I responded to the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was to re-emphasise what I had already explained further above ... to wit: the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity. This is your response to this sentence of mine in this e-mail:
Would it not serve your understanding better if you were to take my answer under consideration instead of telling me to? I only ask because if you had not ignored my point-by-point responses in your haste to tell me that you are ‘obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity’ you would have seen that I was not agreeing with you at all but restating what I had said further above:
There are two parts to the identity: the thinking-self and the feeling-self ... and by ‘feeling’ I am meaning the affective feelings (the emotional, passional, and calentural feelings) and not the sensitive feelings (the sensorial, sensual, and sensuous feelings).
In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary: you are ignoring what is primary and cogitating about what is secondary ... you are theorising about what it would be like without the identity, for example, without taking into account that the identity’s affectively felt experience of existing – the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of – is also non-existent in actuality.
Again: actualism is experiential, not theoretical.
RESPONDENT: Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here?
RICHARD: No, but then again, that would be because there is no contradiction – either big or little – to see.
RESPONDENT: You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings.
RICHARD: I did nothing of the kind ... I was most specific that I was referring to the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity and not the ‘the feeling of existence’ you make it out to be.
RESPONDENT: You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive.
RICHARD: What do you mean by ‘you accepted now’ when I have acknowledged all along that identity in toto altruistically became extinct while this flesh and blood body was still alive?
Golly ... it is why The Actual Freedom Trust web site exists.
RESPONDENT: Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish.
RICHARD: Indeed I do ... physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again.
RESPONDENT: What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity?
RICHARD: Here is that exchange again:
The sense of being here, as a body only, will of course cease to happen upon physical death ... just as in being anaesthetised, for example, or even as in each night upon going to sleep, for another instance (provided there be no dreaming).
Being knocked unconscious is another example ... as is fainting.
RESPONDENT: That’s why I said that I exist in every baby.
RICHARD: Sure ... I do understand where you are coming from (as I lived spiritual enlightenment, night and day for eleven years, I know it intimately thus even theoretical re-hashes are easily comprehended if they be extensive enough).
RESPONDENT: If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE.
RESPONDENT: So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?
RICHARD: As I never agreed to ‘EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE’ your question, arising out of your erroneous conclusion, is meaningless ... do you now see why I sometimes interject part way through a sentence and at other times respond sentence-by-sentence?
I will put it this way: if the premise in first part of a sentence – or the first part of a paragraph – is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect ... and any query arising from that incorrect conclusion is quite simply a waste of a question.
And I will not be here forever on this mailing list to answer queries.
RESPONDENT: ... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive.
RICHARD: No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not.
RESPONDENT: How you arrived in such conclusion if not through logic and the scientific knowledge of today’s?
RICHARD: It is quite simple: when the identity in toto went into blessed oblivion, whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive, it was, and is, patently obvious that with no identity in situ there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.
In other words, physical death is the end, finish ... and this obviousness is because of direct experience, observation, and native intelligence (what is called ‘commonsense’ in the real-world) operating without being crippled by either the instinctual passions or the ‘self’ (by whatever name) they automatically form themselves into.
Neither ‘scientific knowledge’ is required (I only provide complementary scientific discoveries so nobody has to take my word for something) nor ‘logic’ (I only provide reasoned responses to complement my report for people who cannot think for themselves) ... it is all experiential.
As any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify.
RESPONDENT: All this is speculation and implies belief.
RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is all experiential (direct experience, observation, and a freed intelligence).
RESPONDENT: Had you died to know?
RICHARD: The identity within died in toto and, as a consequence, it is patently obvious there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.
RICHARD: (...) 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: You know, I’m asking for something like a message such as ‘Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish’, or ‘Sorry for the inconvenience’, just in neurological terms.
RICHARD: If you would explain what those two messages refer to I may be able to respond meaningfully.
RESPONDENT: Just a joking metaphor – a reference to Douglas Adams. In one of his books the dolphins, before collectively leaving earth because they were informed of its imminent destruction (it must give way to an intergalactic superhighway), leave the message: ‘Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish’.
RICHARD: Given that you asked me for such a metaphorical message in the context of having just enquired as to whether or not some of the members of the phylum Arthropoda are once-removed from actuality in the perceptive process and, or, when it was historically that all species of animals became inhabited by a rudimentary ‘self’, if you would explain who it is that the metaphor refers to (who is being thanked) I may be able to respond meaningfully.
RESPONDENT: In the book, the human race is being thanked by the dolphins, in its metaphorical use, it would be the flesh & blood body being thanked by the psyche before leaving forever.
RICHARD: In which case ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago left no grateful message at all (albeit in neurological terms) before altruistically ‘self’-immolating, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – least of all in the form of neurological remainders of ‘self’ (as per your explication further below) – as ‘he’ had no neuronal/ neuronic existence in the first place.
RESPONDENT: ‘Sorry for the inconvenience’, on the other hand and in another Douglas Adams book, is good’s final message to Creation.
RICHARD: Again, given that you asked me for such a metaphorical message in the context of having just enquired as to whether or not some of the members of the phylum Arthropoda are once-removed from actuality in the perceptive process and, or, when it was historically that all species of animals became inhabited by a rudimentary ‘self’, if you would explain who it is that the metaphor refers to (who is apologising) I may be able to respond meaningfully.
RESPONDENT: The above will enable you to answer that question yourself.
RICHARD: In which case ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago left no apologetic message at all (albeit in neurological terms) before altruistically ‘self’-immolating, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – least of all in the form of neurological remainders of ‘self’ (as per your explication further below) – as ‘he’ had no neuronal/ neuronic existence in the first place.
RESPONDENT: To translate into the neurological terms which you have given above ...
RICHARD: If I might interject? I gave no neurological terms in the text you are referring to ... indeed I specifically mentioned that identity cannot be located neuronally/ neurologically. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... ‘twas but another metaphorical inquiry about neurological remainders of the ‘self’.
RICHARD: As it is you who posits that identity has a neuronal/ neurological existence, and not me, I will pass without further comment.
RESPONDENT: Brilliant. The reason I posited that is that I assume that nothing exists in the brain which has no neuronal existence.
RICHARD: If you were to scroll to the top of this page you would see that this discussion is, at your request, about finding out what it is which is more to identity than just the ego-self ... and nowhere either before or since has it ever been either stated or implied that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – exists in the brain.
Indeed, I have consistently referred to the brainstem ... to the point of specifically suggesting the ‘Substantia Nigra’, in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’), as being the source of the instinctual self/ the instinctual passions.
Therefore, your [quote] ‘brilliant’ [endquote] response would be more in keeping with what is being discussed were it to look something like this:
Now, whilst a case can be made that the instinctual passions have a neuronal existence the instinctual self they automatically form themselves into, by the very movement or motion of those affections, which blind nature genetically endows as a rough and ready survival programme, being extant/ being in situ (in a process similar to an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water), does not.
Put somewhat simplistically: an emotional/ passional identity is phantom ‘being’ in the affective faculty, an affective ‘ghost in the machine’ (in the survival software), as it were.
RESPONDENT: It either happens in the neurons and as the neurons, or it doesn’t happen.
RICHARD: If I might point out? An instinctual ‘self’ happens in the instinctual passions, as the instinctual passions, and not in the neurones as the neurones.
RESPONDENT: You, on the contrary, seem to assume that hallucinations exist without a correlating neuronal activity. Is that correct?
RICHARD: Presuming that you meant to write ‘illusions’ (given that the subject under discussion is the soul-self as the seat of the emotions or sentiments and not that seat of the emotions or sentiments imaginatively felt/ instinctively intuited to be an immortal self/ the supreme being) I do not assume that the illusion of existing as a feeling ‘being’ (as a ‘feeler’) exists without that illusion’s concomitant feelings. For instance:
RESPONDENT: In your answer to No 97 for the same question you used a computer analogy (deletion of a software program from a chip without a trace).
RICHARD: Were you to be inclined to ponder the distinction between ‘... without a trace’ and ‘remainders of ...’ it might save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails regarding Mr. Douglas Adams’ thinly disguised religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical messages.
RESPONDENT: In light of your response here I would ask: what happened to your substantia nigra?
RICHARD: Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence.
RESPONDENT: O.k.. So nothing happened in your brain at all?
RICHARD: If I may again point out? The substantia nigra is located in the brainstem – not the brain – in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’) and something quite sensational happened thereabouts. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Given the magnitude of the problems [all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on] you detailed above ( ...) a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects ...
RICHARD: If I may again interject? Just what [quote] ‘aspects’ [endquote] are you referring to?
RESPONDENT: The aspects grounded in the theory that there is nothing happening in the brain which does not translate into neuronal activity and changing of neuronal patterns.
RICHARD: In order for an hypothesis to qualify as a theory there does have to be (repeatable) experimental evidence and, as I understand it, no scientist has yet been able to locate either ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body ... what such scans indicate (by mapping, for instance, increased blood-flow) is neuronal activity which correlates to the emotional/ passional feelings being felt.
RESPONDENT: Apparently you do not share that (materialist) assumption?
RICHARD: Presuming by that you mean a material – as opposed to a spiritual – assumption I am not suggesting for a moment that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) is a metaphysical entity ... just as I would never suggest that an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water is a supernatural vortex.
RESPONDENT: ... [a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects] might, if it serves to convince some actual sceptics, be of use for this world.
RICHARD: I am not in the business of convincing anyone of matters experiential ... I unambiguously make it clear that experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name in regards to consciousness studies. For example (from the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site): [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (*which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name*). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC. Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (‘The Truth’ by any name) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. [emphasis added].
RESPONDENT: ‘Tis but a suggestion, mind you.
RICHARD: Perhaps, just perhaps, were you to read what I have to say with both eyes open there would be no need to make any such suggestion?
RESPONDENT: I’ll open the other one and read again.
RICHARD: Whilst you are doing that it may be handy to bear in mind that, analogous to an eddy formed by currents of air/a whirlpool formed by currents of water only existing provided there be currents of air/ currents of water, an instinctual self only exists provided there be currents of instinctual passions.
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.