Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
The Universe is Infinite and Eternal?
RESPONDENT: 1) In
your previous writings you state that the universe is both infinite and eternal. On what do you base that? 2) In one of your definitions of
universe (sorry I can’t find the exact source) you include time as another component of the universe. If the universe has no beginning or
end, how does the time element fit in? Is it the objects that are ‘timed’, you mention an endless recombining or recycling or reworking of
matter? The universe seems to produce increasingly complex and conscious entities, at least on our planet. What accounts for this seeming
evolution? 3) What is space? If the universe is material is space a form of matter?
RICHARD: First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended
attributes of space, time and form ... one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’
or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit the universe’s ultimate properties. For those who propose a caused universe: no one has
journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo. For those who propose a temporary universe: no one has travelled to
when that limited time began. For those who propose a finite universe: no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe. Similarly, if
one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless
varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time ... one would never ‘prove’
Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever
more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring
themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be
immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that are 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide
and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have
taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of
the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. Obviously then, the entire question revolves around
sensible subjective experience ... and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable – the judicious – approach from the word go.
I tend to define ‘the universe’ (actuality) as time and space and form mainly because the
mystics define ‘The Unknowable’ (Reality) as Timeless and Spaceless and Formless. I say unambiguously and definitively that time is actual,
that space is actual, and that form is actual; the mystics state that time is a dream, an illusion or only apparently so, that space is a
dream, an illusion or only apparently so, and that form is a dream, an illusion or only apparently so. I say unambiguously and definitively
that the Timeless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination, that the Spaceless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination, and that
the Formless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination; the mystics state that the Timeless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God, that
the Spaceless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God, and the Formless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God. Thus actualism is diametrically
opposite or 180 degrees in the other direction to mysticism.
RESPONDENT: So why you make dogmatic statements like
the infinity of the universe?
RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘dogmatic’ can mean:
• ‘dogmatic: of philosophy or medicine: based on a priori assumptions rather than empirical
evidence; concerned with propounding opinions; esp. (of a person, writing, etc.) asserting doctrines or views in an opinionated or arbitrary
manner; of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a (religious) dogma or dogmas; doctrinal. [dogma: opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine
authoritatively laid down, esp. by a Church or sect; an arrogant declaration of opinion; doctrines or opinions, esp. on religious matters, laid
down authoritatively or assertively]. (Oxford Dictionary).
First you propose a (continuing) ‘creation’ as if that were an established fact, plus you
refer to Mr David Bohm as ‘speaking for physical facts’ when very little of what he spoke of was either physical or a fact, then you
say ‘so why you make dogmatic statements ...’ as if I were the one making a priori assumptions, propounding opinions, or asserting
doctrines, in an arrogant or arbitrary manner.
What on earth is the connection between the theoretical physics you keep on presenting to this
mailing list and the direct experiencing of pure consciousness that would make you say ‘so why you ...’ as if there were some
Are the ... um ... the axioms of theoretical physicists facts for you?
RESPONDENT: There are a some questions I have
regarding cosmology as defended by AF – maybe these can help clarify some current discussions – namely the current cosmology and unknowable
RICHARD: And for the sake of the clarification you speak of here are what the words cosmology
and cosmogony mean to me:
• ‘cosmogony [Gk ‘kosmogonia’ creation of the world]: a theory or account of the origin of
the universe; the branch of science that deals with the origin of the universe; the creation of the universe; cosmogonic, cosmogonical;
cosmogonist: (a) a person who holds that the world had a beginning in time; (b) a person who studies cosmogony or propounds a cosmogony.
• ‘cosmology [Fr. ‘cosmologie’ or mod. L ‘cosmologia’]: the science of the evolution and structure of the universe; a theory or
postulated account of this; the branch of philosophy or metaphysics which deals with the universe as a whole; cosmologist: a person who studies
cosmology or propounds a cosmology’. (Oxford Dictionary).
I profess no intimate or direct knowledge of the structure (the nuts and bolts) of the universe ...
that which is what is properly called cosmology. Vis.:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What I am most interested in, Richard, is bring forth some rather unusual
questions about the nature of what is ‘Actual’. Questions about the energies which constitute matter ‘as we know it’ (through the
senses), and the various speeds and properties of substance that the senses are unable to register. These may not interest you but it will help
me understand (I’m choosing my words carefully here just how finely tuned is this third alternative focus ...
• [Richard]: ‘If you mean questions such as the make-up of atoms and the speed of sound waves, radio waves, light waves and so on, then I
would make it clear that I am not a physicist ... nor a mathematician. Consequently I do not pretend to know all the detailed analysis of the
constitution of physical matter/energy gathered and/or proposed so far by human beings ... which means that this lay-person viewpoint enables
me to not fall for the all-too-obvious errors of omission (and errors of commission) that dogs the mathematically-driven physicist’s
With only a few scattered digressions all I have ever spoken of – and repeatedly at that – in
regards the nature of the universe is its infinitude ... and I use the word ‘infinitude’ in its ‘a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’
(Oxford Dictionary) sense. For instance:
• [Richard]: ‘As time is eternal – just as space is infinite and matter is perpetual – to be
here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe (I am
using the word ‘infinitude in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and
thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material
universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ or ‘I am the experience of infinitude’. The infinite character of
physical space, coupled with the eternal character of time and the perpetual character of matter, produces a here and now infinitude that can
be understood experientially by one who is apperceptive. To grasp the character of infinitude with certainty, the reasoning mind must forsake
its favoured process of intellectual understanding through logical and/or intuitive imagination and enter into the realm of a pure
consciousness experience (apperception). In a PCE – which is where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant – the essential characteristics
of infinitude are transparently obvious, lucidly self-evident, clearly apparent and open to view’.
More than a little of what modern day theoretical physics proposes is, more properly, called
cosmogony ... the ‘Big Bang’ theory for example.
RESPONDENT: 1) Precisely, how is the universe known to be
RICHARD: Put simply: if the infinitude directly experienced in a pure consciousness
experience is not the infinitude of the universe then what is it the infinitude of ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of
In other words if it be not a physical infinitude then it falls into the realm of being a
RESPONDENT: It seems to me that whether this is known purely through
‘common sense’ reasoning without a PCE or whether it takes a PCE to become obvious is unclear.
RICHARD: You may find the following link informative in this regard:
Just in case you do not access that page I would draw attention to the following excerpts:
• [Richard]: ‘... modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in
1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that are 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick
were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to
form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14
billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. (...)
‘I primarily base the infinity, eternity and perpetuity (collectively known as infinitude) of the universe on my direct experience of the
actual, of course, but that is of little use to another person who is not living in this actual world or not currently having a pure
consciousness experience (PCE). Therefore, one initially needs to approach the question rationally – through inductive and/or deductive
reasoning – so as to dispel the oh-so-persistent feeling of finiteness, temporariness and transitoriness which the psychological and psychic
entity manifests over the actual (the centre in consciousness creates the boundary in awareness) thus producing everyday reality’s spatial,
temporal and material finiteness. (...)
‘... as a normal person I could not directly experience the actuality of the infinitude ... at age eight or nine I was first made aware of
the infinity of space by my father one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of
infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space
(he asked me what lay at the end of the universe ... a brick wall/wire fence/whatever ... if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what
would one looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as
a demand to be met one day. (...)
‘... at 33 years of age I had a four hour PCE wherein the direct experience of infinitude provided the actual knowing I had desired from
childhood ... and I wanted this actuality twenty four hours of the day. Consequently – after an eleven year interlude in an altered state of
consciousness wherein God aka Truth arrogated the universe’s infinitude – I entered into the actual world at age 45 and have directly known
ever since, each moment again, infinitude as an actuality. It is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates the impression of ‘finite’, ‘duration’
and ‘transience’ ... and then challenges others to prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite, timed and depletable
universe; it is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates this impression with ‘my’ instinct-driven feelings which cripple an otherwise
intelligent mind ... ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can only think in terms of duality. To think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and
logic is limited inasmuch as it cannot encompass infinitude (infinitude has no duality).
‘Therefore, it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of
their belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. For those people who
attempt to disallow this actual knowing on the grounds of subjectivity I can only say that their knowing is not only subjective as well but a
self-centred subjectivity into the bargain. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is
actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what
and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why;
they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable form ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why’. (...)
I, for one, have not heard about, or read of, any satisfactory ‘where, when, how, from what, and
why’ answer and I would be most surprised to ever come across one as what cosmogony does is shift the issue of infinitude into the realm of
creation/discreation fantasies ... such as believing in a ‘Creation’ ex nihilo/‘Destruction’ ad nihil, if one is a religious
cosmogonist, or believing in a ‘Big Bang’ ex nihilo/‘Big Crunch’ ad nihil, if one is a scientific cosmogonist, for example.
In other words (‘ex nihilo’ is Latin for ‘out of nothing’ and ‘ad nihil’ is Latin for
‘to nothing’) the issue of infinitude has been shifted onto a non-temporal (timeless) and non-spatial (spaceless) and non-material
(formless) and therefore non-existent, and thus metaphysical, nothing or nothingness ... which posited nothingness, or non-existing void, is
further proposed as being both the source, or origin, of all things physical (all time, all space, all form) and the eventual destiny for all
its (supposed) manifestations.
In short: it bespeaks of credulity stretched to the max.
RESPONDENT: 2) Can I know merely by using common sense (without a
PCE) that the universe is infinite/eternal – despite the currently prevailing scientific theories? If so – how could I know it?
RICHARD: I personally plunk for what Mr. Zeno proposed in the fifth century BCE (as already
mentioned above) who asked if one were to travel to the edge of the universe and throw a spear what would one be throwing a spear into?
RESPONDENT: 3) Could I have a PCE and it still not be completely
evident that the universe is infinite/eternal?
RICHARD: It could indeed be not completely evident ... yes. I have the distinct advantage of
the on-going experiencing of infinitude and can easily know for sure each moment again when asked ... as I sit here now typing these words I am
this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such it is stunningly aware of its infinitude.
And this is truly wondrous.
RESPONDENT: Do I have to somehow turn
my attention to that fact in a PCE – or is it always a datum of experience in the PCE?
RICHARD: What can happen is that the direct experience of infinitude in a PCE can be
translated as being the infinitude of something metaphysical ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense) in other
Then the PCE can devolve into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) with all that is implied
and the ramifications thereof.
RESPONDENT: 4) It would also be interesting for
Richard/Peter/Vineeto or whoever is inclined to discredit the purported evidence in existence for the big bang. It has been said that the big
bang is creationist cosmology – which for some is true – yet it is hardly ONLY creationist cosmology – take people like Steven Weinberg
or Stephen Hawking for example. Mr Hawking has defended a finite universe with nothing outside or before it (nothing for a Creator to do) –
so there appear to be some who propose there is an outside to the big bang and others who say it is self-contained. Obviously, whoever proposes
there is something outside the universe must do so on non-scientific grounds.
I don’t intend to argue the case for the big-bang – but how would AF
explain the red-shift, for example? Or the current interpretations of the cosmic background radiation, etc? I’m aware of Halton Arp’s
counter proposals, but the question, it seems to me is where the evidence actually leads. Just because the person who came up with the big bang
theory was a theist doesn’t discredit the theory if there is no god. If there are independent reasons (evidence) for thinking it is true, is
it not important for those independent reasons to be examined? Does a finite universe necessarily lead to a something outside of it? It seems
there are many scientists who don’t think so.
RICHARD: There are many, many refutations of both the ‘Big Bang’ theory and the ‘Red
Shift’ theory available both in print and on the internet (mostly on the internet as publishers, generally speaking, will not publish
anything which departs from the party line) ... which one would you like to read/hear about?
Speaking personally the only refutation I am interested in is the direct experience of infinitude
RESPONDENT: 5) Lastly, if I were setting out to discover whether the
universe is infinite/eternal or finite – just how would I do it? What observations would I make? What reasoning would I use? Precisely, how
would I investigate the issue if I don’t already know the fact?
RICHARD: Again I would recommend accessing the above link (where I go into some detail about
this which you ask).
RESPONDENT: Is there a way to avoid being an agnostic on the issue
– since if I’m investigating – then I’m open to finding out the fact of the matter? Does being agnostic necessarily mean being open to
belief? Can’t I be agnostic and be open to finding out a fact? Or do I just have to get rid of current scientific theory to find that I
already know the answer?
RICHARD: The question of agnosticism applies to all subjects, of course, not only the subject
of the infinitude of the universe (which has tended to split the current, and previous, discussions on this mailing list into two separate
For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying
position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble)
until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about
consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that
is your belief/ truth/ idea/ philosophy/ whatever’).
But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism –
and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself
– about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.
I now know.
RESPONDENT: I don’t actually care whether a
creator exists or whether the universe is expanding, or whether it originated with the Big Bang or whether it has always existed and will
always exist in steady state. All of these possibilities are perfectly consistent with what I have experienced in PCE’s and ASC’s, and to
tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand.
If time, space and matter originated in the Big Bang, Actualism is no
longer relevant? PCE’s are no longer valuable? There is no longer a possibility of freedom from the ‘human condition’, of liberating the
human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions that keep us living in confusion and misery? No longer a possibility of delighting in
being here, and doing nothing to prevent another person’s delight in being here? It’s just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular
RICHARD: I wonder if you would care to think this one through: I have oft-times said that I
would be delighted to meet, read about, or hear of another person actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this
actual world as a flesh and blood body only – and if, upon comparing notes, they informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator
exists’ (aka god/goddess) you do not actually care about that as it would not render actualism irrelevant, it would not make pure
consciousness experiences (PCE’s) no longer valuable, it would not take away the possibility of freedom from the human condition, it would
not prevent the possibility of delighting in being here (and doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)?
And the same applies in regards to the ‘Big Bang’ theory – first proposed, in 1927, by
the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican,
in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma – and the ‘expanding universe’ theory you also mention ... if this other person informed me their direct
experience was that the universe is indeed finite, temporary, and transitory (and not infinite, eternal, and perpetual) you do not actually
care about that as it would not render actualism irrelevant, it would not make pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) no longer valuable, it
would not take away the possibility of freedom from the human condition, it would not prevent the possibility of delighting in being here (and
doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)?
Here are my questions:
1. What, then, makes actualism relevant?
2. What, then, makes PCE’s (as distinct from ASC’s) valuable?
3. What, then, makes freedom from the human condition possible?
4. What, then, prevents delighting in being here (and doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)?
Incidentally, there is a vast difference between the option of ‘liberating the human mind from
the bonds of the instinctual passions’ and the option of ridding the flesh and blood body of them.
Of course the latter option means the end of ‘me’ in all ‘my’ (cunning) disguises.
RESPONDENT: Richard, an uncluttered space in which
to clarify some key issues: What is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal?
RICHARD: Apperception (unmediated perception) ... as a flesh and blood body only one is this
infinite, eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And this is wonderful.
RESPONDENT: With regard to attaining ‘actual freedom from the
human condition’, does it matter whether the universe is infinite and eternal?
RICHARD: It is infinitude which makes such a freedom possible ... only that which has no
opposite is peerless (hence perfect).
RESPONDENT: If time, space and matter had begun with a ‘Big Bang’,
would PCE’s still be possible?
RICHARD: No ... the peerless perfection of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) would not
RESPONDENT: Would ‘actual freedom’ from the human condition
still be possible?
RICHARD: No ... the pristine purity of this actual world would not exist.
RESPONDENT: (...) I am still at a loss to understand
how or why a relativistic universe and a universe in which space and time are absolute would present themselves any differently to the human
senses. Regardless of whether one is having a PCE or not, if there is no discernible difference between the ways in which a relativistic and
non-relativistic universe would present themselves to the senses under ordinary circumstances here on Earth (and indeed that is what relativity
would predict), precisely what faculty is it that allows an actualist to say with certainty: space and time are absolute?
RICHARD: First of all, in physics to say that ‘space and time are absolute’ (aka
universal) is to say that length, time, and mass are independent of the relative motion of the observer (as determined in the
Galilean/Newtonian transformation equations) whereas to say that ‘space and time are not absolute’ (not universal) is to say that length,
time, and mass depend upon the relative motion of the observer (as determined in the Lorentz transformation equations) and the observed.
Thus to answer your question as-is: the faculty which allows an actualist to say with certainty that
space and time are absolute/universal is the faculty of reason ... ‘the ability to think out, think through, consider, deliberate, analyse,
come to a conclusion about’ (Oxford Dictionary).
Howsoever, presuming that you might have been enquiring as to precisely what faculty it is that
allows an actualist to say with certainty that space is infinite and time is eternal then the answer is: apperception.
And apperception – ‘the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford Dictionary)
– occurs when identity in toto is absent and thus, by not being a centre to consciousness, is no longer creating a boundary to awareness.
RESPONDENT: Concerning the distinction between ASC
and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not
consciousness that let you know this to be a fact.
RICHARD: I have made it clear on many occasions that unmediated perception (aka apperceptive
awareness) is how infinitude is directly experienced.
RESPONDENT: I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one
of your senses.
RICHARD: You may find the following exchange to be of interest, then:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Since the universe is ‘immeasurably vast’, how can it be an ‘objective
• [Richard]: ‘Something does not have to be measured to be objective (existing in its own right). Infinitude simply cannot be calculated as
... um ... as beginning here and ending there. Infinitude is beginningless and endless; boundless and limitless; perpetual and perdurable;
unborn and undying ... and, as I said, it cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling.
If you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude.
And by ‘standing naked’ I mean sans identity in toto (unmediated perception/apperceptive
awareness): the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception first happened one night in early 1981 whilst looking at the space
between the stars, and not the stars themselves as one might normally do (due to the preponderance figure usually takes over background), and
when more stars became apparent in that space, looking into the space between them, and so on, and so on, until infinitude became apparent as
an experience of itself ... or, to put that another way, being the actual experiencing of infinitude (which is what all flesh and blood bodies
are anyway) as a sensory organism.
Further to this point, six e-mails after the e-mail the above excerpt is from the following line,
which refers to visually seeing infinitude wherever one looks, may very well give pause to reflect upon just what it is that is being conveyed
by the term ‘unmediated perception’ (aka apperceptive awareness):
• [Richard]: ‘Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for
The entire discussion about the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception may be
of further interest if only because of the dominance abstract logic can have over sensible reason (especially when acting in concert with
spirituality). The full exchange starts here:
It may take some wading through.
RESPONDENT: Otherwise it would have not
been such a ‘hot topic’ on this mailing list as a fact is out in the open, cannot be argued with, etc.
RICHARD: It is only a ‘hot topic’ for those who want scientific proof of something
experiential (whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof –
as if they were one and the same thing – into the bargain).
I have never made any secret of the fact that actualism is experiential ... for just one example out
• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to *the direct experience* that matter is not
merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not
merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It
was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was
high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a
conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. [emphasis added].
In what way is infinitude not out in the open, and thus able to be argued with, etcetera, in a PCE?
RESPONDENT: I do intellectually understand that the universe is
infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect.
RICHARD: It is not so much that the intellect has limits in regards to infinitude per se as
it is, rather, that (a) the extent of its grasp is usually circumscribed by a centre (the ‘self’ by any name) in cognisance ... and (b) its
intelligence is usually crippled by the affective faculty ... and (c) its ability to sensibly reason is often dominated by abstract logic
(mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process for example) ... and (d) it is not an experiential faculty
anyway (the wrong tool for the job, as it were, just as is the affective faculty).
Howsoever, in conjunction with apperception the intellect has no difficulty ... else how would these
descriptions/explanations get written?
RESPONDENT: I also experientially know
that consciousness has no boundaries (for now I only remember) and I can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC
based on my life events. I think that the particular ASC known as Spiritual Enlightenment has the identity projected into Consciousness, for I
cannot explain otherwise the holograph-like infinite image of Me; and also that both denominations have a Consciousness word attached to them.
RICHARD: In an ASC the identity is not ‘projected into Consciousness’ as it is ‘Consciousness’
itself (aka one’s True Identity) realising/recognising/remembering it is ‘Consciousness’ in a process known as ‘Self-Realisation’.
As there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE – there is no ‘Consciousness’
to be realised/recognised/remembered: there is only the pure experiencing that the condition of being a flesh and blood body being conscious
sans identity in toto can enable ... plus the innocent awareness of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto.
In other words, when stripped of its metaphysical connotations the word ‘consciousness’ means
the condition of being conscious – the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition – and nothing more and nothing less.
• ‘-ness: forming nouns expressing a state or condition, especially from adjectives and
(originally past or passive) participles, as bitterness, conceitedness, darkness, hardness, kind-heartedness, tongue-tiedness, up-to-dateness,
etc., also occasionally from adverbs, as everydayness, nowness, etc., and in other nonce uses. Also in extended senses ‘an instance of
a state or condition’, as a kindness etc., ‘something in a state or condition’, as foulness etc., and in a few other
exceptional uses, as witness. (Oxford Dictionary).
RESPONDENT: Another point is that you are saying
that the universe always was existing. So you are speaking about something that has not being created but although always existing.
RICHARD: Yes, the universe is a veritable perpetuus mobilis.
RESPONDENT: So you reject the law of cause and effect for the first
time in human logic.
RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, for just one
instance, dispensed with causality (cause and effect) before I was even born:
• ‘The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory’. (page 88, ‘Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science’, by Werner Heisenberg; ©1966 Harper and Row, New
RESPONDENT: Not even something create it’s own self, because this
is absurd, for something to create it’s own self must exist prior of it’s own creation, which is absurd.
RICHARD: What has this got to do with what you said (further above)? Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘So you are speaking about something that has not being created but although
The words ‘always existing’ not only indicate ‘not being created’ but also indicate ‘not
creating itself’ ... the words ‘always existing’ means no creation, period.
RESPONDENT: Do you understand what it means ALWAYS existing?
RICHARD: Yes ... do you?
RESPONDENT: Means trillion of trillion of years, and even that is
nothing in front of ALWAYS.
RICHARD: Yep, forever is a long, long time ... beginningless and endless time, in fact.
RESPONDENT: THAT ALSO MEANS THAT LIFE WAS ALWAYS EXISTING, dna/rna,
amino acids, etc.
RICHARD: As it is entirely reasonable to assume that wherever the conditions are ripe some
life-form has been, is now, and will be, existing then ... yes (although as to whether it would necessarily be ‘dna/rna, amino acids, etc.’
is another question).
RESPONDENT: Life consciousness was always existing.
RICHARD: If by this you mean the condition of a life-form being conscious – which does not
include viruses for example – then again it is entirely reasonable to assume that at some place, at some time, there was, is now, and will
be, some-such creature ... meaning that if a human creature does not get it act together it makes no difference to the universe per se.
It makes a lot of difference for that human, however.
RESPONDENT: Where is space for oblivion then?
RICHARD: Hmm ... oblivion is not a place: the expression ‘going into oblivion’ is a way
of describing what happens, for example, upon being anaesthetised, being knocked-out, fainting, or in any other way being comatose
(unconscious) ... even each night upon going to sleep (unless there be dreaming).
RESPONDENT: You accept oblivion ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? Have you never been anaesthetised, knocked-out, fainted, or in
any other way been comatose (unconscious) ... even each night upon going to sleep? Or, to put that another way, have you been conscious, night
and day, for the 50+ years you have been on this planet?
Only if it be the latter can you truly say you have no idea of what oblivion is.
RESPONDENT: ... but from the other hand you accept that life that is
all that exist has no beginning and no end.
RICHARD: I do no such thing ... I clearly say that the universe has no beginning or end
(either spatially, temporally, or materially) and that a life-form, by being born and then dying after living for x-period of time, does have a
beginning and end.
RESPONDENT: Are you noticing a contradiction and one conundrum here?
RICHARD: No ... and that is because there is none. What I do notice is that you are
determined to make one, or the other or both, out of what I have to report (presumably so as to have something to refute) no matter how
convoluted or silly it may be.
What I have to say is actually very, very simple ... and sensible.
KONRAD: How about the infinite always being a finite
concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation? (Look at your own proof of the infinity of the
RICHARD: That does not fall into the category of something new ... I was asked last year to
prove the infinitude of the universe without resorting to that ancient Greek one of going to the border and throwing a spear into ... into
what? You are asking a logical question and insisting on a logical answer. As all logic is based upon opposites, it is a ‘problem’ that
logic cannot solve. What it goes to serve is to show that logic is limited.
The universe, being unlimited in both space and time, has no opposite. Thus the mind cannot
conceptualise infinitude. It has to be lived to be known. One lives it by being here at this place in space and this moment in time as this
flesh and blood body only. This is a direct experience of the actuality of infinity and eternity and beats that specious immortality so beloved
by the metaphysicians hands down ... for the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute.
‘I’ can never know infinitude.
KONRAD: How about Olbers paradox? These two things just for starters.
RICHARD: Also not new. In fact, this ‘paradox’, which was discussed in 1823 by the
German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers and its discovery widely attributed to him, can be traced back to Mr. Johannes Kepler. Mr. Johannes
Kepler, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. The ‘paradox’
relates to the hypothetical problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars
then, the proponents of this theory say, every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence this argument implies
that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. Various resolutions have been
proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is
far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars [according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica].
KONRAD: This last thing is in contradiction with the infinite duration
of the universe. For no matter how brief the lifespan of the star is, whenever it exists, it radiates light. Suppose, as you say, that the
light of the stars that are present far away has not reached us. And suppose the radiation reaches us only when these stars are already long
gone. Then there have to have been stars before this period. No matter how far away the space is, we consider, if we go far enough back in
time, there have to have been stars then, whose light reaches us now. These stars are gone, but this does not prevent their light to reach us,
and to accumulate in the way I have calculated. So if your argument is valid, the universe is not infinite in time. In other words, even if the
lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the earth for the very distant ones, the space contained stars before that
period containing stars that radiate light that DID reach us. Therefore the simple mathematical argument I have put forward is only refuted if
you assume that there has been a period in the past wherein there were no stars whatsoever. But this contradicts the homogeneity and isotropy
of the universe in time. And therefore its infinity in time. By reformulating my argument into another one supposed to be equivalent, and then
refuting that one, you have not refuted the original argument, but only a straw man.
RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I did not reformulate your argument at all. If you look at your
question above you will see that you asked: ‘how about the Olbers paradox’? That is all you put forward ... so where do you get off
with this ‘straw man’ business?
KONRAD: You have guts, Richard, to have tried this one. That I must
say. This is also, why I like you so much, in spite of our differences.
RICHARD: Oh, there is plenty more where that came from ... if there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there is
also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night
sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that. But, so much for logic, eh?
All this while that humans having been attempting to understand the universe logically and
intuitively, the universe has been doing its own thing, irregardless of what human think or feel. What one can do, though, is be here at this
place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only and then the universe will be experiencing itself as a sensate
reflective human being. This is to experience infinitude as an actuality, rather than thinking out its character or feeling out its nature.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity