Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection.

RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy.

RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection.

RESPONDENT: If by perfection you mean ‘lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind’ ...

RICHARD: The following exchange perhaps best encapsulates what I mean by perfection in this context:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, could you list as many characteristics as possible that you would ascribe to the universe, please. Such as benign, infinite, wonderful, marvellous, eternal, a veritable perpetuus mobilis etc. As many as possible would be neat to look see. I’m just curious to read what the universe is and therefore what it isn’t from a pure consciousness experiencer.
• [Richard]: ‘The fundament characteristic, or nature, of the universe is its infinitude – specifically having the properties of being spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perdurable – or, to put that another way, its absoluteness ... as such it is a veritable perpetuus mobilis (as in being self-existent/ non-dependent and/ or self-reliant/ non-contingent and/ or self-sufficient/ unconditional and/or self-generating/ unsupported).
Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate).
And this is truly wonderful to behold.
Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine.
And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs.
Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous, and so on) ... and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary).
And that, to say the least, is quite amazing.

RESPONDENT: ... why is happiness inherent to perfection?

RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous/ innocuous effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity/ innocuity.

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand the quality-property-value connection ...

RICHARD: The connection is essentially as follows: those qualities are sourced in (not attributed to) those properties and those values – in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary) – originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves.

Put succinctly: it is a seamless connection.

RESPONDENT: ... is there a page on it on the AF site?

RICHARD: No ... suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that qualia are intrinsic to properties and not to consciousness (as more than a few academics contend).

RESPONDENT: I would have thought that qualities and values are specific to human experiencing and can not be attributed to the universe itself.

RICHARD: As I understand it, when trying to make sense of academia, properties are the inherent characteristics of things and exist irregardless of humans being present (palaeontology evidences that this planet existed long before humans appeared on the scene) whilst qualities are the anthropocentric experiences of things and are, according to differing schools of thought, either sourced in properties (as objective percepts) or in consciousness (as subjective percepts) ... whereas values, as previously mentioned, pertain to the quality of things in regard to their ability in serving a purpose or causing an effect.

RESPONDENT: I still don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection.

RICHARD: I am not, of course, referring to affective happiness (a feeling of being happy) but to an actual happiness which, being sans any affective content whatsoever, is unconditional (not dependent upon events).

RESPONDENT: Are you simply saying that the make-up of the universe is such that if experienced by a human sans identity, that human experiences felicity?

RICHARD: That is one way of putting it ... I would rather say that, by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity.

Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously).

RESPONDENT: Billions of years before humans evolved (excluding life on other planets) the universe ‘just was’, its perfection having nothing to do with happiness or felicity, right?

RICHARD: If what you are saying, in effect, is that with no apperceptive human present to experience felicity the universe cannot experience the pristine purity of its perfection felicitously then ... yes.

RESPONDENT: Happiness is a human (or at least animal) phenomenon.

RICHARD: As no animal, human or otherwise, is separate from the universe that is beside the point.

RESPONDENT: Perfection has no affective characteristic.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... here in this actual world qualia are neither affective nor tinged with affectivity.

*

RESPONDENT: Are not humans – like everything else in nature – ‘perfect’ with or without emotions and however miserable and dissociated?

RICHARD: An apperceptive human – like everything else in nature without emotions – is perfect (without scare quotes); an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never be perfect (with or without scare quotes) as that entity is forever locked-out of actuality by its very nature.

RESPONDENT: I would say that an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never *feel* perfect.

RICHARD: An enlightened/ awakened/ self-realised identity does ... both solipsistically and narcissistically. For example:

• ‘solipsistic: a person characterised by solipsism [the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known] ...’. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘narcissistic: of, pertaining to, or of the nature of narcissism [self-love, extreme vanity]; marked or caused by excessive self-love’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: That is to use the word ‘perfect’ as an evaluation of the experience.

RICHARD: Whereas the way the word perfect is being used in this thread – as in ‘unqualified; pure; absolute, complete, utter’ (Oxford Dictionary). for instance – it is simply a way of describing this actual world (the sensate world).

RESPONDENT: To use the word ‘perfect’ in the sense of ‘complete-in-itself’ then absolutely everything in the universe is perfect, with or without emotions.

RICHARD: As no affective identity has any existence whatsoever in actuality it makes no sense to include same in [quote] ‘everything’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: In this sense, murders, wars, malice and sorrow are all perfect manifestations of the universe, as is the desire to be rid of these things.

RICHARD: As neither malice nor sorrow have any existence whatsoever in actuality (only their effects, such as the murders and wars you mention, do) – nor any desire at all for that matter – it makes no sense to say they are manifestations (let alone perfect ones) of the universe.

RESPONDENT: I realise that this is similar to the spiritual view so debunk away.

RICHARD: Presumably you are (albeit obliquely) alluding to the way you started this thread:

• [Respondent]: ‘Let’s see if someone can exorcise the materialist in me ...’. (Thursday, 11/05/2006 6:33 AM AEST).

As the same soul is, essentially, common to both materialists and spiritualists then the exorcism/ debunking of that materialist in you is, also essentially, the exorcism/ debunking of the spiritualist within.

RESPONDENT: Forgetting the ‘meaningless’ evaluation: why is life not a random, chance event aided by the process of natural selection?

RICHARD: As both the word random – ‘that which is haphazard [occurring, put together, etc., casually or without design] or without definite aim or purpose’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and the word chance – ‘the absence of design or discoverable cause; an event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; a casual circumstance; an accident’ (Oxford Dictionary) – more or less revolve around meaninglessness and purposelessness it is well-nigh impossible to forget that evaluation as what you are asking, in effect, is why life is not a meaningless/ purposeless event.

Be that as it may ... life is not a haphazard/ casual and causeless/ accidental event because, given the situation and circumstances conducive to same, it is inevitable that otherwise inanimate matter be animate.

*

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly.

RICHARD: Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote?

RESPONDENT: Why is the physical world ‘too big’, ‘too neatly complex’, and ‘too perfectly organised’ for miserable lives?

RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the ‘wisdom’ of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!’ (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in.

RESPONDENT: If misery helped survival, having miserable humans would be blind nature’s perfection.

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you of the school of thought which holds that suffering is good for one?

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all fated to be forever wrong. (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#2]. Why not?

RICHARD: For the very reason which immediately followed on from that sentence you have quoted. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery. Surely, no one can believe for a moment that it is all fated to be forever wrong. This is a tremendous universe in all its workings – this physical world humans live in is magnificent, to say the least’.

Have you never seen the magnificence, to say the least, of this tremendous universe (such that you would be of the opinion it is foolish to have suspected perfection and excellence)?

*

RESPONDENT: From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that [that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe] is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe (...)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ01a.htm#3]. I have yet to see anything that shows that life is anything but a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe, including my short mini-PCE’s.

RICHARD: As I do not know what [quote] ‘mini-PCE’s’ [endquote] are, be they short or otherwise, I am unable to comment upon your experience of being yet to see – as is readily seen in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – that life is not a chance, random event in an otherwise meaningless universe.

RESPONDENT: Can you point me to something?

RICHARD: Yes ... but it will require reading the full paragraph which you part-quoted from:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... why say that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe?
• [Richard]: ‘The reason why I said that is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe – in contrast to spiritualism (which, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of a supreme being who created or creates the universe) ... and, furthermore, because the extreme version of the materialist position is nihilism where, as a generalisation, it is typically held that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later’.

You will see that the entire meaningful/ meaningless and/or purposeful/ purposeless debate revolves around spiritualists contending that their god/ goddess (an immaterial creative being, force, or energy, by whatever name) provides meaning/ purpose and that, because materialists contend there is no such supernatural entity, life then (as a chance, random event in an otherwise empty universe) is a life devoid of meaning/ purpose ... so much so that life without such a god/ goddess is whatever one makes of it.

Yet when pressed as to just what meaning/ purpose their god/ goddess provides the spiritualists become remarkably coy (they say that only their supernatural entity really knows and use words like inscrutable, enigmatic, recondite, paradoxical, and so on and so forth, plus further contending that all will be revealed after physical death in some timeless and spaceless and formless realm where all is bright and beautiful) ... so much so that life with such a god/ goddess is, in effect, whatever one makes of it.

RESPONDENT: Am I restricting the options when I say that either the universe is meaningless or there was a designer ‘God’ with a meaning in mind?

RICHARD: You are not so much restricting yourself (with those meaningful/ purposeful or meaningless/ purposeless options) but are, rather, being sucked into a teleological discussion about a dichotomy which has no existence in actuality ... as is made clear further on in that exchange you part-quoted from:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, are you saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature? ... and do that by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy? (...).
• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am not saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy – such a teleological matter is something for teleologists to muse over in lieu of actually doing something about the human condition – as I make it abundantly clear on many an occasion elsewhere that it is the answer to the ubiquitous human quest for the meaning of life which is already always out-in-the-open here in this actual world’.

Which is why I said to you yesterday that I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion – and that suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the where-do-we-come-from/ what-are-we-here-for/ where-are-we-going type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings – as the answer to those types of queries/ quests lies open all about here in this actual world.

Needless is it to add that it is an experiential answer (which personal experiencing is the only answer worthy of the name)?

RESPONDENT: What I do understand now is that the universe ‘can be’ felicitous (for all we know). Gone is the block thinking the universe can’t be a happy or perfect one.

RICHARD: Good ... we can now revisit your third e-mail in this thread. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘From the FAQ: [Richard]: ‘... All this [an actual perfection and excellence as in standing unadorned on one’s own and thus being free, clean and fresh; owing nothing to no one and thus being incorruptible and without perversity; being unpolluted by any alien identity and thus automatically graceful, kindly/ amical, gentle and peaceful] comes as no surprise for it is what humans have all long suspected to be the case. (...)’. [endquote]. This is indeed what humans have suspected, in my opinion foolishly. [Richard]: ‘Why do you opine that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent as delineated in that quote? [Respondent]: ‘Because right now I don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. [Richard]: ‘In which case I will await your perusal and consideration of all the above before continuing’. [endquote]. Are you still of the opinion that it is foolish of humans to have suspected they are actually perfect/ actually excellent?

RESPONDENT: It is clear to me that the universe is perfect (as are humans in their actual state)....

RICHARD: In what way is it clear to you that the universe is perfect ... and what perfect state are you referring to?

RESPONDENT: Why does that imply excellence though?

RICHARD: As I am not yet cognisant of what way it is clear to you that the universe is perfect/ what perfect state you are referring to I will await your clarification before proceeding.

RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is *too big* in its grandeur, *too neatly complex* in its arrangement, and *too perfectly organised* in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery’. Most humans have a similar suspicion because of a belief in a god that wouldn’t allow them to suffer forever. What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery?

RICHARD: That succinct sentence came out of a realisation the identity in residence had in 1980 when ‘he’ looked – really looked for the first time – at the natural world and just knew that it, and the universe itself, was not set up (a manner of speaking) for humans to be forever forlorn in, with only scant moments of reprieve, as it was such a truly enormous construct (another manner of speaking), inasmuch that humans with all their massive earth-moving equipment could beaver away industriously forever and a day and not even begin to come near to making a facsimile thereof, that it was not, never had been and never could be, some sick cosmic joke (yet another manner of speaking) which humans all had to endure and make the best of. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the ‘wisdom’ of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!’ (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

In other words, it is nonsense to believe in some form of miserabilism – the buddhistic ‘all existence is dukkha’ for instance – as there is no way that something so big in its grandeur, so neatly complex in its arrangement, and so perfectly organised in its structure, could possibly be but a venue for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery in.

RESPONDENT: The view I have is that happiness and all ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are sourced in the brain ...

RICHARD: More specifically ... the affective faculty is the source of all feelings.

RESPONDENT: ... while the universe is a perfect but ‘neutral’ one. It seems anthropomorphic to say that happiness – an animal phenomenon – is inherent to perfection.

RICHARD: As I have made it abundantly clear, on more than one occasion, that I am not referring to an affective feeling of happiness, and that to be apperceptive is to be the universe’s experiencing of itself, there is nothing anthropomorphic about what I have to report/ describe/ explain.

RESPONDENT: What I was really opposing was the statement: ‘This universe, this physical world humans all live in, is *too big* in its grandeur, *too neatly complex* in its arrangement, and *too perfectly organised* in its structure for humans to be eternally doomed to perpetual misery’. (...) Emotions evolved in humans naturally.

RICHARD: So too did thought ... and thus intelligence (the cognitive faculty of understanding and comprehending, as in intellect and sagacity, which means the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, compare, appraise, plan, and implement considered action for beneficial reasons and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations).

And now that intelligence has developed in the human animal those otherwise essential survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto).

No other animal can do this.

RESPONDENT: If self-awareness had not become feature of the brain, then humans would be doomed to suffer with emotions in an enormous, complex, perfectly organised universe.

RICHARD: Yet as self-awareness did become a feature of the human brain (and thus eventually thought with its corresponding intelligence) then humans are obviously not doomed to suffer, now, are they?

RESPONDENT: What do the size of the universe, its complexity and its organisation have to do with whether or not humans will be eternally doomed to perpetual misery?

RICHARD: First of all: it is a fact, is it not, that self-awareness (and thus thought with its corresponding intelligence) did become a feature of the human brain?

Second, did that self-awareness, along with its associated thought and corresponding intelligence, become a feature of the human brain in a perfect (a complete-in-itself, peerless, pristine and thus excellent) universe or an imperfect (a contingent, comparable, flawed and thus inferior) universe?

Therefore, could it possibly be that it is for the very reason that this universe, this physical world humans all live in, is too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure for self-awareness (and thus thought with its corresponding intelligence) to not have become a feature of the brain?

RESPONDENT: Is there something about the *size* of the universe, or the *complexity* of the universe, which makes freedom from emotional suffering possible?

RICHARD: That quoted sentence of mine is not about either the size or the complexity of the universe making freedom from emotional suffering possible ... it is about this universe, this physical world humans all live in, being too big in its grandeur, too neatly complex in its arrangement, and too perfectly organised in its structure making it impossible to believe any longer in the wisdom of the world ‘I’ have inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – when ‘I’ look, really look for the first time, at the natural world and realise that it is not, never has been and never will be, some sick cosmic joke which humans all have to endure, with only scant moments of reprieve, and make the best of. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the ‘wisdom’ of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the real world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting ‘myself’ and ‘humanity’ free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so exquisite to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!’ (from page 261 in ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

RESPONDENT: Can there be values in the actual world?

RICHARD: As values (in the sense specifically delineated in response to your query about happiness being inherent to perfection) originate from both sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves then ... yes.

RESPONDENT: Where are these values?

RICHARD: Here in this actual world (the world of the senses).

RESPONDENT: Can I see, feel, sense them in some way?

RICHARD: No (an identity is forever locked-out of this actual world by its very nature).

RESPONDENT: Can you see, feel or sense values in some way?

RICHARD: Do you mean ‘see’ in its ocular meaning or its mental connotation; do you mean ‘feel’ in its cutaneous meaning or its affective connotation; do you mean ‘sense’ in its sensitive meaning or its intuitive connotation?

RESPONDENT: What do values feel like, look like, smell like, taste like, sound like?

RICHARD: The direct experience of the benignity and benevolence which originates from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and those very properties themselves is an apperceptive (unmediated) awareness, and thus comprehension, of the essential character of the infinitude/ absoluteness of the universe.

*

RESPONDENT: How do we know they exist?

RICHARD: By experiencing them directly (apperceptively) ... as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto).

RESPONDENT: I don’t see how values are not constructs of the mind.

RICHARD: Perhaps an obvious example might throw some light upon the matter: for vegetation to flourish there must be certain conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) and the value of such conditions, in terms of their quality in regard to their ability in causing that effect (flourishment), is quite evidently not a construct of the human mind as palaeontology – ‘the branch of science that deals with extinct and fossil animals and plants’ (Oxford Dictionary) – evidences that vegetation flourished long before human mind’s appeared on the scene.

RESPONDENT: The favourable conditions existed before human minds appeared on the scene – as did the vegetation – but there were no values.

RICHARD: Oh? Did the vegetation not flourish, then, before human minds appeared on the scene?

*

RESPONDENT: I’m still missing why felicity ‘can only’ result from the make-up of the universe.

[Richard]: ‘... both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ...’ [endquote].

[Richard]: ‘... by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously)’ [endquote].

My response to all of these is: Why? You appear to be repeating that felicity can only result without explaining why.

RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds ... to wit: here in this actual (the world of the senses).

RESPONDENT: Why?

RICHARD: Because what one is, as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto), is not separate from that pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed.
I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally’.

Were you to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly to its obverse – all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe – whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were (and not through the eyes), then what I am reporting/ describing/ explaining may very well become apparent as an experiential understanding.

One experience is worth a thousand words.

RESPONDENT: You’ve once again repeated that felicity can only result ...

RICHARD: Well now, that is what comes of repeatedly asking ‘why’ to each and every answer to an initial ‘why’ question.

RESPONDENT: ... while my question was why can felicity and only felicity result.

RICHARD: Anybody who is or has been a parent knows only too well that children, around the age of three-four, can develop a tendency to keep on asking ‘why’ to each answer given to their previous ‘why’ query until the parent usually tells them that it is just the way things are and to go outside and play ... mostly, however, they grow out of that stage (those who do not are called philosophers in adulthood).

This may be an apt place to point out that, as to be asking ‘why’ is to be eliciting a motive, a purpose, a reason, an intent, then the very asking in this context presupposes some omnipotent creative being, force or energy complete with a blue-print, a master-plan or grand-design ... in short: an intelligence (usually capitalised as ‘An Intelligence’).

In other words, and because humans quite rightly value their intelligence highly, to ask ‘why the universe’ (the ultimate teleological question) is to anthropomorphise that which is much, much more than merely intelligent.

*

RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity.

RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness.

And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically.

RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body is either abeyant (in a PCE) or extinct (upon an actual freedom from the human condition).

RESPONDENT: What has perfection got to do with this?

RICHARD: The perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness this actual universe is has nothing to do with what you wrote (that happiness is the sensual pleasure, sourced in the brain, which results when there is no emotion or identity).

*

RESPONDENT: To use the word ‘perfect’ in the sense of ‘complete-in-itself’ then absolutely everything in the universe is perfect, with or without emotions.

RICHARD: As no affective identity has any existence whatsoever in actuality it makes no sense to include same in [quote] ‘everything’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: In this sense, murders, wars, malice and sorrow are all perfect manifestations of the universe, as is the desire to be rid of these things.

RICHARD: As neither malice nor sorrow have any existence whatsoever in actuality (only their effects, such as the murders and wars you mention, do) – nor any desire at all for that matter – it makes no sense to say they are manifestations (let alone perfect ones) of the universe.

RESPONDENT: Emotions exist, do they not?

RICHARD: Neither emotions nor passions have any existence in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Why not include emotions when saying ‘everything’?

RICHARD: Because emotions have no existence whatsoever in actuality (only their physical effects do).

RESPONDENT: Where and how do emotions and identities exist, if not within the universe?

RICHARD: They exist affectively, psychically, in the real-world (the world of the affections, the psyche).

RESPONDENT: The universe is not split into two realms of ‘actuality’ and ‘reality’ is it?

RICHARD: No ... the reality of the real-world, being but a veneer pasted over actuality by the identity within, has no actual existence.

RESPONDENT: Sensation is inherently happy, due to the perfection.

RICHARD: As sensation is, according to the circumstances, alternatively pleasurable or painful it is patently obvious you are barking up the wrong tree.

RESPONDENT: Not ‘sensation’ then. Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? As sensation – ‘perception by the senses’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is the very act of sensing then what you are saying (just above) is that the act of sensing is inherently happy ... therefore, because the very act of sensing is alternatively pleasurable or painful (according to the circumstances), it is patently obvious you are still barking up the wrong tree.

RESPONDENT: ... [Is the act of sensing one that is inherently happy] when there is no emotion seemingly taking away from the perfection of the universe?

RICHARD: No, apperceptive awareness is what is inherently happy/ felicitous and harmless/ innocuous...

RESPONDENT: ... as that’s where the perfection becomes evident?

RICHARD: No ... as that awareness is the universe being conscious of its own perfection.

RESPONDENT: Is felicity an inevitable human reaction to the perfection?

RICHARD: No, felicity is the universe’s inevitable experience of its own perfection.

RESPONDENT: Is the felicity inherent to apperception caused by chemicals in the brain?

RICHARD: No, the cause of the universe’s felicity is the universe’s own perfection.

RICHARD: The primary cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on is the instinctual passions which give rise to malice and sorrow and the antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion which, if sublimated and transcended, give rise to Love Agapé and Divine Compassion.

RESPONDENT: But the Universe is a harsh place even without humans.

RICHARD: It is only when the universe is experienced with the ‘real world’ veneer pasted over it is it ‘harsh’. It is the harshness of the ‘real world’ reality that is being experienced ... not the actuality of the universe. In actuality this universe is beneficent, friendly, benevolent.

RESPONDENT: ‘What beneficent creator would permit the sort of suffering so widespread in nature?’ [Charles Darwin]. ‘The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical’. [David Hull]. ‘The sheer amount of suffering in the world that is the direct result of natural selection is beyond contemplation’. [Richard Dawkins].

[Respondent]: ‘I have noticed that you apply many of the traditional attributes of spirit to matter: infinite, eternal, benevolent, benign, even, I believe, intelligent in a non-anthropomorphic way’.
[Richard]: ‘Not ‘applying’, no ... these ‘attributes’ are actually properties (infinite and eternal) and qualities (immaculate and consummate) and values (*benevolent and benign*) and are my direct experience, each moment again, and those words are my description of what is actually happening (properties plus qualities equals values). [emphasis added].

The last quote, although coming from direct experience, contradicts obvious facts, like the first three quotes above.

RICHARD: Ha ... since when has any god/ any theology/ any theory been obvious facts?

Here is a more spelled-out way of putting it:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, could you list as many characteristics as possible that you would ascribe to the universe, please. Such as benign, infinite, wonderful, marvellous, eternal, a veritable perpetuus mobilis etc. As many as possible would be neat to look see. I’m just curious to read what the universe is and therefore what it isn’t from a pure consciousness experiencer.
• [Richard]: ‘The fundament characteristic, or nature, of the universe is its infinitude – specifically having the properties of being spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perdurable – or, to put that another way, its absoluteness ... as such it is a veritable perpetuus mobilis (as in being self-existent/ non-dependent and/or self-reliant/ non-contingent and/or self-sufficient/ unconditional and/or self-generating/ unsupported).
Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate).
And this is truly wonderful to behold.
Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/faultless, as in impeccable/immaculate, and is thus pure/pristine.
And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs.
Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous, and so on) ... and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary).
And that, to say the least, is quite amazing.

RESPONDENT: I can’t reconcile these ... has anyone managed to? ... and how?

RICHARD: It is not a matter of reconciliation as there is nothing to reconcile in actuality – there is neither god nor suffering here in this actual world – but rather a matter of coming to one’s senses (both literally and metaphorically) and thus directly experiencing what is actually happening.

Put succinctly: actualism is experiential and not theological/ philosophical or academical/ theoretical.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that the thin red line between Nature (cruel survival instincts in humans, animals, birds, viruses, other life forms) and Universe (matter) is arbitrarily drawn by actualists, it’s an artificial divide.

RICHARD: Just for starters I use the phrase blind nature – a generic term referring to the fact that no intelligent design/ architecture and/or omniscient designer/ architect underpins and/or created/ creates or manifests/ sustains the universe (hence ‘blind’) – and not [quote] ‘Nature’ [endquote] as that word popularly refers to phenomena in particular/ the universe in general and, when capitalised, to an intelligent design/architecture and/or omniscient designer/ architect (a creative power or being). For instance:

• ‘nature: the creative and regulative physical power conceived of as operating in the material world and as the immediate cause of all its phenomena (sometimes, esp. N-, personified as a female being); these phenomena collectively; the material world; spec. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opp. to humans or human creations or civilization; Mother Nature: nature as a creative power personified, nature personified as benign and protective; communing with nature: Mother Nature, natural forces, creation, the environment, the earth, mother earth, the world, the universe, the cosmos; landscape, scenery; ’. (Oxford Dictionary).

I use the word universe to refer to all time and all space and all matter ... and that usage is not, of course, inclusive of the emotional/ passional imaginings (fantasies, hallucinations, deliriums, and so on) of the psyche. And the reason why I mention this, up-front, is because some form of, or variation on, what can be called malism – ‘the doctrine that this world is an evil one’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is an ubiquitous feature of the world of the human psyche ... as is evidenced, for example, in the ‘existence of evil’ dilemma more than a few theologians/ metaphysicians/ philosophers and/or academics/ intellectuals/ theoreticians wrestle futilely with and which type of quandary might possibly be what you are re-presenting a facsimile of in this e-mail (albeit in the guise of a-cruel/ bloody-nature-versus-a-benevolent/ benign-universe line of thought) just as you did in an earlier post (on Thursday, 10/11/2005, at 10:21 PM AEDST) where you spoke of [quote] ‘the horrors of nature’ [endquote].

There is no line or divide (be it thin, arbitrary, artificial, or otherwise) between blind nature’s very essential survival package and the universe – biological-inheritance is not a miraculous gift bestowed by some inscrutable god/ goddess – as this actual world, the world of the senses, is indeed characterised by benevolence and benignity (there is neither cruelness nor horrors in actuality). However, in the real world, the world of the psyche, any such kindly disposition – as in being well-disposed, bountiful, liberal, bounteous, beneficent (aka benevolent) and being favourable, propitious, salutary (aka benign) – being not readily apparent, as in directly experienceable, requires naiveté for its intellectual ascertainment.

I am, of course, using the word ‘kindly’ in its Oxford Dictionary ‘acceptable, agreeable, pleasant; spec. (of climate, conditions, etc.) benign, favourable to growth’ meaning ... and which I generally express by saying I am swimming in largesse. For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘In the PCE, there is a clear sense that something of momentous importance is happening, at least it seemed that way for me. The excellence experience, if not labelled such, might seem to be an experience of exceptional clarity and lucidity. With the PCE, words like bounteousness, bursting, pouring forth, vibrant, clear, alive, animate, come to mind.
• [Richard]: ‘The words ‘exceptional clarity and lucidity’ strikes me as being a very good description of the distinction when compared with ‘bounteousness, bursting, pouring forth’ and so on as I am swimming in largesse’.

Or even more specifically:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Does this [allowing a PCE to happen] take nerves of steel?
• [Richard]: ‘No, apart from spontaneous PCE’s (most common in childhood) it takes happiness and harmlessness: where one is happy and harmless a benevolence and benignity that is not of ‘my’ doing operates of its own accord ... and it is this beneficence and magnanimity which occasions the PCE.
The largesse of the universe (as in the largesse of life itself), in other words’.

In short: I do not use the words benevolent/ benevolence and benign/ benignity as antonyms to the words malevolent/ malevolence and malign/ malignity (such as to require reconciliation) as the latter exists only in the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: I can’t reconcile the statement that the Universe is benevolent with the fact that a life form (even free from instinctual passions) has to feed on other life forms in order to survive. It has to kill.

RICHARD: Oh, there is even more to it than life feeding off life ... and we have touched on it before:

• [Richard]: ‘... the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one, or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/ carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious!
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes, I see your point as I remember instances of original comedy in my life, although in the real-world where I currently reside, it’s a serious and sometimes deadly business, mainly because people take themselves so seriously (survival takes precedent over enjoying).
• [Richard]: ‘And therein lies the nub of the issue (in the real-world life is indeed a serious and sometimes deadly business)’.

Umpteen numbers of stars (and thus solar systems) are constantly exploding/ imploding, and their resultant gaseous nebulae are coalescing/ amalgamating, all throughout the observable universe and yet you focus only upon life feeding off life in order to justify your how-can-it-be-reconciled stance. For example:

• [example only]: ‘I cannot reconcile the statement that the universe is benevolent/benign with the fact that matter itself is constantly in a state of re-arrangement which, of necessity, involves destruction/ obliteration and construction/ creation’. [end example].

Or even a more simple (if only because it is a more popular or common plaint) example:

• [example only]: ‘I cannot reconcile the statement that the universe is benevolent/benign with the fact that, even if I survive being eaten by other animals, I must eventually die anyway’. [end example].

Objecting to, or being resentful of, being alive in the first place takes many forms.

RESPONDENT: The actualist universe is a benevolent universe.

RICHARD: No, it is the actual universe – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which is benevolent (and benign) ... and which actuality includes the very flesh and blood body itself.

RESPONDENT: Towards whom is this benevolence manifested?

RICHARD: As there is no thing (such as the stones, trees, humans, and other animals, you go on to mention) which is not the universe your [quote] ‘towards whom’ [endquote] question makes no sense.

RESPONDENT: Stones, trees, animals or only towards humans?

RICHARD: The benevolence (and benignity) of this actual universe is intrinsic to every thing ... no thing is exempt.

RESPONDENT: ... seems a little awkward/silly to me.

RICHARD: That could quite possibly be because you are considering these matters in a spiritualistic versus materialistic context ... rather than in an actualistic paradigm such as what this mailing list is set-up for.

I mean it when I say actualism is the third alternative to spiritualism and materialism.

*

RESPONDENT: Also, about the imperative that this universe has ... to (constantly?) improve locally, to reach the full of its potential, the best possible outcome .... where is the evidence for this on other planets, stars, comets?

RICHARD: In the same place as the evidence there is life on other planets, stars, comets, perchance?

RESPONDENT: It’s an anthropomorphic view ...

RICHARD: Ha ... when you look about and observe the myriads of life forms do you see them as imperatively having to deteriorate, to reach the least of their potential, their worst possible outcome, then?

RESPONDENT: ... if I can’t see any improvement there in the last 3+ billion years, what makes an actualist (another human) see any?

RICHARD: Oh? You do not call the arising of intelligence in the human animal an improvement, then?

RESPONDENT: Actualism looks in these occasions condimented with the anthropomorphic and anthropocentric views on the universe.

RICHARD: Hmm ... actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is anything but an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric view on the universe.

RESPONDENT: Maybe, just maybe, we have a hard time just accepting the evidence: we live in a meaningless, breathtaking universe.

RICHARD: And just what non-anthropomorphic/ non-anthropocentric evidence would that be (that the universe, albeit breathtaking, is meaningless) ... other than the stock-standard materialistic position, that is, as that fancy has already been flogged to death on other forums?

RESPONDENT: Thanks for hearing my thoughts.

RICHARD: You are welcome ... any chance of them being more thoughtful (as in relating to the actualism actually on offer and not a spiritualistic/ materialistic construal of same) the next time around?

RICHARD: There is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful states of ‘Being’ ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious. It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe.

RESPONDENT: So there is an ultimately precious infinitude of the universe that is when ‘I’ cease to exist. What are the qualities of the infinitude of the universe? Creativity? Timelessness? Bliss? Intelligence? Boundlessness?

RICHARD: The qualities of the infinitude of the universe?

1. Creativity: No ... the universe is already always here endlessly rearranging itself. This universe is capable of an infinite complexity of form. Have you seen those Hubble Telescope photographs of the Horse Nebula?

2. Timelessness: No ... time is actual and can never stop. Subjectively, time can appear to stop, stand still, go backwards ... do all kinds of things. Yet all this while the clock keeps ticking and the sun still moves through the sky. Time is eternal ... eternal as physically without beginning and without end. Now I know that the word ‘timeless’ can mean eternal, but it is a metaphysical use of the word because it implies time stopping or vanishing. In that context, the mystics use it in conjunction with ‘spaceless’ ... ‘I am Timeless and Spaceless; Unborn and Undying; Birthless and Deathless’ ... and so on. As this physical body has a limited life-span, they can only be referring to a psychic entity receiving its post-mortem reward of immortality. There is no ‘timelessness’ here, in actuality. Living here, at this moment in time, there is only this moment that is actual. As it is already always this moment, to the unaware it appears to be ‘timeless’. It is not. This moment is hanging in time like this planet is hanging in space. Just as the universe’s space is infinite, so too is this universe’s time eternal. There is no beginning or end to the infinitude of this universe’s space and time, therefore there is no middle, no centre. Thus, one is always here and it is already now. And here and now is nowhere in particular.

3. Bliss: No ... bliss is an affective state of being that is born of the instincts blind nature gratuitously endows us with at birth. Bliss and ecstasy and euphoria are all self-enhancing, self-endorsing, self-preserving passions.

4. Intelligence: No ... the universe is not intelligent. That is anthropomorphism ... intelligence resides only in human beings.

5. Boundlessness: Yes ... without beginning or end. Which means, of course, no centre. Thus infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be.

An actual freedom is an enormous freedom.

RESPONDENT: What is ultimately precious is sacred. You are simply changing the words.

RICHARD: I think not. This is the way the words ‘precious’ and ‘sacred’ differ for me:

• Precious: priceless, valuable, prized, cherished, beyond price, without price, of incalculable value, of incalculable worth, of inestimable value, of inestimable worth, invaluable, incomparable, irreplaceable, treasured, worth its weight in gold, worth a king’s ransom. (Oxford Dictionary).
• Sacred: holy, blessed, blest, hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, godly, divine, deified, supreme, venerated, religious, spiritual, devotional, churchly, ecclesiastical. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Is there a need to be viewed as unique?

RICHARD: An actual freedom is unique.