Actual Freedom – A Request from Konrad Swart

October 07 1998:

KONRAD: You misunderstand me. You read my explanations backwards. You think, that because I define the ‘I’ as a thought that controls the body I am defending this as a necessity.

RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ this ... you repeatedly tell me so. Are you going to change your mind again?

KONRAD: I do not have to. For you are either unwilling or unable to see that this is NOT what I am saying.

RICHARD: You clearly wrote: ‘a certain thought ... controls the body ... your ‘will’ produces a conclusion and this conclusion is then allowed to control your body ... I assert that this conclusion is a form of ‘I’’.

KONRAD: Yes, it is. But it is an I in the form of a ‘what’, to use your language, and not in the form of a ‘who’.

RICHARD: Whether you call it a ‘what’ or a ‘who’ is beside the point. My point is that you have been saying that an ‘I’ is necessary to control the body ... and you have been saying I am wrong in saying this. Please stop this puerile dissembling.

KONRAD: Yes, an ‘I’ in the form of a ‘what’, namely a thought that controls the body. Not an ‘I’ in the form of a ‘who’, for that is an illusion.

RICHARD: This is so silly what you do here, Konrad, by side-stepping the issue ... this is not being intelligent at all. You were saying that I was wrong when I said that you maintained that an ‘I’ is necessary (see above). Now you say that it is indeed necessary just like I said you have been saying ... only it is a ‘what’, for goodness sake! What kind of craziness is this to have been accusing me of being wrong about your position vis a vis the necessity of ‘I’ all this while? Can we have a genuine conversation?

KONRAD: This is NOT side-stepping the issue. This is exactly the point where you misunderstand me. This issue, whether the ‘I’ is a ‘who’ or whether it is a ‘what’ is at the very heart of the matter.

RICHARD: You are still side-stepping the issue ... the issue being that you were saying that I was wrong when I said that you maintained that an ‘I’ is necessary. Viz.:

• [Konrad]: ‘I assert that (...) no ‘I’ separate from thought exists (...) the reason why I make such a big fuss of exactly this point [is] as long as you talk in terms of the ‘I’ must be eliminated (...) it just betrays that you are unable to see that there is no identity to eliminate’.
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, I get this ploy from many long-time spiritual seekers ... they get to a point where they fondly imagine that there is no problem. The ‘I’ is an illusion, they say, so nothing has to be done once this is realised. This is nothing but spiritual masturbation. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides go on ad infinitum’.

Now you say that it is indeed necessary ... just like I said you have been saying. Now you are trying to throw up a smoke-screen to hide the fact that you have side-stepped the issue by prattling on about ‘this issue, whether the ‘I’ is a ‘who’ or whether it is a ‘what’, is exactly the point where you misunderstand me’. I do not misunderstand you at all because it is not the issue we were discussing ... you were accusing me of being unable to see that no identity exists. Now you are saying it does exist. You were wrong in your accusation and I was right in my observation ... yes or no?

KONRAD: It is far more important than you seem to realize.

RICHARD: See, now you are telling me that there is another thing that I do not understand ... this time you are saying that I do not ‘seem to realise’ the importance of this ‘I’ being a ‘what’ instead of a ‘who’. The issue (above) was that you said there was no ‘I’ in existence at all ... let alone a ‘who’ or a ‘what’ kind of ‘I’.

KONRAD: In fact, I think you not understanding this is the very reason why we have this debate.

RICHARD: No, Konrad, the reason we are having this debate is that ‘I’ have been saying that an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form, is the sole cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. I have been saying that this ‘I’ needs to be eliminated ... that it can be eliminated ... and that in me it is eliminated. You were saying that there is no ‘I’ to be eliminated because it is an illusion. I said that this ‘I’ must undergo an illusory death commensurate to its pernicious illusory existence. Now you are trying to shift the debate to a discussion about this illusory ‘I’ being a ‘what’ instead of a ‘who’. Does it, or does it not, cause all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? If so, will its elimination bring about peace-on-earth? Yes? No? If its elimination can indeed bring about this effect, then does it matter whether it is a ‘who’ or a ‘what’ or a ‘when’, for goodness sake. People are dying ... they are killing each other ... and you are sitting here wasting time by quibbling over the nature of this ‘I’?

KONRAD: Let me give one consequence of this insight.

RICHARD: And on and on you go being dilatory. And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides go on an on ... century after century. Okay ... let us do it your way then ... let us indeed sit about and discuss the nature of this illusory ‘I’ ... so what if more suffering goes on whilst we do, eh? Except ... have you not done this quibbling before? Just look at this following E-Mail exchange ... I have snipped my responses so you can see how you operate. Viz.:

• [Konrad]: ‘I assert that (...) no ‘I’ separate from thought exists (...) the reason why I make such a big fuss of exactly this point [is] as long as you talk in terms of the ‘I’ must be eliminated, you must free yourself from the ‘self’, or, as you do, stating that: [Richard] ‘What is central to my approach is the elimination of an identity in any way, shape or form’, it just betrays, that you are unable to see, that there is no identity to eliminate’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’
• [Konrad]: ‘Since this understanding is basic for enlightenment, in fact is its igniter, your claim that you have moved to something beyond it is clearly false’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’
• [Konrad]: ‘You show that you are incapable of seeing that this insight, this understanding is correct’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’
• [Konrad]: ‘Your so-called ‘capability to see the world directly’ distorts it in such a way that you do not see that this is not at all what I am saying’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’’
• [Konrad]: ‘You are showing that you are either unwilling or unable to understand abstract definitions. I think you are unable. An inability that might be the direct consequence of your ‘actualism’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’
• [Konrad]: ‘Let me give one example, in what way you misunderstand. (Sigh ...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘<SNIP>’

And now, after that ‘insight’ has been exposed as being false ... you are going to try a different tack. Another new insight ... and Richard will again be told how wrong he is ... and how his actualism makes him unable to see it ... and so on and so on.

This is such good fun, Konrad ... what will you come up with next, I wonder.

KONRAD: If the ‘I’ is a ‘what’ in the form of a ‘controlling thought’, this implies that there is NO ‘I’ in the form of a continuous identity.

RICHARD: Now why on earth should an ‘I’ in the form of a controlling thought as a ‘what’ imply that there is no continuous identity ... even if it could be a ‘what’ which it cannot? Do you mean that the gaps between two thoughts cause a break in the continuity of this ‘I’ that used to be a ‘who’ when it could not stop thinking? Do you mean, that the longer the gaps are between two thoughts, the shorter the ‘I’ is continuous? That is: when there is no thought there is no ‘I’ ... which means that the less thought there is the less ‘I’ there is? Therefore it pays to be in this thoughtless and mindless state for as much as possible? Which means: if thought can stop altogether then ‘I’ cease to exist altogether? Yet when ‘I’ stop thinking, the feelings have a field day as they rush in to fill the gaps left by this absent-mindedness and run the show all by themselves, do they not? And if there is no continuous ‘I’ in the form of a constant controlling thought to control those dratted feelings, then ... golly gosh ... we might have some more of those jolly good religious wars, eh?

Because it is of no avail to vainly crank up some Love Agapé and Divine Compassion by making the quantum leap from being the ‘I’ as ego to being the ‘me’ as soul – with the identity transmogrified into a ‘Supreme Being’ – in order to make people humane ... that has been tried and tried again and again without any benefit. To use love and compassion to try to end hatred and suffering is somewhat akin to pouring petrol on a fire in order to put it out. The ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’.

If ‘I’ is a thought as you say it is, it is most definitely an identity because the product of such thinking – a psychological entity – is not a material body. Now, in your case – because of your predilection for abstract thought – it may very well have attenuated into being an impersonal identity ... to the point of appearing to be a grammatically impossible ‘what’ to you. But it is still an identity, nevertheless ... which, without explaining why, you say is not an ‘I’ in the form of a continuous identity. Therefore, this apparently discontinuous identity is what is deemed necessary by you to control those dratted emotions. Because in other E-mails, where you have said, for example, that [quote] ‘feelings, emotions, stem from another source, the SELF, and even THESE cannot be stopped by the ‘I’ [endquote], you seem to be saying that emotions, in fact, control the body ... and that an ‘I’-thought has to keep them under its watchful eye. You emphasise this by saying that [quote] ‘feelings can only be repressed, not stopped’ [endquote] ... which clearly indicates that for you that a censoring ‘I’ – a product of thought – is ultimately ineffectual, nevertheless. A somewhat impotent identity, in other words. Now, you have already written and told me what you have to do when you get infuriated ... you have to have emotion-backed principles in order to manage to operate and function in a socially acceptable manner even when driven by the instinctual animal urges of fear and aggression that blind nature endows all sentient beings with. In other words: whether with a ‘continuous’ or discontinuous identity you are still a victim of the human condition ... you are encumbered by feelings – emotion and passion and calenture – to this very day.

So what is the advantage of having a discontinuous ‘I’ over a ‘continuous’ ‘I’? And, for that matter, how and when did your ‘I’ become discontinuous?

KONRAD: Therefore, if you understand what I am saying here, I, at least, see, that there is far less disagreement between you and me than you think. Look at what you yourself write: [Richard]: ‘I will repeat that I have never said that movement does not require thought – other than idle gestures or when running on automatic pilot – because purpose is involved and only thought can see a means to an end ... thought is obviously required’. Well, Richard, there you have it. So a thought is indeed needed to act. You said it yourself, now.

RICHARD: Aye ... I have always maintained that thought is necessary for purposeful action. And I have always maintained that an ‘I’ is not at all necessary ... I have repeatedly said that thoughts can think themselves perfectly well without a ‘thinker’. In fact, ‘I’ hinder clear thought with ‘my’ nugatory demands ... ‘my’ needs; ‘my’ wants; ‘my’ shoulds; ‘my’ oughts and etcetera. And ‘I’ thwart clean thought with ‘my’ passionate cravings ... ‘my’ desires; ‘my’ urges; ‘my’ longings; ‘my’ ardours; ‘my’ lecheries and so on. This is because the identity is – at root – nothing but the rudimentary animal ‘self’ born out of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire.

This is so obvious, surely?

KONRAD: Now the rest is just definition. This thought is, by DEFINITION an ‘I’. Why? BECAUSE it controls the body.

RICHARD: Just what do you mean with this throwaway line ‘now the rest is just definition’? Can you stop and muse about this for a moment before rushing on to your ‘proof’? Is there not something more to be done other than define a problem away cerebrally? What about these instinctual passions? No matter what intellectualisation you may come up with ... they remain firmly in situ, do they not? So, with that sobering thought held firmly in mind, we can proceed onto your second sentence: ‘this thought is, by definition, an ‘I’’ ... and you then ask why this is so? As there is a thought that is needed to act purposefully, you conclude that this thought is an ‘I’ that is controlling the body. Do you see the circular argument operating here? That is, the initial surmise is ‘proved’ by relying upon the initial surmise being a fact in order to do this sleight of hand ... or should I say: sleight of mind? Maybe you can see this if I arrange all of your sentences sequentially? Viz.:

Initial Surmise: ‘An ‘I’ is a controlling thought’.
1. ‘[Because] a thought is needed [for a body] to act’.

2. ‘This thought is, by definition, an ‘I’’.
3. ‘Because it [this thought] controls the body’.
Conclusion: ‘[Therefore] an ‘I’ is necessary to control a body’.

Now, I do not profess to be a logician ... but even with my limited training I find this to be a spurious deduction. If you wish to convince me with the logic of your argument you are going to have to insert one or more sentences between Nos. (2) and (3) ... because there is an implausible leap happening there where an other-wise identity-free thought mysteriously becomes an ‘I’-thought’. It is perhaps somewhat like that infamous theorem ‘I think, therefore I am’: it being predicated upon the initial surmise – ‘I think’ – being a fact in order to produce the conclusion ... ‘I am’. The initial surmise is faulty ... it should read only the fact that ‘there is thinking happening’. Thus the rewritten axiom now looks like this: ‘There is thinking happening, therefore I am’ ... which is – like your deduction above – nothing but twaddle dressed up as sagacity.

So, the question now is: where does this identity come from in order to emerge in thought so mysteriously ready-made ... as evidenced in your initial surmise?

My suggestion is, of course, that this ‘I’ part of the identity – this ‘thinker’ – comes from the ‘me’ part of the identity – the ‘feeler’ – who is nothing but the glorified ‘soul’ born out of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ of the instinctual survival passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. But, of course, you have already read me saying this before, and have considered it deeply before then totally ignoring it, have you not? Just like you carefully considered my observation, that the body’s will is quite capable of organising the various components of the body to operate and function in a purposeful manner, before discarding it and asserting that this was proof that actualism is clouding my ability to reason abstractly, eh? Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams from and through the bodily senses ... and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function, not an identity.

And will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body.

KONRAD: Now I just simply assert, that WITHOUT such a controlling thought the body is NOT able to act, behave purposefully. This is what I assert, no less, and definitely not MORE than this.

RICHARD: I have gradually become aware, Konrad, that you have been asserting more and more as these dialogues go on ... you have been asserting all over the place, lately ... you assert here ... you assert there ... you assert everywhere. You especially assert when the logic of your argument is particularly weak ... which is most of the time. Now, you can assert like all get-out until the cows come home ... but no amount of assertion can make fantasy into fact.

KONRAD: This means, that every time there is a different purpose, there is also a different ‘I’ because, again, by DEFINITION, and ONLY BY DEFINITION this thought is an ‘I’.

RICHARD: Yet your definition is specious ... and your logical deductions lack intellectual rigour. All the different and multifarious purposes – and I am not going to list such minutiae – ultimately stem from the passionate instinct for survival of the species that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at conception. Everyone is born, already programmed by blind nature, with a rudimentary animal ‘self’. The Christians call this biological imperative ‘Being born a Sinner’ ... which readily equates with the Hindu’s ‘Being immersed in Maya’.

KONRAD: Therefore the ‘I’, the controller of the body, is not a continuous identity.

RICHARD: On the surface it may appear to be discontinuous – by dint of abstraction and denial – but whilst that rudimentary instinctual ‘self’ is still in place then the identity is, at root, continuous.

KONRAD: THIS is the reason why the distinction between the ‘I’ as a ‘who’, and the ‘I’ as a ‘what’ is so important.

RICHARD: Perhaps the time has come for you to explain how a ‘who’ thought – as in ‘who I am’ – can become a ‘what’ thought ... as a discontinuous identity. Whenever you are talking about an ‘I’ that is a product of thought – just like the Krishnamurtiites – then, as such, it is an identity ... as in the ‘who am I?’ question. This is because a ‘what am I?’ question can only refer to some material body ... namely this flesh and blood body. If I were to ask you: ‘what are you?’ ... you cannot say: ‘what I am is a thought’ because what you are is the body. Even if you try to ungrammatically say: ‘what I am is a thought’, then this ridiculous phraseology is still indicating a psychological entity ... which is plainly not material.

KONRAD: It is, as you say, with me as it is with you. The thought that controls the body ‘jumps at its place’ whenever action is required. Again, ‘I’ repeat, and you seem to agree with this, WITHOUT such a controlling thought no ACTION, no purposeful behaviour is possible. If you can agree on this, the basis for further investigation is established. For then you no longer deny something that is completely obvious.

RICHARD: Golly, you do go on and on about this ... I have already agreed that thought is required for purposeful action, but I do not agree that an ‘I’ is required, like you are trying to make it look like I am saying, for purposeful intent. What you are talking of is desire operating ... and desire is affective. I will repeat that I have never said that movement does not require thought – other than idle gestures or when running on automatic pilot – because purpose is involved and only thought can see a means to an end. Thought is obviously required ... that is not the issue. I report that there is no ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul extant in this body ... no rudimentary animal ‘self’ whatsoever. Thinking may or may not occur ... but the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’, along with all feelings – emotion and passion and calenture – have disappeared, entirely. For the vast majority of my time there is no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action and effortlessly does its thing. All the while, there is this apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur ... it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here. Consequently, I am always blithe and carefree, even if I am doing nothing.

Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake.

KONRAD: And now we come at the following point. You say, that whenever this ‘I’ is not present, there is observation of the world exactly as it is. In other words, since we both see that such an ‘I’ is necessarily a form of intentionality, it necessarily is also an ‘interpreter’ of the world, and therefore it can only see the world in the light of this intentionality.

RICHARD: No, Konrad, no ... we do not ‘both see that such an ‘I’ is necessarily a form of intentionality’ at all. It is you who sticks an ‘I’ in there again and again and try to make it look as if I am agreeing with you and that I am saying the same thing. I am not. I report that that this body’s will – which is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – is quite capable of organising the various components of the body to operate and function in a purposeful and intentional manner.

Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams from and through the bodily senses ... and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function, not an identity.

KONRAD: In fact, the whole philosophy of existential phenomenology is based on this understanding, and is directed at both making us aware of this, and attempting to deduce all consequences of this insight.

RICHARD: And have the ‘Existential Phenomenologists’ become free of the human condition? Do they experience an utter absence of malice and sorrow? Are they totally happy and harmless? Do they experience peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? If not, then their business of ‘making us aware of this’ is worthless ... as far as I am concerned.

A teaching must be demonstrated in daily life.

KONRAD: Now you say, if I understand you correctly, that this is always a form of distortion. Therefore, as long as an ‘I’ is present, a ‘controlling thought’ is present, and the world can only be observed in the light of this intentionality, and not ‘as it is’.

RICHARD: Not just the ‘controlling thought’ of ‘I’ as ego – the ‘thinker’ in the head – but also ‘me’ as soul – the ‘feeler’ in the heart – which is the ‘self’ of the passionate instinct to survive at all costs. This entire package is what causes what you call a ‘form of distortion’ (I would say that this distortion is who you are rather than something you have as an accessory). Thus the actual world – which is what the phrase ‘the world as-it-is’ refers to – is forever locked away in what seems to be another dimension to everyday reality.

KONRAD: If I understand you correctly, you say that the reverse is also true. Namely, that if this intentionality of thought, this controlling thought, this ‘I’ is NOT present, no interpretation of the world occurs, and the world is seen exactly as it is.

RICHARD: I have read through this several times – and also what you wrote above – just to be sure what I am agreeing with. If, by saying ‘this ‘I’ is not present’ that you mean the entire package – the identity in its entirety – then I agree. Until then, if any trace of a psychological ‘I’ or psychic ‘me’ remains – especially the rudimentary animal ‘self’ – then the actual world might as well be non-existent. The utter purity of being the experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe’s eternal time and infinite space means that nothing dirty could get in ... but I doubt that any of this I have just written corresponds to your ‘intentionality of thought’, eh?

KONRAD: I am going to investigate your claim whether this is indeed the case. For, to be honest, I have never investigated this converse. For I was never aware of the fact that this could also be considered.

RICHARD: Good. The only way to sensibly investigate is by empirical observation ... experiential understanding. This means that you will need to step out of the real world – leaving your ‘self’ behind where ‘you’ belong – and come into this actual world of sensorial delight. In other words: induce a pure consciousness experience ... a PCE.

A PCE can be accomplished by discovering how to be alive here and now as a virtuality. Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur and your virtuality thus becomes actuality. Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign.

You will not be able to investigate this business of seeing the world directly – which is an actual intimacy with all people, things and events – by thinking logical thoughts and arriving at a deduced truth. Seeing this world directly is a lived experience ... each moment again.

KONRAD: I add a mail that I have sent to [a mutual correspondent]. For it contains a description of the way a ‘me’ is formed in the form of a continuous identity, both as an ‘I’, and as a ‘soul’ or ‘self’. The discussion I have with him is whether it is a form of ‘whipping out’ or ‘inhibiting emergence’ because of understanding. Therefore I add it because it might also throw some light on our discussion.

[Respondent]: ‘The process involves energy that has unbounded space, i.e. a dimension not bounded by the psyche. It starts with silently gathering attention into unitary perception and then a movement of the perceptual assemblage point is intended which awakens and harmonizes the whole energy body. When there is a direct connection between this energy and the brain and nervous system, there is a clearing away of accumulated impressions that cloud perception of wholeness.
[Konrad]: ‘I have been involved with a long discussion with Richard. And I have now come to realize that you are right, at least in your observation, although your formulation still leaves something to be desired. (But that will always be somewhat the case, I guess.) I am amazed at me acknowledging this. I have read the book ‘The social brain’, from Gazzaniga. In it there was a description of some part of the brains, that was into development for about one million years, and I suspect that we, at least most of us, are still in the middle of the development of it. Now after rereading my last mail to Richard, I came to the conclusion, that this ‘energetic phenomena’ that ‘I’ am feeling, (let us not quibble over semantics, you know exactly what ‘I’ mean/am at this moment, or without much difficulty can imagine it) is the manifestation of this ‘organ’ being ‘at work’. Its most important effect is, that it does not allow any thought to be dominant over the body. And therefore it can be said with confidence, that ‘it’ is, or ‘points at’ ‘something’, that is beyond thought and thinking.

RICHARD: Where you say ‘this ‘energetic phenomena’ that I am feeling’, I presume you are referring to what you otherwise call the ‘process’? And where you say ‘this ‘organ’ being at work’ I am presuming you mean the physical brain? As you talk of a million years of development of ‘some part of the brain’ and that ‘we are still in the middle of it’ I can only assume you are talking of an evolutionary process leading to human beings being eventually able to live in a state that is ‘beyond thought and thinking’? My question is: why are you busy with this when you are so emphatic with me that a controlling ‘I’-thought’ is necessary to do purposeful action?

Do you seriously expect to be able to live without thoughts and thinking for the twenty four hours of every day? Because, if you are not talking about living beyond thought and thinking, then this ‘it’ that ‘is ‘something’ that is beyond thought and thinking’ which you say that ‘it’ points at starts to sound mystical ... if not some god. And as you are talking with No. 12 of Mailing List ‘B’ – whom I have corresponded with extensively – who refers to an ‘unbounded energy’ with which one’s brain can have a direct connection with, I can only conclude that you are referring to something mystical. This is because No. 12 of Mailing List ‘B’ follows the line, promoted by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, that there is an ‘intelligence’ that one can come in contact with and become whole by so doing. No. 12 of Mailing List ‘B’ calls this a state of ‘unitary perception’ which results when the ‘I’ is not present and an experience of ‘centre-less being’ ensues. And although No. 12 of Mailing List ‘B’ denies it, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is in print as naming this ‘intelligence’ as ‘God’, Brahman’ or ‘Whatever you may call it’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also hinted that he was ‘The Buddha’ and maintained on his death bed that this ‘supreme intelligence’ would not manifest itself on earth for ‘many hundred years’ (all this is from memory and are not direct quotes).

I am idly curious as to just what you think you are discussing with him.

KONRAD: ‘For, obviously, the ‘organ’ that is able to contain thought and thinking, is, when it is dominant, itself beyond thought and thinking. It can make its presents ‘felt’, but, since any understanding is a form of thought and thinking, it is not able to contain itself. The ‘me’ is not something that is doing the actual acting on the body, that manifests itself in purposeful behaviour. It is just a ‘centre’ that ‘observes’ this acting, and only does just that. It is ‘created’ by thought to uphold the conviction that there must always be a psychological entity that is ‘doing’ the acting. (Therefore you can call this either an ‘I’ or a ‘self’, depending on the scope of the dominant principle guiding the body]. A principle is some norm that generates an emotion to anything that either conforms to it, or contradicts it. In almost everybody there is the ‘principle’, the conviction, that the ‘I’ is separated from the action, but is nevertheless doing the acting. Now this principle causes, as a response to the creation of this observing ‘me’ by thought a ‘positive feeling’. This positive feeling, this emotion, is then considered to be the ‘proof’ that there IS such a ‘me’ present, that is also seen to be the ‘real actor’, while, in actual fact, this ‘me’ is only created by thought, to create this feeling, and in this way to end the cognitive dissonance between this principle and the actual fact that there is no real, acting ‘I’, separated from thought. The creation of this ‘mechanism’, this ‘self’-thought is not done by thought itself. Thought is not able to create. Thought is only able to represent pictures. Any creation in us is ignited by a cognitive dissonance between awareness of the world, of thoughts, and our principles. This applies to the creation of this ‘mechanism’, too’.
[Respondent]: ‘The ending of the psychological ‘me’ is just that. There is no longer an observing centre. It is wiped out by energy that is not of thought and time’.
[Konrad]: ‘Not entirely correct, if you allow me. This energy you say is not of thought and time makes us understand, that the real ‘actor’, by definition, must be a thought that controls the body. Since this ‘self’ is just created by the principle of there must be such a ‘self’ as an attempt of this principle to alleviate cognitive dissonance, and it only ‘observes’, and does not do anything else, it is understood that it cannot possibly be the ‘self’ that is the real ‘doer’, or the real ‘continuous identity’ everybody believes he is. By seeing this clearly, this ‘belief’ is seen for what it is, namely just a belief. And a false one, too. And in this way this ‘self’ is no longer created. For it is no longer needed to end the cognitive dissonance between the conviction of there must necessarily be such a ‘self’, and this principle. For it is clearly realized, that the principle of there must necessarily be such a ‘self’ in order to act is seen to be false. So there is no actual ‘wiping out’ that takes place. Only an understanding, that sees that both the principle of the necessity of the ‘I’, and the ‘me’ that is created from it in an attempt to dissolve the cognitive dissonance between it and reality are unnecessary. Therefore it is better to say, that these two thoughts do no longer emerge. Still, your description is close enough for me to see clearly, that you indeed speak from genuine understanding. Something I suspected from the beginning’.
[Respondent]: ‘As there never was in actuality a self that existed separately in a projected time or space, the change must have a neuro-physiological basis’.
[Konrad]: ‘Yes! And THAT is what I was talking about. I was fascinated by its neuro-psychological basis. I am very pleased, that you have sent me these mails, for it has made me realize, that there is just a difference in background between us, and therefore a difference in formulating, not in real understanding. Therefore I decided to send you this mail. I realize now, that this energy, and its neuro-physiological basis makes its ‘presents’ felt within my own body in the form of this ‘process’ I have been talking about. And from your previous responses I understand, that you assert that it can also make its presents, and its dominance clear by other means? It does not matter. I see now, that, through my struggle with Richard, that me ‘sensing’ that there was something really authentic about you and your statements is totally vindicated. Only my attempts to bring this ‘process’ within the domain of understanding was not ended yet, as was the case with you, because I did not see that that was futile. So there is a difference between realization and understanding after all. For I am able to realize that such an energy is present, but I am unable to understand it’.

*

KONRAD: I sent this letter to Vineeto: [Konrad]: ‘I am still communicating with Richard. I am beginning to suspect, that both he and I have ‘switched on’ the same ‘apparatus’ in our mind, and that there is no difference after all between him and me. I am beginning to suspect, that the differences between him and me are more due to the difference in background, and therefore in how we express ourselves than that there is a real essential difference. Especially his remark, that ‘something turned over’ at his brain stem, and his constant referring to ‘apperception’ as a kind of awareness without a distorting intentionality in the form of an ‘I’ makes me suspect this. I am beginning to suspect, that what has happened to him is the same as what happened to me, for, if I really look close at what he describes about how he experiences the world, I do not see any difference between his experience and that of me. Even that ‘brain stem’ part is consistent with how ‘I’ am aware of ‘the process’. For that is exactly where the most intense part of ‘the process’ is active. I am also beginning to suspect, that this ‘apperception’ of him is the way this organ, that has taken one million years to develop, is the way it is functioning in him. I began to see this, after the very simple awareness, that ‘the container of thought and thinking’ must itself be of a totally different order. I conclude there is ‘something’ in us, some part of the brains, that, at some point, takes over. It is something that is definitely organic in nature. A part, that can become dominant. and when it does, there occurs a change whereby neither thought nor emotions are the ‘things’ that are in control. Whether you are eliminating thoughts and feelings totally, or you allow them to play some role is just a matter of what you want to do with your life. As a musician I have to allow them to play some role, while both Respondent No. 12 and Richard make a case for the total elimination of it. Now what I think is this: I suspect, that within us this ‘organ’ has been developing as a reaction to the constant wars, and has become dominant. Now it happens just to be so, that within Richard the ‘functioning’ of this organ goes so smooth, that he does not feel anything in the form of a sensation. But with somebody like me, and some others I am in correspondence with this is not so. But, again, this is just a superficial difference, and no essential difference. It seems, that the only thing that is different in Richard and in me is that he has focused his attention on the outside world, while I have focused my attention to abstract thinking. Or, to say it a little differently, his ‘toy’ is the actual and factual world, while that of me is logic and thinking. Therefore it seems that we are saying things that are radically different. But I do not think so any more. We were not saying things that were radically different. We were simply talking about different subjects. But, because we thought we were talking about the same thing we thought we were in opposition, while, in actual fact there was no real difference in essence. Only a difference in what we were paying attention to. Therefore I think that the both of us supplement each other in the sense that he is the one who can tell you most about the experience of the outside world, while I am the one who can tell you most about the power of abstract thinking’.

RICHARD: I will make no comment for you are rather prone to abruptly changing your mind ... I will wait for your response to my previous E-Mail before I consider what to make of your apparent about face as detailed above.