Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘A’ Correspondence

RESPONDENT: End of capitalism and the beginning of a new era? The revolution to terminate the capitalist era requires the united struggle of the disgruntled workers.

RICHARD: Hmm ... not exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the above. First cease being disgruntled and then see what happens to political systems such as capitalism. Disgruntled workers could not possibly form a better society so there is no point in even bothering to try.

RESPONDENT: Only the intellectually developed or warrior psyche type who are disgruntled workers with the will to struggle/ fight who have in fact been demoralised into worker-hood have been leaders of revolutions.

RICHARD: Peace on earth will never come through war – which is what I gather you are advocating by your use of words like ‘warrior psyche type’ and ‘will to struggle/ fight’ and ‘leaders of revolutions’. Any study of history shows that these revolutions have spilt blood, and I would never countenance such a course of action.

As long as the individual person is trapped within the Human Condition – by which is meant having a ‘dark side’ which requires a ‘good side’ to control it – there will never be a perfect society. Therefore, all revolutions are doomed to fail, no matter how idealistic.

RESPONDENT: But everything must be scientific, hey. One of the scientific processes of social change is indeed revolution. In the wake of every revolution, radical changes occur in individual and social life, and far-reaching changes take place in the collective psychology. Don’t deny the utter importance of the spiritual world view in this and that of the Eco-psychologists. Don’t deny the need for a strong organisations either based on spiritual and neo-humanistic values.

RICHARD: I do indeed deny the ‘utter importance of the spiritual world view’ – I have been doing nothing else but that. Spirituality has had thousands of years to demonstrate its efficacy and has failed again and again to bring its implied promise of Peace On Earth. The ‘spiritual world view’ is sick – it is rotten to the very core.

RESPONDENT: The main factor in revolution is the application of tremendous force to move society forward. Revolution is the application of tremendous force to accelerate the speed of the social cycle of history. But what is force? Crude physical force is an aberration of past conflicts – it may, however, still be necessary in future depending on circumstances. This is simply historical realism. True force is derived from spiritual struggle and effort – the urge to better one’s psyche, understanding and bid for further self and social evolution.

RICHARD: Nothing that is ultimately worthwhile – peace on earth – can be obtained through force. Not even ‘true force’. This is where spirituality is rotten to the core, for at the core lies power.

RESPONDENT: If the reverse takes place, and the social cycle of history moves in the opposite direction by the application of tremendous force, it is counter-revolution. In counter-revolution, society is taken backwards towards conservatism. This creates further staticity in human thought. Spiritual world view removes internal and external staticity.

RICHARD: The spiritual world view does not remove staticity ... spirituality has been around for thousands of years and it has done nothing to ameliorate the Human Condition. In fact, it has endorsed and perpetuated it. Staticity has been ruling for aeons. It is high time for something entirely new ... something that has never been before.

RESPONDENT: The trouble with spirituality traditionally, but I think this is rapidly on the way out, is that enlightenment is considered to be in the abode of the cupboard – the myth of the Himalayas or monastery. Radical redefining of spirituality is found in the community of hardworking people with benevolent ideas working with many aspects, e.g. relief work, schools, co-op formulation, etc., who are willing to take risks – even that of isolation in the social setting of dog eat dog but knowing other benevolent persons are offering a helping hand when things get tough.

RICHARD: Noble sentiments well expressed but unfortunately more of the same old ‘tried and true’ methods which people do not seem to see are actually the ‘tried and failed’. The only ‘radical redefining of spirituality’ that I would be interested in is to redefine it completely out of existence.

There exists another world to the ‘real world’ that peoples currently inhabit ... and it is not the ‘Greater Reality’ of spirituality. I call it the actual world. The actual world antedates the reality that humankind lives in and the Reality that Divinity lives in ... and is characterised by perfection and purity. When this moment lives one as this body only – instead of ‘me’, as an identity and self, living at this moment – only the actual world exists. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ have no substance; they both exist only in ‘my’ imagination. ‘I’ am a psychological interloper, and ‘I’ am the sole cause of all the ills of humankind. Without ‘me’ – and billions of other ‘me’s – war would take place no more. Rapacity, cupidity, duplicity, corruption and so on have no place whatsoever in the perfection of the actual, because for the actual to become apparent, ‘I’ must be no more.

Then there is no need for any revolution.

RICHARD: Of course I speak ‘so vehemently and rigidly against all talk of God’ because of the incredible suffering this ridiculous belief has caused over the centuries.

RESPONDENT: Richard, perpetuation of the non-God approach has be far more destructive in communist and Nazi states this century. Although I appreciate what you are driving at in your post, it seems to me that the non-God philosophies have been far more destructive of human incentive, endeavour, kindliness, altruism and the like.

RICHARD: I agree completely regarding your observations about the communist and Nazi states being destructive ... the secular approach has not worked either. That is why I advocate something entirely new ... something that has never been before in human history.

*

RICHARD: And cows and dogs have a ‘self’, albeit a rudimentary self at that. They are ruled by instincts such as fear and aggression just like humans are. I have eliminated these instinctual urges, so your attempt at a put-down by comparing me to animals again just does not work.

RESPONDENT: Is an animal a walking plant and so is a human a rational animal. Answer to both more likely is no.

RICHARD: Not too sure what you are driving at here ... but if, as I suspect, you are suggesting it is the rationality versus devotionality debate that you and I are engaged in then I would hasten to assure you that I, at least, am not advocating that the rational approach is superior to the devotional approach or vice versa. The faith people put in logic is as useless as the faith people put in intuition when it comes to deciding what is the final arbiter for determining the correct path to pursue. There is a third alternative – and it does not need faith, trust, belief or hope.

It is called apperception.

RICHARD: Peace on earth will never come through war – which is what I gather you are advocating by your use of words like ‘warrior psyche type’ and ‘will to struggle/fight’ and ‘leaders of revolutions’. Any study of history shows that these revolutions have spilt blood, and I would never countenance such a course of action.

RESPONDENT: Of course, I’m not advocating anything of that nature. In fact the proposition was that the spiritually associated values of altruism, etc. is the real revolutionary ‘force’. However, I do not deny the fact of history that many struggles and freedoms have been gained through fights and struggle. One simply cannot deny that – it is written in every history book there was – what is to say that it will change in the future. There is nothing in time recorded history to say that society will not continue in that way to a greater or lesser extent. That is why I also give utterly no credence to any utopian notions.

RICHARD: I agree that ‘that society will continue in that way to a greater or lesser extent’. I am under no doubts that upon the day I die, wars will still be raging somewhere in the world. You, however, go on to say that you ‘give utterly no credence to any utopian notions’ so I contend that you must favour a bloody revolution to achieve your ideal society ... unless some Almighty God is going to condescend to come down from on high waving a magic wand and setting all to rights in a twinkling of an eye. Now there is a fanciful notion!

*

RICHARD: As long as the individual person is trapped within the Human Condition – by which is meant having a ‘dark side’ which requires a ‘good side’ to control it – there will never be a perfect society. Therefore, all revolutions are doomed to fail, no matter how idealistic.

RESPONDENT: Of course, there will never be a perfect society, that is fairly obvious.

RICHARD: Oh yes, there can indeed be a perfect society. But it can only come about when each individual person perfects themselves. Judging by what I see about me among the nearly six billion peoples inhabiting this planet, that will be a long time coming. Maybe five thousand years ... and that is an optimistic view.

If only they stopped believing ... that would be a good start.

*

RICHARD: Nothing that is ultimately worthwhile – peace on earth – can be obtained through force. Not even ‘true force’. This is where spirituality is rotten to the core, for at the core lies power.

RESPONDENT: Power is a fact of life. You can have crude force or force of a sentient nature (e.g. persuasion, humanitarian appeal, etc.). In either case there is force. It is totally unrealistic to suggest that application of force of one form or another does not exist in all the diplomacy of history whether it be good force or negative force. Of course these are somewhat relative but anything that promotes welfare for the collective and individual (and not either in isolation disregarding the other) is useful. It would appear to me that your denial of any application of will/force is a utopian proposition that simply has no practical value in this world.

RICHARD: Once again you dismiss something I say as being ‘utopian’. Do I gain the correct impression that you consider me naive? If so, good, for I am totally disinterested in sophisticated pedantry ... such cultured views only produce minuscule changes ... and by force. Even ‘will/force’. The only change worthy of the name is voluntary change ... anyone who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new world will harbour resentment and ultimately sabotage the new order – as has been the sorry lesson of history.

*

RICHARD: The spiritual world view does not remove staticity ... spirituality has been around for thousands of years and it has done nothing to ameliorate the Human Condition. In fact, it has endorsed and perpetuated it. Staticity has been ruling for aeons. It is high time for something entirely new ... something that has never been before.

RESPONDENT: And what may that be? You offer no suggestion.

RICHARD: But I do and I did ... and you even quoted it back to me, too. Did you not notice? [Richard]: ‘There exists another world to the ‘real world’ that peoples currently inhabit ... and it is not the ‘Greater Reality’ of spirituality. I call it the actual world. The actual world antedates the reality that humankind lives in and the Reality that Divinity lives in ... and is characterised by perfection and purity’ ... which you, however, immediately dismissed as being unreal ... [Respondent]: ‘Such perfection and purity cannot be found in any relativistic expression as all relativistic expression is subject to change and movement and in that there is systaltic growth and decay, up and down, positivity and negativity – otherwise there would simply be no movement (and that is a totally unreal proposition – it is simply untenable)’.

Thus you dismiss it because it is ‘relativistic’. Nevertheless, for the person who dares to go all the way in being here – here on earth at this moment in time as a body only – discovers that the immediate is the ultimate. The infinite and eternal character of this physical universe is happening right here and just now ... which means that what people mistakenly seek in an After-Life is already available. The absolute is to be found in the relative. Thus perfection and purity are here on earth in this actual world that our bodies inhabit. All it takes is that one gets one’s mind out of the real world reality – and the ‘Greater Reality’ – and join the body. To live in the actual world, one must come to one’s senses ... both figuratively and literally.

However, you have probably stopped listening by now and will already be dismissing it as ‘utopian’.

*

RICHARD: When this moment lives one as this body only – instead of ‘me’, as an identity and self, living at this moment – only the actual world exists. Rapacity, cupidity, duplicity, corruption and so on have no place whatsoever in the perfection of the actual, because for the actual to become apparent, ‘I’ must be no more.

RESPONDENT: However, it is patently obvious that the body does not live very long and so is by no means a perfect thing at all. The body with its millions of cells dying every minute and new cells regenerating but not enough to maintain any kind of perfect physical condition. Hardly perfection and sounds very utopian worldview.

RICHARD: Oops, there goes that word again! ‘Utopian’ eh? Just what you have got against a utopia – by which I presume you mean some sort of ‘paradise earth’ – I do not know, because you react quite strongly against any suggestion of the possibility of perfection being in an earthly domain. Is it your belief in perfection only existing in a metaphysical realm that is being threatened by the notion of peace-on-earth?

Or is it the finality of death that causes you to look past the obvious? The denial of death’s oblivion causes people to seek recourse from the cryptic and shadowy netherworld of belief and run to the succour of some imagined and indefinable heavenly kingdom. Fear rules the human world and gives rise to all kinds of fantasies.

And all the while one overlooks what is right under one’s nose.

RICHARD: Is not the desire for Immortality – the perpetuation of ‘I’ on into an After-life – selfish? If selfishness is the cause of suffering, then the eradication of ‘I’ in any way, shape or form is essential if we are to have peace on earth.

RESPONDENT: There will never be peace on earth in its fullest sense because of relativity and different expressions. The best that can be achieved is sublime leadership through spiritually evolved consciousness which will in due course find its way into political, economic and other institutional structures, existing, arising and new.

RICHARD: But I already have individual peace-on-earth ... so it is possible for anybody else. To state emphatically that ‘there will never be peace on earth in its fullest sense because of relativity and different expressions’ is to close yourself off from the perfection of the actual and live in a cognitive and affective construct. Thus you will spend the remainder of your life in suffering whilst waiting for physical death to release you into your imagined After-Life.

Also, all the wars, murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence and child abuse will continue ad infinitum. So too will sadness, loneliness, sorrow, depression, despair and suicide continue to persist. Is this the fate you condemn humanity to? And all on the promise of something better after death?

*

RICHARD: Thus it is the sense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (sorrow and malice). Not just one half of the identity – the ego – but the other half – the soul – as well, is at fault. Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self must psychologically self-immolate also.

RESPONDENT: Can’t agree with blaming the soul. This is not possible – confuses mind and soul.

RICHARD: I know that you can not agree with blaming the soul, for your entire belief system would come crashing down ... but it is possible. After all, the soul – along with the ego – is the culprit for all sorrow and malice.

As for the ‘confuses mind and soul’ bit ... it is a confused mind that believes in a soul’s existence.

*

RICHARD: When the ego – the self – dissolves, one’s sense of identity remains intact. Instead of identifying as the ego – the self – one now as an Enlightened Being identifies as the soul – the Self. This soul is held to be Eternal and pre-dates birth (the Zen people’s ‘Original face’) and post-dates death – in other words: Immortality. An ‘I’ still exists, transmogrified now into a super-natural ‘I’ (the second ‘I’ of Mr. Ventkataraman Aiyer aka Ramana fame). Thus I asked myself the question: If ‘I’ as ego (the self) wreak havoc, could it be that ‘I’ as soul (the Self) am the cause the continued suffering?

RESPONDENT: But in the very last part you still equate I feeling with Soul?

RICHARD: Yes. Not only feelings but thoughts as well. The soul – and ‘Soul’ – are a psychological construct and exist only in imagination. They have no actuality whatsoever.

Here in the actual world – and now in time – lies the perfection and purity that humankind is searching for.

RESPONDENT: How can apperception be the fullest expression of knowledge-Intuition or be infallible valid knowledge when the Absolute is beyond the realm of the apperceptive mind-entity.

RICHARD: When you capitalise the word ‘Absolute’ you are referring to some metaphysical entity – a god by whatever name – so of course it is ‘beyond the realm of the apperceptive mind-entity’. The Absolute exists in imagination only and can only be accessed by such dubious and notoriously unreliable tools such as intuition and meditation-induced trance states. And you shot yourself in the foot by writing ‘apperceptive mind-entity’ because for apperception to occur (apperception: the mind’s perception of itself), the ‘mind-entity’ must cease to exist. Methinks you have grabbed hold of this word ‘apperception’ and tried to create the impression that you know what you are talking about. You do not.

RESPONDENT: The apperceptive mind can only ever apprehend the reflection and not the Source unless the faculties of the mind are deflected towards g/Greater apperception. If the mind faculties are not so deflected/trained, they will keep themselves enmeshed in thoughts of petty enjoyment. The fullest expression of intuition itself, and the infallible knowledge of Cognition is surely beyond the realm of the apperceptive mind.

RICHARD: More of the same bombast and blather ... what on earth is ‘g/Greater apperception’ when it is at home? And the ‘fullest expression of intuition itself, and the infallible knowledge of Cognition’ is to be in praise of the affective and intellectual tools of determination for ascertaining the perfection and purity of this moment in time and this place in space ... something they are patently incapable of doing. The closest approximation to the actual that ‘I’, the self, can attain via thought and feeling can only ever be visionary states produced from hopeful ideals that manifest themselves as hallucinatory chimeras. The mind, in cahoots with the heart and held hostage by humanity’s ‘wisdom’, is a fertile breeding-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies and phantasms so loved and revered – and feared – by humankind. They never completely satisfy for they never last ... they have no substance, no intrinsic viability and doubt is never far away. In a valiant attempt to remove doubt, faith is brought into play.

RESPONDENT: If the apperceptive mind is not trained to be deflected towards the Great (towards a realisation of the Infinite), then it surely will only continue to be directly assailed by its own propensities of a lower bearing so that it cannot give full expression to its inner capabilities. That is people will say that only what they see is truth when it is really a mish-mash from a relative comic strip.

RICHARD: Here again you have taken the word ‘apperceptive’, grabbed hold of the word ‘mind’... and stuck it after it as if it means something profound. It does not. In apperception there is no ‘Great’ (with a capital to signify divinity) for the mind to be ‘deflected towards’ ... whatever that means. Also to be ‘directly assailed by its own propensities of a lower bearing’ seems to be so much gobble-de-gook that I can hardly be bothered to translate it ... perhaps it is what you write, and not me, that is what is a ‘mish-mash from a relative comic strip’.

RESPONDENT: This is surely obvious when one considers that the characteristic of the sensory organs is to run after external objects. Whenever any inferential vibration emanates from an object, the sensory organs immediately receive that vibration at the ‘gates’ of the sensory organs and transmit it to the apperceptive plate of the mind, which is the ‘site’ of the mind’s dealing with the same and therefore the reactive momenta that is to result from such dealings/deeds. One only apprehends a cause and generates an effect. This may give rise to ‘sense’ coming into being – but only at the lower levels of mind e.g. sense perception. All the forces of the world that are perceived there only prove their existence in this dynamic.

RICHARD: The ‘apperceptive plate of the mind’ ? Really, you are going to have to do far better than this if you wish me to take you seriously. And I thoroughly enjoyed trying to understand this bit: ‘the ‘site’ of the mind’s dealing with the same and therefore the reactive momenta that is to result from such dealings/deeds’.

You really do not like being here on earth, do you?

RICHARD: Oh yes, there can indeed be a perfect society. But it can only come about when each individual person perfects themselves.

RESPONDENT: That’s just dreaming – life generation doesn’t work that way – new entities are born who mess it up and learn while old entities who are learned have departed. At best there is some ticking of the meter over in a positive way because evolution of consciousness is moving forward, but as mentioned the new babes must learn what the old ones departed with and so no simultaneous mindset possible.

RICHARD: I presume your ‘that’s just dreaming’ is your replacement phrase for ‘that’s just utopian’? Why is it that the possibility of peace on earth should be dismissed out of hand by so many people? That is to give up before one even starts. I begin to think that people actually like war, murder, rape, torture, domestic violence and child abuse. Plus sadness, loneliness, sorrow, depression, despair and suicide. Strange stuff indeed!

Of course new babies ‘must learn what the old ones departed with’ ... so shall we change what the old ones think and feel to be true? That include you too, you know. Where all the ‘old ones’ have your kind of attitude, new born babies just do not stand a chance.

RESPONDENT: The actual world is subject to storms, tempests, fire and on the other side nice sunsets, good beaches and lush forests. A spectrum of possibilities across the polarities. The ultimate passing fragment of time is what the immediate when considering sense perception (which are fairly limited).

RICHARD: I do not get what point you are making regarding storms and sunsets etc. ... personally I find nature’s display to be magnificent ... but, as I gather you would rather be some place else than here on earth, I suppose you do not like it.

As for you saying ‘when considering sense perception (which are fairly limited)’ you somehow miss that I was referring to the actual world that becomes apparent with apperception ... not perception.

*

RICHARD: To live in the actual world, one must come to one’s senses ... both figuratively and literally.

RESPONDENT: Well if you want to go to that extreme we will all be carrying around microscopes, telescopes, and all those fancy instruments that scientists use so that we can experience the extremities of sense perception because we certainly can’t see it all with our own little sense organs. And to carry those things around (if at all feasible) means we ain’t going to travel very fast (if anywhere). Spreading those tools out is a better option – leave it to one group of scientists to use and for the philosophers to challenge what they come up with.

RICHARD: Bit of a strange rant ... I do not need microscopes and so on for I see with remarkable clarity, being that I am without a distorting self lurking about ‘within’ ... and what do you mean by ‘to go to that extreme’? What have you got against the senses? Oh, I remember now ... they interfere with your carefully constructed belief system because they record facts. And facts spoil fantasies any time. Reminds me of that adage: ‘Don’t let the facts interfere with a good story’ ... or was it: ‘Don’t bother me with facts ... I am after The Truth’?

Just who is dreaming?

RESPONDENT: Time just doesn’t make physical reality perfect. New growth and decay of old is the essence of the humdrum of the physical world. Metaphysical – if by that you mean mental – well ideas are a darn challenge anyway and don’t give any peace .

RICHARD: ‘Time just doesn’t make physical reality perfect’? Do you see just how set you are against what is actual? Do you see how you are in denial of what is obvious? No wonder you wish to live in a mentally constructed dream-world that promises (but never delivers) some obscure metaphysical salvation.

If your ideas – and they are borrowed ideas anyway – do not give you peace then why persist with them. This is crazy ... you defend the indefensible and then admit their intrinsic lack of being able to be consummated. If I remember correctly, this is properly called martyrdom ... being willing to suffer for a belief.

*

RICHARD: Or is it the finality of death that causes you to look past the obvious? The denial of death’s oblivion causes people to seek recourse from the cryptic and shadowy netherworld of belief.

RESPONDENT: The obvious (i.e. I presume everything in front of me sensed by sense perception) is also subject to death. Does the mind die, is the Soul absolute might be better questions. Physical death that is too obvious – its hardly a bother unless one wants to take the whole world with them and their money in the bank – attachment is the bother not the death.

RICHARD: No. By the obvious I mean the ability to be here in space and now in time. This is the point where the infinity of space and the eternity of time come together, as it were, as this body and one realises that one is already here and it is always now ... and it is perfect.

Yes, the mind does die. Yes, the Soul is absolute ... absolutely a fantasy, that is. And of course, for you, physical death is hardly a bother because you believe that you are going to a better place. One can not take anything with them when they die for there is nowhere to go to and no-one to go anywhere anyway. Death is oblivion. The end. Finish. If you do not experience perfection here and now you never will.

Such is the power of believing that it over-rides the actual.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me all you are saying is that true knowledge is beyond the scope of the perceiver perceiving something in its fractional proportions through the senses. Now I don’t disagree with that – while the scope of perception through senses may be valid and with instruments becomes more valid in terms of scientific knowledge it still can’t be everything, otherwise why would we bother about inventing more and more subtle instruments to get more and more ‘knowledge’ – because we know what we have got with the senses is not enough.

RICHARD: This starts off good, because we can agree upon something, for indeed what I am saying is that the perceiver – the self – can not ever know that which is actual through the senses (I am happy enough for now to call it ‘true knowledge’ ). However, where you go off again on the subject of scientific instruments (like microscopes, I presume) you do miss the point. I am not bothered with having to examine objects with ever increasing magnification ... that is the method of gathering scientific knowledge, not seeing ‘true knowledge’ (what I am calling the actual just for now so as to ease communication). Peering through a microscope with the self intact will only magnify the real world’s reality ... after all, I was talking about apperception and I know of no scientist looking through a microscope with apperception.

RESPONDENT: The concept of ‘their god is actual’ is a strange one. Is your PCE actual to anyone else? If you are talking about a ‘purely’ internal experience because of revelations in the higher states of mind then it will be actual all right but given its subtlety it won’t be expressive in the material crude sphere in the way you perceive it internally because of the difference in the media being used. E.g. you may have a peak experience but to the average onlooker they will see you as slightly ‘insane’ because they have no understanding of the experience, as their minds are inclined not to understanding where you’re peaks come from but rather to the ordinariness of experience from limited sense perceptions.

RICHARD: Yes, indeed the concept of God being actual is a strange one ... it always stops anyone in their tracks who is attempting to convert me to their particular belief system by protesting that their god is real. I have always found it useful to differentiate between ‘real’ and ‘actual’ for this reason ... otherwise, apparently, someone only has to state that the belief that there are little green men on Mars is real, for example, for it to be given the validity of being a ‘true belief’ – a ‘truth’ – thereby implying it is as valid as anything actually verifiable by the senses. Thus I have forsaken the words ‘real’ and ‘truth’ in favour of ‘actual’ and ‘fact’.

Of course my PCE is not actual to anybody else ... nothing personally experienced is. This is why we communicate our experience via language. Other people who listen to my experience with both ears have their PCE validated as being within the normal realm of human sensate experience ... this is what is called being objective.

It is the contents of the PCE that are actual – the trees, the houses, the peoples, the animals and so on. In a PCE these three dimensional objects are seen, with a startling clarity, to have an actual existence ... and by actual I mean tangible, touchable, substantial, material, corporeal, tactile and palpable. No god is. Nor your ‘Supreme Soul’ .

RESPONDENT: Further, if no one can tell you that ‘something is only my fact’ then are you saying it is just not unique to yourself and has some commonality with others – I’m not disagreeing with you on that. And if it is considered to be common to others then does this not imply that the mind and psychic ‘structure’ of each person is similar in potentiality but some of us are using higher faculties but others are not, e.g. some people are more intelligent than others but that does not mean that people who are not using intelligence don’t have it (or more realistically they use it less often) – it only means they are not using it. Similarly, those with peak experiences must be using some other faculties not commonly used – in which case how can it be to do only with uses of senses, and therefore what it is, is the use of mental/psychic faculties generally dormant or unexpressed by others.

RICHARD: No it is not mental/psychic ... nor intuition or any of those dubious faculties that predominate in the spiritual people’s range of bizarre experiences. It is the senses in operation without an ‘I’ and these sensate experiences include the brain coordinating all the data with the clarity born of the absence of this meddling and troublesome psychological entity. This is apperception, which can be called a pure consciousness experience when operating in a peak experience. Apperception is when ‘I’ cease perceiving and perception happens of itself ... which the brain with its sense organs is patently capable of doing.

Maybe what I write about has become somewhat clearer.

RICHARD: Therefore this keyboard is actual (these finger-tips feeling it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words on the screen (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable and verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs.

RESPONDENT: But if you look at it closely it is a collection of particles or these days more like waveforms/vibrations come together to give the impression of matter, i.e. energy functioning within the scope of matter and the energy considered by some to be consciousness functioning with the scope of energy. So what are the senses enjoying other than the things of this ‘shadowy’ world. No matter how assiduously you try, you can never bring into your grasp any ‘shadowy’ object. Your hands (if you’re into touch perception) can’t e.g. hold onto something forever. So this is all quite relative understanding.

RICHARD: But I was merely demonstrating that things are actual ... that is: tangible, touchable, palpable, material, corporeal, tactile and substantive. It is of no particular concern to me whether the latest scientific theory talks of particles or whatever hypothesis they will dream up next ... or the latest fad in the spiritual circles which may be waveforms/vibrations or microvitae or whatever nonsensical belief they will come up with in the future. What is of importance is that things are actual ... they have a demonstrable existence that is neither theory or belief. And the fact that you call it an ‘impression of matter’ indicates to me that the belief system you hold has a similarity to the Hindu and Buddhist religious belief that things are an illusion. Where you go on to say that it is ‘held by some’ (‘some’ including yourself perchance?) to be ‘consciousness functioning with the scope of energy’ I become more and more convinced that you give a greater importance to non-material sources as being a more real ‘reality’. Thus, for you, consciousness gives rise to matter ... not matter giving rise to consciousness. It is your version that sounds pretty shadowy to me.

And where you go on to say that my understanding is ‘all quite relative understanding’, you fail to remember – or conveniently overlook – that fact that I am discussing a pure consciousness experience (PCE). In a PCE, the self – ‘I’ – is temporarily in abeyance so that apperception is operating ... wherein it becomes obvious that the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. And if you think about it sensibly – which is all you can do whilst you are not experiencing apperception – you will come to reasonably understand that, as this physical universe is both infinite in its extent and eternal in its scope, then the perfection of infinitude is present here in space and now in time ... for where else could it be. It is only that ‘I’ am preventing this ever-present fact being apparent to the mind’s awareness. Thus perfection can be found in imperfection ... and all quite properly carried out by the brain and its sense organs.

Precipitate an apperceptive experience of actuality and you will see what I mean experientially.

RESPONDENT: I still can’t see what you mean by the actual – on the one hand you talk of touching the keyboard (which can’t be actual itself – it only seems actual to the senses) and on the other a PCE experience (pure consciousness) which obviously implies seeing through what looks like matter/actual and appertaining its ‘essence’. It seems to me the above two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory (but caveat there because depends on what you mean by the actual), in that ‘I’ prevents real meaning and then you say ‘direct experience’ is the actual (are you saying that?). If I prevents real meaning then one would have to go beyond the I feeling to experience real meaning (OK that can be done – I don’t doubt that).

RICHARD: By the ‘actual’ I am referring to what you call ‘essence’ being apparent ... and, quite simply enough, when ‘I’ abdicate the throne it becomes obvious – as a sensate experience – that the ‘essence’ is the actual world of people, things and events. It was here all the time, only ‘I’ prevented it from being evident. However, I must hasten to add that the ‘essence’ is not divine or sacred in any way, shape or form ... it is but the infinitude of this very physical universe. So it is not a matter of ‘seeing through what looks like matter/actual and appertaining its essence’ but dissolving the ‘I’ for it all to be apparent here and now where it has already always been. One does not ‘go beyond the I feeling to experience real meaning’, ‘I’ disappear. If ‘I’ go ‘beyond’ then ‘I’ will project myself into some ethereal realm as a godlike spiritual entity and confuse fact (infinitude) with fantasy (God).

*

RICHARD: Apperception, as I said, is the mind’s perception of itself – it is a bare awareness. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when the ‘who’ inside abdicates its throne ... This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: Well ‘who’ is witnessing the ‘direct experience’. If you know it is a direct experience then how do you know it other than by some faculty of minding impressing upon you that it is, i.e. even if you do perceive right through the fractional nature of senses (i.e. transcend that fractional experience), you still experience something which you internally verify. If it is not the mind verifying it then what very subtle perception gives you the understanding. And if it is not mind then what part of your consciousness verifies the direct experience for you – for certainly some verification is there on your part. I don’t dismiss at all any higher consciousness as part of the scope of mind. But if it beyond the mind it must be beyond relativity and it must be absolute (and I don’t dismiss that either).

RICHARD: In a PCE, as there is no ‘who’ doing the perceiving (as in normal life), thus there is no witness. The ‘direct experience’ is the apperception of the absolute being the relative and the immediate being the ultimate. The ‘faculty’ you are referring to is apperception itself ... the brain functioning of its own accord, bereft of an interfering ‘I’ which normally interprets and translates sensory experience into being only relative because of its transience. With apperception it is seen that the transient is always happening ... therefore transience is permanence in operation (which is what everyone is searching for, when all is said and done). Thus no transcendence is required – for who is the ‘I’ that does the transcending but the very problem in the first place! It is amazing what ‘I’ will do to stay in existence ... even ‘transcend’ this physical world and deny its actual existence in favour of some intangible ‘essence’ (as in a godly sense). This direct experiencing of apperception is not a ‘higher consciousness’ operating – it is the pure consciousness of being these bodily senses here on earth and now in time.

Only ‘I’ prevent this faculty operating.

*

RICHARD: One is the universe’s experience of itself as a human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe.

RESPONDENT: First part sounds somewhat impractical and far fetched. Second part – well assumes an understanding of the stuff of the universe and what that is. And as mentioned above it can’t be just physical/material expression because in fact that can be ‘broken down’ into waveforms. So the stuff of the universe is a lot more subtle than our senses impression of materialism. And if you can see through that a practical reality of life then please practically explain the process/method (I don’t doubt that it can’t be done).

RICHARD: Yet it is not ‘impractical and far fetched’ ... or are you suggesting that we are God experiencing Himself as a human being? If so, I would call that notion impractical and far-fetched. As for the second part – it does not ‘assume an understanding of the stuff of the universe’ ... the ‘stuff’ is apparent because of apperception. It is not ‘more subtle than our sense impressions’ because it is the presence of an ‘I’ that prevent what you call ‘subtlety’ being apparent to the brain with its sense organs.

*

RICHARD: There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego, id, self, identity, persona, personality, lower ‘I am’, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking Union with ‘That’, by whatever name (Higher Self, True Self, Real Self, The All, Existence Itself, Consciousness, The Void, Suchness, Isness and so on).

RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt the first few lines, but all the words in brackets might just have some different characteristics philosophically speaking, e.g. what is your basis for saying ego and Atman/Soul are the same (the former may spring from the other but characteristically are they the same) – it would appear to me that the better view is that the I-feeling is a ‘covering over’ of the soul and that any unit soul is the same as Absolute Soul except for the cover and it is merely an issue of transcending the cover so that true apperception is known?

RICHARD: No ... it is okay ... you have simply misunderstood what I was explaining. The list I gave (by no means exhaustive) was merely an example of what the ‘I’ can identify as. I was in no way suggesting that ego and Atman/Soul are the same, for they are not. The ego must die for the Atman/Soul to manifest (in spiritual terms). Where you go on to describe this process as being a transcendence, you unwittingly demonstrate the point I am making – which is that the continuation of ‘I’ (identity) in another psychic form is the cause of all the problems.

There is only apperception – not ‘true’ apperception or its counterpart ‘false’ apperception. Apperception can only occur when ‘I’ am not. It is the presence of an ‘I’ that creates ‘true’ or ‘false’. Without ‘I’, all is indubitably obvious.

*

RICHARD: Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me.

RESPONDENT: But fact is sense organs can’t pick up everything. Dogs hear different frequencies to humans and the like. So the sense organs in operation can’t comprehend the whole at all. Yet you say some comprehension of it is possible (see above) but offer no practical means or inherently natural process (at least as far as I can discern).

RICHARD: Yes I do. The ‘practical means’ is apperception itself ... apperception is the ‘inherently natural process’. Of course dogs can hear different frequencies and the like – I am not at all concerned about the range or extent of sense experience, for I am referring to the apperception of the ultimate in the immediate and the absolute in the relative. And this is done with whatever is present. There are no degrees of apperception – it either is in operation or it is not. The dog example is like the microscope example you gave in another post ... and has nothing to do with what I speak of.

Is this all becoming clearer? It would be good if it is, for you will begin to realise the thrilling actuality of what you are searching for in spirituality as being already here in space and always now in time.

And the good news is that it is this once-despised material world!

RICHARD: You must be referring to that adage about life being a journey ... and that the journey is it. I do not concur with this erudition. I am not actually going anywhere, I am already here.

RESPONDENT: Where is here? And surely you will soon be taking a next step somewhere else and so will your mind. So where is your mind now?

RICHARD: ‘Where is here’? Are you serious? You really do not know where here is? Unglue your eyes from the computer screen and look about you ... precipitate apperception and bingo! ... you are here.

And when I take the next step ‘somewhere else’ ... it will still be here. Wherever one goes, it is always called here. One can not get out of being here – and likewise it is always now.

My mind is here, of course.

*

RICHARD: Although the journey itself is thrilling it is utterly blithesome to arrive.

RESPONDENT: See above re ‘no journey’. Please explain??

RICHARD: The ‘journey’ is the trip one takes through the illusion of being ‘I’ ... and it is thrilling. But it is utterly blithesome to arrive. Try it and see for yourself. ‘Arriving’ is called being here now, where one has always been all the while one thought and felt that one was coming from somewhere and going somewhere. One was not. It was all an illusion.

*

RICHARD: How can unconditional happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a blithesome life all that difficult to comprehend?

RESPONDENT: ‘Unconditional happiness’ – please explain (I’m not saying it is not possible) but needs explanation. If you say Love with a capital L that is okay by me.

RICHARD: Unconditional happiness can also be described as uncaused happiness ... that is, not dependent upon people, things and events.

As for Love with a capital ‘L’ ... that is the sugar coating the ‘I’ pastes over itself to try to make out that it is a Good ‘I’. It is part of the delusion – commonly called the Self – that arises out of the illusion of being a self ... you call the ‘Self’ the ‘Supreme Soul’.

*

RICHARD: Why persist in a sick game – and defend one’s right to do so? Why insist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perennial gaiety something to be scorned?

RESPONDENT: Depends on what it leads to and what results it achieves. Gaiety in the form of substances of various intoxicating types all have a reaction which is hardly nice. Have you transcended the possibility of every reaction to your actions?

RICHARD: It leads to harmony betwixt people ... peace on earth, it is called. And you know perfectly well that I was not referring to intoxicants ... that is a red-herring and does not become you.

I have not transcended anything. There is no ‘I’ left to be able to transcend anything ... transcending is but a way to appear to be doing something constructive about peace-on-earth whilst being able to remain in existence as an ‘I’. What you call I-feeling (as an ego-self) you advocate transcending and identifying as the ‘Supreme Soul’ ... which is still an I-feeling (now a soul-self). It is still a self, nevertheless. It is still an ‘I’. This sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) has been going on for thousands of years, to no avail. Hence the dearth of peace-on-earth.

*

RICHARD: The whole point of achieving perfection is that there is nothing left to improve. No more training or striving ... a lifetime of ease and enjoyment is yours for the asking.

RESPONDENT: Since when has ease and enjoyment amounted to perfection? And if you think it does why does it ?

RICHARD: You manipulated the sentence to score a cheap point. Perfection is the goal of life ... and upon achieving perfection, ease and enjoyment is a bonus. A fringe-benefit, if you will.

Really, the quality of your debate is slipping, in this post.

RESPONDENT: A rapist could just as easily explain away their behaviour in this way if they wanted to as well. It is a sensory delight to them as well – but there is something wrong in it is there not?

RICHARD: As I have repeatedly spoken of peace-on-earth; of eliminating malice and sorrow; of being happy and harmless and so on, I rather fail to see what point you are trying to make here. I am not – and never have been – advocating pleasure as being the bench-mark against which to judge behaviour and action as being sociable or anti-social. Where did you get that impression from? Not from what I have written ... so it must come from the hidden recesses of your being. Most people are afraid of pleasure for the simple reason that they can not (and quite rightly so) trust themselves.

The extinction of ‘I’ in any way, shape or form ensures the elimination of every single anti-social urge or impulse – let alone behaviour in action – thus freeing oneself to the enjoyment of the harmless pleasures of life. Like eating a hamburger – if that is one’s predilection. Rape is not harmless.

This is all pretty basic stuff ... can you raise your level of debate a bit, please?