|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 103
RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you? RESPONDENT: However, I have difficulty in understanding the role ‘experience’ plays in relation to science, especially quantum physics. RICHARD: As the word ‘experience’ refers to a sentient creature participating personally in events or activities then the role it plays in relation to science – ‘the intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study (the natural sciences) that apply objective scientific method to the phenomena of the physical universe’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is fundamentally that of determining causation (as in cause and effect) ... as opposed to invoking miracles (as in postulate as an explanation). Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, dispensed with the main plank of science – causality (cause and effect) – altogether:
RESPONDENT: I gather that a quantum chemistry model of DNA such as proposed at [www.geocities.com/moonhoabinh/ithapapers/auto.html] and interpretations of quantum physics for society which relate to animist perceptions of the world would be rejected by the protagonists of this website? RICHARD: The following should be self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: Is introspection/ creativity still possible in actual freedom? RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t it strange that anything in this universe is aware? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: How does this awareness come into being? RICHARD: In a word: sentience
RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me. RICHARD: ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you? RESPONDENT: Few, I guess, would object against peace and harmony both on earth and in their personal lives, and few would, I hope, disagree that the only person one can ever really change is oneself. RICHARD: I was not so much enquiring of your speculations and hopefulness, about what other peoples may or may not object to/disagree with, but rather just which goals they are that appear very attractive to you. And the reason why I asked was because of the religio-spiritual mystico-metaphysical quotes and links you posted – specifically three from Mr. William Pensinger, two from Mr. Alan Watts, one from Ms. Neerja Raman, and one from Mr. Arthur Deikman – shortly after having written the above. RESPONDENT: Lastly, the promised result of your particular method of intro-/outrospection (how am I experiencing this moment of being alive) – becoming happy and harmless – seems sensible and possible to me. RICHARD: Just what result, of the attentiveness/ awareness method which the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and used to full effect, is that which seems sensible and possible to you? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, whilst introspection/ extrospection (close inspection, intellectual examination) are an important part of the actualism method such mentation is not the process per se. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: Is introspection/ creativity still possible in actual freedom? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: How, given absence of the imaginative faculty? RICHARD: As to be introspective is to be looking into/closely inspecting/intellectually examining, in detail, the perceptive process then the way it is done, sans the imaginative/intuitive facility, is with the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive, and insightful faculty operating freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness. And as to be creative is to be innovative, inventive, initiative, resourceful, and so on, then the way it is done, sans the imaginative/intuitive facility, is with apperceptive awareness giving free reign to whatever ingenuity/novelty and talent/aptitude, in conjunction with all the acquired knowledge/understanding and expertise/skills and proficiency/ability and dexterity/competence, may come up with. It all operates a whole lot better, actually, as the difference between imagination and hallucination is a difference in degree and not of kind. RESPONDENT: How can you have any project without imagining the desired outcome (goal) and the way to get there (means)? RICHARD: Easily ... with pure intent the means become progressively apparent, after taking the initial step, and the appropriate process unfolds accordingly as a consequence. RESPONDENT: Do you just execute what bubbles up – from wherever – spontaneously? RICHARD: There is a marked distinction betwixt spontaneity and impetuosity (aka impulsiveness) ... acuity and/or perspicacity, in the applied form of discrimination, discernment (as in being expedient, provident, judicious, prudent) in conjunction with pragmatism, practicality, sensibility, simplicity, and so forth, gives ready access for any introspective/creative process to take place. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite effortless.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t it strange that anything in this universe is aware? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: How does this awareness come into being? RICHARD: In a word: sentience RESPONDENT: Is there a difference between sensation in a brain – of whichever size – and sensation in a machine? RICHARD: I see that you are using the word ‘sensation’ rather loosely there ... the main difference between what occurs in regards an organismic sensorium and a mechanical sensor – ‘a device which detects or measures some condition or property and records, indicates, or otherwise responds to the information received’ (Oxford Dictionary) – being stimulated is that of agency, which of necessity involves self-reference, and to be self-referential is to be self-interested. As briefly as possible: a self-referential/ self-interested organism is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased (it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example) – and being biased is what being concerned means – whereas machines are indifferent, as it were, to both their existence and their functions (switched off or on makes no difference to a machine). Furthermore, machines are built by humans to serve human agency (rather than to be an agency even if that be possible) and the first principle of serving an agency is being non-resistant (obedient to the agency) and thus not self-concerned. RESPONDENT: A machine, that is, which perceives various kinds of radiation emitted by its environment and moves (advances or retreats) or does other things in reaction to these stimuli. RICHARD: I see that you are using the word ‘perceives’ rather loosely there ... a machine mechanically detects various stimuli and responds according to how it has been programmed to do so (moving and/or otherwise functioning in accord to the interests of human agency). For example: when a computer wins at chess it is actually the programmer – the agency – who designed the programme who wins (achieves an end) via their programme. Which is what makes a computer a remarkable tool for human intelligence to amplify itself through. RESPONDENT: I ask because personally I think there is a difference between these two kinds of ‘sensation’ and continue to be amazed by it. RICHARD: The difference is such that the dual-usage of the word ‘sensation’ (just as with ‘perceives’) tends to imbue machines with something which is simply not there ... in a word: sentience. RESPONDENT: The difference being that I machines don’t have conscious sensations. RICHARD: Hmm ... machines are not sentient, period, and thus not aware (let alone intelligent). RESPONDENT: My question could as well have been ‘isn’t it amazing that anything can be consciously sensed/perceived?’ RICHARD: Yet to find something amazing (astonishing, astounding, startling) is vastly different to finding it strange (odd, bizarre, weird). RESPONDENT: It could be reformulated as ‘isn’t the difference between mechanical and biological algorithms amazing?’ RICHARD: As an algorithm, being but a mathematical device, is not at all biological I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: If to you that difference is perfectly self-evident and no reason for wide-eyed wonder, I would be amazed, too. RICHARD: What is really amazing is how you have adroitly shifted from asking if it is not strange, that anything in this universe is aware, to imputing a mathematical device into the biological sensory/ perceptive process of being aware of something/anything, so as to be able come up with that hypothetical example of something you would also be amazed about. Just in case that is not clear enough: you first invented a difference to be amazed about and then fabricated a flight-of-fancy scenario out of that non-existent difference to be further amazed with. RESPONDENT: [Addendum] In yet different words: I’m amazed that sentience arises from matter. RICHARD: It is indeed amazing that matter be sentient in certain circumstances ... a quite marvellous state of affairs, in fact, and rather an occasion for true wonderment. If I may ask? Why do you also find it strange that it be so?
RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me. RICHARD: ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you? RESPONDENT: Few, I guess, would object against peace and harmony both on earth and in their personal lives, and few would, I hope, disagree that the only person one can ever really change is oneself. RICHARD: I was not so much enquiring about your speculations and hopefulness, about what other peoples may or may not object to/disagree with, but rather just which goals they are that appear very attractive to you. RESPONDENT: My speculations and hopefulness regarding other people’s agreements or disagreements also apply to myself, except that in my case it is not a speculation but a self-evident certainty. RICHARD: I was not so much enquiring about whether it is a self-evident certainty for you, about what you may or may not object to/disagree with, but rather just which goals they are that appear very attractive to you. And the reason why I asked was because of the religio-spiritual/mystico-metaphysical quotes and links you posted – specifically three from Mr. William Pensinger, two from Mr. Alan Watts, one from Ms. Neerja Raman, and one from Mr. Arthur Deikman – shortly after having written the above. RESPONDENT: Lastly, the promised result of your particular method of intro-/outrospection (how am I experiencing this moment of being alive) – becoming happy and harmless – seems sensible and possible to me. RICHARD: Just what result, of the attentiveness/ awareness method which the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and used to full effect, is that which seems sensible and possible to you? RESPONDENT: Being happy & harmless. RICHARD: As I got that the first time around I will rephrase my question: given that you posted those seven quotes and links, as detailed further above, just what result is that (the happiness and harmlessness) which seems sensible and possible to you? And here is a supplementary question: what are the very first words on the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (immediately below the logo)?
RESPONDENT: How can you have any project without imagining the desired outcome (goal) and the way to get there (means)? RICHARD: Easily ... with pure intent the means become progressively apparent, after taking the initial step, and the appropriate process unfolds accordingly as a consequence. RESPONDENT: Do you just execute what bubbles up – from wherever – spontaneously? RICHARD: There is a marked distinction betwixt spontaneity and impetuosity (aka impulsiveness) ... acuity and/or perspicacity, in the applied form of discrimination, discernment (as in being expedient, provident, judicious, prudent) in conjunction with pragmatism, practicality, sensibility, simplicity, and so forth, gives ready access for any introspective/ creative process to take place. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite effortless. RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things:
If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all very simple.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t it strange that anything in this universe is aware? RICHARD: No. (...) RESPONDENT: [Addendum] In yet different words: I’m amazed that sentience arises from matter. RICHARD: It is indeed amazing that matter be sentient in certain circumstances ... a quite marvellous state of affairs, in fact, and rather an occasion for true wonderment. If I may ask? Why do you also find it strange that it be so? RESPONDENT: It’s just that way. RICHARD: And just what way would that be (in which you find it strange that matter be sentient in certain circumstances)? RESPONDENT: I look at something that lives and am astonished that it can do all the stuff it does – I’m fascinated with it whenever I see a fly take off, zoom around and land, I’m a little bit molested with it when it’s mosquito at night-time. Most of all, I’m amazed at the capacities of animals (including humans) for coordinating their behaviour. An amazement which regularly ceases in favour of another one when having a fresh piece of baguette with a nice bit of cheese, a good steak or a freshly bought fruit (too busy eating). RICHARD: It is indeed astonishing, fascinating, amazing what sentient matter can do/what coordinative capacity sentient matter has ... why, though, do you find it strange that, in certain circumstances, matter be sentient?
RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me. RICHARD: ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you? RESPONDENT: Few, I guess, would object against peace and harmony both on earth and in their personal lives, and few would, I hope, disagree that the only person one can ever really change is oneself. RICHARD: I was not so much enquiring about your speculations and hopefulness, about what other peoples may or may not object to/disagree with, but rather just which goals they are that appear very attractive to you. RESPONDENT: My speculations and hopefulness regarding other people’s agreements or disagreements also apply to myself, except that in my case it is not a speculation but a self-evident certainty. RICHARD: I was not so much enquiring about whether it is a self-evident certainty for you, about what you may or may not object to/disagree with, but rather just which goals they are that appear very attractive to you. And the reason why I asked was because of the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical quotes and links you posted – specifically three from Mr. William Pensinger, two from Mr. Alan Watts, one from Ms. Neerja Raman, and one from Mr. Arthur Deikman – shortly after having written the above. RESPONDENT: Lastly, the promised result of your particular method of intro-/outrospection (how am I experiencing this moment of being alive) – becoming happy and harmless – seems sensible and possible to me. RICHARD: Just what result, of the attentiveness/awareness method which the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and used to full effect, is that which seems sensible and possible to you? RESPONDENT: Being happy & harmless. RICHARD: As I got that the first time around I will rephrase my question: given that you posted those seven quotes and links, as detailed further above, just what result is that (the happiness and harmlessness) which seems sensible and possible to you? RESPONDENT: In what way is it difficult for you to understand that statement? RICHARD: I never said it was difficult for me to understand that statement ... given that you posted those seven quotes and links, as detailed further above, it was simply the obvious question to ask (just as the first one at the top of this page was). RESPONDENT: Further definitions of happiness and harmlessness are in sufficient supply on the Actual Freedom website. RICHARD: I am well aware of what is on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. * RICHARD: And here is a supplementary question: what are the very first words on the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (immediately below the logo)? RESPONDENT: You can only be referring to those words: ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom.’ As I gather that you might be implying that I have overlooked the fact that the very first words on the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site are that Actual Freedom is ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’: I am aware of that. My interest, however, is not in newness ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RESPONDENT: The goals of actual freedom appear very attractive to me. RICHARD: ... just which goals are they that appear very attractive to you? (...) RESPONDENT: As I gather that you might be implying that I have overlooked the fact that the very first words on the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site are that Actual Freedom is ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’: I am aware of that. My interest, however, is not in newness ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: It was a pleasure, your honour :-). If having no further questions regarding newness ... RICHARD: It is your credibility/ integrity which I have no further questions regarding (inasmuch you were not only dissembling, about the goals of the actualism method appearing very attractive to you, but were tergiversatory when asked just which goals they were and just what it is they are). It may very well be possible that the word ‘sincerity’ is nowhere to be found in any dictionary you have access to. RESPONDENT: ... [If having no further questions] precludes you from answering questions ... RICHARD: The unambiguous establishment of what your interest is really in – in the old and unsuccessful and not in the new and successful – does not preclude me from answering your questions. RESPONDENT: ... [If having no further questions precludes you from answering questions] regarding the Down-to-Earth-part of the Actual Freedom description, so be it. RICHARD: As the ‘Down-to-Earth’ part For instance (your latest question):
First and foremost, what Mr. Arthur Deikman means by [quote] ‘performing service in a major way’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘energizes and connects’ [endquote] can be found on the same page. Viz.:
Now, bearing all that in mind (particularly the dire warning in that last sentence), and in answer to your query regarding me writing about an actual freedom from the human condition, here is what I have had to say on that very topic on numerous occasions:
Needless is to add that, unless this down-to-earth answer to your in abstracto query is contextualised by the ‘New and Non-Spiritual’ part of that stated-right-up-front and out-in-the-open description of an actual freedom from the human condition, which is strategically placed at the very starting point of the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for a patently obvious reason, it will go right over your head?
RESPONDENT: How can you have any project without imagining the desired outcome (goal) and the way to get there (means)? RICHARD: Easily ... with pure intent the means become progressively apparent, after taking the initial step, and the appropriate process unfolds accordingly as a consequence. RESPONDENT: Do you just execute what bubbles up – from wherever – spontaneously? RICHARD: There is a marked distinction betwixt spontaneity and impetuosity (aka impulsiveness) ... acuity and/or perspicacity, in the applied form of discrimination, discernment (as in being expedient, provident, judicious, prudent) in conjunction with pragmatism, practicality, sensibility, simplicity, and so forth, gives ready access for any introspective/creative process to take place. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite effortless. RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’ (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all very simple. RESPONDENT: In which way would you compare writing about Actual Freedom or being creative to getting out of the way of a car coming at you? Does it have the same degree of obviousness to you? If so, what would you say distinguishes this kind of obviousness from ‘doing what is called for’ in the sense Arthur Deikman uses it at (www.deikman.com/functional.html): [quote] ‘Persons performing service in a major way are very aware of the difference between self-consciously ‘doing good’ versus serving-the-task, doing what is called for. The former can lead to burn-out, or self-inflation, whereas the latter energizes and connects’. [endquote]. RICHARD: First and foremost, what Mr. Arthur Deikman means by [quote] ‘performing service in a major way’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘energizes and connects’ [endquote] can be found on the same page. Viz.: [quote] ‘The Service Experience: Service is probably the most effective activity for providing access to the connectedness of reality. (...) If we grant the possibility that the experience of connection reflects what is real, the importance of service in the mystical tradition makes perfect sense. When a server can lessen the dominance of the survival self – her ‘ego needs’ – she can then experience a different organization of consciousness, one that is responsive to connectedness. Through that connectedness she experiences a different, larger sense of self. What stands in the way of our accepting such testimony is the invisible nature of that connection; It [sic] is not perceptible by vision or touch. The closest some servers can come to describing the quality of the experience is to speak of ‘energy’ (...) What is required is a shift from a consciousness focused on the disconnected aspect of reality to a mode of consciousness responsive to its connected aspects. Although we may be intellectually persuaded that a unified world exists, the difficulty is to experience that world, not just to believe it. That experience is the goal of mysticism. (...) That non-verbal experience is what mysticism is about. With this in mind, we can now understand why the basic instruction of the mystical traditions is to ‘forget the self’. To forget the self is not a matter of morality, goodness, or sainthood, but a matter of access to the connected aspects of the world and to a different, more extended experience of the self. ‘Forgetting the self’ is not easy, but mystics have developed ways of facilitating that process. The various techniques and activities of the mystical traditions may appear exotic, but they can be understood as a way of going beyond the limitations of instrumental, self-centred, consciousness. Such a development is more important now than ever before. When we consider the problems that confront us – sociological, environmental, and technological – we can see that ameliorating and solving these problems will require a shift in which connected, other-centred consciousness becomes more dominant. Because of this, the further progress and survival of the human race may depend on that very shift in consciousness to which the mystical traditions are devoted’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: That’s what I read, too. RICHARD: And yet, despite having read that, you nevertheless asked me, a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto, what distinguishes [quote] ‘doing what is called for’ [endquote], in the sense of an identity performing service in a major way in order to access the connectedness of that identity’s reality (an invisible energy capitalised as being ‘It’) so as to experience a different, larger sense of self (the aggrandised identity of mystical lore upon whom the further progress and survival of the human race may depend), from the kind of obviousness that getting out of the way of an approaching vehicle has in the example provided as an illustration of which objects of perception occasion the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, and which mental products, or results of perceiving, are informative about something being different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. RESPONDENT: Well. What to do? RICHARD: There is an old adage which goes something like this:
Given that further on in your e-mail you ask whether there is the same degree of perceptive obviousness as in that approaching vehicle example when in everyday ‘real’ experience, when in an altered state of consciousness (ASC), when in a virtual freedom, and when in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), whilst being creative or when doing any other activity such as cleaning the house, and then go on to ask how those different kinds of obviousness – if any – could be related to [quote] ‘doing what is called for’ [endquote] in the sense Mr. Arthur Deikman uses it in his web page article, but on the operational level as in just regarding what is happening (and thus not at all in the sense Mr. Arthur Deikman uses it in his web page article), then what you could do is to try asking your questions simply ... in a down-to-earth fashion. For example:
Of course if you were to phrase those questions of yours that way (in a simple and down-to-earth fashion) then their tautological nature would be so obvious as to occasion you to backspace them out and start again. With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all very matter-of-fact.
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’ (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. RESPONDENT: To me, this has never been a ‘fact’. RICHARD: As it is not a fiction (that the object of perception is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) then what is it, according to you, if it be not a fact? Before you reach for the keyboard ... the example already provided can serve as a demonstration:
Hence:
Here are the parameters of the example:
Ergo:
Thus it is certainly by [quote] ‘the very fact’ [endquote] of the object of perception (the approaching vehicle) being indeed different from what it ought to be (it ought not be approaching head-on), or from what it is wanted to be (it is not wanted to be approaching head-on), which readily evokes the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is informative – by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness – about something (the approaching vehicle) being different (being not on the other side of the road) from what it ought to be (in accordance with the law), or from what it is wanted to be (in accordance with sensibility). Just in case that is not clear enough: what you are saying, in effect, is that the the object of perception (the vehicle approaching head-on) is not a vehicle/is not approaching/is not head-on until you cogitate it into being just that (a vehicle approaching head-on). Methinks thou hast quaffed copiously at the fountain of quantum. RESPONDENT: Facts are what I can see, hear, etc. RICHARD: As dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive) you can, of course, have that word mean whatever it is you want it to mean ... for the sake of clarity in communication the following are some examples of its usage in the further above exchange:
Incidentally, it is a fact that the flesh and blood body typing these words is striking a match, right now, and yet according to you (as you cannot see this action happening, hear this activity occurring, and etcetera) it is not a fact at all ... which would also imply (unless you are so self-centric as to believe the world revolves around you) that, as this flesh and blood body cannot see you doing it, it is not a fact that you are reading these words. RESPONDENT: – I have never directly seen, heard etc., that something was indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it was wanted to be. It was always I who made it so different – or who knew that somebody else wanted the situation to be different, using the ratiocinative/insightful and/or conceptive capacity, although that making or knowing (remembering) was, at times, so fast that it could seem that the difference was given (‘data’), not produced by my insightful capacity or memory. RICHARD: If I might point out? You specifically asked (a) how something is seen (understood, comprehended, known) to be needing to be done ... and (b) which percepts tell (inform, notify, convey) that something is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be, in the context of this flesh and blood body, being sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto, having no imaginative/intuitive facility whatsoever. All you have done, in this response, is to have maladroitly shifted your argument from being about cognitive perception (as per your usage of the words ‘see’ and ‘tell’ in your queries) to being about sensory perception only (via your idiosyncratic utilisation of the word ‘fact’) ... as you have made abundantly clear further on in your e-mail:
And yet here is your original query (from the top of this page):
Plus here is my response (also from the top of this page):
May I ask? Are you left-handed or right-handed (or even both maybe)? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. RESPONDENT: To me, this has never been a ‘fact’. RICHARD: As it is not a fiction (that the object of perception is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) then what is it, according to you, if it be not a fact? Before you reach for the keyboard ... the example already provided can serve as a demonstration: 1. A vehicle is sighted. 2. That vehicle is visibly moving. 3. That moving vehicle is visually seen as approaching head-on. Hence: 1. It is a fact it is a vehicle; it is a fiction it is a tree (for instance). 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is moving; it is a fiction it is stationary (either parked or immobilised). 3. It is a fact that the moving vehicle is approaching head-on; it is a fiction it is approaching side-to-side (not on a collision course). Here are the parameters of the example: 1. All users of vehicles have tacitly agreed to a sensible convention (to only travel on an agreed-upon side of the road). 2. That sensibly agreed-upon convention has been codified as law (enforceable by appropriate penalties). Ergo: 1. It is a fact that the approaching vehicle is not where it is wanted to be (for reasons of safe passage) as per the agreement; it is a fiction that it is where it is wanted to be. 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is not where it ought to be (for reasons of being penalised) as per the law; it is a fiction that it is where it ought to be. RESPONDENT: Here you pull the normative/prescriptive rabbit out of law’s hat. RICHARD: There is no prestidigitation whatsoever in the above as it is (a) a fact that the approaching vehicle is on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on, if only by virtue of it being a fiction that it is really on the other side, and it is (b) a fact that it is not where it is either wanted to be or ought to be, if only by virtue of it being a fiction that it really is where it is wanted to be/ought to be (on the other side of the road). RESPONDENT: There are plenty of situations where we can’t resort to law in order to answer what should or should not be, but have to invent what should happen ourselves. But, even so: does the law, given for reasons of practicality and safety, that vehicles going in one direction should stick to one side of the road and leave the other side to other vehicles going in the opposite direction (except in one-way-streets) exist outside of the ratiocinative processes of the people subject to that law? RICHARD: Of course it does not (and neither does the sensibly agreed-upon convention either) ... it is the vehicle approaching head-on which does. * RICHARD: Thus it is certainly by [quote] ‘the very fact’ [endquote] of the object of perception (the approaching vehicle) being indeed different from what it ought to be (it ought not be approaching head-on), or from what it is wanted to be (it is not wanted to be approaching head-on), which readily evokes the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is informative – by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness – about something (the approaching vehicle) being different (being not on the other side of the road) from what it ought to be (in accordance with the law), or from what it is wanted to be (in accordance with sensibility). Just in case that is not clear enough: what you are saying, in effect, is that the object of perception (the vehicle approaching head-on) is not a vehicle/is not approaching/is not head-on until you cogitate it into being just that (a vehicle approaching head-on). RESPONDENT: Right. I can see the car. That’s a fact. RICHARD: Okay ... and is it also a fact that the vehicle is approaching head-on (and thus not where it is wanted to be/ought to be)? RESPONDENT: What is not a fact is that either the car or myself should not be where they are. RICHARD: Ha ... here you pull the divertive/deflective red-herring out of sophism’s hat. RESPONDENT: That I owe to my cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand: is it a fact that the vehicle approaching head-on is not where it is wanted to be/ought to be? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: If you can provide the text where you say I put the following verb in scare-quotes then the age of the porcine aviators must surely be upon us. Viz.:
My first answer (which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along) can be accessed as-is at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912546137 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness. RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. RESPONDENT: To me, this has never been a ‘fact’. RICHARD: As it is not a fiction (that the object of perception is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) then what is it, according to you, if it be not a fact? Before you reach for the keyboard ... the example already provided can serve as a demonstration: 1. A vehicle is sighted. 2. That vehicle is visibly moving. 3. That moving vehicle is visually seen as approaching head-on. Hence: 1. It is a fact it is a vehicle; it is a fiction it is a tree (for instance). 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is moving; it is a fiction it is stationary (either parked or immobilised). 3. It is a fact that the moving vehicle is approaching head-on; it is a fiction it is approaching side-to-side (not on a collision course). Here are the parameters of the example: 1. All users of vehicles have tacitly agreed to a sensible convention (to only travel on an agreed-upon side of the road). 2. That sensibly agreed-upon convention has been codified as law (enforceable by appropriate penalties). Ergo: 1. It is a fact that the approaching vehicle is not where it is wanted to be (for reasons of safe passage) as per the agreement; it is a fiction that it is where it is wanted to be. 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is not where it ought to be (for reasons of being penalised) as per the law; it is a fiction that it is where it ought to be. RESPONDENT: Here you pull the normative/prescriptive rabbit out of law’s hat. RICHARD: There is no prestidigitation whatsoever in the above as it is (a) a fact that the approaching vehicle is on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on, if only by virtue of it being a fiction that it is really on the other side, and it is (b) a fact that it is not where it is either wanted to be or ought to be, if only by virtue of it being a fiction that it really is where it is wanted to be/ought to be (on the other side of the road). RESPONDENT: There are plenty of situations where we can’t resort to law in order to answer what should or should not be, but have to invent what should happen ourselves. But, even so: does the law, given for reasons of practicality and safety, that vehicles going in one direction should stick to one side of the road and leave the other side to other vehicles going in the opposite direction (except in one-way-streets) exist outside of the ratiocinative processes of the people subject to that law? RICHARD: Of course it does not (and neither does the sensibly agreed-upon convention either) ... it is the vehicle approaching head-on which does. RESPONDENT: Okay. 100 % agreement achieved on the car example. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding:
As you are in 100% agreement with those five points, then:
If so, then:
If those two points are the case, then:
If so, then:
If those two points were to be the case then in what way would a down-to-earth response to a query from an identity asking [quote] ‘Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’?’ [endquote] be couched? Would that down-to-earth response be couched in such a way (as in containing, as a matter of course, no
reference to an identity whatsoever) as to make it crystal clear to any identity, whose interest lies in newness, that there is
indeed a difference as to how these everyday experiences are formulated Such as, for instance, the text which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along?
RESPONDENT: What I would like to know now is if the concrete functioning of hunger (which induces eating), for example, operates likewisely similar – or if my detecting a sameness here was unjustified. RICHARD: https://www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/howtosearch.htm
CORRESPONDENT No. 103 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
