|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 106
RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least). RESPONDENT: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent? RICHARD: First and foremost: there was absolutely no precedent – the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did not have the millions of words now available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to refer to – and, whilst it is true that ‘his’ best work was produced when ‘he’ was absent (and thus beauty played no part at all), when ‘he’ came out of abeyance and reviewed that art ‘he’, of course, automatically imbued it with beauty ... as did the viewers who bought ‘his’ work (reinforcement). Second, when a pure consciousness experience (PCE) occurs the contrast with what was immediately prior (everyday normality) is so startling, plus there is so much going on (the !Wow! effect), that it never struck ‘him’ afterwards, when ‘he’ came out of abeyance, that there was no beauty in actuality. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct and thus, by being latent, can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of. Last, but not least, as the main focus during ‘his’ eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment lay in questioning love and compassion, pacifism and appeasement, timelessness, spacelessness and formlessness, immortality and ‘being’ itself, it simply never occurred to ‘him’ to question beauty ... ‘he’ (unknowingly) took the pristine purity of the actual, which beauty is but a pathetic imitation of, to be beauty itself. RESPONDENT: Also, if I may ask, how did you experience being disconcerted without the affective faculty? RICHARD: Just because there are no affections whatsoever it does not mean it is not possible to be (mentally) astonished, astounded, surprised, uncertain, baffled, puzzled, perplexed, nonplussed, and so on, on occasion. Here is an in-context example:
RESPONDENT: ... By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent? RICHARD: First and foremost: there was absolutely no precedent – the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did not have the millions of words now available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to refer to – and, whilst it is true that ‘his’ best work was produced when ‘he’ was absent (and thus beauty played no part at all), when ‘he’ came out of abeyance and reviewed that art ‘he’, of course, automatically imbued it with beauty ... as did the viewers who bought ‘his’ work (reinforcement). Second, when a pure consciousness experience (PCE) occurs the contrast with what was immediately prior (everyday normality) is so startling, plus there is so much going on (the !Wow! effect), that it never struck ‘him’ afterwards, when ‘he’ came out of abeyance, that there was no beauty in actuality. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of. Last, but not least, as the main focus during ‘his’ eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment lay in questioning love and compassion, pacifism and appeasement, timelessness, spacelessness and formlessness, immortality and ‘being’ itself, it simply never occurred to ‘him’ to question beauty ... ‘he’ (unknowingly) took the pristine purity of the actual, which beauty is but a pathetic imitation of, to be beauty itself. RESPONDENT: Thank you for your reply. This is extremely interesting to me. RICHARD: What I find interesting is that I made a living as a practising artist, as well as being a duly qualified art-teacher in the fine arts, for a period in my working life – which is, primarily, to be a purveyor of beauty (a beauty-pusher as it were) – yet beauty itself was never questioned ... even though more than a few enlightened/ awakened ones clearly state that it is through beauty that truth (often capitalised as ‘Truth’) is to be found. RESPONDENT: On reflection it is not surprising that an identity would imbue the products of a PCE (e.g., a painting) with qualities it did not possess in actuality. The memory of a PCE can itself be imbued with such qualities, which could account for why it is usually interpreted and described in mystical or religious terms after the event. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: For one example, have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s ‘The Doors Of Perception’ and ‘Heaven And Hell?’ RICHARD: Apart from brief excerpts where other author’s have quoted from those writings ... no. RESPONDENT: These are very different works but the author clearly regarded them as companion pieces. In his first mescaline experience described in TDOP there were some psychic adumbrations but the experience was characterised by an intensely intimate sensate experience of everyday objects – flowers, books, chairs, cars, garments – stripped of their everyday reality. I think at least some of that experience must have been a PCE. By the time he wrote ‘Heaven and Hell’ he had already begun to interpret the experience of the astonishing aliveness and vibrancy of the physical world as a lesser/ worldly form of ‘visionary’ experience ... which just so happened to be what he had wanted and expected from mescaline. It seems that the PCE cannot be properly contained in memory. When the identity returns, ‘I’ interpret and describe the experience from hindsight using the best available cultural analogues. ‘I’ even have a strong ulterior motive for doing so. But when the experience is permanent the shortcomings of those cultural analogues (mystical/ religious/ visionary interpretations) become more obvious I suppose RICHARD: Yes, blatantly obvious, in fact (particularly their outright absurdity). RESPONDENT: Apart from the loss of beauty, were there other things that surprised you when it all came to an end for ‘you’? RICHARD: No, that was the only thing which was unexpected. RESPONDENT: Even after all those PCE’s, were you still surprised that ALL feeling disappeared when you ‘self’-immolated? RICHARD: No ... although the experience itself, of being irrevocably sans the entire affective faculty, was initially quite astounding. RESPONDENT: Or would it be more accurate to say that you were surprised to discover how much of human experience was attributable to feeling instead of fact? RICHARD: Ah yes ... the sheer extent, the all-pervasiveness, of feeling over fact was, at first, rather astonishing. RESPONDENT: One other question (but this is only idle curiosity now). When a PCE occurs in the midst of painting, why would the painter not immediately lose interest in trying to create a lifeless 2D facsimile of the infinite splendour surrounding him on all sides, as you eventually did? RICHARD: I can only speak for myself, of course, and there were several reasons ... of which being in the situation of having to feed, clothe and house five other people than myself is at the top of the list (I mainly made a living working in ceramics ... in particular hand-thrown pottery). Also, it was a way, or a means, by which a PCE could be fairly reliably brought about. Plus the work of art takes on a life of its own, in the process of representation, and it is simply fascinating to be the experiencing of that happening (just as it is in writing). Speaking of which: I did not lose interest in art as such ... it was more a case of switching from the fine arts to the literary arts. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Also, if I may ask, how did you experience being disconcerted without the affective faculty? RICHARD: Just because there are no affections whatsoever it does not mean it is not possible to be (mentally) astonished, astounded, surprised, uncertain, baffled, puzzled, perplexed, nonplussed, and so on, on occasion. Here is an in-context example: [Richard]: ‘... in 1992, when the break-through into this actual world occurred, the following thirty months or so were a time of intense brain agitation – neuronal excitation – which I have described before as being ‘mental anguish’ (not to be confused with emotional anguish) so as to convey the intensity of the cognisance that no body in human history had ever lived this up until now. That this disconcerting perplexity was only cerebral was evidenced by no sweaty palms, no increased heartbeat, no rapid breathing, no palpations in the solar plexus ... none of those things connected with ‘being’. [snip remainder]. RESPONDENT: I understand that, but I do not yet understand how such perplexity can be experienced as suffering when there is neither physical pain nor affective distress. RICHARD: I did not experience such perplexity as suffering ... I specifically say it was [quote] ‘disconcerting’ [endquote] in that above passage which I provided as an in-context example, in response to your query about being disconcerted when first freed from the human condition, and in no way mean by that what the word ‘suffering’ can mean. Here is what being disconcerted means to me:
Thus that last sentence could have been written like this:
As for that intense brain agitation – the neuronal excitation – I have elsewhere described it as [quote] ‘altogether unpleasant’ [endquote]. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You seem to have suffered a lot during that period, yet you also say that actual freedom is the end of all suffering. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to take the liberty of replacing one word in your sentence with what I wrote, in response to your query about being disconcerted, it may become more clear? For example:
RESPONDENT: Is there any real-world analogues that would convey the nature of that suffering? RICHARD: There are no real-world analogues that could convey the nature of that disconcerting perplexity as it was only cerebral (as evidenced by no sweaty palms, no increased heartbeat, no rapid breathing, no palpations in the solar plexus ... none of those things connected with ‘being’). The intense brain agitation – the neuronal excitation – is akin to having what is colloquially known as a bad trip on acid (lysergic acid diethylamide). RESPONDENT: Had you experienced anything like it before? RICHARD: I had experienced the neuronal excitation before, during some of the many PCE’s, but never to that extent (let alone duration). RESPONDENT: Are you still able to suffer in that way? RICHARD: As I now have 13+ years experience, of being a flesh and blood body only, there is no foreseeable reason why such disconcerting perplexity would ever come about again. Nor for anybody else, either, as the validity of both a virtual and an actual freedom from the human condition is now established.
RESPONDENT No. 28: Isn’t the mind noticing the absence of me, also me? Is there anything to the mind other than me? This isn’t a flip advaita-shuffle kinda question (...) RICHARD: It looks more like a glib solipsism-serenade kinda question than anything else. RESPONDENT: No. 28 says he regards mind and self as synonymous: ‘I tend to think the mind is me and v.v.’ In his terms, if the mind/self notices that something is absent, it stands to reason that the absent something cannot be mind/self ... it can only be one of the contents or faculties of mind/self. How is that related to solipsism? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the mind is me and vice versa then the questions would look something like this:
Perhaps I should have said that it looks more like a glib solipsism-soliloquy
RESPONDENT: No. 28 says he regards mind and self as synonymous: ‘I tend to think the mind is me and v.v.’ In his terms, if the mind/self notices that something is absent, it stands to reason that the absent something cannot be mind/self ... it can only be one of the contents or faculties of mind/self. How is that related to solipsism? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the mind is me and vice versa then the questions would look something like this:
Perhaps I should have said that it looks more like a glib solipsism-soliloquy RESPONDENT: Not to me. It looks like No. 28 wondering about the basis for treating mind and self as different/ separate things/ processes. RICHARD: Sometimes things are not what they seem to be ... here is a question for you: what is the difference between solipsism and non-dualism (aka advaita)?
RESPONDENT: No. 28 says he regards mind and self as synonymous: ‘I tend to think the mind is me and v.v.’ In his terms, if the mind/self notices that something is absent, it stands to reason that the absent something cannot be mind/self ... it can only be one of the contents or faculties of mind/self. How is that related to solipsism? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the mind is me and vice versa then the questions would look something like this:
Perhaps I should have said that it looks more like a glib solipsism-soliloquy RESPONDENT: Not to me. It looks like No. 28 wondering about the basis for treating mind and self as different/ separate things/ processes. RICHARD: Sometimes things are not what they seem to be ... here is a question for you: what is the difference between solipsism and non-dualism (aka advaita)? RESPONDENT: I have not had much cause to think about it but here is an off-the-cuff attempt: Solipsism and nondualism are both based on the fact that our most immediate experience of the universe is our own consciousness of it. Solipsists conclude that we cannot know anything apart from that – or whether there is anything apart from that – presumably because it is impossible to extricate ourselves from it. Non-dualists take this basic experiential inseparability of world and consciousness and blow it up into a metaphysical truth, say that there actually is nothing apart from consciousness. I still do not see what this has to do with what No. 28 wrote. RICHARD: My co-respondent has written something like 230+ e-mails to this mailing list since first subscribing in 2002 ... thus it has been made abundantly clear that they can not, or will not, distinguish the marked distinction between actualism and non-dualism. As for your off-the-cuff attempt: essentially there is no difference between solipsism and non-dualism ... they are both totally, completely and utterly self-centred. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Many is the time I have had a fellow human being tell me that the physical world is an illusion: when I enquire as to why they are talking to one of their illusions – why they feel the necessity to inform one of their illusions that he is one of their illusions – the conversation generally goes rapidly downhill. Over the years I have noticed that objectivity is an incredibly subjective thing for more than a few people and in the full-blown enlightened/ awakened state itself there is only pure subjectivity (aka solipsism/ non-dualism). Hence such terminology as ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ to describe enlightenment/ awakenment. Put succinctly: a fully enlightened being (as in fully-deluded) simply shuts up upon reaching that final state – absolute aloneness – as there is nothing/ nobody else other than ‘me’ (usually capitalised as ‘Me’).
CO-RESPONDENT: (...) you do your readers a disservice in declaring enlightenment to be worthless. RICHARD: I would be doing my fellow human being no favour – and nor would I be being true to the legacy that identity left – were I not to continue to expose spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment for being the crock it is. CO-RESPONDENT: It is the journey that can’t be totally eliminated. RICHARD: I can see no reason whatsoever why identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego/self and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) cannot become extinct in one fell-swoop. CO-RESPONDENT: In my opinion you have to meet the dragons on their own turf. RICHARD: As neither the dragons nor their turf are actual you do not have to do anything of the sort: just one short step and !poof! it is all over, done with, finished ... the end. ‘Twas all an illusion/ delusion ... I have been here, all along, simply having a ball. RESPONDENT: How short is that step? RICHARD: That step is of an unmeasurable shortness due to an incapacity to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’ ... as mentioned only recently in an e-mail to another:
RESPONDENT: If, 25 years ago to the day, young ‘Richard’ had read and understood the entire content of the Actual Freedom Trust website, how long do you think it would have taken him to ‘self’-immolate? RICHARD: I cannot even begin to speculate about such an hypothetical situation and set of circumstances as there are just too many incalculable contingencies (unidentifiable variables and non-specifiable parameters) to factor in ... what I can be reasonably sure about, however, is that were the persona you refer to have become cognisant of the gist of the content of the Actual Freedom Trust website, prior to the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) in mid-1980, ‘he’ would have dismissed it all as being put together by whackoes. For example:
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 |
