|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: You say that ‘this moment’ has no duration, but what fraction of time does it take/represent (e.g. milliseconds)? RICHARD: This (durationless) moment is eternal. RESPONDENT: It has always existed and it will always exist ... but my query was also in relation to its experiencing. I understand the word ‘moment’ in relation to time, which time is an actual occurrence. Given the fact that you have a certain radius of sensory perception, my question is: how do you experience ‘this moment’ in relation to the events happening around you? e.g. how many ‘this moment’ make the action ‘the cup of coffee next to your keyboard is falling and breaking’? Is this moment experienced as in a frame-by-frame (moment-to-moment) experiencing? The best approximation for me of what you want to convey by ‘this moment’ is a photograph. I agree that it captures the event, but it also captures the moment when that event takes place. RICHARD: All events happen in eternity ... this always existing (eternal) moment is the arena, so to speak, in which such things occur and time – as in past/ present/ future – is a way of measuring these occurrences. Presumably some pre-historical person/ persons noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and then to water-clocks/ sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/ spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, energy-clocks (aka ‘atomic-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around its radiant star. Put succinctly: it is not time itself (eternity) which moves but objects in (infinite) space. * RICHARD: Have you never noticed that it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Okay, I notice that ... and it’s fascinating. RICHARD: If I might suggest (before you go on with your ‘but’ immediately below)? Stay with that fascination and allow the marvelling, that it is never not this moment, to unfold in all its wonderment. RESPONDENT: But I’m wondering whether time can be experienced in a different manner by different people/animals. Bats, for example, see an action much slower then humans do. Also, in different emotional states time flows differently for me: when I’m annoyed waiting for someone time flows slower, when I’m excited/happy time goes faster then normal. RICHARD: Time itself – this eternal moment – does not flow (move) ... there is a vast stillness here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: We can talk about altered states of time then. What/who creates these altered states of time ... RICHARD: The identity within, of course (who is always out of time). RESPONDENT: ... and why are you so sure that ‘this moment’ is part and parcel of the physical universe properties? RICHARD: Where there is no identity the physical properties of the universe are startlingly apparent. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: Why is it that it cannot be measured (as in duration) and only experientially (which can be another name for subjectivity) understood? RICHARD: This (beginningless and endless) moment cannot be measured as measurement requires a reference point – a beginning and/or an ending – to measure against. Incidentally, where there is no identity (no subject) experiencing can never be subjective (as opposed to objective).
RESPONDENT: I ask this as you stated that sensory perception is primary, affective secondary and cognitive tertiary, all of it proved?/ measured? by scientific?/ experiential? milliseconds. RICHARD: The sequence of the events you refer to was ascertained experientially. RESPONDENT: Experientially in milliseconds? RICHARD: No ... experientially in sequence. RESPONDENT: I had the impression that the ‘milliseconds bit’ was LeDoux discovery ... RICHARD: Yes ... Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated, under laboratory conditions, that in the perceptive process the sensate signal goes first to the affective faculty (12-14 milliseconds) and then to the cognitive faculty (another 12-14 milliseconds). RESPONDENT: ... or is it that you are able to count milliseconds? RICHARD: No ... the identity was able to ascertain that which precedes and that which succeeds. To explain: when I came to respond to your (further above) query there were too many questions in the one sentence to tease apart so I answered according to experience that the sequence of events – that in the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary – were ascertained experientially. * RESPONDENT: I notice that this moment is the only one alive so-to-speak, the only one actually happening, all else is non-existent. RICHARD: Only this moment, and the events which are happening just here right now, are actual. RESPONDENT: In brief glimpses I get the impression of something enormous, monumental about to take place. RICHARD: Aye ... I can recall, in 1981, describing such as ‘living at the cutting-edge of reality’ (where something of momentous importance is always about to happen). The name of the game is to allow it to happen ... but first one needs to give oneself permission to make such a decision. RESPONDENT: It’s scary by its dimensions and immediate nature and it makes me feel a bit insane and redundant like a dino. RICHARD: That which is scary has two aspects ... a frightening aspect and a thrilling aspect. Usually the frightening aspect dominates and obscures the thrilling aspect: shifting one’s attention to the thrilling aspect (I often said jokingly that it is down at the bottom left-hand side) will increase the thrill and decrease the fright as the energy of fear shifts its focus and changes into a higher gear ... and, as courage is sourced in the thrilling part of fear, the daring to proceed will intensify of its own accord. But stay with the thrill, by being the thrill, else the fright takes over and the daring dissipates. RESPONDENT: But the most wonderful thing about life is that it happens right here and right now. RICHARD: Again I would suggest: stay with that wonder and allow it (the wonderment) to unfold.
RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No ... and the following quote (arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) will demonstrate why not:
I selected that passage, after about an hour reading what is available on the internet, as indicative of what both his state of mind and his philosophical writings (the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports that he received a degree in philosophy from the University of Bucharest in 1932) would appear to stem from – the basic resentment at being born, and thus, at being here on this verdant and azure planet – and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this would be so. Put succinctly: just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan – and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene
RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No (...) and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this [resenting being born and thus being here] would be so. RESPONDENT: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two. I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? * RICHARD: ... he was, as his articles and aphorisms clearly reflect, anti-life to the core. RESPONDENT: Could he’ve been otherwise with the existing choices? Just as an aside, I sometimes wonder at the vitality of your determination in finding a new solution to the human dilemma (life). It certainly meant ‘sacrificing’ everything for what? I suppose Love played a part in sweetening your angst on the way to nowhere or it was the memory of the PCE you had that proved vital ... like a fuel for inquiry. Did you know the destination before you arrived and if you knew it so well, how could you be satisfied for 11 years with the ASC? RICHARD: Have you never had the intimation – a suspicion or an inkling as it were – that you are here on this planet for a reason ... a purpose so far unfulfilled, not yet carried out or brought to completion? Or, to put that another way, have you ever pondered upon the meaning of life, wondered at the riddle of existence, mused on the purpose of the universe (as expressed in phrases such as ‘where do we come from, what are we doing here, where are we going to’), and so on? Are you familiar with the expressions ‘escape your fate’ and ‘meet your destiny’? A recurring theme in my life after puberty, both as a youth and as an adult, was the contention that ‘there must be more to life than this’ (‘this’ being life as a normal human being) and it was not until I had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) at age thirty-three that it became startling apparent – and indubitably so – why one was here on this planet, what the meaning of life was, and where one’s destiny (destination) lay. I also discovered the source of the recurring theme: in the days after the PCE I recalled many instances in my life of such moments of pristine perfection – mostly in early childhood where naiveté is commonplace – and an inevitability set in. There was no turning back. As to why it took eleven years to break free from the altered state of consciousness (ASC) popularly known as spiritual enlightenment – and I was not satisfied else I would still be there – even though I knew the destination the answer is simple. There was no precedent ... nobody had ever done so before.
RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No (...) and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this [resenting being born and thus being here] would be so. RESPONDENT: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two. I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings? RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life? RESPONDENT: He had 5-6 ecstasies in his life (according to him) ... RICHARD: Do half-a-dozen or so peak-experiences constitute a monastic life, then (else why write this as a response)? RESPONDENT: ... he lived in Paris so I assume he had extensively investigated the second part ... RICHARD: Oh? Does the very choice to live in Paris constitute a life of debauchery (according to you)? RESPONDENT: ... and he said that the idea of suicide kept him from actually committing it. RICHARD: Am I to take it that the phrase ‘not just philosophical’ is not meant to convey ‘not just ideas’ after all? RESPONDENT: As a personal opinion, he was more anti-being to the core then anti-life per see. He clearly states that being is the problem ... RICHARD: And was it also, perchance, the idea of an end to ‘being’ that prevented him from ending it (ending that which he clearly states is the problem)? RESPONDENT: ... but he goes one step further and equates being with life. RICHARD: Would it be reasonable to say that equating ‘being’ with life is ... um ... is just an idea? RESPONDENT: He investigated all the proposed solutions and he found them flawed and unsatisfactory, so he preferred to settle for none. RICHARD: Indeed so. You may have gathered by now that I am not so much interested in Mr. Emile Cioran per se but, rather, what you have made out of reading his writings ... I will draw your attention to this:
If, as you say, he made deep investigations into ‘his’ nature and found that ‘being’ was the problem, yet equated ‘being’ with life, then why would you say that his insight was very precise (let alone useful)? RESPONDENT: He makes a very precise diagnosis of the human condition, you may check his comments on love, god, spirituality, history, evil, etc. RICHARD: Why? If he cannot distinguish between ‘being’ and life then his ‘very precise diagnosis’ of the human condition (of love, god/evil, and so on), is not worth the paper it is printed on RESPONDENT: He clearly says that he has no cure and that the human condition is doomed because it was flawed from the start. RICHARD: Which is why I selected a passage (as being arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) to quote in my initial response wherein he said that birth was not only a catastrophe, a scourge – ‘a cause of calamity or suffering’ (Oxford Dictionary) – but evil, real evil, and (after quoting Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s insight on the very same theme) was the source of every infirmity, the source of every disease. RESPONDENT: I will post a free translation of a paragraph from an interview in order to demonstrate the above; I warn you though that it looks like actualism. RICHARD: As actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) experientially evidences that ‘being’ does not equate to life – there is no ‘being’ present in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – then whatever he has to say, coming as it does from such an invalid premise, is surely not worth reading ... let alone translating. * RESPONDENT: Just as an aside, I sometimes wonder at the vitality of your determination in finding a new solution to the human dilemma (life). It certainly meant ‘sacrificing’ everything for what? I suppose Love played a part in sweetening your angst on the way to nowhere or it was the memory of the PCE you had that proved vital ... like a fuel for inquiry. Did you know the destination before you arrived ...? RICHARD: Have you never had the intimation – a suspicion or an inkling as it were – that you are here on this planet for a reason ... a purpose so far unfulfilled, not yet carried out or brought to completion? RESPONDENT: I had an inflated version of that after the ASC (me and someone else HAD to save the world) and, when a teenager, I wrote (it wrote itself, yes) something on the back of my girlfriend’s rucksack (on the line that in life we must aim for the best). RICHARD: Okay ... and does that not go someway towards providing the vitality you are asking about? * RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, have you ever pondered upon the meaning of life, wondered at the riddle of existence, mused on the purpose of the universe (as expressed in phrases such as ‘where do we come from, what are we doing here, where are we going to’), and so on? RESPONDENT: Yes and I had no answer, except for wonder. RICHARD: Then I would suggest nourishing that wonder, putting aside each and every intellectual answer (no matter how correct) which may pop up, so that the actual answer can hove into view. * RICHARD: Are you familiar with the expressions ‘escape your fate’ and ‘meet your destiny’? RESPONDENT: I thought they are one and the same, now I see them as separate. RICHARD: Most people I have spoken to do see them as the same – and dictionaries tend to provide similar definitions for both ‘fate’ and ‘destiny’ – yet I find it a useful way of conveying what an actual freedom (one’s destiny) from the human condition (one’s fate) entails ... mainly because that is how the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago experienced it. * RICHARD: A recurring theme in my life after puberty, both as a youth and as an adult, was the contention that ‘there must be more to life than this’ (‘this’ being life as a normal human being) and it was not until I had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) at age thirty-three that it became startling apparent – and indubitably so – why one was here on this planet, what the meaning of life was, and where one’s destiny (destination) lay. RESPONDENT: I had the negative version of that: there is something very wrong with my life, something I was not able to clearly define. RICHARD: In view of the discussion regarding ‘being’ and life (further above) can you now clearly define what the something ‘very wrong’ is? * RICHARD: I also discovered the source of the recurring theme: in the days after the PCE I recalled many instances in my life of such moments of pristine perfection – mostly in early childhood where naiveté is commonplace – and an inevitability set in. There was no turning back. RESPONDENT: I remember just prior to the ASC something like a burst that I will best equate it with your phrasing ‘no psychological distance’. I’ve looked at one of my neighbours and ... umm ... I was in his eyes, there was no distance/fear between me and him and a very pleasant atmosphere. RICHARD: Given that my words ‘an inevitability set in/there was no turning back’ are in response to your query, about the vitality which provides the impetus to go all the way into discovering the solution to the human dilemma, are you now any nearer to such vivification as a consequence of enquiring as to what it was for the identity inhabiting this body all those years ago? Can you see the relationship between ‘there was no turning back’ and ‘escape your fate’ and between ‘an inevitability set in’ and ‘meet your destiny’? I have oft-times used the simile of the very first time one ventures onto a slide in a children’s playground: one sees what the other kids are doing and, upon mustering up the pluck to climb the ladder, one finds that so long as one just sits there on the platform one is safe (inasmuch one can climb back down the ladder) and even upon inching forward from time-to time, albeit gripping the side-rails of the slide, one is still not committed – one can still turn back – until one has inched forward just that little too much ... and then gravity takes over, an inevitably sets in, and one is on launched on the ride, come what may. It is in that instant when gravity takes over – at that very instant – where you will find actual commitment happens.
RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No ... and the following quote (arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) will demonstrate why not: [quote] ‘We do not rush toward death, we flee the catastrophe of birth, survivors struggling to forget it. Fear of death is merely the projection into the future of a fear which dates back to our first moment of life. We are reluctant, of course, to treat birth as a scourge: Has it not been inculcated as the sovereign good – have we not been told that worst came at the end, not the outset of our lives? Yet evil, real evil, is behind, not ahead of us. What escaped Jesus did not escape Buddha: ‘If three things did not exist in the world, O disciples, the Perfect One would not appear in the world ...’. And ahead of old age and death he places the fact of birth, source of every infirmity, every disease’. [italics in the original]. I selected that passage, after about an hour reading what is available on the internet, as indicative of what both his state of mind and his philosophical writings (the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports that he received a degree in philosophy from the University of Bucharest in 1932) would appear to stem from – the basic resentment at being born, and thus, at being here on this verdant and azure planet – and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this would be so. RESPONDENT: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two. I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings? RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life? RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are. RESPONDENT: ... [However], I want to point out the distinction between merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices and practicing/abandoning something after a trial. RICHARD: Okay ... then in order to be able to say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ (aka ‘not just philosophical’) you obviously have access to information I am not privy to ... accordingly, here are my amended questions:
It may be handy to bear in mind, as you respond, that you are corresponding with a person that did not merely propose philosophical/ intellectual choices but did, in fact, practice/abandon what they published a report/ description/ explanation of, after that trial, and now is, as an actuality, living what they are contemporaneously publishing a report/ description/ explanation of.
RESPONDENT: (...) I found some of his [Mr. Emile Cioran’s] insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings? RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life? RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are. RESPONDENT: ... [However], I want to point out the distinction between merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices and practicing/abandoning something after a trial. RICHARD: Okay ... then in order to be able to say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ (aka ‘not just philosophical’) you obviously have access to information I am not privy to ... accordingly, here are my amended questions: 1. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘monastery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? 2. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘debauchery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? 3. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘suicide’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? RESPONDENT: The only information I had access to were his books. RICHARD: Aye ... that is the information I was referring to (the only information I have to go by is what can be read on the internet in the course of about an hour). RESPONDENT: As I was in the process of reading a collection of interviews, I’ve seen some interesting comments about the human condition that mirror actualism ... and I thought you might be interested. RICHARD: Given that to ‘mirror’ refers to something which faithfully reflects or gives a true picture of something else – an exact likeness or match – how is it possible that a person who considers birth to be not only a catastrophe, a scourge – ‘a cause of calamity or suffering’ (Oxford Dictionary) – but evil, real evil, and (after quoting Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s insight on the very same theme) was the source of every infirmity, the source of every disease, could make some interesting comments about the human condition that mirror actualism? RESPONDENT: Although I use the method you propose (cause it works), I want to understand what other people have made of (their) life, what their questions and answers were, including where they’ve got it all wrong. RICHARD: Sure. RESPONDENT: I’m not making an a priori rejection of everything that has been written about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. RICHARD: Nor am I suggesting that you do. RESPONDENT: What you propose here is a new paradigm so I find it great fun to understand other people lives and ideas through this new lens. RICHARD: What is the difference, then, between understanding Mr. Emile Cioran’s life and (purportedly) not being in the position of making judgements about his life? RESPONDENT: Not that I’m looking for answers via this inquiry, far from it, but the understanding of how others lived plays a part in providing a support to the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RICHARD: Okay ... as my query was specifically about your understanding of how Mr. Emile Cioran lived how is it that you can say you are not in the position of making judgements about how he lived? RESPONDENT: ‘They’ were not that different to how ‘I’ am ticking. RICHARD: If, as you say, what made Mr. Emile Cioran tick is not all that different from what makes you tick then why is it that you are not in the position of making judgements about how he ticked? RESPONDENT: Did you know for example that everything/everyone can be forgiven (by God) except someone who after knew Him, became an apostate? This is the supreme treason according to Dostoievsky ... if God doesn’t exist then everything is permitted. RICHARD: Shall we stay with the topic at hand for now ... to wit: your observation that Mr. Emile Cioran was ‘not just philosophical’/‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ and my queries regarding same? RESPONDENT: As for your above questions, the answer is simple: I don’t know ... RICHARD: Oh? Does he not mention anywhere at all in his books the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘monastery’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial; the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘debauchery’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial; the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘suicide’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial? RESPONDENT: ... [As for your above questions, the answer is simple: I don’t know] and I don’t wish to know ... RICHARD: Oh? So the great fun it is to ‘understand other people lives’ and the part ‘the understanding of how others lived’ plays in providing support to asking yourself, each moment again, how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) and the finding out that ‘‘they’ were not that different to how ‘I’ am ticking’ not only does not need any knowing of how they lived but you do not even wish to know ... even though you want to understand what other people have made of their life, what their questions and answers were, including where they have got it all wrong (because you are not making an a priori rejection of everything that has been written about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being)? RESPONDENT: [I don’t know and I don’t wish to know] ... * he said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life (before WWII) as philosophy provided no solutions to his suffering. RICHARD: Okay ... is this why you say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’/‘not just philosophical’ when he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life (monastery, debauchery or suicide) then? RESPONDENT: What happened next? RICHARD: Given that he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – then ‘what happened next’ was that he lived a mediocre life, no? RESPONDENT: He probably tried to be a Buddhist and he couldn’t as he couldn’t betray his earthly passionate nature. RICHARD: At what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘to be a Buddhist’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? RESPONDENT: He was a man full of contradictions ... RICHARD: At this stage the main contradiction would appear to be that, although he *said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life (before WWII), he never really did, eh? RESPONDENT: [He was a man full of contradictions] like everyone of us. RICHARD: Hmm ... it may be handy to bear in mind, as you respond, that you are corresponding with a person that did not merely propose philosophical/intellectual choices but did, in fact, practice/abandon what they published a report/description/explanation of, after that trial, and now is, as an actuality, living what they are contemporaneously publishing a report/description/explanation of. RESPONDENT: Again, what are the major choices a human had in life, according to you? RICHARD: The major choices in life that Mr. Emile Cioran had when he was born (in 1911) were, presumably, the same major choices in life that I had when I was born (in 1947). RESPONDENT: Is it not religion/mysticism/spirituality or egoism/passions/hedonism? RICHARD: No, the latter choice – ‘egoism/passions/hedonism’ Did that not stand out like a canines’ testicles do when you first read the word ‘debauchery’ (used to characterise the way untold billions of people outside monastery walls lived their lives)? It did to me ... which is why one of the first things I did, in that hour reading what is available on the internet, was to ascertain what his up-bringing was: his father, coming as he did from a long line of priests, was a Romanian Orthodox priest at the time of his birth (and became an archpriest 13 years later). And which is also why, when I asked which one of the (according to him) three non-mediocre choices in life a human has he personally chose I spelled-them out as I did – the monastic life of piety and self-denial vis-à-vis the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence – as there is no way that all of the billions of humans not living the cloistered life can be characterised as debauched (synonyms: depraved, wanton, dissipated, dissolute, evil, wicked, and so on) by non-monastic standards. Golly ... even this mailing lists’ dump-and-run cynic commented on how trite that wisdom was.
RESPONDENT: (...) I found some of his [Mr. Emile Cioran’s] insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death. RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death? RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings? RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life? RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are. (...) RESPONDENT: What happened next [after *he said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life]? RICHARD: Given that he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – then ‘what happened next’ was that he lived a mediocre life, no? RESPONDENT: Not the best possible life ... if that is what ‘mediocre’ means. RICHARD: It really does not matter exactly what it means – in this context it means the opposite to non-mediocre – as the only point I am making is that, according to his own analysis, he did not live a non-mediocre life. Look, I live in an apartment (a rented duplex) at a fashionable address; I have a female companion; I have some like-minded acquaintances; I regularly attend cafés; I (occasionally) accept a dinner invitation; I otherwise lead a predominantly quiet and non-public life; I compose written articles; I will (quite possibly) die at an advanced age ... thus, according to Mr. Emile Cioran’s analysis, I am living a mediocre life. Or, to put that another way, I did not choose the cloistered life (monastery); I did not choose a licentious life (debauchery): I did not choose to end my life (suicide) ... thus, according to Mr. Emile Cioran’s analysis, I am not living a non-mediocre life. Now do you get it?
RESPONDENT: Richard, do you consider yourself to be perfect or is your experience of the universe that is perfect? RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal and perpetual, has no opposite and is thus peerless (without peer, matchless, incomparable, and so on) ... hence perfect. The very stuff this flesh and blood body is comprised of is the very stuff of the universe and, as such, is no different to the universe itself. Consider this: the very stuff which is the flesh and blood body called ‘No 25’ is as old as the universe itself ... as is any other matter (mass/energy). And is this not truly wonderful?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I understand that you experience the universe as being infinite (as big as it can get), but is the universe infinite in the reverse sense, as small as it can get (sort of minus infinite)? RICHARD: The direct experience here in this actual world is that of infinitude – ‘a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ (Oxford Dictionary) – thus what you are asking is, in effect, whether there is the direct experience of the universe being infinitesimal ... ‘infinitely or indefinitely small; relating to or involving quantities which approach zero’ (Oxford Dictionary). There is no such experience in actuality. RESPONDENT: I ask this as the notion of minus infinite is mathematically plausible but I wonder if it’s factual. RICHARD: Nope ... ‘tis but the musings of the ‘Big-Bang/Big-Crunch’ (aka expansion/contraction) theorists. RESPONDENT: Or maybe this is the wrong approach to use (more clearly seen when applied to the concept of ‘time’). You can measure time, understood as events happening, in a range of billionth of a second to billions of years but one cannot measure ‘no-time’. RICHARD: That would be because there is no such thing as ‘no-time’ (just as there is no such thing as ‘no-space’). RESPONDENT: Yet you say that time itself is eternal, ‘this moment’ has no duration. RICHARD: Aye ... that is because unlimited time, this beginningless and endless moment, is not ‘no-time’ (just as boundless expanse – this beginningless and endless place – is not ‘no-space’). RESPONDENT: Still, events happen because of time. RICHARD: Events happen in (eternal) time ... not because of it. RESPONDENT: [Addendum: What I wanted to point out above is that if there is no time (used in the sense of duration), there are no events, as all events are measurable, no matter their time-span. RICHARD: Ah, I see ... your above sentence might now look something like this, then:
Duration as a convention – as in past/present/future – can indeed be measured ... given that the measurement in question is derived from the movement of a shadow cast by a vertical stick (aka a sundial) in sunlight such measurement is but a measure of the movement of matter in space – specifically the earth’s rotation on its axis whilst in orbit around a radiant star – and not a measure of the movement of time (just as space does not move time has no movement either). All of which means that, as there is no duration in actuality there is no such thing (of course) to be measured. We have touched on this on another occasion:
RESPONDENT: So, if ‘this moment’ experienced by Richard has no duration, then there are no events happening in ‘this moment’ (an eventless moment). RICHARD: Just because this (eternal) moment has no duration it does not imply there are no events happening. RESPONDENT: Thus, I don’t understand how ‘the actual world of people, things and events’ can be experienced from ‘this’ (durationless) ‘moment’ if all-on-Earth is duration-full. RICHARD: Just because 6.0 billion identities experience time as duration it does not mean that this actual world of people (bodies), things (objects) and events (occurrences) cannot be experienced in actuality. RESPONDENT: Also, if minus infinity (as small as it can get) is just a mathematical proposition without factual existence and there is indeed a limit to ‘how small’ matter in the microscopic world can be, then the conclusion is that, ultimately (as it is with time – ‘this moment’ has no duration), there is a ‘no space’ (immateriality) where there are ‘no events’ taking place (as there is no matter) and thus ‘no time’ (to measure with). RICHARD: As more than a little of that sentence is a conflation of terms I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: I know, it sounds like Buddha’s dwellin’ place but I want to be sure that Richard ain’t his neighbour. [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Ha ... the only Mr. Gotama the Sakyan in this neighbourhood is in the form of innumerable stone statues (which are popping up in gardens hereabouts like mushrooms after rain) as the otherwise intelligent peoples of the west uncritically swallow the no-time/ no-space/ no-form fantasies of the east hook, line, and sinker, and thus advertise their gullibility to the world at large ... a credulity albeit reinforced by the theoretical fantasising which more and more passes for science these days. RESPONDENT: That ‘smallest’ particle of matter (i.e. the billionth of an atom) has the fastest (ultimate) speed and creates the fastest event possible (i.e. measured as a billionth of a second). What’s going on beyond that event of a billionth of a second and that smallest particle of matter travelling at the fastest speed possible? RICHARD: You are now talking of theoretical physics: as the so-called sub-atomic particles – as in your ‘the billionth of an atom’ phrasing – are nothing other than sub-atomic postulates your guess is probably as good as any. RESPONDENT: It is possible that everything is instantaneously everywhere, as time (understood as the measure of an event’s speed) is absent. [end addendum]. RICHARD: As time is reversible, for instance, in the make-believe world of sub-atomic postulates it would not be at all surprising if something of that nature has already been bruited abroad. RESPONDENT: How can be reconciled the notion (for me) that the Universe is still (according to your experience of this moment) with the observable fact that matter is not passive (events taking place)? RICHARD: The phrase ‘matter is not merely passive’ does not refer to events taking place but is the (geological) equivalent of the (biological) phenomenon of aliveness. For example:
Where I say there is a vast stillness here (in this actual world) I am referring to the fundamental character of its infinitude. For instance:
RESPONDENT: Scientists have managed to see galaxies that are some four billion times fainter than can be seen by the naked eye (via telescopes) without finding its ‘outer’ boundary (currently 15 billion light years away). They have also obtained images of matter, magnifying it millions of time (via microscopes), to an incredible 0.6 angstrom and haven’t yet found the universe’s ‘inner’ boundary. A sheet of paper is 1.000.000 angstroms thick and an angstrom is equal to 1/100.000.000 of a centimetre. I wonder what’s next. RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, it will dawn upon them that the search for such boundaries will keep them all in steady employment for ever and a day?
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Eight) 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 |
