|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RESPONDENT: My first questions relate to what is (apparently) lost in AF. If there is no imaginative faculty, no mind-space at all in which to visualise objects and processes, how is it possible to understand systems and processes that do not occur right before one’s eyes? (...) More generally, if you are wholly immersed in the actual world 24/7, and have no ability to be otherwise, how is it possible to understand systems and processes whose meaning and purpose is only comprehensible at higher levels of abstraction? RICHARD: What part of my response in regards to the query, three days ago, on this very topic are you having difficulty in comprehending? Viz.:
Although I have never learned calculus, for instance, I did learn basic algebra and trigonometry and thus could expand my capacities if there were sufficient motivation. As my interest (and thus expertise) lies elsewhere that is highly unlikely.
RESPONDENT: A few more questions: 1. Richard, what is the physiological nature of the ‘process’ that you (and J Krishnamurti, Konrad Swart and numerous others) underwent during ego dissolution? RICHARD: In a word: electrochemical (the spinal cord, through which all the main nerve fibres go, transmits all kinds of electrochemical signals ... which can result in all manner of psychic manifestations on occasion). In the Indian Tradition they are known as ‘Kriyas’. RESPONDENT: 2. Is ego dissolution a necessary precursor to ‘soul death’ ... RICHARD: No ... if I had known, back in 1981 at the moment of ego-dissolution, what I now know I would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening. RESPONDENT: ... or would ego dissolution be an automatic consequence of dissolving the affective self first? RICHARD: Yes ... by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years). RESPONDENT: 3. Do you think it is possible to experience the complete dissolution of ego (leaving affective self intact) without lapsing into a delusory ASC? RICHARD: No ... the soul-self is extremely powerful (affectively powerful that is). RESPONDENT: In other words, is ‘spiritual enlightenment’ a necessary consequence of ego death (sans soul death) ... RICHARD: Yes ... without the ego-self to keep the soul-self under some semblance of control it runs rampant and totally rules the roost. RESPONDENT: ... or is ‘enlightenment’ simply a risk of same? RICHARD: No ... some form of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) would immediately establish itself. RESPONDENT: 4. Richard, was it HAIETMOBA that induced your first PCE ... RICHARD: No, the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) in 1980, which initiated the remembrance of many such moments of perfection stretching way back into my childhood, and which set in train the entire process eventually resulting in an actual freedom from the human condition, was inadvertently precipitated by psylocibin (given to me by a well-meaning but somewhat misguided associate at the time who told me it was similar in effect to tetrahydrocannabinol only much stronger) ... just as you have described in an earlier e-mail:
Only I would not say ‘... into a bubble of perfection’ but rather ‘out of a bubble of imperfection’ – as there is only perfection in actuality – nor ‘being present in a perfect bubble of real time and real space and real things’ but rather ‘being just here, right now, in actual space and actual time as actual form’ (and thus out of the bubble of real time, real space, and real things) ... but I can comprehend that from a real-world perspective it looks to be the other way around. The ‘invisible membrane’ I can relate to ... as can some other people I have spoken to over the years. RESPONDENT: ... or did you develop the HAIETMOBA method as a result of a spontaneous PCE? RICHARD: Yes ... essentially ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ meant ‘what is preventing the PCE from happening at this very moment’ to me back in 1981 (six months after the initial PCE when I had thoroughly satisfied myself that the childhood PCE’s had, of course, nothing to do with any substance whatsoever). Or, to put that another way, it meant ‘what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent’ ... and it usually was either a feeling or a feeling-fed thought (as in a belief ... oft-times cunningly disguised as a truth). The PCE demonstrates that the pristine perfection of the actual world is just here – right now – for the very asking.
RESPONDENT: ... what is the physiological nature of the ‘process’ that you (and J Krishnamurti, Konrad Swart and numerous others) underwent during ego dissolution? RICHARD: In a word: electrochemical (the spinal cord, through which all the main nerve fibres go, transmits all kinds of electrochemical signals ... which can result in all manner of psychic manifestations on occasion). In the Indian Tradition they are known as ‘Kriyas’. RESPONDENT: Ok. Assuming it activates something in the CNS that is usually dormant, do you think the key for setting it in motion is will (‘pure intent’?), or an increase in the frequency of apperceptive awareness? Or both? Or something else? RICHARD: There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced. Thus when ‘I’ willingly and irremunerably ‘self’-immolate in toto – both psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and that body and every body ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. Now, it is ‘me’ who is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise – without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here) – as it is ‘me’ who is the initiator of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously, and with knowledge aforethought from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally (cheerfully and blessedly), is press the button which precipitates a, oft-times alarming but always thrilling, momentum which will result in ‘my’ irrevocable ‘self’-immolation in toto. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being just here, right now, as the universe’s experience of itself ... peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already always existing (‘I’ was merely standing in the way of it being apparent). The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple: it is a rather curious decision – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – that it is imperative it be ‘me’ who will evince the final and complete condition which will deliver the goods so longed for by humanity for millennia ... whereupon that thrilling momentum takes over and one realises one has embarked already (and once that impetus gets going one cannot ‘un-set’ the pace). There is no pulling back – which is why most people do not want to set it in motion – because once one has started one cannot stop. It is a one-way trip – that is the thrilling part of it – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, born out of the pure intent garnered from the PCE, the exposure of the inner workings of one’s psyche (which is the human psyche) will readily occur in the course of everyday events due to ‘my’ concurrence ... one cannot help but become fascinated for this means the end of the predicament which humankind has been agonising over for aeons. Any reluctance to become fascinated is because of the ‘no turning back’ aspect. After fascination comes obsession wherein one cannot leave it alone any more – or rather it does not leave one alone – and that is when that tempo picks ‘me’ up and ‘I’ am borne along on the adventure of a lifetime as it is inevitable that one is to meet one’s destiny ... it being what one is here for. An eagerness takes over – one feels alive, vital, dynamic – and things happen serendipitously such that ‘I’ can no longer distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’ ... and this is exhilarating for one is fully doing this business of being alive – doing it here on earth in this lifetime as this body – and it is all happening now of its own accord. This moment is happening and all the while one is doing it the doing is happening of itself ... then one is the experiencing of the happening. And this is wonderful. * RICHARD: ... if I had known, back in 1981 at the moment of ego-dissolution, what I now know I would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening (...) by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years). RESPONDENT: So electro-chemical ‘self-immolation’ is not just metaphorical, eh? RICHARD: Indeed not: it is all very, very real ... more real than anything has ever been. RESPONDENT: You were really that close? RICHARD: Yes ... I have written before about how I unwittingly discovered yet another way to become enlightened:
RESPONDENT: I wonder then, what is it that stops most spiritual seekers from going the final yard? RICHARD: Quite possibly it is the narcissistic nature of ‘being’ itself (plus it is incredibly difficult to resist being the ‘Chosen One’). RESPONDENT: Is it because the intermediate state brings with it a marvellous sense of having arrived, and you have no idea at the time that there is further to go? RICHARD: Yes ... there was the overwhelming feeling of having ‘Come Home’. RESPONDENT: Or do you feel that if you go any further you’ll surely (physically) die? RICHARD: Indeed so ... once in the tenacious grip of that exalted state the only thing beyond enlightenment is the physical death that will bring final release (as in ‘Parinirvana’ and ‘Mahasamadhi’ for instance) and one has to first fulfil one’s Mission as the Saviour of Humankind. RESPONDENT: Or maybe it’s because there is no cultural precedent for a state beyond enlightenment, other than physical death? RICHARD: Yes ... which lack of a precedent is the very reason why The Actual Freedom Trust, and thus the web site and this mailing list, exists. * RESPONDENT: A practical question: if what I’m doing happens to kick-start the physiological process (which hasn’t happened yet), is there anything you would recommend doing, or not doing, if it begins? RICHARD: In brief: never, ever, overlook the pristine purity of this actual world (as evidenced in the PCE) ... and forsake each and every blandishment to be the latest Saviour of Humankind. RESPONDENT: Not to pre-empt things too much, but it must be extremely hard not to ‘pike out’ when things start to get very intense. RICHARD: Ha ... it is years since I have heard that expression. RESPONDENT: There would be the fear of spinning out completely, physically dying, or worst of all, leaving oneself a neurological omelette (as U G Krishnamurti seems to me to be). RICHARD: You do have an expressive way of putting it ... but, yes, there is a very real fear of spinning out, becoming a basket case, or whatever, and pulling back in urgent alarum to the (supposed) safety of the already-known. RESPONDENT: I’d guess you’d favour the ‘boots and all’ approach, but just to be sure, is there anything one should be specially careful of? RICHARD: Hesitancy (an opportunity is quite often a very rare thing). RESPONDENT: Am I understanding you correctly that, once the process begins, you throw caution to the wind and just go all the way, come what may? RICHARD: Provided there be pure intent (and that is no little proviso) ... yes. * RESPONDENT: Aside: I can imagine that these fears sound a tad ridiculous after the fact. RICHARD: Oh, indeed so – there is no fear in actuality – but I am well aware that before the fact those fears are very, very real ... so real as to have kept humankind in thralldom for millennia. I do not make light of them. RESPONDENT: There have been times on acid trips when I’ve felt I was certain to be psychically blown apart completely; but I let go, let it happen, and within a few seconds I was laughing my guts out, feeling like a neurotic little drama queen for being so anxious. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: A recurring theme in those trips: an immense and overwhelming rush of geometrical imagery interwoven with unimaginably rich mythological content is threatening to engulf or annihilate me. I can’t take it any more, I surrender – then, a moment later, the whole thing is shown to be a mirage; it’s dangling from the end of a puppeteer’s string; it’s nothing but the manipulations of some idiotic, leering, winking carnival illusionist, a pure con-artist. Perhaps that’s the brain showing ‘me’ an apt metaphor of my ‘self’ ;-)) (I know this is well and truly in the realm of the ASC, just mentioning it for interest’s sake). RICHARD: Ah yes ... all manner of hallucinatory/psychic manifestations can occur – I had many bizarre things happen such as electrical bolts of lightning dazzling on the eyeballs; pressure-pains in the base of the neck; surges of power travelling up the spine and up over the back and the top of the head down to the forehead; convulsive twitching of limbs; energy surges from the pit of the stomach up through the diaphragm into the chest cavity through to the throat producing intense nausea; a vivid blue light, an internal blue of rapturous bliss, behind the eyebrows; an all-knowing cyclopean eye in the sky watching my every move and many, many other weird things – none of which are important in themselves (some people get caught up in them, and manifest psychic powers, thus never proceeding to the final goal) as what is important is to take them only as a sign that a process is underway and thus proceed with all dispatch via one’s active consent. * RICHARD: The ‘invisible membrane’ I can relate to ... as can some other people I have spoken to over the years. RESPONDENT: Something else that accompanied the experience of passing through this ‘invisible membrane’ was a peculiar sense that I’d entered into a new ‘day’. Hard to describe, but you probably know exactly what I mean. RICHARD: As in even though everything is familiar it has never been before – all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale – and never will be again? Or, as someone wrote on a now-defunct mailing list some time ago, when describing such an experience: ‘jamais vu is a feeling that you have never seen anything around you; it seems like everything around you is new and you’ve never been there before – as opposed to déjà vu when everything seems like you’ve lived it before – and you feel that you’ve never done this particular thing before, even when you know you have’. RESPONDENT: I knew perfectly well it was the same day that I’d set out for my morning walk, but the ‘me’ who had set out for a walk that morning seemed to be aeons ago (metaphorically, not literally) – an artefact of a different time altogether. RICHARD: It is more that the ‘different time’ is an artefact of ‘my’ making ... time itself is the arena, as it were, in which all things happen. RESPONDENT: (But there was no loss of common sense. I knew it was still ‘today’). RICHARD: In fact commonsense operates better than ever, eh? * RICHARD: ... essentially ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ meant ‘what is preventing the PCE from happening at this very moment’ to me back in 1981 ... RESPONDENT: Ok, great. I’m working on the same thing now. RICHARD: In effect it is a win-win situation: if the magical event which enables an actual freedom from the human
condition does not immediately occur there is a truly remarkable virtual freedom that incrementally develops as a matter of course due to such
exquisite RESPONDENT: And now I know precisely what you mean by ‘apperception’. This is encouraging. RICHARD: Yes ... for it is your own experience which is your guiding light or lodestone, so to speak, and not me and/or my words: me and/or my words provide confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely negotiated the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. * RESPONDENT: For me, the PCE didn’t jog any specific memories at the time, but looking back now, there have been a few times over the years when a sensation (especially an unexpected smell or sound) has instantly brought back a flood of ... not memories exactly; that is, not memories of a specific event or experience, but memories of a particular way of experiencing that was characteristic of my early childhood, and pretty much identical to that ‘bubble of perfection’. (I don’t think mum was feeding me magic mushrooms back then). RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest then:
Various people I have discussed these matters with over the years have invariably recalled similar ‘Technicolor Land’ experiences in childhood ... sometimes referred to as a ‘nature experience’, a ‘peak experience’, a ‘jamais vu experience’, or even an ‘aesthetic experience’. And not only have I witnessed children having such an experience, and spoken with them about while it is happening, but recall having the same myself on many an occasion: often in early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening. * RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, it [‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’] meant ‘what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent’ ... and it usually was either a feeling or a feeling-fed thought (as in a belief ... oft-times cunningly disguised as a truth). The PCE demonstrates that the pristine perfection of the actual world is just here – right now – for the very asking. RESPONDENT: Yes indeed. Thanks for this. It gives me confidence that the whole endeavour is both possible and extremely worthwhile. RICHARD: In view of the continuing parlous state of both individual and world affairs it is most certainly worthwhile – I have oft-times said it is worth almost anything in terms of personal discomfort/private disturbance to have happen – and the distinct possibility of more and more outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth (be they virtual or actual) bodes well for humankind at large ... given the twentieth century’s unprecedented move towards the eventual democratisation of all sovereign states it only takes 51% of a population to be living in an actual or a virtual peace and harmony for groundswell changes to take effect. What was previously only the stuff of pipe-dreams is now entirely possible.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I use the words ‘mind’ and ‘psyche’ interchangeably, but I see you do not. Could you please clarify the difference between them, as you see it? RICHARD: Put simply: the mind is physical (material) and the psyche is metaphysical (non-material). To explain: the word ‘mind’ (Middle English ‘minde’/‘münde’), from the Gothic ‘gamunds’ (via Old English ‘gemynd’ which corresponds to Old High German ‘gimunt’) and meaning ‘memory’, basically refers to the human brain in action, in the human skull, remembering, reflecting, and so on (giving heed to, perceiving, noticing, contemplating, being careful about), and which ceases to operate at physical death ... whereas the word ‘psyche’, a Latin word from the Greek ‘psukhe’ meaning ‘breath’, ‘life’, ‘soul’ (relating to ‘psukhein’ meaning ‘breathe’, ‘blow’), is associated with breath and breathing and thus to life and living (as in ‘taking your first breath’) as opposed to death and dying (as in ‘taking your last breath’). Such a focus on breath and breathing has corollaries in other cultures (‘chi’ in China, pronounced ‘ki’ in Japan) and is also known as ‘vitalism’ (popular in Europe in the early twentieth century) or ‘vital élan’ ... also the Indian word ‘prana’ (meaning ‘vital air’, from the root ‘pran’ meaning ‘to breathe’), refers to what is known as the vital energy or vital force or life principle. For many early peoples what animated the body was breath (air, vital air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on) because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul, their very ‘being’, had left their body *as* their last breath. In the animistic religions of the Bronze Age, and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air (aka in the ‘ether’), and it is no coincidence that the ‘etheric body’ is considered the ‘vital body’ or ‘essential body’ (the Sanskrit ‘akasha’ means the same as the Greek ‘ether’ ... hence ‘akashic’ and ‘etheric’ refer to a similar psychic phenomenon). Speaking of psychic phenomenon, and just as a matter of related interest, someone once asked for an explanation of my usage of the word ‘psychic’:
RICHARD: Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) had this to say, in 1920, when reminiscing about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907: [quote] ‘There occurred to me the ‘glücklichste Gedanke meines Leben’, the happiest thought of my life ... for an observer falling freely from the roof of a house there exists – at least in his immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Indeed, if the observer drops some bodies then those remain relative to him in a state of rest or uniform motion, independent of their particular chemical or physical nature (in this consideration the air resistance is, of course, ignored). The observer therefore has the right to interpret his state as ‘at rest’. [endquote]. The observer (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, objectively falling at a rate of thirty two feet per second per second because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein somewhat solipsistically intuited/ imagined did not exist for such a person. RESPONDENT: ‘Objectively’ falling? RICHARD: Yes, Mr. Albert Einstein sets the scene for his gedankenexperimenten (‘thought experiment’) by describing [quote] ‘an observer falling freely from the roof of a house’ [endquote] which clearly indicates that there be an (objective) human being (objectively) moving in the direction of the (objective) ground upon which the (objective) house is built due to the (objective) force of attraction for all bodies exerted by the (objective) mass of the (objective) planet known as ‘planet earth’ ... else the entire ‘thought experiment’ be but a subjective fantasy from the very beginning. RESPONDENT: From what arbitrary point in the universe do you determine the direction / velocity of anything? RICHARD: In the ‘thought experiment’ which inspired Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory it could be either from the roof of the house in question, a window somewhere in the appropriate wall of that house, the ground upon which the house sits or, better yet, a viewing platform built especially for the purpose facing the house. In other words wherever the force known as gravity exists there must correspondingly be a mass from which to determine the ‘direction/velocity of anything’ being attracted (aka ‘falling’) by that very force ... and there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any such mass.
RESPONDENT: From what arbitrary point in the universe do you determine the direction / velocity of anything? RICHARD: In the ‘thought experiment’ which inspired Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory it could be either from the roof of the house in question, a window somewhere in the appropriate wall of that house, the ground upon which the house sits or, better yet, a viewing platform built especially for the purpose facing the house. RESPONDENT: In which case, the motion of the falling object is measured relative to a fixed position on the earth. RICHARD: Given that the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, occupies a fixed position on the earth it is no surprise that the point from which the motion of that falling observer is measured be also a fixed position on the earth. RESPONDENT: But no point on the earth is actually fixed. RICHARD: Where is the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, situated then (if not occupying an actually fixed position on the earth)? RESPONDENT: The earth itself is moving, relative to other bodies in space. RICHARD: Aye, and both the house, from which roof an observer is freely falling, and the point from which the motion of that falling observer is measured (plus the very force known as gravity which is occasioning what is called ‘falling’ in the first place), are moving right along with it ... actually fixed in their positions on the earth. RESPONDENT: No point anywhere is actually fixed. RICHARD: You may appreciate this quote then:
RESPONDENT: The motion of one object can only be measured relative to something else. RICHARD: All measurement implies comparison ... yet even so objects were falling on planet earth (being ‘in motion’, and not being ‘at rest’, for the duration of the fall) due to its gravitational field (which did not cease to exist whilst they were in motion) long before humans appeared on the scene to measure the direction/velocity of their motion. RESPONDENT: What that ‘something else’ happens to be is arbitrary. RICHARD: Not so: if it were not for a mass, from which to measure ‘the motion of one object’ being attracted/pulled (aka ‘falling’) by the force it exerts, which force is known as gravity, there would be no falling (no motion) to measure in the first place ... and there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any such mass, any such attraction, and any such motion it occasions. RESPONDENT: (Of course, the arbitrariness of the fixed point of measurement says nothing whatsoever about the cause of an object’s motion. It would be absurd to say that a falling object is in fact stationary, and the earth is rushing up to meet it for reasons unknown. But that obviously isn’t what Einstein is saying. Neither is he saying that two objects that are stationary relative to each other are not actually moving relative to something else). So what’s your disagreement with Einstein? RICHARD: Simply this: an observer falling freely from the roof of a house (irregardless of the ... um ... the ‘right’ to subjectively interpret what is actually occurring as being a state of rest) is, of course, objectively in a state of motion because of the very gravitational field Mr. Albert Einstein (well-known for his ‘imagination is more important than knowledge’ quote) somewhat solipsistically intuited/imagined did not exist for such a person. RESPONDENT: There’s nothing contradictory here, AFAICT. RICHARD: If an observer is in motion due to a gravitational field then that very gravitational field does not cease to exist just because the observer subjectively interprets their state of motion as being a state of rest and concludes there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. Perhaps the relativity theory might be more appropriately named the subjectivity theory?
RESPONDENT: The motion of one object can only be measured relative to something else. RICHARD: All measurement implies comparison ... yet even so objects were falling on planet earth (being ‘in motion’, and not being ‘at rest’, for the duration of the fall) due to its gravitational field (which did not cease to exist whilst they were in motion) long before humans appeared on the scene to measure the direction/velocity of their motion. RESPONDENT: As I understand it, you’re saying that the observer’s subjective experience of rest or motion does not affect what is actually happening in the universe. RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that objects move in the direction of the earth, because of what goes by the name ‘gravity’, whether there be a human being present to measure their direction/velocity or not ... it was you who introduced the subject of measurement into what was otherwise a very simple matter. Viz.:
My comment, that objects were falling on planet earth (being ‘in motion’, and not being ‘at rest’, for the duration of the fall) due to its gravitational field (which did not cease to exist whilst they were in motion) long before humans appeared on the scene to measure the direction/velocity of their motion, was only made so as to illustrate what ‘objectively falling’ can mean. RESPONDENT: Whether the observer perceives himself to be at rest or in motion, he is subject to whatever actual forces are operating upon him, regardless of how they seem from his vantage point. Is that so? RICHARD: This is what I am saying: Mr. Albert Einstein sets the scene, for the happiest thought in his life, by describing [quote] ‘an observer falling freely from the roof of a house’ [endquote] which clearly indicates that there be a human being moving in the direction of the earth, upon which the house is built, due to that which goes by the name ‘gravity’ (as that is what the word ‘falling’ refers to) ... yet he says that for the observer there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field (even though the observer is only in motion in the first place because of the very gravitational field he then says does not exist for that observer). Perhaps if I were to put it this way: suppose a tile were to come loose from the roof of the very-same house and move in the direction of the very-same earth, upon which the house is built, in the very-same gravitational field ... would there exist for that roofing tile – at least in its immediate surroundings – no gravitational field? * RESPONDENT: What that ‘something else’ [that the motion of one object can only be measured relative to] happens to be is arbitrary. RICHARD: Not so: if it were not for a mass, from which to measure ‘the motion of one object’ being attracted/pulled (aka ‘falling’) by the force it exerts, which force is known as gravity, there would be no falling (no motion) to measure in the first place ... and there is nothing ‘arbitrary’ about any such mass, any such attraction, and any such motion it occasions. RESPONDENT: Nothing arbitrary about the mass, nor the actual interactions between masses. What is arbitrary is the observer’s location when he takes a measurement. (Again, bearing in mind that his measurement says nothing about the actual nature or cause of the motion – which remains precisely what it is, regardless of how it seems to the observer). RICHARD: As the falling observer’s location is somewhere between the roof of a house and the earth it is built upon – the mass you say there is nothing arbitrary about – why do you say that the observer’s location is arbitrary when they take a measurement whilst moving in the non-arbitrary direction of that non-arbitrary mass which is occasioning the non-arbitrary motion in the first place? Perhaps if I were to ask the obvious question: why is the observer falling if not because of that which goes by the name ‘gravity’? RESPONDENT: To take a very down-to-earth example: suppose one man is standing in a field watching the rain fall. RICHARD: If I may interject? Do you see that, when you set the scene by using the word ‘fall’, you are describing droplets of water moving from a cloud to the surface of the earth in a gravitational field? If so, do you further see that to then say that for those falling droplets of water (known as ‘rain’) there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field you would not be making an observation in accord with the fact? RESPONDENT: [To take a very down-to-earth example: suppose one man is standing in a field watching the rain fall]. From his perspective, with face upturned to the sky, the rain droplets are falling perpendicular to his face. The same rain seen from a passing car travelling at high speed, would not seem to be falling straight down, it would seem to be slanting toward him at an angle approaching horizontal. In actual fact, relative to his (moving) frame of reference (the car), each droplet of rain does not merely seem to be slanting across his car at an angle, it actually is moving thus, relative to him rather than relative to the fixed position on the earth. RICHARD: A gale-force wind can deflect rain from the perpendicular to the near-horizontal ... yet in either scenario the very gravitational field which occasions rain to fall (to be in motion from a cloud to the surface of the earth) does not cease to exist just because an observer has [quote] ‘the right to interpret’ [endquote] the state of being ‘in motion’ to be a state of ‘at rest’. RESPONDENT: It seems to me you are reading solipsism into this, but there is no solipsism here as far as I can see. RICHARD: I am, of course, using the word ‘solipsism’ in its ‘self-centredness’ meaning (and not its more usual
‘the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known’ meaning) ... as in ‘she/he thinks the universe revolves around him/her’ Surely it is somewhat solipsistic to intuit/imagine that, just because one has [quote] ‘the right to interpret’ [endquote] the state of being ‘in motion’ to be a state of ‘at rest’ that it is then so in actuality? One could interpret the state of motion known as ‘falling’ as being a state of motion called ‘flying’, for instance, yet interpretation does not miraculously turn fantasy into fact ... unless one be a theoretical physicist in the hallowed halls of modern-day academia, of course, where causality is no longer applied. Viz.: www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm RESPONDENT: The person in the field and the person in the passing car are seeing the same rain, which is behaving precisely as it is behaving, being acted upon by precisely the same actual forces, regardless of the observers’ different experience of its motion relative to themselves. RICHARD: To say the rain is ‘behaving precisely as it is behaving’ is to say nothing (whilst appearing to say something): are the droplets of water in the vicinity of the car, just as the droplets of water in the vicinity of the field are, moving towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field or not? RESPONDENT: The perspective of the observer does not change anything in actuality except his own experience of actuality. RICHARD: Do you realise you are saying, in effect, that Mr. Albert Einstein was not making an observation in accord with the fact – that which is so ‘in actuality’ – when he had the happiest thought in his life? What if I were to insert what the words ‘falling freely from the roof of a house’ refer to – moving freely towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field – into the happiest thought of Mr. Albert Einstein’s life for the sake of illustration? For example.:
Put simply: if there be, in fact, no gravitational field there is no movement towards the surface of the earth to be interpreted any whichways at all. * RICHARD: If an observer is in motion due to a gravitational field then that very gravitational field does not cease to exist just because the observer subjectively interprets their state of motion as being a state of rest and concludes there exists – at least in their immediate surroundings – no gravitational field. RESPONDENT: Whatever actual forces are operating upon and between large masses are unaffected by the observer’s frame of reference. They remain the precisely what they are, regardless of where the observer is and how he measures them. Solipsism is justified with regard to measurement of actual phenomena, relative to the observer. This is not the same as solipsistic conclusions about the actual nature of the forces operating upon and between masses, based on the observer’s subjective experience of same. (At least that’s how I understand it). RICHARD: Yet Mr. Albert Einstein went on to propose all manner of ‘solipsistic conclusions about the actual nature of the forces operating upon and between masses’ (such as proposing there be a curved ‘space-time’ so as to accommodate his subjectivity theory) ... and many otherwise intelligent peoples from many parts of the world concurred with his conclusions. * RICHARD: Perhaps the relativity theory might be more appropriately named the subjectivity theory? RESPONDENT: Aye, but with regard to measurement only. RICHARD: Oh? Why not with regard to, for instance, his curved ‘space-time’ (which, apparently, bends right back upon itself ... so much so that an observer pointing a powerful enough torch to their front will have the beam shine upon the back of their head)? It puts a whole new dimension to the expression ‘he thinks the universe revolves around him’, eh? RESPONDENT: Measurement of motion and cause of motion are completely orthogonal concepts. RICHARD: Yet Mr. Albert Einstein said that the ‘cause of motion’ – the [quote] ‘gravitational field’ [endquote] – does not exist (at least in their immediate surroundings) for an observer in motion due to the very same gravitational field as the observer has the ... um ... the ‘right’ to interpret the state of being ‘in motion’ as being a state of ‘at rest’. RESPONDENT: The very same actual phenomena yield different measurements from different frames of reference. That’s all. RICHARD: Since when has a [quote] ‘right to interpret’ [endquote] been classified as a valid measurement? Perhaps a real-life situation might demonstrate: in the late fifties/early sixties the United States Air Force conducted an operation called ‘Project Manhigh’ and on August 16, 1960, Mr. Joseph Kittinger stepped out of an open gondola, suspended beneath a helium balloon named Excelsior III, at a height of 102,800 feet (almost 20 miles away from the earth’s surface) where he was at the edge of space with 99% of the earth’s atmosphere below him. With only a five foot wide stabilising drogue deployed, so as to prevent uncontrollable spinning and tumbling in such an ultra-thin atmosphere (the centrifugal force of a flat spin, up to 200 revolutions per minute, would have rendered him unconscious), he virtually free-fell for 4 minutes 36 seconds, reaching a maximum speed of 714 miles per hour (exceeding the speed of sound) in temperatures as low as minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit. The 28-foot main parachute did not open until he reached the much thicker atmosphere at 17,500 feet and he landed safely after a 13 minute 45 second descent. When he first stepped out of the gondola, face down with arms and legs akimbo In other words he (objectively) knew he was falling – moving towards the surface of the earth in a gravitational field – even though his (subjective) interpretation of what was actually occurring had been that he was suspended in space ... which objectivity was certainly justified because 13 minutes 45 seconds later he landed on the surface of the earth. As would the observer falling freely from the roof of a house in the happiest thought of Mr. Albert Einstein’s life.
RESPONDENT: Richard, regarding the cerebral agitation you experienced after waking up from enlightenment: Was it caused by excess dopamine ... RICHARD: Yes (although I do not describe it as waking up). RESPONDENT: ... or was it caused by not knowing how to interpret what had happened to ‘you’? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Did the elevated dopamine subside to a more manageable level over 2 years ... RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: ... or did the agitation quickly subside when you were able to make sense of what had happened? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I remember(?) reading that you experienced something like this in 1981, but it was only a passing reference. Have you written about it in detail? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: If so, where can I read about it? RICHARD: Here is one instance:
And here is another:
Before the incident with the caffeine overdose here is an example of how I described the 1993-94 experience:
And before the incident with the caffeine overdose here is an example of how I described the 1981 experience:
I see that I expanded upon this list in an e-mail to you last month:
Given the part dopamine plays in the chemistry of felicitous feelings you may find the following to be of related interest:
RESPONDENT: Peter, your (or Richard’s) criticisms of Einstein sound anything but down-to-earth or sensible at this stage. I think Respondent No. 56’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ describes it somewhat more accurately. RICHARD: I am somewhat bemused as to why you would say that what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein sounds anything but down-to-earth or sensible ... let alone endorsing another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it more accurately. Viz.:
Whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you have I ever departed from being down-to-earth or sensible ... let alone been a thick-headed, stupid, person who holds an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard?
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (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 |
