|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RESPONDENT: I don’t actually care whether a creator exists or whether the universe is expanding, or whether it originated with the Big Bang or whether it has always existed and will always exist in steady state. All of these possibilities are perfectly consistent with what I have experienced in PCE’s and ASC’s, and to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand. If time, space and matter originated in the Big Bang, Actualism is no longer relevant? PCE’s are no longer valuable? There is no longer a possibility of freedom from the ‘human condition’, of liberating the human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions that keep us living in confusion and misery? No longer a possibility of delighting in being here, and doing nothing to prevent another person’s delight in being here? It’s just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view. RICHARD: I wonder if you would care to think this one through: I have oft-times said that I would be delighted to meet, read about, or hear of another person actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this actual world as a flesh and blood body only – and if, upon comparing notes, they informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator exists’ (aka god/ goddess) you do not actually care about that as it would not render actualism irrelevant, it would not make pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) no longer valuable, it would not take away the possibility of freedom from the human condition, it would not prevent the possibility of delighting in being here (and doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)? And the same applies in regards to the ‘Big Bang’ theory – first proposed, in 1927, by the
French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the
Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma Here are my questions:
Incidentally, there is a vast difference between the option of ‘liberating the human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions’ and the option of ridding the flesh and blood body of them. Of course the latter option means the end of ‘me’ in all ‘my’ (cunning) disguises.
RESPONDENT: I don’t actually care whether a creator exists or whether the universe is expanding, or whether it originated with the Big Bang or whether it has always existed and will always exist in steady state. All of these possibilities are perfectly consistent with what I have experienced in PCE’s and ASC’s, and to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand. If time, space and matter originated in the Big Bang, Actualism is no longer relevant? PCE’s are no longer valuable? There is no longer a possibility of freedom from the ‘human condition’, of liberating the human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions that keep us living in confusion and misery? No longer a possibility of delighting in being here, and doing nothing to prevent another person’s delight in being here? It’s just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view. RICHARD: I wonder if you would care to think this one through: I have oft-times said that I would be delighted to meet, read about, or hear of another person actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this actual world as a flesh and blood body only – and if, upon comparing notes, they informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator exists’ (aka god/goddess) you do not actually care about that as it would not render actualism irrelevant, it would not make pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) no longer valuable, it would not take away the possibility of freedom from the human condition, it would not prevent the possibility of delighting in being here (and doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)? And the same applies in regards to the ‘Big Bang’ theory – first proposed, in 1927, by the
French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the
Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma RESPONDENT: I think we are pretty much in agreement here. RICHARD: I ask two questions – so as to be sure my comprehension of what you were conveying (further above) was correct – and your answer to both queries is to say that you think we are pretty much in agreement? RESPONDENT: I don’t think the value of Actualism depends on you being right about various cosmological theories. RICHARD: I am not asking about their ‘various cosmological theories’ ... I specifically asked about ‘their direct experience’. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It has become pretty clear to me that I personally know fuck-all about these things, and they are not all that relevant to the business of being here. RICHARD: Here is the relevant part of how you described *your direct experience* when you first wrote to this mailing list:
Yet here you are, ten or so weeks later, saying you do not actually care whether a creator exists or whether the universe is expanding or whether it originated with the Big Bang:
Those last four words are, of course, the clue as to why you do not actually care ... hence the ‘but’ and the ‘in my opinion’ in the following passage:
Ain’t life grand!
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.: ‘boneheaded:. (slang) thick-headed, stupid’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘absolutism: an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). 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? RESPONDENT: ... sorry for the ‘boneheaded’ comment. I used it fairly light-heartedly but the disrespect was unjustified. RICHARD: Yet I never asked for an apology for ‘the ‘boneheaded’ comment’ – and both respect and disrespect are like water off a duck’s back to me anyway – as I specifically asked whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you had 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) as that is what is of interest to me. Whereabouts?
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.: ‘boneheaded:. (slang) thick-headed, stupid’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘absolutism: an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). 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? RESPONDENT: ... sorry for the ‘boneheaded’ comment. I used it fairly light-heartedly but the disrespect was unjustified. RICHARD: Yet I never asked for an apology for ‘the ‘boneheaded’ comment’ – and both respect and disrespect are like water off a duck’s back to me anyway – RESPONDENT: I know that. But they are not to me. RICHARD: I am not even going to try and work that one out ... besides which you have reinstated the ‘boneheaded’ part of what you said is the somewhat more accurate description anyway (further below). * RICHARD: I specifically asked whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you had 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) as that is what is of interest to me. RESPONDENT: Ok. Absolute doctrine: The universe is infinite and eternal. Absolute principle: (?) Absolute standard: The PCE. Absolute value: The universe is perfect. RICHARD: Ahh ... so not only have you reinstated the ‘boneheaded’ part of what you said is the somewhat more accurate description but the ‘absolutism’ aspect is still firmly in place as well (albeit misrepresented). Could it be that it was the apology which was used ‘fairly light-heartedly’ after all ... and not what you said is the somewhat more accurate description? * RICHARD: Whereabouts? RESPONDENT: See? RICHARD: If I could see in what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein, in my e-mail discussion with you, anything which sounded anything but down-to-earth or sensible – such as to occasion you to endorse another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it somewhat more accurately – I would not have asked you whereabouts it was in the first place. Are you having some difficulty in providing the instances? RESPONDENT: The ‘boneheaded’ aspect of this is that you don’t see that these are anything but objective facts. RICHARD: As I recall the only ‘objective facts’ I wrote about in that discussion were in regards to what was actually happening for (a) an observer falling from the roof of a house... and (b) objects falling long before humans were on this planet ... and (c) a roof-tile falling ... and (d) rain-drops falling ...and (e) a United States Air Force pilot falling from the edge of space. And I cannot see how writing about what actually happens is anything but being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone being somewhat more accurately described as boneheaded absolutism). Which is why I am bemused as to how it sounds otherwise to you.
RESPONDENT: I don’t actually care whether a creator exists or whether the universe is expanding, or whether it originated with the Big Bang or whether it has always existed and will always exist in steady state. All of these possibilities are perfectly consistent with what I have experienced in PCE’s and ASC’s, and to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand. If time, space and matter originated in the Big Bang, Actualism is no longer relevant? PCE’s are no longer valuable? There is no longer a possibility of freedom from the ‘human condition’, of liberating the human mind from the bonds of the instinctual passions that keep us living in confusion and misery? No longer a possibility of delighting in being here, and doing nothing to prevent another person’s delight in being here? It’s just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view. RICHARD: I wonder if you would care to think this one through: I have oft-times said that I would be delighted to meet, read about, or hear of another person actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this actual world as a flesh and blood body only – and if, upon comparing notes, they informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator exists’ (aka god/goddess) you do not actually care about that as it would not render actualism irrelevant, it would not make pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) no longer valuable, it would not take away the possibility of freedom from the human condition, it would not prevent the possibility of delighting in being here (and doing nothing to prevent another’s delight in being here)? And the same applies in regards to the ‘Big Bang’ theory – first proposed, in 1927, by the
French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the
Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma RESPONDENT: I think we are pretty much in agreement here. RICHARD: I ask two questions – so as to be sure my comprehension of what you were conveying (further above) was correct – and your answer to both queries is to say that you think we are pretty much in agreement? RESPONDENT: Ok, the questions were not rhetorical ones, and you want to be sure that your comprehension of what I was conveying was correct. I’ll take that at face value, and try again. As I see it, the main value of actualism is what it has to say about the human condition, not what it has to say about the extent, duration or composition of the physical universe. The virtual entity called ‘me’ is a bundle of the genetically inherited instinctual passions (fear, aggression, desire, nurture), overlaid with social conditioning (personal identity, conscience, morality, responsibility, etc). Human beings (and other animals) at all times and all places have the same basic genetically inherited instinctual passions running the show. Our various types of social conditioning keep these instinctual passions under control to some degree by suppressing certain passions and encouraging others (esp. love, compassion). The results are less than optimum. You say that you have found a better way: to eliminate not only the social identity but the instinctual passions, the entire ‘self’ and the instinctual drives that give rise to this ‘self’. This is what I regard as the core of actualism. I regard this as completely independent of how (or if) the universe originated, what it’s made of, how big it is, how long it will last, etc. These may be important for other reasons, but w.r.t. solving the problems of the human condition (or eradicating it in toto) these are not of vital importance. That is what I was trying to convey. If it turns out that time, space and matter originated in the ‘Big Bang’, the human condition is not altered by such a discovery. If it turns out that space-time is finite but unbounded, or curved, or shaped like a corkscrew or a donkey, the human condition is not affected by this. RICHARD: Is this not at odds, though, with your direct experience ... given that you wrote there was [quote] ‘no trace of ‘mysticism’ or ‘spirituality’ about it’ [endquote]? To put that another way: I began the two questions by saying ‘I wonder if you would care to think this one through’ and then went on to detail just what might happen if a person (purportedly) actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this actual world as a flesh and blood body only – informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator exists’ (aka god/goddess) ... whereupon you would not actually care about that even though your direct experience was that there is no trace of mysticism or spirituality in such a condition. In other words, such a person is not actually free from the human condition ... they are in an altered state of consciousness.
RESPONDENT: As I see it, the main value of actualism is what it has to say about the human condition, not what it has to say about the extent, duration or composition of the physical universe. The virtual entity called ‘me’ is a bundle of the genetically inherited instinctual passions (fear, aggression, desire, nurture), overlaid with social conditioning (personal identity, conscience, morality, responsibility, etc). Human beings (and other animals) at all times and all places have the same basic genetically inherited instinctual passions running the show. Our various types of social conditioning keep these instinctual passions under control to some degree by suppressing certain passions and encouraging others (esp. love, compassion). The results are less than optimum. You say that you have found a better way: to eliminate not only the social identity but the instinctual passions, the entire ‘self’ and the instinctual drives that give rise to this ‘self’. This is what I regard as the core of actualism. I regard this as completely independent of how (or if) the universe originated, what it’s made of, how big it is, how long it will last, etc. These may be important for other reasons, but w.r.t. solving the problems of the human condition (or eradicating it in toto) these are not of vital importance. That is what I was trying to convey. If it turns out that time, space and matter originated in the ‘Big Bang’, the human condition is not altered by such a discovery. If it turns out that space-time is finite but unbounded, or curved, or shaped like a corkscrew or a donkey, the human condition is not affected by this. RICHARD: Is this not at odds, though, with your direct experience ... given that you wrote there was [quote] ‘no trace of ‘mysticism’ or ‘spirituality’ about it’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: No, I don’t see it as being at odds with direct experience at all. Not at all. I do not experience the universe as having had a beginning or having had no beginning, and I do not experience its shape or extent or duration. I can think about such things, but not experience them. I find it really hard to understand what you are getting at here. To help me understand it, I have to ask the same question I asked last time: if time, space and matter began with the ‘Big Bang’, would my PCE have been a different experience? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) time and space and matter began with the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma) you would not have had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... the summum bonum of human experience would be an altered state of consciousness (ASC). * RICHARD: To put that another way: I began the two questions by saying ‘I wonder if you would care to think this one through’ and then went on to detail just what might happen if a person (purportedly) actually free from the human condition – living just here right now in this actual world as a flesh and blood body only – informed me their direct experience was that ‘a creator exists’ (aka god/goddess) ... whereupon you would not actually care about that even though your direct experience was that there is no trace of mysticism or spirituality in such a condition. In other words, such a person is not actually free from the human condition ... they are in an altered state of consciousness. RESPONDENT: Oh yes, I see what you mean about this. If somebody claimed to experience a creator (or experience the Big Bang) for that matter, yes, they’d be in an altered state. RICHARD: Exactly ... which is why I retitled the thread as the distinction betwixt PCE’s and ASC’s needed to be discussed. RESPONDENT: However, if time, space and matter began with a ‘Big Bang’, I do not see how an ‘actually free’ person would experience the universe any differently from how he does now. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) time and space and matter began with the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma) there would not be any actually free person to experience the universe any whichway at all ... the summum bonum of human experience would be spiritual enlightenment (a permanent ASC). RESPONDENT: If you are saying that your experience of actual freedom depends on there not having been a ‘Big Bang’, I am at a complete loss to understand why. RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma) depends upon the summum bonum of human experience being spiritual enlightenment (a permanent ASC). It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. Or, to put that differently, what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma) depends upon there not being anybody actually free from the human condition (a permanent PCE). It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness.
RESPONDENT: Richard, an uncluttered space in which to clarify some key issues: What is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: Apperception (unmediated perception) ... as a flesh and blood body only one is this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: With regard to attaining ‘actual freedom from the human condition’, does it matter whether the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: It is infinitude which makes such a freedom possible ... only that which has no opposite is peerless (hence perfect). RESPONDENT: If time, space and matter had begun with a ‘Big Bang’, would PCE’s still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the peerless perfection of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) would not exist. RESPONDENT: Would ‘actual freedom’ from the human condition still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the pristine purity of this actual world would not exist.
RESPONDENT: If you are saying that your experience of actual freedom depends on there not having been a ‘Big Bang’, I am at a complete loss to understand why. RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ theory (...) depends upon the summum bonum of human experience being spiritual enlightenment (a permanent ASC). It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. RESPONDENT: Aha!! Thank you for clarifying where you’re coming from. I do not agree that the ‘Big Bang’ theory implies that consciousness gives rise to matter, but if you do think that, I can understand why you describe it as mysticism, and incompatible with down-to-earth experience. RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that? RESPONDENT: On what basis do you say that the Big Bang theory implies that consciousness gives rise to matter? RICHARD: As I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ I am unable to answer your query. RESPONDENT: It is certainly not a feature of my interpretation of the Big Bang theory. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: I can’t personally see any contradiction between the idea that time, space and matter had a beginning and the idea that matter gave rise to consciousness (not vice-versa). RICHARD: What do you mean by the word ‘beginning’ when it comes to all time and all space and all matter – as in there is no time, no space, no matter/there is time, is space, is matter – if not that which is timeless and spaceless and matterless giving rise to time and space and matter? RESPONDENT: My own conceptual model of matter and consciousness is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain, of matter, regardless of whether the universe had a beginning. RICHARD: May I ask? What is matter a phenomenon of (according to your conceptual model)? * RICHARD: Or, to put that differently, what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ theory (...) depends upon there not being anybody actually free from the human condition (a permanent PCE). It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. RESPONDENT: I’m glad that I finally understand what you mean. However, I still don’t understand why you say this. Why does the ‘Big Bang’ model imply that matter arose from consciousness, and not the other way around? RICHARD: As I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ I am unable to answer your query. RESPONDENT: Are the two notions (a) that time, space and matter began with a ‘Big Bang’; and (b) consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter; incompatible in some way? RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: Richard, an uncluttered space in which to clarify some key issues: What is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: Apperception (unmediated perception) ... as a flesh and blood body only one is this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: With regard to attaining ‘actual freedom from the human condition’, does it matter whether the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: It is infinitude which makes such a freedom possible ... only that which has no opposite is peerless (hence perfect). RESPONDENT: If time, space and matter had begun with a ‘Big Bang’, would PCE’s still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the peerless perfection of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) would not exist. RESPONDENT: Would ‘actual freedom’ from the human condition still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the pristine purity of this actual world would not exist. RESPONDENT: Ok, you experience the universe as infinite, beginningless and endless. RICHARD: To be precise: this flesh and blood body, being sans identity in toto, has the direct
experience of infinitude RESPONDENT: Given that eyesight is limited, range of hearing is limited, sense of smell has a shorter range, taste even less, and tactile sensation is confined to the very boundaries of the body, which sense organ in this flesh and blood body is capable of apperceptively perceiving infinity? Which sense organ is apperceptively able to determine what happened or didn’t happen in the distant past? Which sense organ is apperceptively able to determine what will or will not happen in the distant future? Which sense organ reveals the shape or shapelessness of the universe? RICHARD: You asked ‘what is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal’ and I answered as asked: the basis for my claim that the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perpetual is the apperceptive awareness (unmediated perception) of infinitude. Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if the infinitude directly experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not the infinitude of the universe then what is it the infinitude of ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense)? In other words if it be not a physical infinitude then it falls into the realm of being a metaphysical infinitude. RESPONDENT: When a PCE occurred to a Stone Age man, would he have been apperceptively aware that if he could actually walk and sail in a straight line for long enough he would arrive back at his starting point? RICHARD: Only if such a person knew the earth/ water they were walking/ sailing on was a globe ... apperception is not omniscience. RESPONDENT: If so, how? RICHARD: Knowledge. RESPONDENT: If not, why not? RICHARD: Given that ‘stone age’ means before human beings figured it out that they were living on a globe it would be because of a lack of knowledge ... and as knowledge is passed on to succeeding generations I did not have to figure that one out for myself. ‘Tis great not having to rediscover the wheel.
RICHARD: ... not only have you reinstated the ‘boneheaded’ part of what you said is the somewhat more accurate description but the ‘absolutism’ aspect is still firmly in place as well (albeit misrepresented). RESPONDENT: I argued that your position is ‘boneheaded absolutism’. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts, then, in what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein in my e-mail discussion with you, is there a ‘position’ which sounds anything but down-to-earth or sensible such as to occasion you to endorse another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it somewhat more accurately? RESPONDENT: You quoted the dictionary to show that ‘boneheaded’ implies personal stupidity. I apologised for that. You said it doesn’t matter. I said it does to me. It matters to me because there is a difference between saying somebody’s position is boneheaded absolutism, and saying that the person who takes such a position is an idiot. RICHARD: As I recall I pointed out what is actually happening when (a) an observer is falling from the roof of a house... and (b) when objects were falling long before humans were on this planet ... and (c) when a roof-tile is falling ... and (d) when rain-drops are falling ...and (e) when a United States Air Force pilot is falling from the edge of space ... in other words I was observing the fact. Is a person that observes the fact somebody that ‘takes a position’ then? RESPONDENT: I mean the former, not the latter. (And it matters to me that this be made clear, even if it does not matter to you). I’m using ‘boneheaded’ to mean ‘logically impenetrable’, not to imply personal stupidity. Is this clear? RICHARD: What would make it clear would be for you to provide the instances where, in my e-mail discussion with you regarding the happiest thought in Mr. Albert Einstein’s life, I have ever departed from being down-to-earth or sensible ... let alone taken a position which is logically impenetrable (whatever that means). * RICHARD: Could it be that it was the apology which was used ‘fairly light-heartedly’ after all ... and not what you said is the somewhat more accurate description? RESPONDENT: No. The reason for my apology was to clarify that I am questioning your position, not trying to insult you personally. RICHARD: Okay ... as you were questioning the position you see me as having taken, then, it would indeed clarify the situation if you would explain how observing what is actually happening (seeing the fact) is taking a position. RESPONDENT: (And it matters not that you never *feel* insulted). RICHARD: As a suggestion only: would it not be more helpful if you also pointed out whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you I have departed from being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone been a person that ‘takes a position’ which is an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard)? * RICHARD: Whereabouts? RESPONDENT: Absolutism: absolute doctrine, principle or standard. Actualism has these absolutes: Absolute doctrine: The universe is infinite and eternal. Absolute principle: ? Absolute standard: The PCE. Absolute value: The universe is perfect. Can you show me a criticism of Einstein that is not based on one or all of these absolutes? RICHARD: Are you having such difficulty in providing the instances in what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein, in my e-mail discussion with you, which sound like they are based on an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard – such as to occasion you to endorse another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it somewhat more accurately – that you would instead have me show you ‘a criticism of Einstein that is not based on one or all’ of those absolutisms you have invented? RESPONDENT: Can you tell me how my use of ‘absolutism’ misrepresents your position? RICHARD: What ‘position’ are you referring to? * RESPONDENT: See? RICHARD: If I could see in what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein, in my e-mail discussion with you, anything which sounded anything but down-to-earth or sensible – such as to occasion you to endorse another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it somewhat more accurately – I would not have asked you whereabouts it was in the first place. Are you having some difficulty in providing the instances? RESPONDENT: I’m having difficulty getting to that because there have been a few herrings to deal with first. RICHARD: As you do not provide the instances anywhere in this e-mail, either above or below, where I departed from being down-to-earth or sensible it would seem there is more to the difficulty you are having in providing them than just dealing with the outcome of (fairly light-heartedly) endorsing another’s phrase. RESPONDENT: Pedantry does not come naturally to me. RICHARD: If by ‘pedantry’ you mean clarity in communication then discussions such as these are most certainly going to be of assistance in developing the necessary writing skills. RESPONDENT: Firstly, you persistently ask me for an example from our email exchange ... RICHARD: I only became persistent when you wrote your ‘by the way’ apology, as a footnote to another e-mail, and nothing else as it is the examples which are of interest to me. RESPONDENT: ... even though I did not say anything about our personal correspondence on the matter. (I said to Peter that his, and your, arguments against Einstein were anything were sounding anything but down to earth and sensible at this stage.) RICHARD: Indeed you did say that ... and, as you and I were having a discussion about the happiest thought in Mr. Albert Einstein’s life at the time, it seemed most apt to ask whereabouts in that e-mail exchange I had ever departed from being anything but down-to-earth or sensible. RESPONDENT: Now you are asking me to find examples from our personal correspondence on the matter. RICHARD: Not just ‘now’ ... I asked you in my first e-mail as well. RESPONDENT: In our personal correspondence, I suspected that there is a deep misunderstanding that creeps into your critique of Einstein before any of the more controversial aspects of Relativity are encountered. In my discussion with you, I was angling toward sorting that out. I haven’t sorted it out yet, but it was enough to (almost) confirm my suspicion. RICHARD: I see ... so your assessment of what I say about Mr. Albert Einstein is based on a (almost confirmed) suspicion? RESPONDENT: In our correspondence, you did not demonstrate any understanding of the simple fact that different observers record different measurements of the same motion, and that this says nothing whatsoever about the objective cause of movement. RICHARD: It did for Mr. Albert Einstein in the happiest thought of his life ... he said that the objective cause of movement did not exist for a falling observer (at least in their immediate vicinity). RESPONDENT: If we cannot get past this point, there is no hope of going any further. RICHARD: So it would seem. RESPONDENT: With this in mind, can we be as down to earth as possible? RICHARD: Whereabouts, in my e-mail discussion with you, have I ever departed from being anything other than totally down to earth? RESPONDENT: What is your absolute velocity right now? RICHARD: I will re-post the following quote from our e-mail discussion (only highlighted this time around):
* RESPONDENT: The ‘boneheaded’ aspect of this is that you don’t see that these are anything but objective facts. RICHARD: As I recall the only ‘objective facts’ I wrote about in that discussion were in regards to what was actually happening for (a) an observer falling from the roof of a house... and (b) objects falling long before humans were on this planet ... and (c) a roof-tile falling ... and (d) rain-drops falling ...and (e) a United States Air Force pilot falling from the edge of space. And I cannot see how writing about what actually happens is anything but being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone being somewhat more accurately described as boneheaded absolutism). Which is why I am bemused as to how it sounds otherwise to you. RESPONDENT: The reason it sounds ‘otherwise’ to me is that you cannot seem to acknowledge that there is no fixed point in space from which to measure the absolute velocity of anything. RICHARD: Perhaps, upon a re-read of what I re-posted (further above), you may care to come up with some other reason? RESPONDENT: You seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between the cause of motion and the measurement of the motion of one body relative to something else. (And this is an obstacle to further discussion before we get into the weirder aspects of relativity). RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever wondered why it is weird? Apart from that ... what you seem to be ‘unable or unwilling’ to acknowledge is that, when an observer is falling, that which occasions the falling does not cease to exist just because the observer [quote] ‘has the right’ [endquote] to interpret the state of being ‘in motion’ as a state of being ‘at rest’. It seems to me that it was Mr. Albert Einstein who took a position RESPONDENT: I may be totally wrong about this, but time will tell. RICHARD: Okay.
RESPONDENT: Richard, would it be a fair summary of your position to say that ... Finiteness and temporality are mental constructs. RICHARD: No ... an identity, by its very presence, creates a centre to consciousness – which can be graphically likened to a dot in the centre of a circle – and thus its consciousness is circumscribed, limited, bounded, by the very core of its own ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself). In a pure consciousness experience (PCE), with identity temporarily in abeyance, and upon an actual freedom from the human condition, with identity extinct, consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – has no boundaries and there is the direct experience of infinitude. It is an existential matter, in other words, not an intellectual matter (as in a mental construct) ... generally speaking the cognitive faculty cops all the blame whilst the affective faculty gets off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Only when they drop away can we see the misconceptions they produce. RICHARD: Only when identity drops away can infinitude be directly experienced ... then it is patently obvious that ‘being’ itself imposed the restrictions (and thus, by its very presence, the misconceptions of the intellect). RESPONDENT: It’s not necessary (or possible) to physically prove that space and time are infinite because the notions of finiteness and temporality are artefacts of the mind that simply disappear, temporarily in a PCE, or permanently in an actual freedom from the human condition. RICHARD: The notions just do not arise in a PCE, or where one is actually free from the human condition, because the mind is free from the restrictions ‘being’ imposes by its very presence ... it never occurs to me to think about such matters (except in discussions such as these). Quite frankly the notions are ludicrous. RESPONDENT: Is this coming closer to an understanding of your position? RICHARD: There is no need to take a ‘position’ here in the actual world ... the direct experience of infinitude informs, each moment again, that space is boundless, time is unlimited, and matter (mass/ energy) is perdurable. Put simply: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis.
RICHARD: What I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ theory (...) depends upon the summum bonum of human experience being spiritual enlightenment (a permanent ASC). It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. RESPONDENT: Aha!! Thank you for clarifying where you’re coming from. I do not agree that the ‘Big Bang’ theory implies that consciousness gives rise to matter, but if you do think that, I can understand why you describe it as mysticism, and incompatible with down-to-earth experience. RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: as I did not say that the ‘Big Bang’ theory ‘implies that consciousness gives rise to matter’ what makes you say that I think that? RESPONDENT: In the context of discussing the Big Bang theory, you said that it is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. By contrast, the PCE informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. The fact that you juxtaposed the Big Bang theory with both the ASC and the idea that consciousness gives rise to matter suggests that you think they are, in fact, linked. If that isn’t what you meant, what did you mean? RICHARD: Up until recently the summum bonum of human experience has been spiritual enlightenment – a
permanent altered state of consciousness (ASC) that goes by many names – which informs that consciousness Dependent upon the culture all time and all space and all matter was either created by that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or arose out of that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or is a manifestation (a phenomenon) of that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or is a dream being dreamed by that which is timeless and spaceless and formless, or whatever variation on the theme a particular culture may make of it (such as with shamanistic knowledge for example). It can be summarised as the ‘something out of nothing’ theme ... and the ‘Big Bang’ theory is but the latest variation as even a cursory glance at what more than a few theoretical physicists have to say shows that the concept of a god (by whatever name) almost invariably appears somewhere in their philosophising. Mr. Albert Einstein, well-known for his ‘God does not play dice with the universe’, is no exception. * RESPONDENT: I can’t personally see any contradiction between the idea that time, space and matter had a beginning and the idea that matter gave rise to consciousness (not vice-versa). RICHARD: What do you mean by the word ‘beginning’ when it comes to all time and all space and all matter – as in there is no time, no space, no matter/there is time, is space, is matter – if not that which is timeless and spaceless and matterless giving rise to time and space and matter? RESPONDENT: I am not presenting myself as a defender and explainer of the Big Bang ... RICHARD: It has never occurred to me that you were ... I assumed this to be an intellectual exercise for you. RESPONDENT: ... so I see no point in speculating about this. RICHARD: If I may point out? I too, see no point in speculating about this, yet when you find justifiable others’ reservations about an actualist, a person that knows from direct experience matter is not merely passive, moving out of their area of expertise because, for example, you do not actually care that a creator exists or the universe had a beginning and so on, I engage you in a discussion so as to tease out why ... if you wish to bail out now and unreservedly withdraw such unsubstantiated comments that is fine by me. I can go back to watching comedies on TV. RESPONDENT: I am simply trying to understand why you argue that, if time space and matter had not always existed, neither PCE nor AFftHC would be possible. RICHARD: I am not arguing anything ... you proposed a hypothetical scenario and I responded as asked. * RESPONDENT: My own conceptual model of matter and consciousness is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain, of matter, regardless of whether the universe had a beginning. RICHARD: May I ask? What is matter a phenomenon of (according to your conceptual model)? RESPONDENT: I dunno. RICHARD: Hmm ... when you say you do not actually care you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, eh? RESPONDENT: All I experience directly is matter / energy constantly reconfiguring and transforming and acting upon itself. [Addendum: Sorry, this is bollocks. This is what my mind tells me is happening, not what I 'experience directly’]. RICHARD: As you do not show any inclination to engage in thinking through the implications and ramifications of what you do not actually care about we may as well bring this discussion to an end now.
RESPONDENT: I’ve been watching this discussion unfold from start to end (...) Initially I thought there’d be some interesting discussion about how and why actualism and relativity are incompatible. RICHARD: I have no idea why you would think that as my co-respondent made it quite clear at the outset that what they were doing was sharply increasing the commotion they and several others from a Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti e-mail forum had created regarding my report that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience. Viz.:
Here is what a dictionary has to say:
RESPONDENT: I’m no scientist, but I was keen to watch two people sharing their perspectives, learning from each other perhaps, and teaching us all something in the process. RICHARD: If I wanted to learn more about relativity than I already know I would not go about learning it second-hand from somebody – anybody – writing to this mailing list ... I would obtain the appropriate texts from a library, for instance, or enrol for a part-time University Online course at the nearby campus, for another example (or maybe even subscribe to a relativity mailing list). RESPONDENT: For one reason or another, it never got off the ground. RICHARD: That would be because my co-respondent never got around to demonstrating that the quote of mine they presented, which was at the core of their initial ‘let’s-ramp-up-the-brouhaha’ e-mail and central to their argument, in any way validated their hypothesis (that, even though they would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have them believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) despite at least ten (10) opportunities to do so. This is what I wrote on the tenth opportunity:
Put simply: if a person – any person – does not show, in the course of an e-mail exchange, that they have a basic understanding of science and how it works how on earth are they going to have a sensible, reasoned discussion about relativity ... let alone why actualism and relativity are incompatible? As it is well-nigh impossible to be that ignorant in this day and age then the discussion is indeed, as stated at the outset, all about sharply increasing the commotion. Just look at what it has occasioned you to write (in the remainder of this e-mail), for instance.
RESPONDENT No. 27: For me, the matter is simply a claim to be investigated – but it must be investigated in the manner in which the person making the claim specifies. If I am told that the only way to know it is the PCE, then that is what I have to investigate if I want to speak on equal footing. RESPONDENT: Fair and reasonable all the way, but just for fun, here’s a bit of twisty logic to sink your teeth into: Let P = ‘Time, space and matter began with the Big Bang.’ Let Q = ‘PCEs occur.’ According to Richard P => ~Q Q ––– ~P (Modus Tollens) If you accept R’s logic, and if you accept that PCE’s occur, it follows that you should already accept that time, space and matter did not begin with the Big Bang. See, according to R’s logic, the alleged evidence (PCE) is available if and only if that which it allegedly reveals is also true, so the mere occurrence of a PCE proves that time, space and matter did not begin with the ‘Big Bang’, regardless of whether it strikes you that way in a PCE. In other words, according to this logic, the mere occurrence of a PCE proves the falsity of the Big Bang. Your own interpretation of the experience is irrelevant to R’s proof. RICHARD: First and foremost: although you agreed it was ‘fair and reasonable all the way’ to investigate the claim in the manner specified (experientially) you immediately set out to investigate it in a manner not specified (logically). Second, you say ‘if you accept R’s logic’ as if it was indeed Richard’s logic and not your logic – not being a logician I never present what you have presented above in my name – as the modus tollens rule (the rule that the negation of the antecedent may be inferred from the conditional statement) is not something I have any familiarity with ... and seeing what you have done with it have no interest whatsoever in ever gaining such familiarity. Third, you base your entire logical conclusion upon an hypothetical answer to an hypothetical question – I did not write ‘(note ‘if’’)’ just for the sake of doing so – and even explained this in the following e-mail by saying I answered your hypothetical question as asked. Viz.:
Fourth, if logic can indeed produce the result that you put into words (above) then I am well-pleased not to be a logician ... not being a logician I have to be rational instead. Because if (note ‘if’) all time and all space and all form indeed had a beginning – as in there is no time, no space, no matter/there is time, is space, is matter – then there would be something other than the universe (an otherness which is time-less and space-less and form-less) which means that such a universe is not peerless (hence not perfect) thus a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the direct experience of the peerless purity this universe actually is, would not exist/could not happen ... and the summum bonum of human experience would be an altered state of consciousness (ASC) as ASC’s are epitomised by a non-material otherness by whatever name. As it has been up until now ... and which highest good, I might add, you are doing your level best to reinstate in other e-mails by classifying a particular ASC (where the intuitive/imaginative faculty is still extant) as being a PCE. As I coined the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience (PCE)’ you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to redefine it.
RESPONDENT: Life being what it is, regardless of how it came to be this way, I did not (and do not) think that any particular cosmogony/ cosmogony is relevant when it comes to dealing with the problems of the human condition. I said words to this effect in response to Respondent No. 49 some time back, and it prompted Richard’s intervention which, much to my surprise, tied actualism irrevocably to the infinite-eternal-universe being an actual fact. RICHARD: What prompted my intervention, as you put it, was the following:
As this comment of yours is, presumably, derived from my report of the direct experience of infinitude
The same applies to your latest take on what I have to say (from further above):
If I were again to take the liberty of rephrasing your comment so it be in accord with what I actually say (and not what you make of what I say) it would look something like this
RESPONDENT: Actualists regard the universe as infinite and eternal. Direct experience is cited as the only proof worthy of the name. I don’t accept this, and still don’t see that accepting it is necessary. RICHARD: You are not being asked to accept anything ... I am most specific that my fellow human being experientially find out for themself. Here is an example (just substitute the word ‘accept’ for the word ‘believe’ and it will all fall into place):
Put simply: it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition ... neither a particular model of the universe nor any particular cosmogony/cosmogony can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort. Only that which is actual can, has, and will.
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Three) 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 |
