|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RICHARD: (...) 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. RESPONDENT: Surely the universe is actual ... RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to re-read what you are responding to?
RICHARD: (...) 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. RESPONDENT: Surely the universe is actual ... RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to re-read what you are responding to? RESPONDENT: In light of the fact that I posted a follow-up no more than a minute later, suggesting you ignore this, it hardly seems necessary. RICHARD: In light of the fact you had followed the passage you asked me not to bother with Am I to take it that your very first words in the e-mail you entitled ‘One Last Shot At This’ which started this thread,
where you indicated you were interested in looking *more closely* into these matters I only ask because it would seem that you have ... less than 24 hours after you wrote them.
RICHARD: (...) 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. RESPONDENT: Surely the universe is actual ... RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to re-read what you are responding to? RESPONDENT: In light of the fact that I posted a follow-up no more than a minute later, suggesting you ignore this, it hardly seems necessary. RICHARD: In light of the fact you had followed the passage you asked me not to bother with RESPONDENT: LOL! I wonder if anyone else is still able to interpret your response to my ‘last shot at this’ as an altruistic intent to help a fellow human being along the ‘wide and wondrous path to actual freedom’, the summum bonum of human experience, a selfless state of benevolence unparalleled in human history, from which you now write these helpful words. RICHARD: As I am responding to you, and nobody else at this moment, it is of no interest to me what anyone else may or may not ‘interpret’ my words to be – in lieu of taking them at face value – as what is of interest to me is how you do ... which is the whole point I am making in this current thread. RESPONDENT: Heh. I can only laugh at the naiveté that made me take you seriously ... while it lasted. RICHARD: Ha ... I never advise being serious; sincere, yes, but serious? No way ... life is too much fun to take it seriously.
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: [Respondent]: ‘... to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to a particular model of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand’ [endquote]. As this comment of yours is, presumably, derived from my report of the direct experience of infinitude it may become more clear if I were 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). For example: [example only]: ‘... to tie the value of a PCE (and Actualism) to the direct experience of the infinitude of the universe is just stupid, from where I stand’ [end example]. The same applies to your latest take on what I have to say (from further above): [Respondent]: ‘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’ [endquote]. 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: [example only]: ‘I did not (and do not) think that the direct experience of the infinitude of the universe is relevant when it comes to dealing with the problems of the human condition’ [end example]. (...) 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. RESPONDENT: Surely the universe is actual ... RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to re-read what you are responding to? RESPONDENT: In light of the fact that I posted a follow-up no more than a minute later, suggesting you ignore this, it hardly seems necessary. RICHARD: In light of the fact you had followed the passage, which you asked me not to bother with, with yet another misrepresentation of what I have to say – a misrepresentation bordering upon being a parody of your previous misrepresentations – it did indeed seem necessary to suggest a re-read of what is being responded to. RESPONDENT: Here’s what I followed it with: [quote] ‘In any case, I’ll rephrase: ‘tying the value of the PCE (and Actualism) to a particular cosmological model is just stupid from where I stand’ ... to more accurately reflect what I actually think ... In my opinion, Richard’s diagnosis of the human condition is original and valuable, regardless of the actual nature of the universe... and ... In my opinion, Richard’s diagnosis of the human condition is (by far) the most interesting and important aspect of actualism. I take the rest with a pinch of salt. These are simply my opinions based on my own investigation of the facts so far. [endquote]. Do point out how these personal opinions, expressed as personal opinions, can be construed as ... [Richard] ‘yet another misrepresentation of what I have to say – a misrepresentation bordering upon being a parody of your previous misrepresentations’ [endquote]. RICHARD: I am only too happy to modify my response so as to be in accord with your reminder that your misrepresentations are ‘personal opinions, expressed as personal opinions’ if that is what it takes to have you re-read what you are responding to (re-inserted at the top of this page). Viz.:
Put simply: it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition ... and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort. Only that which is actual can, has, and will.
RESPONDENT: LOL! I wonder if anyone else is still able to interpret your response to my ‘last shot at this’ as an altruistic intent to help a fellow human being along the ‘wide and wondrous path to actual freedom’, the summum bonum of human experience, a selfless state of benevolence unparalleled in human history, from which you now write these helpful words. RICHARD: As I am responding to you, and nobody else at this moment, it is of no interest to me what anyone else may or may not ‘interpret’ my words to be – in lieu of taking them at face value – as what is of interest to me is how you do ... which is the whole point I am making in this current thread. RESPONDENT: Heh. I can only laugh at the naiveté that made me take you seriously ... while it lasted. RICHARD: Ha ... I never advise being serious; sincere, yes, but serious? No way ... life is too much fun to take it seriously. RESPONDENT: Fine by me. How about we start the fun by you coming straight out and telling me what you’re on about? RICHARD: In this instance ... letting you know that, as I am responding to you and nobody else at this moment, it is of no interest to me what anyone else may or may not ‘interpret’ my words to be – in lieu of taking them at face value – as what is of interest to me is how you do ... which is the whole point I am making in this current thread. RESPONDENT: Where did I misrepresent you? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to highlight the instances, this time around, where you have interpreted/ misrepresented what I have to say (in lieu of taking my words at face value):
And:
And:
I report/ describe the direct experience of infinitude
Put simply: it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition ... and no ‘particular model of the universe’ no ‘particular world view’ no ‘particular cosmogony/ cosmogony’ and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort. Only that which is actual can, has, and will.
RICHARD: ... (I am, of course, referring in this instance to the ‘a particular cosmological model’ rephrasing as that is the topic my initial response specifically referred to). Put simply: it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition ... and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: Never at any stage did I argue that a cosmological model can, has, or ever will enable anything of the sort. So what precisely are you on about? This makes no sense. RICHARD: The following is representative of what I have been, in fact, precisely talking about all along:
Which is why I took 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) so that it would look something like this:
And I wrote that as, put simply, it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition – and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort – because only that which is actual can, has, and will. * RICHARD: Only that which is actual can, has, and will. RESPONDENT: Since I was never arguing that a ‘model’ can, has or will, this is irrelevant to your charge of ‘misrepresentation’. RICHARD: If I may point out? You were (and apparently still are) saying that you do not think ‘any particular cosmogony/cosmogony is relevant when it comes to dealing with the problems of the human condition’ and that it is ‘just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view’ (for instance). RESPONDENT: Do you have anything else to say? RICHARD: Yes ... I will re-post a part of what I wrote as a response, on December 03 2003, to your query as to what would set in motion ‘the process’ I underwent all those years ago so as to be actually free from the human condition. Viz.:
Put simply: ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’ ... it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition as only that which is actual can, has, and will, enable such a freedom. RESPONDENT: I wonder if other people can still persuade themselves that such pedantry contributes to ‘clarity’ and accuracy with altruistic intent rather than obfuscation for devious and/or malicious purposes. (Note: I do not give a rat’s arse whether you wonder that. I said I wonder that). RICHARD: As a suggestion only: rather than wonder about what others may or may not persuade themselves, in regards what motivates these words, why not wonder about what it is which persuades you that the clarity in communication of these words is ‘obfuscation for devious and/or malicious purposes’ instead? ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RICHARD: ... (I am, of course, referring in this instance to the ‘a particular cosmological model’ rephrasing as that is the topic my initial response specifically referred to). Put simply: it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition ... and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: Never at any stage did I argue that a cosmological model can, has, or ever will enable anything of the sort. So what precisely are you on about? This makes no sense. RICHARD: The following is representative of what I have been, in fact, precisely talking about all along: [Respondent]: ‘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. [endquote]. Which is why I took 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) so that it would look something like this: [example only]: ‘I did not (and do not) think that the direct experience of the infinitude of the universe is relevant when it comes to dealing with the problems of the human condition’ [end example]. And I wrote that as, put simply, it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition – and no ‘particular cosmological model’ can, has, or will, ever enable anything of the sort – because only that which is actual can, has, and will. * RICHARD: Only that which is actual can, has, and will. RESPONDENT: Since I was never arguing that a ‘model’ can, has or will, this is irrelevant to your charge of ‘misrepresentation’. RICHARD: If I may point out? You were (and apparently still are) saying that you do not think ‘any particular cosmogony/cosmogony is relevant when it comes to dealing with the problems of the human condition’ and that it is ‘just plain silly to tie Actualism up to a particular world view’ (for instance). RESPONDENT: Do you have anything else to say? RICHARD: Yes ... I will re-post a part of what I wrote as a response, on December 03 2003, to your query as to what would set in motion ‘the process’ I underwent all those years ago so as to be actually free from the human condition. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘(...) Do you think the key for setting it [the process] in motion is will (‘pure intent’?), or an increase in the frequency of apperceptive awareness? Or both? Or something else? [Richard]: ‘(...) 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). [endquote]. Put simply: ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’ ... it is the peerless purity of infinitude which enables an actual freedom from the human condition as only that which is actual can, has, and will, enable such a freedom. RESPONDENT: I wonder if other people can still persuade themselves that such pedantry contributes to ‘clarity’ and accuracy with altruistic intent rather than obfuscation for devious and/or malicious purposes. (Note: I do not give a rat’s arse whether you wonder that. I said I wonder that). RICHARD: As a suggestion only: rather than wonder about what others may or may not persuade themselves, in regards what motivates these words, why not wonder about what it is which persuades you that the clarity in communication of these words is ‘obfuscation for devious and/or malicious purposes’ instead? ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have not misrepresented you; you have misrepresented me and haven’t been able to see it. The explanation is very simple: I know that the what you’re offering to people here begins and ends with the direct experience of this actual universe. I know it is not a conceptual model, and I know that you are not advocating a mere belief in the infinitude of the universe. I know that you are recommending that people test your words out experientially. Therefore – it is stupid to tie the value of actualism to a particular cosmological model. Dig? RICHARD: Here are the passages in question – in their full context – which you referred to at the beginning of this thread when you wrote that you 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 and that you had said words to this effect in response to another some time back which prompted Richard’s intervention:
If you could explain how I have misrepresented you it would be most appreciated.
RICHARD: If you could explain how I have misrepresented you it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Sure thing. By substituting (or ‘rephrasing’, as you call it) what I AM saying for what you THINK I’m saying, getting it altogether wrong, changing the meaning in the process of ‘REPHRASING’ it, and then claiming that YOUR incorrect rephrasing of MY words is in fact MY misrepresentation of YOUR words. RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:
I did not substitute/rephrase what I ‘think’ you were saying for what you were saying at all (let alone getting it altogether wrong or changing the meaning in the process or then claiming that my rephrasing of your words is in fact your misrepresentation of my words) as I explicitly state I took 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) in order to make it clear why I intervened, as you put it, when you wrote to another that to tie the value of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and actualism to a particular model of the universe is just stupid and that it is just plain silly to tie actualism up to a particular world view. In short: I have made it clear all along that actualism is experiential – the direct experience of the actual world/universe such as in a PCE – and not intellectual (such as in a particular model of the universe/a particular world view) and my ‘example only’ rephrasing was nothing other than another way of expressing this clarity. RESPONDENT: All without any apparent awareness of the irony in the above. RICHARD: Hmm ... why you would be using irony – ‘dissimulation/pretence; esp. the pretence of ignorance practised by Socrates as a step towards confuting an adversary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – when you later say that you know what I am offering to my fellow human being begins and ends with the direct experience of this actual universe (and that you know it is not a conceptual model and that you know I am not advocating a mere belief in the infinitude of the universe and that you know I am recommending that people test my words out experientially) is beyond me. Or, to put that another way, why you would be using irony – ‘discrepancy between the expected and the actual state of affairs; a contradictory or ill-timed outcome of events as if in mockery of the fitness of things’ (Oxford Dictionary) – when you later say that you know what I am offering to my fellow human being begins and ends with the direct experience of this actual universe (and that you know it is not a conceptual model and that you know I am not advocating a mere belief in the infinitude of the universe and that you know I am recommending that people test my words out experientially) has got me beat. Especially as you experientially know this moment in time has no duration in a PCE anyway:
And that you experientially know this place in space has no location:
Yet when I report/describe the same or similar I am, it seems to you (further above), a recovering spiritualist particularly prone to swinging between extremes with crappy logic which is impervious to reason such as to betray the fanatic’s heart which is probably the same emotional tendency that led to me being long-term spiritualist in the first place ... here is but one example out of many:
And even more recently you have reported the following experience:
May I ask? Where in all this is the crappy logic which is impervious to reason such as to betray the fanatic’s heart?
RESPONDENT No. 27 (to Peter): By the way, my recent conversation with Richard regarding ‘spiritual’ has cleared up much of the misunderstanding I have had regarding your statement that Richard is (was) the only atheist on the planet. What I see now is that you have not only applied the word ‘spiritual’ to religious belief, but also to ‘being’ itself. In other words, to ‘be’ is to be ‘spiritual.’ Personally, I think that usage is ripe for misunderstanding. From here, it would seem better to apply the word ‘spiritual’ to ‘spiritual’ belief as in religious belief and practice, etc. then possibly ‘metaphysical’ (or some other word?) could cover better what it means to simply be a ‘being.’ RESPONDENT: I’d second this. It takes some time for a newcomer to really understand the implications of ‘beinglessness’. I don’t think it is the kind of thing that can sink in immediately. In the interim, while people are trying to come to terms with the startling novelty of this aspect of actualism, it is confusing for people to find themselves described as spiritualists, or to hear their views described as ‘spiritual’ beliefs when, in real world terms, they are not spiritual at all. RICHARD: Here is the passage which your co-respondent asked me (twice) to respond to a line extracted from it ... with the extracted quote highlighted in bold:
As you have replied as if Peter had said ‘spiritual beliefs’ – and not ‘spiritual outlook’ (and ‘spiritual viewpoint’) – you are really conducting what is known as a ‘straw man argument’ (wherein something someone never said is critiqued as if it were what they actually said). Here is the critical part of my response/ explanation mentioned further above:
And again just recently:
* RESPONDENT No. 27: Of course, this is all new territory, so actualists are free to adapt or create whatever vocabulary they please. RESPONDENT: Sure, but if the intent is to communicate clearly with the ‘real world’, why invite these misunderstandings? Personally, I was very nearly driven away by this issue. It seemed to me that actualists could not distinguish between the metaphysicality of God and the metaphysicality of Euclid’s Elements. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the phrase <Euclid’s Elements> into this computer’s search engine and sent it through every e-mail you have posted to this mailing list ... only to return nil hits; a search for <Euclid> similarly drew a blank. If you could provide the relevant passage it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: And when they suggested I had ‘spiritual’ beliefs, it seemed very much a case of them being crazy and/or stupid. RICHARD: I see that you have just recently written the following:
As you will be cognisant by now the ‘certain way of using the word ‘spiritual’’ which (supposedly) invites misunderstanding is ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’ (Oxford Dictionary) which, when used in conjunction with the word ‘outlook’ (or ‘viewpoint’), looks something like this:
As the word ‘soul’ has both a spiritualistic and materialistic meaning in the Oxford Dictionary it was the word I chose to use when I first went public as the main difference between those two meanings is materialists maintain that such an emotional/passional/intuitive self (sometimes referred to as one’s spirit) dies with the body and spiritualists maintain it does not ... a distinction which somebody relatively new to this mailing list had no difficulty comprehending a few weeks ago when this fact was elucidated. Viz.:
Incidentally, as you state that you have nothing more to say on this subject there is no need to respond to this e-mail.
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No 27): ... it is confusing for people to find themselves described as spiritualists, or to hear their views described as ‘spiritual’ beliefs when, in real world terms, they are not spiritual at all. RICHARD: Here is the passage which your co-respondent asked me (twice) to respond to a line extracted from it ... with the extracted quote highlighted in bold:
As you have replied as if Peter had said ‘spiritual beliefs’ – and not ‘spiritual outlook’ (and ‘spiritual viewpoint’) – you are really conducting what is known as a ‘straw man argument’ (wherein something someone never said is critiqued as if it were what they actually said). RESPONDENT: The main point I have been driving at all along is this: outside actualist circles, the feeling of being someone is not regarded as having a spiritual belief/ outlook/ viewpoint. RICHARD: If I may point out? This is the first time you have even mentioned the word ‘outlook’ (or ‘viewpoint’) in this exchange ... let alone what you do not regard it as being. Moreover, you are further compounding the problem you have created by now lumping ‘belief’ and ‘outlook’ together (along with ‘viewpoint’) as I have already explained what Peter is not saying in an earlier e-mail. Viz.:
This may be an apt moment to remind you of something I often warn about:
Has it never occurred to you how come Richard, a reasonably intelligent and well-read person with a tertiary education – and agnostic if not atheistic from early childhood into the bargain – could inadvertently become enlightened along the way to an actual freedom from the human condition? Here is a clue:
Put briefly: I was staggered as to how deep the Judaic/Christian environment I was raised in was embedded ... to the point that I then realised that humanism was the secular religion, so to speak, that British/European Colonialism had foisted onto the world at large (via countries like the USA for instance) as it underpins the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Breaking free from the tenacious grip of their humanitarian principles was difficult to say the least. RESPONDENT: To describe the feeling of being someone as ‘spiritual’ is to invite unnecessary confusion. RICHARD: Just what is unnecessarily confusing about describing the feeling of ‘being’ as generating an outlook on life ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’ (Oxford Dictionary)? RESPONDENT: (There is plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that this is the case). RICHARD: As this is the first time this issue has ever cropped up since publishing the website in 1997 this is news to me ... which could very well be because Peter makes quite clear the association between the adjective ‘spiritual’ and the noun ‘spirit’ it is descriptive of (even to the point of many times hyphenating the word). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: As this observation/ opinion is not specific to spiritual belief (as opposed to viewpoint and/or outlook), it is not a straw man. RICHARD: As this is the first time you have acknowledged, albeit in a circuitous manner, that the glossary entry in question was not about spiritual belief, but about a spiritual outlook on life (and, by extension, a spiritual viewpoint permeating various disciplines) I do look askance at your asserverance. * RICHARD: Here is the critical part of my response/ explanation mentioned further above:
RESPONDENT: *Metaphysical* in outlook. [emphasis added] ;-) RICHARD: I had figured, as this was such an important issue for you (inasmuch you would have Peter choke on the shards of those front teeth of his you would like to break), that you would have already read what I wrote in response to being asked (twice) to respond to Peter’s entry in the actualism glossary, before responding to me, such that I could simply provide a truncated version in this thread. Nevertheless ... here is the sequence (with the above extract highlighted in bold):
Do you see, this time around, that I specifically mentioned I was using the synonym my co-respondent had said was [quote] ‘more likely’ [endquote] the way Peter was using the word ‘spiritual’ (even though he was not specifically doing so) so as to shed some more light on the topic of atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians and their cosmogonical and/or cosmological theories in a previous (and unfinished) thread? I deliberately phrased it that way as a lead-in for a much-needed discussion on what the word ‘metaphysical’ can mean and the implications thereof: in short it is the non-theistic spiritual outlook, generated by the instinctive/ intuitive spirit/ soul, which occasions atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians to postulate metaphysical cosmogonies/cosmologies ... when all the while this actual universe is out-in-the-open with no uncaused/uncreated source/underlying reality at all. To apprehend this latter point the atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians would, of course, have to be out-in-the-open as well ... but that is a matter of them coming to their senses (both literally and metaphorically). * RICHARD: And again just recently:
RESPONDENT: You say it does not matter. RICHARD: No, I say that, even though it does not really matter in the long run, Peter’s usage of the word ‘spiritual’ is more direct and to the point. RESPONDENT: I think it does matter if you are interested in sparing people unnecessary confusion when they begin to investigate actualism. RICHARD: What I am interested in is explicating why human beings project metaphysical realities and/or metaphysical beings onto and/or existing prior to the universe ... and Peter’s usage of the word ‘spiritual’ is direct and to this very point. RESPONDENT: Metaphysics and spirituality are by no means equivalent. RICHARD: I never said they were ... I specifically said that metaphysics – ‘a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) – has been spiritual from the very beginning (per favour Mr. Parmenides, of the Eleatic School in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy in the fifth century BCE, who held that the only true reality is Eon ... pure, eternal, immutable, and indestructible Being, without any other qualification). RESPONDENT: Euclidean geometry, for instance, is entirely metaphysical – but few people would describe it as ‘spiritual’. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that Peter should have written that he was amazed to discover that everyone – and he does mean everyone – has a metaphysical outlook on life such as to be found, for instance, in Euclidean geometry? Quite frankly what you are trying to do just does not make sense to me ... to try and tell Peter what he should have been amazed about, back when he was leaving the spiritual world and beginning to really investigate what others had to say about the human condition, and what permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, and so on, is but an exercise in futility.. RESPONDENT: As a matter of interest, would you [describe Euclidean geometry, for instance, as ‘spiritual’]? I doubt it, but you do tend to surprise me sometimes. RICHARD: Of course not ... and, being a particular system of a branch of mathematics which deals with the properties and relations of magnitudes, as lines, surfaces and solids in space, it barely even qualifies for the title ‘metaphysics’. But, then again, I am not a geometrician. * RESPONDENT: ... It seemed to me that actualists could not distinguish between the metaphysicality of God and the metaphysicality of Euclid’s Elements. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the phrase <Euclid’s Elements> into this computer’s search engine and sent it through every e-mail you have posted to this mailing list ... only to return nil hits; a search for <Euclid> similarly drew a blank. If you could provide the relevant passage it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Righto. I haven’t specifically mentioned Euclid before ... RICHARD: Then why say it seems to you that actualists cannot make such a distinction? I do understand that the word ‘metaphysical’ can mean ‘highly abstract or abstruse; also theoretical’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). For example:
RESPONDENT: ... but I have on numerous occasions raised the difference between ‘metaphysical’ and ‘supernatural’. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word <supernatural> into this computer’s search engine and sent it through every e-mail you have posted to this mailing list and have been unable to locate those numerous occasions you refer to (where you say you raised the difference between ‘metaphysical’ and ‘supernatural’). If you could provide the relevant passages it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: I think Euclidean geometry is one good example of the usefulness of drawing a distinction between metaphysical and spiritual (because ‘spiritual’ connotes ‘supernatural’, whereas ‘metaphysical’ does not (necessarily)). RICHARD: As this – ‘‘spiritual’ connotes ‘supernatural’’ – is a red-herring (when I specifically gave the ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’ definition in the part of this e-mail you said you trimmed for brevity) I will pass without any further comment other than adding that the trimmed part could well do with a re-read. * [trimmed for brevity] RICHARD: As the word ‘soul’ has both a spiritualistic and materialistic meaning in the Oxford Dictionary it was the word I chose to use when I first went public as the main difference between those two meanings is materialists maintain that such an emotional/passional/intuitive self (sometimes referred to as one’s spirit) dies with the body and spiritualists maintain it does not ... a distinction which somebody relatively new to this mailing list had no difficulty comprehending a few weeks ago when this fact was elucidated. Viz.: (snip quote containing definition). RESPONDENT: I also have no difficulty comprehending this distinction. RICHARD: Good ... the difficulty you seem to be having appears to lie in applying the distinction, eh? RESPONDENT: As I was speaking about the potential confusion surrounding the word ‘spiritual’, not the meaning of the word ‘soul’, your observation is – according to your definition above – a straw man. Addendum: Sorry, that’s wrong, it isn’t a straw man. The dictionary definition of ‘spirit’ includes the word ‘soul’, and the word ‘soul’ has a non-supernatural meaning as well as a supernatural one. Therefore, one aspect of the word ‘spiritual’ has a non-supernatural meaning. RICHARD: Okay ... I am pleased that this is now clear. RESPONDENT: I do see your point. RICHARD: It is Peter’s point, actually, as he wrote the glossary entry and not me ... all I did was to respond as (twice) asked. RESPONDENT: It does seem to be clutching at straws somewhat though. RICHARD: As Peter wrote that glossary entry circa 1997-98 you are but wasting your time making this comment. RESPONDENT: The confusion that results from describing the feeling of ‘being’ as ‘spiritual’ rather than, say, ‘metaphysical’ is unnecessary. RICHARD: This is what you are saying, in effect, when spelled out in full:
As Peter was not (repeat ‘not’) amazed to discover that everyone – and he does mean everyone – has a metaphysical outlook on life (and that the metaphysical viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc.), but that it was a spiritual outlook/viewpoint (as in the association of the adjective ‘spiritual’ with the noun ‘spirit’) he was amazed to discover, to then go back and rewrite history with what did not happen would be to (a) deny his experience ... and (b) falsify his account ... and (c) no longer convey what he was amazed to discover. Maybe this will be of assistance:
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Four) 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 |
