|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RICHARD: ... it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that the sun was a giant ball of nuclear fusion until about five years ago. RESPONDENT: Do you, perchance, know what the sun actually is? RICHARD: No, virtually the only thing regarding the properties of the universe that is readily apparent here in this actual world is its infinitude ... matters such as what a star/ planet/ moon/ comet is require observation and illation. What happened was that, whilst browsing the internet in 1998-99 I came across a web-page proposing that the sun was plasma-only (as contrasted to the mainstream science proposition it had a nuclear-fusion interior which generated the surface plasma), and it dawned upon me that I had accepted – as a fact – what I had been taught in high-school last century ... just as earlier generations had accepted as fact the then prevailing wisdom that it was a giant ball of fire (spectral analysis has shown the sun to have no oxygen so it is not that). Nor is it a god/goddess, of course, but had I been born millennia ago I would (presumably) have accepted that to be fact. ‘Tis quite remarkable just how much is fed-in from an early age.
RICHARD (to Co-Respondent): The main reason for what you call ‘these tussles’
[misunderstanding of words or phrases] is, when it is *not* cognitive dissonance, feigned ignorance for an ulterior motive
... to wit: to preserve the status-quo. RESPONDENT: That is simply not true in my case. When I have been involved in ‘these tussles’, it has not been because of cognitive dissonance, and it has not been out of feigned ignorance for an ulterior motive (to preserve the status quo). It has been to try to understand and make myself understood. Specifically in this instance: I do not have any spiritual beliefs. Why is it that no actualist seems able to understand/ accept this? RICHARD: First and foremost: this discussion – as was the other discussion – is about what is meant by a word (or phrase) and the misunderstandings which may arise from a particular usage. Viz.:
And here is the word in question:
As far as I can ascertain what you have done, and are still doing, is have the adjective ‘spiritual’ solely refer to a person overtly holding beliefs in the supernatural ... despite numerous e-mails saying this is not what Peter meant when he wrote that glossary entry. For example:
And:
Perhaps if I were to spell it out: nowhere have I ever said that you believe either in a god or truth (by whatever name) or a post-mortem soul or spirit (by whatever name) ... does that satisfactorily clear up your ‘why is it that no actualist seems able to understand/ accept this’ [that you do not have any spiritual beliefs] query? * Last but by no means least: this is a discussion list specifically set-up to provide a forum for peoples
interested in what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site so as to [quote] ‘... facilitate a sharing of experience and
understanding and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition ...’. Here is an example of how I shared my experience and understanding with you, only 13 days ago, so as to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition:
Or, as Peter put it in the actualism glossary when he shared his experience and understanding so as to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition, it is indeed amazing to discover that everyone – and he does mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook (as in the association of the adjective ‘spiritual’ with the noun ‘spirit’) on life and that the spiritual viewpoint (as in the association of the adjective ‘spiritual’ with the noun ‘spirit’) permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, and so on. Put succinctly: ‘me’ as soul/‘me’ as spirit (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’
itself) cannot help but imbue everything with a ‘self’-centred outlook/viewpoint – as is startlingly evident in a pure
consciousness experience (PCE) – which pervasion/ imbuing becomes total in an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... and that
is where it becomes solipsism And solipsism is nothing other than narcissism
RESPONDENT: I’ll try to give an accurate description of this, but it’s very difficult to convey the quality of it. If you have experienced this, you will probably recognise it at once; if not, I don’t think there is any way of conveying it. There is an increase in sensory clarity, especially visual acuity. Along with this increase in clarity there is a ‘purity’ in everything one perceives. The words ‘immaculate’, ‘perfect’, ‘pure’ capture it quite well; everything is wonderful. Strangely, though, the word ‘beautiful’ does not apply. There is no (felt) affect whatsoever. The purity of perception (and the marvellousness of what is perceived) goes beyond affect, leaving only pure, calm wonder. It’s sensory delight without any emotional resonance at all. The sensory delight I’m talking about is not the usual kind of sensuousness/ sensuality that one enjoys in an ordinary state. Rather than being ‘pleasurable’, it is appreciation of the perfection that seems to be inherent in what one is perceiving, which leads to enjoyment of a very different kind. This is quite extraordinary. There is a sensation of softness in the air, which has a pellucid, jelly-like quality (metaphorically speaking). I’m reminded of something you once wrote about the eyes ‘lightly caressing’, as if one is seeing from the front of the eyeball. I also remember you saying ‘nothing dirty can get in’, and that’s exactly the way it is. Objects that would seem drab, dirty, sullied, soiled in ‘reality’ are immaculate in themselves; any ‘dirtiness’ is overlaid by ‘me’. (This is not an intellectual realisation but a direct perception of the fact). In many ways this is like a PCE. The mode of perception is strikingly similar to a PCE. But when I turn my attention to the writer of this message, something is different but I can’t put my finger on it. I’m not really sure whether ‘I’ am here at all, or whether ‘I’ am only a thought/feeling that briefly intercedes between perceptions and assumes itself to be the agent of this body’s actions. This sounds awkward in words, but there is nothing at all awkward or confusing about what I’m experiencing. I am not sure that I would call this a ‘self’-less experience because, although there is no affect (none that I recognise, none whatsoever), there is still a sense of agency that could be given the name ‘me’ for convenience. (Am I making any sense? Do you know what I’m talking about?). RICHARD: Yes ... you may find the following link useful in this regard:
RESPONDENT: Richard, when you engage in these discussions do you anticipate the kind of emotional effect your words might elicit and try to avoid provoking malice and sorrow in your correspondent, or do you simply say what you have to say, and leave it up to the reader to deal with any feelings that might arise? Do you ever *intentionally* provoke malice and/or sorrow in your correspondents? RICHARD: I have located the following passage:
Furthermore, in regards to your comments in another e-mail on this topic
RICHARD (recalling an incident in 1981): (....) it is as if the hands know what to do without any
input from me; they are reaching for a plate, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are turning the plate over, they
are applying the scourer appropriately, they are lifting the cleaned plate out of the washing sink; they are dipping it into the
rinsing sink; they are placing it in the rack to drip ... and all this while they are feeling the delicious tingling sensation of
hot soapy water as it strips-away the grease and other detritus. I am not required at all; I am a supernumerary; I am redundant; I
can retire, fold in my hand, pack in the game, depart, disappear, dissolve, disintegrate, vamoose, vanish, die – whatever –
and life would manage quite well, thank you, without me ... a whole lot better, in fact, as I am holding up the works from
functioning smoothly. ‘I’ was not needed ... ‘my’ services were no longer required. RESPONDENT: I have noticed this many a time too (that the body operates perfectly well without ‘me’ as overseer) and it bugs me that I don’t know why ‘I’ had to exist in the first place. I wonder if you can help me come to a deeper understanding of this. RICHARD: Put briefly: survival in the wild ... prior to the development of intelligence RESPONDENT: Lately I have been practising the actualist method much more effectively; that is, I can see the potential for genuine results to follow rather quickly, *if* I have the guts to press on. RICHARD: What I found was that the daring, the audacity, to proceed comes with that very procession
RESPONDENT: It would be exaggerating a bit (but not very much) to say that the ‘excellence experience’ referred to a while back is almost a matter of choice now. RICHARD: Ahh ... then you would be understanding why I oft-times say that a virtual freedom is not to be sneezed at (and that it is way beyond normal human expectations), then? Because this is how you described it:
RESPONDENT: I have pulled myself back from going further a couple of times because of serious illness in the family. (Not that my unhappiness has improved anyone’s health, but it seemed somehow ‘indecent’ to be happy and carefree while a loved one is desperately ill. And yes, I know this is ‘silly’ (shall I wait for sickness and death to be eradicated before I consent to being happy?), but I find this particular aspect of real-world thinking/ feeling very hard to resist). RICHARD: I do understand, from personal experience, what you are referring to ... it is weird, is it not? * RESPONDENT: Anyway, back to topic. It is becoming clearer that ‘I’ am optional, unnecessary, a hindrance in fact. And in light of that, I’m not sure why ‘I’ ever existed. Was ‘I’ ever necessary? RICHARD: Yes ... sentient creatures are born with a rudimentary ‘self’ (especially obvious in what is known as the ‘higher-order’ animals) and if it were not for this animal-self we would not be here today discussing its redundancy now that intelligence has arisen in the human species. RESPONDENT: Am ‘I’ an obsolete relic of a bygone evolutionary phase? RICHARD: Yep. RESPONDENT: Or would you say that an ‘I’ is still necessary for human infants and children as, say, a powerful engine for achieving competency/mastery of a skill? RICHARD: I would say ... not necessary. RESPONDENT: Is it necessary for a strong ‘I’ to lift a babe out of helplessness and ensure that s/he masters all the skills necessary for an adult human to function largely on auto-pilot? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Lastly, are there any circumstances under which retaining an ‘I’ is advantageous (other than for killing, raping, committing suicide, asserting social/physical dominance, etc?). RICHARD: No ... none whatsoever. RESPONDENT: How about w.r.t. learning? RICHARD: Not needed. RESPONDENT: As above, I can remember how ‘I-ness’ with accompanying feelings of determination, dogged persistence, will to overcome frustration and setbacks, etc, possibly/probably? helped me to learn/master difficult skills in infancy and childhood, but I wonder if these attributes are still necessary to some extent in adulthood. RICHARD: Neither in adulthood nor childhood ... if you were to re-read your sentence you will see that the very thing which required overcoming was occasioned in the first place by that which overcame it. RESPONDENT: Or is there nothing in ‘me’ but hindrances? RICHARD: Nothing at all.
RESPONDENT: I have noticed this many a time too (that the body operates perfectly well without ‘me’ as overseer) and it bugs me that I don’t know why ‘I’ had to exist in the first place. I wonder if you can help me come to a deeper understanding of this. RICHARD: Put briefly: survival in the wild ... prior to the development of intelligence. RESPONDENT: Ok ... from this and other answers below: it’s now clear that the whole of ‘I’/’me’ is an evolutionary relic that has outlived its usefulness by thousands of years – which means that, as far as this flesh and blood is concerned, ‘I’ never was and never will be necessary for any purpose whatsoever. (Whew!) (Aside: I remember wondering some time last year whether there might be a single fact out there which, if known, could blow me completely away. Well here it is, though not quite in the way I’d expected!). Thanks for clarifying this. It sweeps away the last of my (conceptual / theoretical) reservations. I now have some simple questions/ observations about the role of ‘me’ in ‘self’-immolation. (Will raise these in a separate post). RICHARD: Okay ... suffice for now is to stress how vital it is that ‘I’ do not make ‘myself’ into an enemy to be conquered but rather an ally in this, the adventure of a lifetime as, even though others may say they really care (by feeling that they do), only ‘I’ get to live with ‘myself’ twenty-four hours of the day. It is imperative to be one’s own best friend. Furthermore, no one can know ‘me’ as well as ‘I’ can: only ‘I’ can know ‘my’ every instinctual impulse, ‘my’ every affective feeling, and thus ‘my’ every thought ... only ‘I’ can know all the nuances of ‘my’ ethnic background, all the intimate details of ‘my’ familial upbringing, all the subtleties of ‘my’ peer-group aspirations, and so on. * RESPONDENT: Lately I have been practising the actualist method much more effectively; that is, I can see the potential for genuine results to follow rather quickly, *if* I have the guts to press on. RICHARD: What I found was that the daring, the audacity, to proceed comes with that very procession. For instance: [Alan]: ‘... the only question which remains – do ‘I’ have the necessary intestinal fortitude to proceed? [Richard]: ‘No ... because no one has ‘the necessary intestinal fortitude to proceed’ before they proceed: it comes in sufficient quality, and only as required by the circumstances, as one proceeds. The question is: what is preventing ‘me’ from proceeding? [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Righto, this makes sense. Instead of trying to muster the necessary [whatever] in advance, just deal with the obstacles as they arise. That strategy has been working pretty well in other ways. RICHARD: Speaking personally it was not ‘the obstacles’ which generated the most alarum … ‘twas the successes. * RESPONDENT: It would be exaggerating a bit (but not very much) to say that the ‘excellence experience’ referred to a while back is almost a matter of choice now. RICHARD: Ahh ... then you would be understanding why I oft-times say that a virtual freedom is not to be sneezed at (and that it is way beyond normal human expectations), then? RESPONDENT: Yes, definitely. (More details to follow separately). RICHARD: Good … those that decry actualism on the grounds that somebody else is yet to become actually free from the human condition conveniently ignore the virtual freedom (which is humanly possible) that is the flow-on effect from just one person providing a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, an unambiguous report of their experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. Up until now peoples have only had the flow-on effect from enlightened beings. * RESPONDENT: I have pulled myself back from going further a couple of times because of serious illness in the family. (Not that my unhappiness has improved anyone’s health, but it seemed somehow ‘indecent’ to be happy and carefree while a loved one is desperately ill. And yes, I know this is ‘silly’ (shall I wait for sickness and death to be eradicated before I consent to being happy?), but I find this particular aspect of real-world thinking/feeling very hard to resist). RICHARD: I do understand, from personal experience, what you are referring to ... it is weird, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes it is! I think it’s the real-world notion of caring that’s all askew. Normally it’s hard to conceive of ‘caring’ as anything other than empathic feeling. Even though there are times when it’s perfectly obvious that caring has nothing to do with feeling (let alone feeling sad and sorry), it’s difficult to remember this (or to trust the memory, perhaps). RICHARD: Aye … even though there is a vast difference between the feeling of caring, and actually caring, old habits can die hard. RESPONDENT: There seems to be an unspoken covenant that people who care about each other will suffer together. (Actually, not always unspoken, come to think of it!). RICHARD: Indeed not ... for just one example:
Incidentally, the reference to ‘job security’ is only because my co-respondent was, purportedly, a psychiatrist by profession. * RESPONDENT: (...) would you say that an ‘I’ is still necessary for human infants and children as, say, a powerful engine for achieving competency/mastery of a skill? RICHARD: I would say ... not necessary. RESPONDENT: (...) I can remember how ‘I-ness’ with accompanying feelings of determination, dogged persistence, will to overcome frustration and setbacks, etc, possibly/probably? helped me to learn/master difficult skills in infancy and childhood, but I wonder if these attributes are still necessary to some extent in adulthood. RICHARD: Neither in adulthood nor childhood ... if you were to re-read your sentence you will see that the very thing which required overcoming was occasioned in the first place by that which overcame it. RESPONDENT: Ha! I see what you mean. Determination and dogged persistence overcoming the feeling of frustration. RICHARD: Yes … first ‘I’ create a problem then ‘I’ set out to overcome it: where there is no ‘me’ in the first place there is nothing to overcome (let alone anything that may even remotely justify ‘my’ existence). It is all so simple in actuality. * RESPONDENT: … is there nothing in ‘me’ but hindrances? RICHARD: Nothing at all. RESPONDENT: Well, that’s great! I don’t think the enormity of this had fully sunk in. (More specifics in follow-ups over the next couple of weeks). RICHARD: Okay ... what is important to grasp is that ‘I’ have an essential role to play in all this: only ‘I’ can bring an end to all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Nobody else can set you free ... your freedom is in your hands, and your hands alone.
RESPONDENT: Taking a walk in the country the other day, I was mulling over a few aspects of actualism, thinking about the nature of the identity. I was trying to observe and understand the nature of the ‘self’ by comparing my experience of this moment with my recollection of PCE’s. That is, I was thinking of my ‘self’ as the difference between an ordinary moment and a moment of pure consciousness. After a while this struck me as a bit silly (even though it is quite correct). I thought: why not just drop all ideas and definitions and start with the obvious fact: I’m this living human body, this physical organism, plonked right here in the midst of actual space and actual time, and I’m strolling along a country road. All I need to do is dare to be what I am, where I am, and when I am. (This body. This place. This moment). Why should this be difficult? Who or what can preventing such a simple occurrence? After a while, the ‘real’ but non-actual nature of ‘me’ struck me with crystal clarity. I saw once again that ‘I’ am a usurper, a feeling-backed idea, a belief, a fiction. Not only am ‘I’ and ‘my’ life a dream of sorts, the dreamer himself was fully exposed for ‘who’ he is. This dreamer can do nothing but spin feeling-based fantasies and pursue ‘self’-centred goals forever and a day. There will be no end to these dreams, fantasies, ‘self’-centred goals (no matter how cunningly disguised they may be) while ever ‘I’ exist. There will be no satisfaction for ‘me’. Not ever. I realised that it is nowhere near good enough to try to dissolve each identity-spun ‘dream’ (each lie, each error, each fiction, each belief, each fantasy, one by one); it might help a little, and it might be an interesting activity in itself, but ultimately one needs to expunge the ‘dreamer’ himself from the world. And when ‘he’ is momentarily gone, how simple it all is! Nothing new here, of course. Only the joy of seeing it again directly, instead of just understanding it intellectually. RESPONDENT No 49: (...) I too was having some thoughts on AF the other day. Specifically on how Richard refers to the rise of IQ in relation to AF. RESPONDENT: Is that so? RICHARD: No, it is not so ... I have never referred to anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: I haven’t noticed Richard saying anything about IQ. RICHARD: A computer search of all I have ever written returned the following two (2) hits:
And:
RESPONDENT: I remember him saying that common sense and memory work much better without a ‘self’ present to ‘stuff things up’, but I don’t recall him saying anything about IQ specifically. I’ve sometimes wondered about this. One of the first things that bugged me about Richard’s description of AF was the loss of capacity to imagine. RICHARD: You may be referring to the following (my response to your very first e-mail to this mailing list):
RESPONDENT: It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ ... RICHARD: And maybe, just maybe, therein lies a clue ... I report there is no intuitive/imaginative facility whatsoever in this flesh and blood body and you say that [quote] ‘it would seem *intuitively* that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ... [It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ], considering that most standard IQ tests measure visuo-spatial ability. I dunno. Maybe the brain can handle tasks commonly believed to require visualisation without the help of mental images. RICHARD: It would appear that it can indeed.
RESPONDENT: It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity [to visualise] would result in a drop in IQ ... RICHARD: And maybe, just maybe, therein lies a clue ... I report there is no intuitive/imaginative facility whatsoever in this flesh and blood body and you say that ‘it would seem *intuitively* that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ...[It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ], considering that most standard IQ tests measure visuo-spatial ability. I dunno. Maybe the brain can handle tasks commonly believed to require visualisation without the help of mental images. RICHARD: It would appear that it can indeed. RESPONDENT: Good. I’m not as surprised by this as I would once have been. I wonder how you experience this though? (Not surprisingly, I cannot imagine it). Suppose you’re walking by the roadside and a person in a passing car stops and asks you how to get to Easy Street. Assuming you know where Easy Street is, what conscious processes occur in your mind when you’re trying to describe the way from here to there? For me, the thought is going to be accompanied by images. They might only be vague ones, or even abstract ‘wire-frame’ type images devoid of detail, but essentially what I seem to be doing is constructing, from visual memory, a simulation of what is really out there. In my mind’s eye I take the journey between here and Easy Street, and that’s how I’m able to tell the other how to get there. I’m assuming that you too would be able to tell the other person how to get there. But how would you experience this? RICHARD: First of all I will re-present the following (so that we both know just what it is we are talking about):
And the other version:
As you are going for a walk along a country road outside of the town where you live it does not require any visualising (let alone an abstract wire-frame image/mental map/internal shorthand sketch) to be aware, as you are ambling along perceiving all about in all its splendour, that the town is in the other direction to the way you are facing, does it (simply because most roads have a tendency to be coming from somewhere and going to somewhere else)? And, as you are strolling along without a care in the world, if you were to espy an approaching vehicle (a big blue car off in the distance, say, which is heading in the direction you are coming from) that is gradually slowing down – the sound of the engine is diminishing so much that it is becoming apparent that the driver is going to come to a stop beside you (presumably to ask for directions) – it would not require visualisation to be able to tell them that if they were to keep going for another x-kilometres/x-minutes (or just plain keep going) they will arrive at the town, would it? It is actually a smallish car, with a thin red stripe down its side, and a slight pinging sound is coming from under the bonnet (now that the driver has switched the engine off the better to talk to you) and a faint shimmer of heat-haze is radiating the aroma of hot oiled-metal towards you – a smell which tickles the nostrils piquantly – and the big white birds with the down-curved beaks, that had been roosting on the greyed branches of the long-dead tree over the sagging wire-fence before the car’s approach sent them away, are rapidly becoming vague specks in the distance. As the driver is asking you whereabouts in town Easy Street is – and you do know where Easy Street is of course – are you needing any imagination to tell them that, once they enter the town proper (where the country road, just over the bridge, becomes Main Street), what they need to do is look out for Paradise Café (a popular watering hole in Main Street which everybody in town knows the location of) and then take the next turn left? And, that once they have turned left, that they are to pass through x-number of intersections until they come to Crossing Street (or just plain keep on going until they do) and turn right into it – and they surely cannot mistake it as it is the only one in that area lined with large spreading trees in full purple bloom – because Easy Street, which is marked with tilted-over sign-post, is either the second or third on the left in Crossing Street? No? And why not? Because it is all sequential, is it not (first this, then that, then the next, and so on)? The driver is looking a trifle puzzled, and is asking you how many streets after the caff was it they were to turn left, and you are saying again, easily, that it is the first left, and it is fascinating, is it not, to see that the driver’s eyes (which seemed to have been turned inwards while you were giving directions) are all-of-a-sudden flashing at you that wide-open smile of fellowship recognition which is only-all-too-rare in the real-world ... and the warm summer sun on the back of the neck is bathing everything in this wondrous playground we all live in with its friendly embrace. Ain’t life grand!
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Five) 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 |
