|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 4
RESPONDENT: ... you say that even though your identity has been dismantled and conditionings removed, pleasure remains. RICHARD: I do not say that (1) identity has been ‘dismantled’ (it is, rather, that identity
‘self’-immolates in toto) ... nor do I say that (2) conditionings have been ‘removed’ (all conditioning, having
nothing to condition, falls redundant by the wayside) ... and neither do I say that (3) pleasure ‘remains’ (anhedonic
pleasure becomes apparent, and not before, where hedonic pleasure is no more) RESPONDENT: I understand the nuances of the words you use. Am I right in thinking that there is no one to dismantle the identity ... RICHARD: No ... ‘self’-immolates in toto means that there is no identity extant in this flesh and blood body to do anything whatsoever. RESPONDENT: ... [Am I right in thinking that there is no one] to remove the conditioning ... RICHARD: No ... ‘self’-immolates in toto means that all conditioning, having nothing to condition, has fallen redundant by the wayside. RESPONDENT: ... [Am I right in thinking that there is no one to dismantle the identity, to remove the conditioning] because the identity self-immolates etc.? RICHARD: More than a decade ago the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body altruistically ‘self’-immolated
in toto for the benefit of this body and that body and every body: as a consequence not only did identity become extinct – and
not only did all conditioning, having nothing to condition, fall redundant by the wayside – but so too did pleasure-seeking (aka
hedonism) as the pleasure/pain centre simultaneously became extinct RESPONDENT: Is that what you want to emphasize? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: ‘self’-immolation (aka ‘self’-sacrifice) in toto is the psychological/psychic equivalent of physical suicide and there is no way it could be said that a suicided person ‘has been dismantled’ ... let alone had their ‘conditionings removed’. * RESPONDENT: Isn’t it a conditioning that you like a certain taste of coffee? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it a conditioning that you like a certain engorging of the genital organs ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: [Isn’t it a conditioning that you like] a certain warmth/ smell of an alive vagina ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: [Isn’t it a conditioning that you like] the ‘mutualness’ of the sexual process rather than the one-way activity of licking a cold stale fish? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Isn’t preference for a certain taste/ sensation equivalent to conditioning? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: You do prefer certain sensations over the others, right? RICHARD: Yes ... yet to prefer something over something other is just that (a preference) and nothing more than that. RESPONDENT: If someone says to you, ‘Richard, would you have tea or coffee’, isn’t your decision/choice based on your conditioning/liking? RICHARD: No ... it is a preference. RESPONDENT: [If someone says to you] ‘Richard, would you like a stale fish or my vagina?’ [isn’t your decision/choice based on your conditioning/liking?] RICHARD: No ... it is a preference. RESPONDENT: In both cases, I presume you would make a firm choice. RICHARD: No ... in both cases it is a preference (a freely-made choice). RESPONDENT: Okay, so a conditioning FORCES one into a choice while a preference ALLOWS a certain choice. RICHARD: No ... as all conditioning has fallen redundant by the wayside then any and all of my preferences are freely-made choices. RESPONDENT: Am I missing something? RICHARD: Yes ... you seem to have missed the following:
That was in my first response to you ... here is what is in my second:
And in my third:
And in my fourth:
RESPONDENT: Can you elaborate more on the difference between preference/ liking/ taste/ conditioning? RICHARD: Any elaboration will be counter-productive until you can grasp that, where there is no
identity whatsoever, it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in
the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate RESPONDENT: Is it that the presence/ absence of an identity is the real issue? RICHARD: It is indeed. RESPONDENT: But isn’t our instincts/ conditionings are what makes up the identity? RICHARD: Not the ‘instincts’ per se ... rather the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire). RESPONDENT: I have read somewhere on the AF website that the identity is more than the conditioning, can you explain? RICHARD: To whittle away at conditioning is to but erode the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, as all that can be whittled away is what I call the social identity (which is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity itself) and its associated personae ... for example:
To briefly explain: each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) for rough and ready survival reasons ... which passions automatically form themselves, in a process somewhat analogous to an eddy or a vortex forming itself *as* swirling water or air, into an amorphous feeling being, an inchoate intuitive presence, popularly known as a ‘self’ or a ‘soul’ (or ‘spirit’) in the human animal, within the flesh and blood body. Thus from birth onwards, if not before (which means prior to thought developing), an affective ‘self’ forms as the baby feels itself and its world ... and even when cognition develops the circuitry is such that sense impressions go first to the affective faculty (which colours the cognitive faculty) and perpetuates/reinforces that feeling of ‘being’, that intuititive ‘presence’. Therefore the feeling ‘self’ (‘me’ as soul/spirit) exists prior to and underpins the thinking ‘self’ (‘I’ as ego) ... the thinker arises out of the feeler. More than a few human beings, delusively taking themselves to truly be this eddying ‘being’, this vortical ‘presence’ – rather than the flesh and blood body they actually are – imaginatively/ intuitively manifest/ realise all manner of destinies for that affective phantasm (the eddy or vortex, as it were, which is the instinctual passions in motion) in all manner of metaphysical dimensions inhabited by all manner of affective deities ... a deeply-felt divine and/or sacred being/presence of some description which/ who is the timeless and spaceless and formless source or origin of the universe and/or universes. Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal those blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation). No other animal can do this. * RESPONDENT: Suppose you are licking the lips of your girlfriend. Suppose she leaves and a robot takes her place. You still have your eyes closed. The robot’s lips feel just as warm wet and soft and it is wearing the perfume your girlfriend wears. Only the lips of the robot are touching your lips, no other body parts are touching. Suppose further that the robot actively kisses you for ten more minutes and then suddenly it makes a clanking noise and you open your eyes and see that it is a robot. Would you still be able to close your eyes, and enjoy the kiss? RICHARD: As this is such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) I cannot provide a meaningful reply. RESPONDENT: ... if you find it impossible to answer meaningfully, that’s alright. RICHARD: Why is it ‘alright’ to have devised such an implausible scenario that it cannot be answered meaningfully by your co-respondent? RESPONDENT: I only found out by your response that you could not answer it meaningfully, not before I devised it. RICHARD: Obviously (else you would not have typed it out and clicked ‘send’). RESPONDENT: My ‘alright’ is meant to communicate my understanding of your inability, not an affirmation or negation of the validity of devising my thought experiment. RICHARD: As I clearly state the reason why I cannot provide a meaningful reply – because it is such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) – your equivocation about the validity/invalidity of your ‘thought experiment’ makes your declared understanding of why not appear to be somewhat lacking in substance. You said you devised the scenario so that you could see if the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity a person actually free from the human condition has sex with is important to them ... would it not be simpler to just ask such a person? It sure would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. * RICHARD: Why on earth would you be ‘very much interested in actualism’ if you were to be informed that the enjoyment of kissing a perfumed robot was one of the ... um ... the fringe-benefits of living in this actual world? One does not have to be actually free from the human condition to enjoy something of that nature ... there are many peoples all over the globe who already enjoy sexual activity with plastic/silicone devices/models. RESPONDENT: If you said Yes, I would be interested in actualism because then for me there would be a possibility in transcending this particular pattern of pleasure (which I at present think is based primarily on the mental perception of an other live entity) which is at the centre of my quest. RICHARD: If transcendence is your aim you are at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: Transcendence in the sense of freedom from the human condition. I used the wrong word. Transcendence still assumes/allows the identity. I admit my mistake. If I say ‘freedom from the sexual desire/lust among other animal instincts’ would I be at the right address? RICHARD: Yes ... as you said you devised the (further above) scenario so that you could see if the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity a person actually free from the human condition has sex with is important to them why would there be, for you, a possibility of ‘freedom from the sexual desire/lust among other animal instincts’ if you were to be informed that it was not? And I draw your attention to the following for your consideration:
* RESPONDENT: In what way does the sheer mutuality of the experience (if we exclude the factor of a constant feedback which a robot can also provide) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘constant feedback’ factor to exclude: as the word ‘experience’ refers to a living sentient creature participating personally in events or activities a robot, not being such a creature, cannot experience, period ... let alone have mutual experience (given the word ‘mutual’ refers to experience in common or reciprocal experience). Also, a robot does not become sexually aroused/sexually interested ... any ‘constant feedback’ such as you refer to can only be but a simulated feedback. RESPONDENT: ... [In what way does the sheer mutuality of the experience] heighten the experience? This is my key question regarding sex. RICHARD: As simply as possible then (so as to avoid repetition): it is the lively arousal/ interest – the experiential responsiveness – of another living creature which does. * RESPONDENT: After all, that [indulging in mental imagery] is why people spend so much money on pornographic media. One wants to imagine doing something to another subjectively alive entity. I would find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot. RICHARD: As you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that the enjoyment of kissing a perfumed robot was one of the ... um ... the fringe-benefits of living in this actual world am I to take it that, while imagining having sex with a robot would be quite pathological (according to you), physically having sex with a robot would not be? RESPONDENT: :-) Come on now. RICHARD: I am entirely sincere ... you said if that (if kissing a perfumed robot was enjoyable) were to be so you would be interested in actualism because then, for you, there would be a possibility of freedom from the sexual desire/lust, among other animal instincts, that is the particular pattern of pleasure – which you at present think is based primarily on the mental perception of another subjectively alive entity – that is at the centre of your quest. Yet in your next e-mail you are saying you would find a person imagining having sex with a robot to be quite pathological ... surely it is reasonable to enquire as to what, then, you would find a person physically having sex with a robot to be? RESPONDENT: IF my premise (assumption) that sex is pleasurable only with an alive entity is true, then my statement about pathology would be true as well. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in following your line of thought ... are you saying, in response to my query, that (1) a person physically having sex with a robot is pathological ... or (2) a person physically having sex with a robot is not pathological? Here are my follow-up questions:
RESPONDENT: My thought experiment was to bring out the truth/falsity of my premise. RICHARD: As your ‘thought experiment’ involves an activity of the type you find quite pathological when merely imagined I still cannot comprehend why you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if such an activity were to be enjoyed physically by a flesh and blood body sans identity. * RICHARD: And, furthermore, are you suggesting that all those millions of people, both male and female, who use plastic/ silicone models/ devices are quite pathological? Or are you saying that imagining there to be another subjectively alive entity in the plastic/ silicone model/ device is what is pathological? RESPONDENT: That is pathology for sure. As you say, it is to be twice removed. RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:
Nowhere did I either say that to be twice-removed from actuality is to be pathological – ‘involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness’. (Oxford Dictionary) – or imply that it was ... all I said was that it (indulging in mental imagery ) is quite different from not indulging in it (in mental imagery). * RICHARD: And I ask the last query because, as I understand it (and my understanding is decidedly minimal in this regard), the very reason why necrophiliacs do have sex with dead bodies is because there is no subjectively alive entity in them. RESPONDENT: Necrophiliacs would be classified pathological by current psychiatric standards (e.g. DSM-IV). Pathological (Med.) Morbid; due to disease; abnormal; as, pathological tissue; a pathological condition. (dictionary.com). RICHARD: Indeed they would ... nevertheless my query was not about what psychiatry classifies such persons to be but, rather, to point out that necrophilia occurs for the very reason that there be no subjectively alive entity in a dead body. Thus there is no feedback of either kind ... neither that of a living creature (no sensual responsiveness) nor that of a subjectively alive entity in a living creature (no affective/ psychic rebuffal/ rejection for instance). * RICHARD: ... I do not want any one to merely believe me anyway. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory … and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. The PCE occurs globally … across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. RESPONDENT: Do I have to make an effort to recall a PCE? RICHARD: If my reports/descriptions/explanations do not provide reason to remember (or maybe even triggering a flash-back) probably no amount of effort will do so ... one would, most likely, be but straining in vain. RESPONDENT: I have no clear memory of such an experience. Can I start from where I am ... RICHARD: One can only ever start from where one is currently at. RESPONDENT: ... having a sense of identity which I feel/think intrudes upon actually experiencing the world. Is this feeling/thought of intrusion because of a previous PCE or can it have another basis? RICHARD: It can have another basis. * RESPONDENT: I find the whole distinction between ‘affective anticipation’ and ‘non-affective anticipation’, ‘affective pleasure’ and ‘non-affective pleasure’ quite perplexing. RICHARD: What is ‘perplexing’ (synonyms: confusing, confounding, mystifying, puzzling, bewildering, baffling, impenetrable) about my report that, as I am incapable of having the feeling of excitedly or eagerly looking forward to the future enjoyment of items purchased, for example, it is impossible for me to obtain that kind of pleasure (affective pleasure)? RESPONDENT: Let’s hope it gets clarified with investigation/dialogue. RICHARD: It can be clarified at this very moment (and quite simply at that): the feeling of excitedly or eagerly looking forward to future enjoyment is an affective feeling ... all such pleasure-seeking is affective. RESPONDENT: Can you give an example of non-affective anticipation? RICHARD: Sure ... looking forward to the future enjoyment, of the items purchased whilst shopping, sans the feeling of excitedly or eagerly doing so is non-affective anticipation. RESPONDENT: Would it an anticipation devoid of any seeking of pleasure etc? RICHARD: It would be an anticipation devoid of the pleasure-seeker (identity in toto). RESPONDENT: E.g. anticipating that the train comes at its appointed time of 0830? RICHARD: As it is impossible to be hedonistic (aka a pleasure-seeker) * RICHARD: ... Mr. Gotama the Sakyan only extinguished the shallower part of the identity (the thinker) which allowed the deeper part (the feeler) to expand unchecked into the fullness of its being. RESPONDENT: Are you sure that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan only meant extinguishing of the ego and not of the soul as well? RICHARD: I am indeed sure that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan only extinguished the shallower part of the identity (the thinker) which allowed the deeper part (the feeler) to expand unchecked into the fullness of its being. RESPONDENT: What makes you certain? RICHARD: I lived that/was that (popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment), night and day, for eleven years. RESPONDENT: I understand. But how do you know that the enlightenment you experienced was the same as that the Buddha experienced ... RICHARD: In a word: experientially. RESPONDENT: ... especially since there is no first-hand account of Buddha’s enlightenment. Almost all the sutras were written second-hand. RICHARD: Aye ... yet even those second-hand sutras describe Mr. Gotama the Sakyan as being a feeling being – the words ‘karuna’ (pity-compassion) and ‘metta’ (loving-kindness) indicate the essentially affective nature of his enlightenment/ awakening – just as all enlightened/ awakened/ illuminated/ self-realised beings are. The very state of being popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment is an affective state of being.
RESPONDENT: Suppose you are licking the lips of your girlfriend. Suppose she leaves and a robot takes her place. You still have your eyes closed. The robot’s lips feel just as warm wet and soft and it is wearing the perfume your girlfriend wears. Only the lips of the robot are touching your lips, no other body parts are touching. Suppose further that the robot actively kisses you for ten more minutes and then suddenly it makes a clanking noise and you open your eyes and see that it is a robot. Would you still be able to close your eyes, and enjoy the kiss? (snip) RICHARD: You said you devised the [above] scenario so that you could see if the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity a person actually free from the human condition has sex with is important to them ... would it not be simpler to just ask such a person? It sure would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. RESPONDENT: That is exactly what I did: I asked you to imagine a scenario in which the other entity was not alive. RICHARD: If I may point out? Asking another to ‘imagine a scenario in which the other entity was not alive’ is not even nearly the same as just asking if the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity they have sex with is important to them ... let alone ‘exactly’ doing that. Apart from that ... what is the point of asking a person sans the imaginative/intuitive facility to ‘imagine’ something – anything at all – when they have just before (in fact 7 hours and 42 minutes before) made clear, in no uncertain terms, that such a thing is impossible? Viz.:
I cannot see how I can be more clear than that. RESPONDENT: Then you mentioned the importance of feedback. RICHARD: It was not ‘then’ – it was the e-mail before – and this is what I actually wrote:
Far from merely mentioning it I detailed how there is (1) much more to sensate experience than the absence of visual sensing and the occurrence of gustatorial sensing ... and (2) provided a rather simple example to demonstrate the distinction between the sensate experience of insentience (inanimate irresponsiveness) and of sentience (animate responsiveness) ... and (3) specifically referred to this sentient responsiveness (experiential liveliness) as the lively feed-back – the arousal, for instance, or the interest – of another living creature (thus providing two instances and not just barely saying ‘feedback’ as you make out) ... and (4) stressed that sex and sexuality (in the given context of cunnilingus) is a mutual experience. Whereas in the scenario you then followed-up with (at the top of this page) in your next e-mail you (1)
proposed a sensate experience reduced to lips-only tactility and a bottled-perfume olfaction ... and (2) provided no evidence of
an awareness of the distinction between the sensate experience of inanimate responsiveness and of experiential liveliness (all
there was to be was a warm, wet, and soft sensation on the lips) ... and (3) gave no indication of sensual and/or sexual arousal
and interest ... and (4) conflated programmed automata RESPONDENT: So I included responsiveness as a capability of the other entity (still mechanical/heuristic, not alive). RICHARD: Hmm ... and does saying that the robot [quote] ‘actively kisses’ [endquote] constitute a responsiveness, then (according to you), that is equivalent to the lively osculation of the girlfriend in your scenario? May I ask? Have you ever kissed a robot immediately following upon kissing a girlfriend? Speaking personally, I have never had osculatory experience with a robot in any circumstance – either with eyes open or closed – and have no intention of ever doing so yet it does not take a genius to suss out that no matter how much one might do so there would never, ever, be any lively feed-back (the arousal, for instance, or the interest, of another living creature) ... there will be no demonstrably-experiential compliancy of tender lip-tissue, no bodily aromas, no inhaled/ exhaled breath, no appreciative sounds, no blood pulsing, no labial engorgement, no proximate warmth, no salivary secretions, no stimulating pheromones, and so on ... and no mutual escalation of arousal/ interest. Also, there surely would be quite a distinction between the sensation on the lips of similarly tactile and erogenous live-tissue and the sensation of a dissimilar (non-tactile) and non-erogenic simulated-lip substance ... there is more to sensation than the absence of visual sensing and the occurrence of a lips-only tactility and a bottled-perfume olfaction. Much more. RESPONDENT: A simple yes or no would provide an answer ... RICHARD: Your scenario was so implausible – if only because of the eyes-closed, hands-off/lips-only, ten-minute-long nature of the supposed osculation – that it could not be answered at all ... let alone with a simple yes or no. May I ask? Have you ever kissed a girlfriend with eyes closed, with no other bodily contact than pursed lips, for ten minutes? RESPONDENT: ... but would not further my understanding of the issue. RICHARD: Your apparent lack of comprehension is why I suggested that you simply ask whether the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity a person actually free from the human condition has sex with is important to them ... instead of which your response is to try to make out that this is exactly what you did by asking them to ‘imagine a scenario in which the other entity was not alive’. RESPONDENT: But if you are tired of the subject, just say so. RICHARD: I am far from losing interest and, as I am already actually free from the human condition, it matters not one jot to me personally what you choose to fritter away a vital opportunity on anyway ... if you do not want to simply ask whether the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity such a person has sex with is important to them or not but, rather, to continue on instead with your imaginative approach then that is your business. * (snip) RESPONDENT: In what way does the sheer mutuality of the experience (if we exclude the factor of a constant feedback which a robot can also provide) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘constant feedback’ factor to exclude: as the word ‘experience’ refers to a living sentient creature participating personally in events or activities a robot, not being such a creature, cannot experience, period ... let alone have mutual experience (given the word ‘mutual’ refers to experience in common or reciprocal experience). Also, a robot does not become sexually aroused/ sexually interested ... any ‘constant feedback’ such as you refer to can only be but a simulated feedback. RESPONDENT: ... [In what way does the sheer mutuality of the experience] heighten the experience? This is my key question regarding sex. RICHARD: As simply as possible then (so as to avoid repetition): it is the lively arousal/interest – the experiential responsiveness – of another living creature which does. RESPONDENT: Again you are not seeing the real question I am asking. RICHARD: Oh, I am well aware of the real question you are asking (it is expressly asked – and answered – in the section you snipped above this section) and have been since your very first e-mail. RESPONDENT: How does it matter to the ‘senses’ whether or not the other entity is experiencing or not ... RICHARD: Whilst the senses may be an adjunct – or an accessory as it were – to the identity within the body one is the senses in actuality ... thus it matters in an intimate manner. RESPONDENT: [How does it matter to the ‘senses’ whether or not the other entity is experiencing or not], as long as you get a sophisticated enough feedback? RICHARD: Put simply: a simulated feed-back, no matter how sophisticated, is still just that (a simulation) and not actual. RESPONDENT: To whom is this ‘lively arousal/interest’ – the ‘experiential responsiveness – of another living creature’ important (adjectives emphasized)? RICHARD: It is not a question of ‘to whom’ but, rather, to what ... to a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. RESPONDENT: Surely not to the senses. RICHARD: As a person apperceptively aware is the sense organs your ‘surely not’ demonstrates a disinclination to take into account what is on offer on both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (as was demonstrated in the previous e-mails where I repeatedly drew your attention to what has already been written) while composing your response. RESPONDENT: They are basking in the glory of the stimuli/responses. RICHARD: You have used the word ‘glory’ before in a similar context:
Are you using the word pejoratively or complimentarily? * RESPONDENT: After all, that [indulging in mental imagery] is why people spend so much money on pornographic media. One wants to imagine doing something to another subjectively alive entity. I would find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot. RICHARD: As you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that the enjoyment of kissing a perfumed robot was one of the ... um ... the fringe-benefits of living in this actual world am I to take it that, while imagining having sex with a robot would be quite pathological (according to you), physically having sex with a robot would not be? RESPONDENT: This ‘fringe benefits’ phrase is your paraphrasing. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... and, although I could have paraphrased it in several other ways (as indicated by the ‘... um ...’ hesitation), it does serve to emphasise that obtaining enjoyment by kissing a perfumed robot in no way typifies the main benefit of being ‘very much’ interested in actualism, does it not? RESPONDENT: ‘If you say yes, I would be very much interested in actualism’ was a colloquialism on my part. RICHARD: So? Whether one says they would be ‘very much’ interested in actualism either in a conversational/familiar way of speaking or in a formal/elevated manner of speech the effect is still the same, is it not? RESPONDENT: I meant that I would (based on my then understanding) consider it remarkable if sex (for a sufficiently mature/ intelligent human being) was only a sensate experience without concomitant mental processes to enhance the pleasure. RICHARD: Okay ... then what you are now saying you meant would look something like this in context:
How saying that you would find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot really meant that you would consider it remarkable if sex, sans mental processes to enhance the pleasure, was only a sensate experience not only baffles comprehension but goes someway towards shedding light upon why I am having some difficulty in following your line of thought (below) where, apparently, your ‘quite pathological’ observation still means just that ... and not your (above) revision where it means ‘remarkable’. Incidentally, your ‘then understanding’ was, according to you, that the concomitant mental process is what the pleasure is based on (and not an enhancement of it). Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: After all, that [indulging in mental imagery] is why people spend so much money on pornographic media. One wants to imagine doing something to another subjectively alive entity. I would find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot. RICHARD: As you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that the enjoyment of kissing a perfumed robot was one of the ... um ... the fringe-benefits of living in this actual world am I to take it that, while imagining having sex with a robot would be quite pathological (according to you), physically having sex with a robot would not be? RESPONDENT: :-) Come on now. RICHARD: I am entirely sincere ... you said if that (if kissing a perfumed robot was enjoyable) were to be so you would be interested in actualism because then, for you, there would be a possibility of freedom from the sexual desire/lust, among other animal instincts, that is the particular pattern of pleasure – which you at present think is based primarily on the mental perception of another subjectively alive entity – that is at the centre of your quest. Yet in your next e-mail you are saying you would find a person imagining having sex with a robot to be quite pathological ... surely it is reasonable to enquire as to what, then, you would find a person physically having sex with a robot to be? RESPONDENT: IF my premise (assumption) that sex is pleasurable only with an alive entity is true, then my statement about pathology would be true as well. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in following your line of thought ... are you saying, in response to my query, that (1) a person physically having sex with a robot is pathological ... or (2) a person physically having sex with a robot is not pathological? RESPONDENT: A person having sex with a robot is normal if sensory experience (with feedback et al) is all that is important to him. A person having sex with a robot is abnormal/ pathological if he inwardly desires the subjectivity of his sexual partner and imagines it to be so in the act with the robot. RICHARD: I see ... so where you said [quote] ‘I would find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote] then what you were intending would look something like this if spelled-out in full:
Or:
If so, and as sexual fantasy of that very kind plays a prominent role in the sexual pleasure of more than a few of all those millions of people, both male and female, who use plastic/ silicone models/ devices, are you suggesting that those peoples are quite pathological? * RICHARD: Here are my follow-up questions: 1. If you are saying a person physically having sex with a robot is pathological then why on earth would you be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if kissing a perfumed robot was enjoyable in this actual world? (...) RESPONDENT: Because the answer would make it (intellectually) clear to me that in the actual world pleasure is only sensate, it is not overlapped/concomitant with mentation. RICHARD: Are you aware that what you are saying is, in effect, that your intellectual clarity requires a person in the actual world to be able to enjoy robotic sex before it would be convinced that sexual pleasure is not based on mentation (aka mental perception/evaluation)? Can you not see how absurd this is? RESPONDENT: My thought experiment is not to be taken in isolation. RICHARD: As nothing I wrote can be construed as me indeed taking your ‘thought experiment’ in isolation this can only be a gratuitous comment. RESPONDENT: If mentation is absent in the sexual act for an actualist, that is well nigh an indication for me that in the domain of pleasure in the actual world, the mind (in the form of thought and imagination) has finally been rendered unnecessary. RICHARD: Hmm ... so unnecessary, perchance, that ‘the sexual act for an actualist’ is to be equally as enjoyable with a robot as it is with a living creature? RESPONDENT: My experiment is a device to understand the mechanism of hedonic sexual pleasure. RICHARD: You made no ‘experiment’ (as in a practical test or trial) ... you imagined an empirically implausible scenario and classified it as a ‘thought experiment’ – from the German ‘gedankenexperimenten’ made popular by Mr. Ernst Mach in 1897 – and have remained convinced ever since of its validity as a means of conducting an investigation (else why devote an entire e-mail to it and its ramifications). RESPONDENT: To explore in what way does the mind interfere/intrude in seeking and experiencing pleasure, especially sexual pleasure. RICHARD: In which case perhaps you should conduct it with those that operate under ‘the mechanism
of hedonic sexual pleasure’ Quite simply: it is wasted on me ... having no imaginative/intuitive facility I can only ever be practical, pragmatic, sensible and matter-of-fact. * RESPONDENT: My thought experiment was to bring out the truth/falsity of my premise [that sex is pleasurable only with an alive entity]. RICHARD: As your ‘thought experiment’ involves an activity of the type you find quite pathological when merely imagined I still cannot comprehend why you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if such an activity were to be enjoyed physically by a flesh and blood body sans identity. RESPONDENT: It would be pathological (in my opinion) if it were to be an imaginative/actual device for merely seeking imagination-laced pleasure without seeking understanding/freedom, as for a robophiliac (new term). RICHARD: As you are referring to your [quote] ‘thought experiment’ [endquote] there is no ‘actual device’ ... it is an imaginative device. RESPONDENT: It is not pathological if it is a imaginative/actual device for investigation in a thought/actual experiment on hedonism + subjectivity. RICHARD: Again ... what ‘actual experiment’ are you referring to? RESPONDENT: In an experiment or debate/discussion as we are having, it is merely a device to bring out the mental state of a human engaged in this one of the central pleasant acts of life. Do you get it now? RICHARD: No ... and that is because there is nothing of substance to get in the above attempt to make out that an imaginative scenario can somehow qualify (presumably by first classifying it as a ‘thought experiment’ and then dropping the word ‘thought’ along the way) as being an actual experiment/an actual device without any practical test or trial. * RICHARD: And, furthermore, are you suggesting that all those millions of people, both male and female, who use plastic/silicone models/devices are quite pathological? Or are you saying that imagining there to be another subjectively alive entity in the plastic/silicone model/device is what is pathological? And I ask the last query because, as I understand it (and my understanding is decidedly minimal in this regard), the very reason why necrophiliacs do have sex with dead bodies is because there is no subjectively alive entity in them. RESPONDENT: Necrophiliacs would be classified pathological by current psychiatric standards (e.g. DSM-IV). Pathological (Med.) Morbid; due to disease; abnormal; as, pathological tissue; a pathological condition. (dictionary.com). RICHARD: Indeed they would ... nevertheless my query was not about what psychiatry classifies such persons to be but, rather, to point out that necrophilia occurs for the very reason that there be no subjectively alive entity in a dead body. Thus there is no feedback of either kind ... neither that of a living creature (no sensual responsiveness) nor that of a subjectively alive entity in a living creature (no affective/ psychic rebuffal/ rejection for instance). RESPONDENT: Well, such an activity can have other reasons. Some complex, some fear of interaction with an alive entity, an abnormal liking for the smell of decomposition, etc. Since I do not know what goes on in the minds of necrophiliacs, speculation is pointless. RICHARD: Then why bring up the topic in the first place? Viz.:
Surely you made that observation to illustrate your point, made immediately before it, about imagining [quote] ‘doing something to another subjectively alive entity’ [endquote] ... why be so coy now? RESPONDENT: However, it would be interesting to have a dialogue with an intelligent necrophiliac. RICHARD: Perhaps you could present an other-way-around version of your imaginative scenario to them (as in an eyes-closed, hands-off/lips-only, osculation with a perfumed dead body only to have it replaced with an eyes-closed, hands-off/lips-only, ten-minute lip-to-lip marathon with a perfumed and (admittedly obliging) pre-chilled girlfriend)? Of course her demonstrably-experiential compliancy of tender lip-tissue, her bodily aromas, her inhaled/exhaled breath, her appreciative sounds, her blood pulsing, her labial engorgement, her (eventual) proximate warmth, her salivary secretions, her stimulating pheromones, and so on, would give the game away but ... !hey! ... such (apparently irrelevant) empirical details as those did not stop you from presenting it to me, now did it? RESPONDENT: In that sense I was interested in actualism (in other words, in having a dialogue with an intelligent actualist who (I thought) was claiming, in other words, that sensate pleasure is all that there is to pleasure in the actual world). RICHARD: If both presenting an implausible scenario and persisting with it long after its use-by date qualifies as having an intelligent dialogue then please advise when it deteriorates into being an unintelligent one as it is somewhat tricky, at this stage at least, to discern the difference. Incidentally, I changed the title of this e-mail (from ‘She, Robot’ to ‘It, Robot’) as no robot, not being a living creature, has any such gender.
RESPONDENT: In that sense [not knowing what goes on in the minds of intelligent necrophiliacs] I was interested in actualism (in other words, in having a dialogue with an intelligent actualist who (I thought) was claiming, in other words, that sensate pleasure is all that there is to pleasure in the actual world). RICHARD: If both presenting an implausible scenario and persisting with it long after its use-by date qualifies as having an intelligent dialogue then please advise when it deteriorates into being an unintelligent one as it is somewhat tricky, at this stage at least, to discern the difference. RESPONDENT: I think the thread has degenerated into nit-picking now, with doubts as to whether it is an intelligent conversation at this stage. RICHARD: I cannot see how my clearly enunciated reason (above) for requesting advice as to what
constitutes an intelligent dialogue (according to you) can be construed as (1) the thread having only now degenerated in its
subject matter as I was immediately up-front about your imaginative scenario being implausible when you first presented it in your
third e-mail ... and (2) being nitpicking You even say yourself (further below) that the results of your imaginative ‘thought-experiment’ can only be speculative, not actual. If you were to look again at what I was responding to (at the top of this page) you will see you had said it was in the sense of not knowing what goes on in the mind of an actualist that you were interested in actualism ... hence given that, even though it had been made abundantly clear an imaginative scenario would not and could not (by its very nature) elicit such knowing for you, you were futilely persisting with a fanciful, and thus fruitless method of investigation, there was every reason to enquire as to just what constituted intelligent dialogue. Surely the person that does know what goes on in such a mind is better placed to know what a factual, and thus fruitful, method of investigation is, eh? RESPONDENT: I do think you have said all that you could say on the subject, and I am grateful for that. RICHARD: Oh, there is more I could say on the subject of the thread itself (pleasure) but I can easily agree I have nothing more to say on the subject you shifted it into (your imaginative scenario). RESPONDENT: A thought-experiment such as the one I proposed requires imagination and even then the results can only be speculative, not actual. RICHARD: And therein lies the nub of the issue: the focus of this mailing list is on facts and actuality – in everyday situations and events – and not on imaginative scenarios and any speculations derived thereof. RESPONDENT: So, it has at best, a limited utility. RICHARD: An implausible scenario can only have an implausible utility. RESPONDENT: I do think we are now flogging a dead horse at this stage of the discussion (no pun intended). RICHARD: As I was immediately up-front about your imaginative scenario being implausible when you first presented it in your third e-mail I do look askance at your ascription to me (as in your ‘we’ phrasing) of playing a part in trying to whip life into something that was dead in the water from the get-go. What is odd about all this – given that you said you devised your imaginative scenario so that you could see if the presence of ‘life’ in the physical entity a person actually free from the human condition has sex with is important to them – is that (1) all that had to be done was just straight-out ask such a person whether it was ... and (2) it had been expressly asked, and answered, in the very same e-mail it was first presented in anyway (which section I not only re-presented two e-mails ago but drew your attention to one e-mail ago). Oh well ... c’est la vie (in the human condition), I guess.
RESPONDENT: I searched for a focussed discussion on telepathy on the AF website but couldn’t find much. One of my friends has asked the following question of Richard: ‘Does this man has anything to say about people who can supposedly perform ‘supernatural’ feats. Let us say somebody tells you that you were so and so in your previous birth and then you can go and verify those details for yourself by travelling to those places? Or someone tells you details about your life in this birth which you yourself remember but which the other one would have no way of knowing (there is something called ‘naadi jyotish’ which does this). RICHARD: The few times I have looked-up the subject of ‘supernatural feats’ such as you speak of – and there are plenty of instances to look at – it has always turned out to have been fraudulent ... as I have no expertise on the subject, nor have any intention of gaining any, you may find the following to be of interest:
And there are many other people, who have also made it their business to investigate ‘supernatural feats’ such as you speak of, as well.
RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: That it [the company of a woman] is a privilege etc. RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ is, in fact, none other than delight (see immediately below). RESPONDENT: But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist. RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:
Nowhere did I say that it is something which ‘adds value’ to my life (thus belying that this actual world is perfect) ... and the odd thing is that all what is required is to just simply ask me, if it be not obvious, what I mean by it being a privilege to be living with a female companion. Just look at what your e-mail brought forth:
And on and on it went ... here is your latest:
It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/ love/ adoration, no empathy/ sympathy/ commiseration, no high-paying career/ house/ car/ money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/magnetism/radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/awakenment/self-realisation through an intense master/ disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Viz.:
And:
* RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to:
I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract):
Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends:
I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. * RESPONDENT: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same. RICHARD: May I ask? What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you?
CORRESPONDENT No. 74 (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 |
