|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 4
RESPONDENT: Matter is an ‘externalization’ of consciousness. The root meaning of the word ‘exist’ is ‘to stand out of’. Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative, which means that matter is empty, transparent, without longevity. What ‘stands out’ must inevitably ‘return’. RESPONDENT No. 12: Yes, well said, thanks. RESPONDENT: Thank you. RICHARD As it is shoddy such adolescent simpering is barely risible. This is what is ‘well said, thanks’ :
How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place (other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says it does)? Second, given that this ‘brief movement’ then ‘stands out’ as the universe, replete with a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem, what is it about the nature of this ‘energy without boundaries’ that it does that (rather than people it with humans epitomised by peace and harmony)? Third, what needs to happen so that it ceases ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by malice and sorrow and starts ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by happiness and harmlessness? Lastly, what is it about the nature of this ‘energy without boundaries’ that there is the need for something to happen, via places such as this Mailing List, to turn it into a happy and harmless ‘energy without boundaries’ anyway (why cannot this ‘energy without boundaries’ get its own act together seeing that, in stark contrast to the limited abilities of what has been called ‘one dimensional conceptual scientists’, it is capable of ‘standing out’ as an entire universe in the first place)? Especially seeing that both of you have previously described this ‘timeless energy without boundaries’ as being the supreme intelligence? ‘Tis a strange activity for a supreme intelligence to be indulging in, non?
RESPONDENT: Matter is an ‘externalization’ of consciousness. The root meaning of the word ‘exist’ is ‘to stand out of’. Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative, which means that matter is empty, transparent, without longevity. What ‘stands out’ must inevitably ‘return’. RESPONDENT No. 12: Yes, well said, thanks. RESPONDENT: Thank you. RICHARD: As it is shoddy such adolescent simpering is barely risible. This is what is ‘well said, thanks’: [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...? RESPONDENT: First of all, naturally when it is not you that is being thanked for something, that heroic, ‘dammit, they’re not worshipping me’ sense is outraged and the need to attack automatically projects itself. RICHARD: If I may ask? As I have no need for thanks whatsoever, and thus being ‘heroic’ or ‘worshipped’ never enters the picture, then from whence is your epic scenario sourced? RESPONDENT: Secondly, nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens, so while that happening may be the action that is their lives, it would be folly to try to explain ‘how’, although one may attempt to what is seen into words – as you also do. RICHARD: Overlooking what looks remarkably like a gratuitous put-down towards the end of your response (so as to cobble-together some remnants of a mutual communication) what I get is that, although you are wont to ‘sing the song’ that comes to you (which song itself is worthless but what informs it, you assure others, is not), when it comes singing about the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song, the singing is remarkably unforthcoming. Am I adequately understanding the attenuated character of the song which you sing? If so, the song you sing seems to be a song of ignorance (‘ignorance’ as in a lack of insight and not a lack of knowledge). RESPONDENT: Of course you present your words as emanations of some ‘self-immolated’ body, which, as I see it, may be just as other-worldly and adolescently simpering as what you imagine another’s words to be. RICHARD: Yet as the imaginative faculty does not exist in a ‘‘self-immolated’ body’ your diagnosis is rendered null and void before it even gets off the ground. * RICHARD: [How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’ , in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place] other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says it does? RESPONDENT: Why this continual obsession with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? RICHARD: If I may point out? To respond to a communication from a fellow human being by assuming that one knows that the other has a ‘continual obsession’ (apart from being totally inaccurate) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: He did his thing, you do yours, I do mine, and others do theirs. RICHARD: Aye ... and one of the things that I do not do, when I do my thing, is I do not propose that there is a ‘movement’ in some timeless and spaceless and formless energy which emerges, gives rise to, emanates as, gives birth to, creates or otherwise ‘stands out’ as this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe. What I am getting at is that my thing bears no resemblance whatsoever to either Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s thing or your thing. RESPONDENT: You ought to get that image of Mr. K out of your mind. RICHARD: If I may point out? To respond to a communication from a fellow human being by assuming that one knows that the other has an ‘image’ in their mind (apart from being totally inaccurate) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: Obsession is a bad example for one who believes he has risen above such limitations, to exhibit. RICHARD: If I may point out? To conclude with a homily based upon an assumption in regards the other (apart from being totally irrelevant) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. * RICHARD: Second, given that this ‘brief movement’ then ‘stands out’ as the universe, replete with a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem, what is it about the nature of this ‘energy without boundaries’ that it does that (rather than people it with humans epitomised by peace and harmony)? RESPONDENT: First, it is not repleted with the planet earth. It is repleted with everything else that comprises what is observed to be, and termed ‘the universe’. RICHARD: If I may point out? To chop a fellow human being’s sentence in half, which has the effect of changing the meaning of what is being communicated, apart from making your response totally irrelevant contributes zilch to a mutual communication. I did not say that it was ‘replete with a planet earth’ ... I specifically said that it was ‘replete with a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem’. The word ‘replete’ means sated, full up, satisfied and so on ... by which I was indicating that the ‘brief movement’ that ‘stands out’ as the universe might very well have been sated or satisfied with manifesting only one planet in the universe which it was ‘standing out’ on as miserable and malicious human beings (I was erring on the side of being generous). But, as you now have indicated that you lack insight into the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song you sing then you obviously cannot sing about whether the ‘brief movement’ that ‘stands out’ as the universe might very well be also ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully elsewhere, eh? RESPONDENT: You ask what is the nature of this ‘energy without boundaries’ that makes it produce insane people. It also produces diseases and illnesses throughout nature. For example, sickle-cell anaemia was not originally a disease, but a creative action of the body which helped it to survive adverse circumstances in the environment. But as other circumstances arose, what was originally an ingenious solution became a hazard. RICHARD: If I may ask? I am aware that your ‘sickle-cell anaemia’ example is an analogy ... but your analogy seems to be indicating that misery and mayhem were ‘originally an ingenious solution’ that has now ‘become a hazard’. If so, what intrigues me is how the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing can inform the song that misery and mayhem could be ‘an ingenious solution’ – to a problem which it ‘originally’ caused – when it cannot inform the song you sing of other information such as why this ‘brief movement of energy’ , in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place? This is especially relevant as the circumstances, which the song sings of as being ‘as other circumstances arose’, are nothing other than circumstances that arose as a ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. In case it is not clear what I am getting at is that this song which you are singing to me is what is called a circular argument elsewhere ... sometimes indistinguishable from a tautology. RESPONDENT: That whole movement is part of the creativity of nature. RICHARD: Again ... the ‘creativity of nature’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. RESPONDENT: It is the human being who projects onto that action some opinion or belief about ‘how’, etc. RICHARD: Also ... the ‘human being who projects’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. And, as the ‘opinion or belief about ‘how’, etc.’ is also nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing, this not-worthless nature is starting to look rather worthless. RESPONDENT: The human body is presently experiencing the disease of self-centeredness. RICHARD: Similarly ... the ‘human body’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. And, as the experiencing of ‘the disease of self-centeredness’ is also nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing, this not-worthless nature is starting to look even more worthless. RESPONDENT: The same creativity of nature which has inadvertently given rise to this dis-ease, as part of the evolution of the human body, is capable of completing the development of the body out of its present disease. RICHARD: Aye ... and that ‘which has inadvertently given rise to this dis-ease’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. And the ‘evolution of the human body’ is also nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. Plus that which is ‘capable of completing the development of the body out of its present disease’ is likewise nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing. Put together, this not-worthless nature is looking more and more worthless by the minute. RESPONDENT: I’m sure you know that, as you have expounded many times the ‘immolation’ of that disease in your own body. RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not propose that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing is a supreme intelligence going through incredible contortions to apportion all the blame, for it ‘standing out’ as malicious and sorrowful human beings in the first place, onto the very human beings it is busy ‘standing out’ as. RESPONDENT: Whether that is so or not for you is beyond my field of interest. RICHARD: Surely you are not singing to me the song which sings that your ‘field of interest’ does not include an interest in your fellow human being’s comprehension of your song’s contribution to a mutual communication? Otherwise you give the impression that you are singing (or talking or writing) just for the sake of singing (or hearing your own voice or seeing your own words in print) irregardless of both its lack of insightful content and its subsequent comprehension? * RICHARD: Third, what needs to happen so that it ceases ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by malice and sorrow and starts ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by happiness and harmlessness? RESPONDENT: There is nothing that ‘needs’ to happen. RICHARD: Except that you go on (just below) to sing to me the song which sings what does indeed need to happen. RESPONDENT: When a human being begins to realize that he/she IS the disease of malice and sorrow, that human being will do everything possible to completely understand that disease, regardless of whatever fears are there. RICHARD: Do you not see that if a human being does not begin to realise that ‘he/she IS the disease of malice and sorrow’ then they will never, ever ‘do everything possible to completely understand that disease, regardless of whatever fears are there’? Do you also not see that if this does not happen then all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides will go on forever and a day? Do you now see that something indeed needs to happen so that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing ceases ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by malice and sorrow and starts ‘standing out’ as humans epitomised by happiness and harmlessness? Or are you suggesting that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing does not have any need to care about all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? If so, then that is the very proof which demonstrates its worthless nature. * RICHARD: Lastly, what is it about the nature of this ‘energy without boundaries’ that there is the need for something to happen, via places such as this Mailing List, to turn it into a happy and harmless ‘energy without boundaries’ anyway ...? RESPONDENT: There may be a contradiction in terms in what you’re saying. In the first place, this ‘energy without boundaries’ would probably have no ‘need for something to happen, via places such as this mailing list’, given that such energy would not be limited AS need. RICHARD: Surely you are not singing to me the song which sings that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing does not see the need for something to happen, via places such as this Mailing List, to turn it into a happy and harmless ‘energy without boundaries’? Then again, maybe you are singing to me the song which sings that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing does not have any need to care about all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides after all? RESPONDENT: But I understand your desire to express your dis-satisfaction with Listening-1, and your method of misconstruing what is said in order to publicly display your dis-satisfaction. RICHARD: If I may point out? To respond to a communication from a fellow human being by assuming that one knows that the other has a ‘desire to express dis-satisfaction with Listening-l’ (apart from being totally inaccurate) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. Also, may I point out that by assuming that one knows that the other has a ‘method of misconstruing what is said in order to publicly display their dis-satisfaction’ (apart from also being totally inaccurate) also contributes zilch to a mutual communication? * RICHARD: Why cannot this ‘energy without boundaries’ get its own act together seeing that, in stark contrast to the limited abilities of what has been called ‘one dimensional conceptual scientists’, it is capable of ‘standing out’ as an entire universe in the first place? Especially seeing that both of you have previously described this timeless energy without boundaries as being the supreme intelligence? RESPONDENT: I might ask you the same questions. What makes you think your ‘act’ is together? RICHARD: If I may point out? It is not the ‘same questions’ at all as the song which you are singing indicates that the ‘energy without boundaries’ cannot get its own act together (which is quite odd because, in stark contrast to the limited abilities of what has been called ‘one dimensional conceptual scientists’, it is capable of ‘standing out’ as an entire universe in the first place) ... whereas I do not propose that there is a ‘movement’ in some timeless and spaceless and formless energy which emerges, gives rise to, emanates as, gives birth to, creates or otherwise ‘stands out’ as this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe. RESPONDENT: I have no evidence that you are any ‘flesh and blood, self-immolated’ creature. RICHARD: If I may point out? An unsolicited character analysis that looks remarkably like a put-down (apart from being totally inaccurate) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: And, frankly, I don’t care. RICHARD: Surely you are not singing to me the song which sings that you ‘don’t care’ about your fellow human being’s well-being? RESPONDENT: Your self-belief is your own ... RICHARD: If I may point out? To respond to a communication from a fellow human being by assuming that one knows that the other has a ‘self-belief’ (apart from being totally inaccurate) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: ... and you have every right to believe what you do. RICHARD: If I may point out? To conclude with a ‘right’ based upon an assumption in regards the other (apart from being totally irrelevant) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: But inasmuch as I have no desire to take another’s self-belief as my authority ... RICHARD: If I may point out? To come to a conclusion based upon an assumption in regards the other (apart from being totally irrelevant) contributes zilch to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: ... you will understand ‘how’ I don’t consider your own words as anything other than mailing list postings. RICHARD: Surely you are not singing to me the song which sings that you ‘don’t consider’ your fellow human being’s communication to be anything other than ... um ... disembodied pixels on a computer monitor screen? Surely you care even if that which informs the song which you sing does not? * RICHARD: ‘Tis a strange activity for a supreme intelligence to be indulging in, non? RESPONDENT: What is truly strange is this dishonest tendency to mangle another’s words in order to make them seem to be what you want them to seem to be. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... is this your way of saying that the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing is not a supreme intelligence after all? RESPONDENT: Take care. RICHARD: It is already always carefree here in this actual world where matter is actual and non-material consciousness non-existent. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Is it not fascinating that nobody has ever been successfully able to explain why their God (a timeless and spaceless and formless Consciousness or Energy by Whatever Name) creates and/or created evil in the first place? This is true for anyone who holds a religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical view that affirms the following three propositions:
As evil exists (no matter who creates and/or created it), then either this god (by whatever name) wants to eliminate evil and is not able to – thus he/she/it is not (1) almighty – or that this god (by whatever name) is able to eliminate evil but does not choose to ... and thus he/she/it is not (2) perfectly good. The eastern metaphysics, for example, attempt to solve this dilemma by denying that (3) evil exists (a head-in-the-sand approach) whereas western metaphysics attempt to side-step the issue by denying that the creator god (by whatever name) created evil ... thus implying he/she/it is not (1) almighty. O what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to believe, eh?
RICHARD: <snip> This is what is ‘well said, thanks’: [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...? RESPONDENT: <snip> ... nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens, so while that happening may be the action that is their lives, it would be folly to try to explain ‘how’, although one may attempt to [put] what is seen into words ... RICHARD: <snip> ... what I get is that, although you are wont to ‘sing the song’ that comes to you (which song itself is worthless but what informs it, you assure others, is not), when it comes singing about the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song, the singing is remarkably unforthcoming. Am I adequately understanding the attenuated character of the song which you sing? RESPONDENT: <snip> ... ‘What [you] get’ is up to what you want to see. If you see something as remarkably unforthcoming, that is entirely up to you. Also, what you think you understand is your affair. Why should I be concerned with that? RICHARD: I have snipped out most of what I consider extraneous in this post because I am sincerely interested in pursuing this question (all that ‘zilch’ business was to emphasise how non-conducive to a mutual discussion it is to impute motives in the other that simply are not there). And ‘what I got’ came directly from your answer to my very clear query:
Again I ask: am I adequately understanding the attenuated character of the song which you sing? * RICHARD: If so, the song you sing seems to be a song of ignorance (‘ignorance’ as in a lack of insight and not a lack of knowledge). RESPONDENT: <snip> ... Ignorance is, as you say, a lack of insight ...<snip> RICHARD: Again I have snipped what I consider extraneous because I am sincerely interested in pursuing this question. I will put it this way:
I only ask because such an insight is fundamental to the issue of misery and mayhem continuing to manifest on this otherwise fair planet.
RICHARD: <snip> This is what is ‘well said, thanks’: [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...? RESPONDENT: <snip> ... nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens, so while that happening may be the action that is their lives, it would be folly to try to explain ‘how’, although one may attempt to [put] what is seen into words ... RICHARD: <snip>... what I get is that, although you are wont to ‘sing the song’ that comes to you (which song itself is worthless but what informs it, you assure others, is not), when it comes singing about the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song, the singing is remarkably unforthcoming. Am I adequately understanding the attenuated character of the song which you sing? RESPONDENT: <snip> ... ‘What [you] get’ is up to what you want to see. If you see something as remarkably unforthcoming, that is entirely up to you. Also, what you think you understand is your affair. Why should I be concerned with that? RICHARD: I have snipped out most of what I consider extraneous in this post because I am sincerely interested in pursuing this question (all that ‘zilch’ business was to emphasise how non-conducive to a mutual discussion it is to impute motives in the other that simply are not there). And ‘what I got’ came directly from your answer to my very clear query: [Richard]: ‘How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...?’. [Respondent]: ‘... nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens, so while that happening may be the action that is their lives, it would be folly to try to explain ‘how’. [Richard]: ‘... what I get is that ... when it comes singing about the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song, the singing is remarkably unforthcoming’. Again I ask: am I adequately understanding the attenuated character of the song which you sing? RESPONDENT: You say that the singing is remarkably unforthcoming. There is nothing I can say but that you are welcomed to that opinion, as you did not explain in detail what is unforthcoming. RICHARD: I would prefer not to go into the ‘to assume that the other is voicing an ‘opinion’ contributes zilch to mutual communication’ business again ... but I will, if you persist in blocking enquiry with such wasteful debating devices, as I have all the time in the world to do whatever the situation warrants. The reason why I did not ‘explain in detail’ the nature of the ‘non-material consciousness’ is nothing more mysterious than that you have, in previous posts, abruptly ceased the correspondence, because of the issue regarding authority, when I do so. RESPONDENT: Next, if you have already concluded that the song is ‘attenuous’, don’t you think it is a little dishonest to ask me to verify for you what you have already arbitrarily concluded? RICHARD: I really do not see how I can put this any differently ... I ask how it is that there be this ‘brief movement’ in the first place and, when you reply that nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens, I can do nothing other than reply that what I get from you is that the nature of that which you say is ‘not-worthless’ is remarkably unforthcoming in the song you sing (and I can only say this because you said it cannot be known by anybody). Therefore, to confirm what you are saying (so as not to assume it be what you are saying) I ask for confirmation whether what I am understanding, from the words you sing, is an adequate understanding or not. And then away you go with all the put-downs that it is my ‘opinion’, my ‘conclusion’, my ‘belief’, my ‘self-belief’ and so on and so (which results in all that ‘zilch’ business). Can we not keep this simple? If nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens then does that not include you? Therefore, is it not so that the song which you sing has nothing in its singing regarding the nature of that which is not-worthless? I am asking ... I not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: I said what I meant: that for me there is no why or how when it comes to ‘why it happened in the first place?’, as, for me, nothing ‘happened’... RICHARD: Yet what I asked was how is it that this ‘brief movement’ happens ... I never said ‘happened’. Of course nothing ‘happened’ ... but something happens according to you. Viz.
You are clearly saying that the universe is ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy’ ... surely this appearance of energy called the physical universe happens (else we would not be having this conversation)? You go on to explain that this universe is a ‘brief movement’ (a ‘brief movement’ in the ‘totality of consciousness’ which you have elsewhere sung as being ‘timeless’). So I ask a valid question:
Is it the ‘in the first place’ phrasing that makes look like a ‘what happened’ rather than a ‘what happens’ question? If so I can re-phrase it as: how is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens anyway? Or I could put it this way: how come this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens? Or I could write it thus: What is it in the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ that it happens? RESPONDENT: What is here is ‘what is happening NOW’, and what is happening now as the universe as a manifestation of non-material energy, cannot be reduced to the limited descriptions of thought, although thought is a part of that happening. RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already informed me, that the reason why the nature of that which is not-worthless does not feature in the song that you sing, is because ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’. I am aware of this ... which is why I asked whether it is possible to have an insight into the nature of that which is not-worthless (an insight has nowt to do with thought). I am not interested in what thought thinks about the nature of that which is not-worthless at this stage... I am endeavouring to find out how it is that the song which you sing lacks insight (not how come it lacks knowledge). Because you did say that, although the song that you sing is worthless, that which informs the song is not, right? Maybe if I put it this way: as worthless and not-worthless are values, either derived from or ascribed to the nature of something, how is it that it can be ascertained that that which informs the song is not-worthless if there be no insight into its nature? Is this not a valid enquiry? * RICHARD: If so, the song you sing seems to be a song of ignorance (‘ignorance’ as in a lack of insight and not a lack of knowledge). RESPONDENT: <snip> ... Ignorance is, as you say, a lack of insight ...<snip> RICHARD: Again I have snipped what I consider extraneous because I am sincerely interested in pursuing this question. I will put it this way: Is it possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? RESPONDENT: No. It is not possible to have an insight into non-material energy, as insight is what non-material energy already is. RICHARD: Okay ... then surely it is not possible to derive values, such as not-worthless, from something that it is not possible to have an insight into? Therefore would it not be so that you must be ascribing values (such as not-worthless) to it instead of deriving them from it? Again I am asking ... I am not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: It is possible, however, for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself as its impermanent manifestations. In the case of human beings, that means the transformation of the body out of the disease of ‘personal psychology’ to body awareness only, that is, from being dominated by self-thinking to living as a body which is aware and can use thought. RICHARD: May I come back to this at a latter date as it is not yet established whether this which you sing here in this paragraph (‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’) can be reliably deduced from something the nature of which you say is not possible to have an insight into? * RICHARD: I only ask because such an insight is fundamental to the issue of misery and mayhem continuing to manifest on this otherwise fair planet. RESPONDENT: Any organism is subject to momentary disease. It is also subject to transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Aye ... this is how it can sometimes happen in the material world with material diseases. We are, however, discussing the nature of a non-material consciousness and a non-material disease ... the ‘cure’ of which may very well be an entirely different ball-game. RESPONDENT: When a human being can at least see that part of his reality is a disease – selfishness – if he actually sees that, that seeing itself is already the beginning of the transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Yet is not this very ‘selfishness’ nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing? I only ask because when I wrote, in a prior post, that what you called ‘the creativity of nature’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing you replied: ‘Yes, that is how I describe it’. Therefore is it not vital to ascertain whether it be possible to have an insight into the nature of that (the ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘non-material consciousness’) which is ... um ... doing this ‘standing out’ as ‘selfishness’? RESPONDENT: After that, there is no choice but to pay attention to everything that one is, does, no matter the ‘cost’, until the totality of insanity is completely understood. RICHARD: I agree. This is why I am so persistent in asking these questions. RESPONDENT: And the complete understanding of it is the explosion out of it. RICHARD: Indeed a ‘complete understanding of it’ is essential ... therefore I can only ask again:
Why I am asking this again is because your original statement is this:
Is it not so, that if the universe, which includes a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem, is as you say, ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’, then all the misery and mayhem is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? Once more I am asking ... I am not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever.
RICHARD: I really do not see how I can put this any differently ... I ask how it is that there be this ‘brief movement’ in the first place and, when you reply that nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens, I can do nothing other than reply that what I get from you is that the nature of that which you say is ‘not-worthless’ is remarkably unforthcoming in the song you sing (and I can only say this because you said it cannot be known by anybody) . Therefore, to confirm what you are saying (so as not to assume it be what you are saying) I ask for confirmation whether what I am understanding, from the words you sing, is an adequate understanding or not. And then away you go with all the put-downs that it is my ‘opinion’, my ‘conclusion’, my ‘belief’, my ‘self-belief’ and so on and so on (which results in all that ‘zilch’ business). Can we not keep this simple? If nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens then does that not include you? Therefore, is it not so that the song which you sing has nothing in its singing regarding the nature of that which is not-worthless? I am asking ... I not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: You are quite right. I don’t know what it is, but it can definitely use my words to sing of itself. Part of the action of insight, or what is not known, is that it can certainly affect what is material, what is known. But it doesn’t work the other way around. Yes. Nothing in my singing reveals a thing about non-material energy. RICHARD: I appreciate your honesty, directness and clear communication. RESPONDENT: But if another is capable of listening to the words without the interference of his ego, he may discover for him/herself that energy which is the source of that song, those words. The words are only indicators, signs that say, ‘look, watch, see yourself as you are’. It’s up to the other then to meet that challenge and discover for himself what is actual which the words represent. RICHARD: Of course, listening to the words of the song you sing without the interference of ego will indeed ensure that the listener may discover the energy that is the source of the words. Now, is it possible to proceed in such a way as to actually discover what is actual about ‘that energy which is the source of that song’ and to actually discover what is not actual about ‘that energy which is the source of that song’? As it is already been made clear, that just listening to the words of the song you sing without the interference of the ego will not enable such an insight, it would seem that this is the question to consider: What is required to ensure that it is possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? * RESPONDENT: I said what I meant: that for me there is no why or how when it comes to ‘why it happened in the first place?’, as, for me, nothing ‘happened’... RICHARD: Yet what I asked was how is it that this ‘brief movement’ happens ... I never said ‘happened’. Of course nothing ‘happened’ ... but something happens according to you. Viz. [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. You are clearly saying that the universe is ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy’ ... surely this appearance of energy called the physical universe happens (else we would not be having this conversation)? RESPONDENT: Of course the universe ‘is happening’. It is happening, and it is real, but it is not actual because it is material, impermanent, in constant flux. RICHARD: Is this evidence you provide, for the universe to be not actual (‘it is not actual because it is material, impermanent, in constant flux’), open to examination as to its validity? RESPONDENT: What is actual does not ‘exist’ as some-’thing’. Any-’thing’ can come into being but eventually it de-structures, or what is popularly called ‘death’. RICHARD: Yet surely a rearrangement of matter (the de-structuring, re-structuring, de-structuring, re-structuring and so on ad infinitum of its form, its shape, its appearance) is not the same thing as matter ceasing to exist ... which is what would have to occur for ‘impermanent’ to be a valid reason to say that the universe is not actual? RESPONDENT: All structures of matter are therefore limited, constantly changing. RICHARD: All ‘structures’ of matter are certainly ‘constantly changing’ ... but, rather than this constant flux making matter ‘limited’, it bespeaks instead of matter being not limited to one specific form, shape, appearance or structure does it not? RESPONDENT: Thought, knowledge, as that which is material and in constant flux, is an effect, a limited reaction of the limited material body and cannot, as an effect, know that which is creative and independent of materiality, of non-affectaton. RICHARD: Yet is it not ‘thought, knowledge’ which has decided that, because matter is constantly changing its shape, its form, its appearance, its structure, it is therefore ‘impermanent’ and thus not actual? Does not observation of the properties of matter show a beginningless and endless de-structuring, re-structuring, de-structuring, re-structuring and so on of its form, its shape, its appearance? The ‘Big Bang Theory’, first proposed by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927 and strikingly similar to the Biblical Creation myth, is shot full of gaping holes ... and is progressively more and more incapable of being forever plugged by mathematicians’ increasingly frantic coefficients. * RICHARD: You go on to explain that this universe is a ‘brief movement’ (a ‘brief movement’ in the ‘totality of consciousness’ which you have elsewhere sung as being ‘timeless’). So I ask a valid question: [Richard]: ‘How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...? Is it the ‘in the first place’ phrasing that makes look like a ‘what happened’ rather than a ‘what happens’ question? If so I can re-phrase it as: how is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens anyway? Or I could put it this way: how come this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens? Or I could write it thus: What is it in the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ that it happens? RESPONDENT: Put it anyway you like, but if you really want an answer, it will not and cannot be obtained in terms of words, in terms of knowledge. RICHARD: Surely it must be obvious, by now, that I am speaking of an insight into what happens and not a thought-through answer? RESPONDENT: It cannot be obtained in any case. RICHARD: I am aware that you have previously said that an insight, into that which you say ‘can definitely use my words to sing of itself’, is not possible. I would ask again that you at least allow there may be a possibility ... otherwise you shut the door on the very ‘complete understanding’ which you say (much further below) is essential for ‘the explosion’ out of insanity. Viz.:
As a lack of insight is ignorance I would put it to you that to allow something, which you say is not knowable, to use your words to sing of itself is to ignorantly allow yourself to be used? RESPONDENT: But the body, free of the contracted, isolated consciousness that is ‘me’ and ‘that’, is directly and always operating from that non-material energy until it de-structures into its component but still material units. What is actual is always here and now, not bound by time and space, and is neither inner nor outer. RICHARD: Hmm ... in other words, the evidence for what is actual is based solely on that which is ‘non-material’ somehow non-verbally informing the song that it, the ‘non-material energy’, is what is actual? RESPONDENT: What is real but not actual is also here and now but is dependent on time and space and the limited order that is its material form. RICHARD: Similarly, the evidence for that which is ‘material’ being that which is not actual is only according to this not-knowable ‘non-material energy’ (the nature of which you have had no insight into) which somehow non-verbally informs a worthless song that this is true ? RESPONDENT: Again, for me, the question of the nature of unobstructed energy is not significant as it is always the past, the desire of knowledge, the limited that asks that. RICHARD: Whereas for me, the insight into the nature of this ‘non-material energy’ which non-verbally claimed to be the source of everything, was significant because an insight is not of the past, not of the desire for knowledge ... and definitely not a limited ask. It became strikingly obvious that an insight can only occur when the question is an open question. RESPONDENT: Death of the limited mind as ‘me’ and ‘that’ is the only ‘answer’. RICHARD: An insight into the nature of this ‘non-material energy’, which non-verbally claims to be the source of everything, may very well show an entirely different ball-game. * RESPONDENT: What is here is ‘what is happening NOW’, and what is happening now as the universe as a manifestation of non-material energy, cannot be reduced to the limited descriptions of thought, although thought is a part of that happening. RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already informed me, that the reason why the nature of that which is not-worthless does not feature in the song that you sing, is because ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’. I am aware of this ... which is why I asked whether it is possible to have an insight into the nature of that which is not-worthless ... RESPONDENT: ‘What’ is going to have an insight into it? Thought? RICHARD: ‘Tis a strange thing to do, is it not, to chop my sentence in half and then ask if thought is going to have an insight? Here is the bit you chopped off (from further below):
RESPONDENT: The body is already operating in that insight, but the reactions of ‘thought-as-me’, because it interferes with the energy of the body, prevents the energy of insight from operating unobstructedly. The question is inherently intellectual and therefore impossible to answer. Get rid of selfishness, and the ‘answer’ is the living body moving in the world completely awake, unobstructed by broad daylight dreaming. RICHARD: As this conclusion is based upon mistreating my question it is totally irrelevant. * RICHARD: ... (an insight has nowt to do with thought). I am not interested in what thought thinks about the nature of that which is not-worthless at this stage... I am endeavouring to find out how it is that the song which you sing lacks insight (not how come it lacks knowledge). Because you did say that, although the song that you sing is worthless, that which informs the song is not, right? RESPONDENT: Correct. The song is worthless, but what informs it is not. RICHARD: How can you say that that what informs the song is not-worthless if there has been no insight into its nature? Surely this ignorant statement (‘ignorant’ as in lacking insight) has to be a thought-imposed evaluation? * RICHARD: Maybe if I put it this way: as worthless and not-worthless are values, either derived from or ascribed to the nature of something, how is it that it can be ascertained that that which informs the song is not-worthless if there be no insight into its nature? Is this not a valid enquiry? RESPONDENT: Worthless, for me, is not a value judgement, although to you it is. RICHARD: Let me see if it is ... consider the statement:
Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of the non-value judgement of that which informs the song which you sing? RESPONDENT: It is that which is not-worthless, that which is pure energy, unlimited, that describes the song as worthless. RICHARD: How does that which you have had no insight into the nature of describe the song that you sing as being worthless? Is it a non-verbal intuition? Some form of instinctive knowing? RESPONDENT: In fact, from that state of not-knowing all words are worthless though they may be useful as part of the function of the body. RICHARD: Sure ... yet I am pointing out that this state of ‘not-knowing’ of yours lacks insight as well as knowledge. RESPONDENT: I say words are worthless because it is so widely believed by selves that words are the pinnacle of worth, of value when, in fact, they have no value. They may simply be useful or not. RICHARD: Again I am talking of the worth of insight ... not the worth or worthlessness of words or thought. * RICHARD: If so, the song you sing seems to be a song of ignorance (‘ignorance’ as in a lack of insight and not a lack of knowledge). RESPONDENT: <snip> ... Ignorance is, as you say, a lack of insight ...<snip> RICHARD: I will put it this way: Is it possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? RESPONDENT: No. It is not possible to have an insight into non-material energy, as insight is what non-material energy already is. RICHARD: Okay ... then surely it is not possible to derive values, such as not-worthless, from something that it is not possible to have an insight into? Therefore would it not be so that you must be ascribing values (such as not-worthless) to it instead of deriving them from it? Again I am asking ... I am not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: I can use the words worthless and worth without either connoting value. RICHARD: Are you so sure? Again I will put this proposition to you:
Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of you using the words ‘worthless and worth’ without either of them ‘connoting value’? RESPONDENT: I could just as easily use the words useful and useless. RICHARD: Okay ... then as a lack of insight is, as you agreed (further above) ignorance, surely it is not possible to derive values, such as ‘useful and useless’, from something that it is not possible to have an insight into? Therefore would it not be so that you must be ascribing values (such as not-useless) to it instead of deriving them from it? RESPONDENT: Insight uses words, makes distinctions. RICHARD: Insight is a direct seeing – an un-mediated seeing – of such immediacy that all is patently obvious. Using words, making distinctions, comes later when describing the nature of what the insight revealed (its properties, the qualities of its properties and the values derived from these qualities). Otherwise one is ascribing properties, qualities and values to that which there has been no insight into. RESPONDENT: That does not mean that insight itself enters the field of psychological duality, which is the reaction of thinking that moves beyond simple distinction to division – the idea of separation. RICHARD: How can you point to a ‘simple distinction’ – not a ‘division’ – seeing that a total lack of insight, into the nature of that which informs the song you sing, has not enabled any distinctions to be revealed to you? * RESPONDENT: It is possible, however, for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself as its impermanent manifestations. In the case of human beings, that means the transformation of the body out of the disease of ‘personal psychology’ to body awareness only, that is, from being dominated by self-thinking to living as a body which is aware and can use thought. RICHARD: May I come back to this at a latter date as it is not yet established whether this which you sing here in this paragraph (‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’) can be reliably deduced from something the nature of which you say is not possible to have an insight into? RESPONDENT: Of course. Please take your time. RICHARD: I can come back to it right now because I cannot see how your responses (both above and below) have shown that you are not operating from ignorance (as in a lack of insight) ... which must surely render your thought-deduction (‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’) null and void? The emergence of ‘body awareness only’ may very well lie in an entirely different ball game. * RICHARD: I only ask because such an insight is fundamental to the issue of misery and mayhem continuing to manifest on this otherwise fair planet. RESPONDENT: Any organism is subject to momentary disease. It is also subject to transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Aye ... this is how it can sometimes happen in the material world with material diseases. We are, however, discussing the nature of a non-material consciousness and a non-material disease ... the ‘cure’ of which may very well be an entirely different ball-game. RESPONDENT: I am not discussing ‘non-material disease’ as to me that is a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: I am going purely by your words here:
You are clearly acknowledging that the source of the disease is non-material. RESPONDENT: But I am certainly interested in what you mean by non-material disease. RICHARD: The disease (misery and mayhem) which is blighting this otherwise fair earth (the material world) is, as you have already agreed, a non-material disease. Perhaps it would help to re-present an example I have often provided to this Mailing List? Viz.:
Only sentient beings experience fear ... and fear only exists in their ‘inner world’ (the non-material world). * RESPONDENT: When a human being can at least see that part of his reality is a disease – selfishness – if he actually sees that, that seeing itself is already the beginning of the transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Yet is not this very ‘selfishness’ nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing? I only ask because when I wrote, in a prior post, that what you called ‘the creativity of nature’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing you replied: ‘Yes, that is how I describe it’. RESPONDENT: Again, yes that is how I describe it. Selfishness is part of that which stands out of non-material energy. RICHARD: Therefore, is it not so that, as ‘selfishness’ is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’, then ‘selfishness’ is a non-material disease ... the ‘cure’ of which is an entirely different ball-game to material diseases? * RICHARD: Therefore is it not vital to ascertain whether it be possible to have an insight into the nature of that (the ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘non-material consciousness’) which is ... um ... doing this ‘standing out’ as ‘selfishness’? RESPONDENT: What is going to have that insight? Selfishness? RICHARD: No ... only a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can have such an insight. RESPONDENT: That unselfish energy is already here, now as ... um ... the body, as selfishness, and as the body freed of selfishness. All things are that. RICHARD: The insight occurs only as a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (which means that not only is ‘selfishness’ totally absent but that no other non-material disease is present either). * RESPONDENT: After that, there is no choice but to pay attention to everything that one is, does, no matter the ‘cost’, until the totality of insanity is completely understood. RICHARD: I agree. This is why I am so persistent in asking these questions. RESPONDENT: I see. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: And the complete understanding of it is the explosion out of it. RICHARD: Indeed a ‘complete understanding of it’ is essential ... therefore I can only ask again: Is it possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? Why I am asking this again is because your original statement is this: [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. Is it not so, that if the universe, which includes a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem, is as you say, ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’, then all the misery and mayhem is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? RESPONDENT: Yes. All things are that energy, though that energy is, in itself, no-thing. RICHARD: Is it not odd that nobody has seen how imperative it is to enable an insight into the nature of ‘that energy’ which is ‘in itself, no-thing’?
CORRESPONDENT No. 04: (Part Five) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
