|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 14
RICHARD: By my count I make it four times that you unequivocally stated that you will not use physical violence against another human being if physically attacked. In fact, you clearly stated that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’. I find that very clear and unambiguous ... and I make it four times that you replied that you had no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes or personally participating in military action and that you did not believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war. The point that I wish to become clear on is: how would you ‘personally participate in military action’, given that you have ‘no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes’ and that you are no longer ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ ... yet all the while ‘actively living, in your daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings’ ... given that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’ and that you would not ‘defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death’. So, given as you were so generous to offer ‘again, if I can be of assistance to you, please ask’ ... then I will take you up on your offer and ask you this: Will you clarify this dichotomy (above), by explaining how to ‘examine more carefully’ and demonstrate what you mean by the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’?RESPONDENT: Yes of course. To begin, a direct examination of the earlier questions. That this day is lived as non-violent needs have nothing to do with having ‘opposition to [personally using] violence as a means of resolving disputes’, nor ‘opposition to [personally] participating in military action’. Not harming others is done as not harming others, not in opposition to, or as resistance to, or to suppress, violent or war-like tendencies. As your post was written Richard, was it written with one eye on the urge, tendency, or the possibility of it not being written? Were the question asked in opposition to them not being asked? Did you actively resist the urge to not ask in order to post the questions? You ask ‘how would you ‘personally participate in military action’ – I would not, however, it would not be because I am in ‘opposition to [personally] participating in military action’. Instead, it would be because participating in a military action would not manifest in the life I have chosen to be here. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is simply a fact that neither the ‘Oxford Dictionary’ nor the ‘Mirriam Webster’s’ mentions [quote] ‘not harming others is done as not harming others, not in opposition to, or as resistance to, or to suppress, violent or war-like tendencies’ [endquote] in order to qualify as being a pacifist ... and I would hazard a guess that the ‘Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language; New College Edition’ does not either ... and probably never will. And, furthermore, the dictionaries make no mention of a pacifist as having sublimated ‘violent or war-like tendencies’ and thus transcended the base passions in order to qualify as being a pacifist either. A pacifist is, quite straightforwardly, a person who is ‘actively living, in their daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings or any other animal’ and who ‘does not, nor will not, defend oneself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death’ and who would probably say [quote]: ‘I will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’. Your use of sophistry (what I call ducking and weaving and slipping and slithering) to avoid having the apt description ‘pacifist’ applied to your modus operandi has already been covered in our previous conversation. Viz.:
The legacy that Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein left, is that certain peoples have been doing precisely what you are doing here – playing word-games – and could be called: ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ considering all the suffering endemic in the world. Because, for all of your sophism, your approach to participating in war and other acts of aggressive behaviour is identical to that approach adopted by the people who, not being as guileful as you are, clearly identify themselves as being pacifists ... which approach you clearly state yourself (above). Viz.:
Just as a ‘vegetarian’, for example, can be either a person who has an ideological reason (non-violence to all sentient beings) or a medical reason (allergic to animal products) for being a vegetarian ... so too can the word ‘pacifist’ describe people who ‘would not participate in military action’ for differing reasons. Put simply, you have a different reason for being pacifist than the reasons that dictionaries give ... you are merely quibbling over trivialities, like any hoary pundit from the mystical eastern religions. RESPONDENT: Now, the hypnosis of poorly used language. The statement ‘do not, nor will not, defend yourself with physical force’ implies that I (self) can or could defend my self. It splits ‘I’ apart into multiple entities, specifically; the defender and the defended. Little thought is commonly given, I believe, to the difficulty this presents. Namely, it puts me at constant odds with myself. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is you who is afflicted with ‘the hypnosis of poorly used language’ ... not Richard. This style of fallacious reasoning is what Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein devoted his entire life on ... and you are way out of your depth here, compared with him, with this blatantly silly word-game. RESPONDENT: Other statements commonly used, and often preached in schools and mental health facilities, that present similar difficulties are Self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-respect. Each is unquestioningly accepted as a desirable state of existence, while, in fact, the pursuit of any of the positions implied by the respective statements leads to absolute paranoia. It has been said of one of the Beautiful Children here that she has low self-esteem. The difficulty is not that she thinks lowly of her self, but that she thinks about her-self at all, and more, that she is involved, on a daily basis, with an education and health care system that bombard her with non-sensible and unexamined crud. Thinking about your-self is to indulge in the schizophrenic fantasy that you stand outside your self. You can not possibly live at peace while entertaining the thought that you have an alternate self that needs your constant attention, correcting, and defending. RICHARD: Methinks you are making a popular mistake with this misuse of the word that describes that terrible affliction called ‘schizophrenia’ and are really meaning ‘split-personality’, eh? Nevertheless, it is not so that ‘thinking about your-self is to indulge in the schizophrenic fantasy that you stand outside your self’ ... any identity – a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting the body like a ‘walk-in’ – is already a ‘split personality’. It is not just ‘thinking about your-self’ that creates the two ‘I’s (which is falsely blaming thought like all the mystics do) ... the rudimentary animal self is a product of the survival instinct and, as such, is a passionate self charged by blind nature to survive at any cost. It is fondly imagining yourself to be immortal that creates the two ‘I’s (an ‘I’ as ego and an ‘I’ as ‘Immortal Soul’) ... and imagination is feeling-fed thought. There are not two, but three I’s altogether, but only one is actual. RESPONDENT: The same difficulty arise when looking at phrases such as ‘blind forces of nature’. How can nature be blind, yet we claim to see well enough to determine said blindness? RICHARD: Simply because human beings are intelligent and the ‘blind forces of nature’ are not. Only the human animal can think, reflect and plan. It is patently obvious that the ‘blind forces of nature’ (blind nature) cannot conceive in, or exercise the mind with, or form, or have in the mind, an hypothesis, a theory, a supposition, a plan, a design, a notion, an idea, or can conceive of mentally as in meditate on, turn over in the mind, ponder, contemplate, deliberate or reflect on and come to the understanding – in a positive active way and form connected objectives – or otherwise have the capacity to cogitate and conjecture and choose mentally (as in form a clear mental impression of something actual). It is human beings’ native intelligence that enables them to ‘see well enough to determine said blindness’ ... contrary to popular belief there is no ‘Intelligence’ that runs the universe. The universe can only be intelligent as a sensate reflective human being. RESPONDENT: Nature is not different than what ‘we’ are doing. Nature and ‘we’ are the same thing. If nature be blind, then we be blind. RICHARD: Indeed so ... and this is the crux of the problem: the very evolutionary forces (‘blind nature’) that enabled the current 6.0 billion human beings to be here are now actively working against both individual and global peace on earth. So long as the modern human being considers that blind nature’s instinctual passions are still essential for survival, then 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 will continue. RESPONDENT: And if we are seeing, then nature is seeing. RICHARD: Blind nature will never be seeing ... blind nature has become superannuated and, for the first time in human history, the universe is experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being with a freed intelligence. RESPONDENT: It has never been ‘us’ against nature, and when it is imagined so, it is us struggling in a schizophrenic fantasy that we can not win for our enemy is our self. RICHARD: I can certainly agree with your ‘our enemy is our self’ phrase ... and that very ‘self’ is a product of blind nature. It is the price paid/trade-off for consciousness being able to arise out of matter in the first place. My solution? Step out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world ... and leave your ‘self’ behind in the ‘Land of Lament’ where it belongs. It is a grim and glum business, living in ‘normal reality’ ... hence the desire for escapism into some feeling-fed hallucination called the ‘Greater Reality’ by some. RESPONDENT: Nature, in every instance, is what we (I) am doing (being). RICHARD: For clarity, I would say that ‘blind nature’ is what you are ‘doing (being)’. But now that a freed intelligence has been able to break free from the strangle-hold that the instinctual passions, bestowed by blind nature that ensured that consciousness could arise out of matter, the blind instinctual patterns can be superseded. RESPONDENT: If it is a hypnotic and unexamined struggle, then that is what nature is. RICHARD: That is indeed what ‘blind nature’ is. Nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. It is only concerned with the survival of the species ... and any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore it is blind. There is no such thing as ‘Mother Nature’, for example, outside of sentimental human imagination. Nature is indeed ‘red in tooth and claw’ and is not concerned about anyone in particular at all – including all of humankind – but I am. I like my fellow humans and wish them no harm at all – I wish well upon everyone including myself – which well-wishing is the root meaning of the word ‘benevolence’. (Benevolent: Old French – ‘benivolent’ from: Latin – ‘benevolent’: present participle stem of ‘bene velle’: ‘wish well’). Nature, be it blind or not, can never be described as benevolent. RESPONDENT: If it is understanding that the whole thing is like trying to kick off your own foot, then a new peace arises, and that is what nature is. RICHARD: There is an already always existing peace-on-earth that can only become apparent when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolate ... that is: identity itself becomes extinct. One can decamp from one’s fate (bestowed by blind nature) and achieve one’s destiny (implicit as this universe). It is yours for the choosing.
RICHARD: Will you explain how to ‘examine more carefully’ and demonstrate what you mean by the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’? (...) and I thank you again for your time and your patience. RESPONDENT: You are most welcome Richard. (...) Your manners are impeccable and it is a Great Pleasure to speak with you. RICHARD: Again, I do appreciate the time and effort you put into carefully answering my query. Now that I understand what you meant by the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, I would certainly appreciate some clarification on some further points. I will first refer to the following dialogue:
Thus, given that you endorse that I have comprehended your understanding correctly, I consider that the questions I propose (below) are entirely valid and not presented in any frivolous way whatsoever. I therefore anticipate that you will meet each one as offered. Viz.: RICHARD: Are you saying: ‘No, I do not, nor will not, defend myself with physical force’? RESPONDENT: I find it much clearer to say; I will not harm in order to avoid being harmed. Moreover, I can not defend myself, I am myself. RICHARD: Hmm ... so if and/or when an assailant physically attacks you, he and/or she is really you physically attacking you, eh? RESPONDENT: Without question, yes. RICHARD: There is a name for this attitude: fatalism. RESPONDENT: (...) there is no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience, recognized here, thus no fatalism. When you (I) want to feel differently you (I) will. RICHARD: If, as you say, there is ‘no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience’ then why are 6.0 billion human beings suffering (as in malice and sorrow) in the first place? RESPONDENT: They fail to acknowledge their responsibility. RICHARD: Are you saying that a squalling baby in distress, a frightened infant waking in the dark of night, a spiteful toddler pinching their sibling, a nervously shy pre-schooler quaking in anxiety on their first day, a terror-stricken four-year-old lost in the forest and so on are all experiencing this malice and sorrow simply because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? * RICHARD: If the end of human suffering is so simple, as you say, that all that they (as you) have to do is to ‘want to feel differently’ , then what is determining that 6.0 billion human beings should want to feel the way that they currently do? RESPONDENT: They fail to acknowledge their responsibility. RICHARD: May I ask? How old would a human being need to be to be able to comprehend that ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? What is the age of understanding that it is ‘without question, yes’, that when an assailant physically attacks you, he and/or she is really you physically attacking you? How would a sexually abused baby, a sexually abused infant, a sexually abused toddler – a sexually abused child of any gender – have any notion that all this is happening because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? * RICHARD: If, as you so clearly state, that human suffering is not due to the human condition but is due to ‘not acknowledging responsibility for what one creates’ then what, may I ask, causes one (as god) to create it in the first place? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance. The explanation is in the action. RICHARD: Could you please clarify by explaining more carefully who ‘decided as me’ is ... so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’? Is it the flesh and blood body called No. 14 that ‘decides as me’ or is it the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’ that ‘decides as me’ ... or is it a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’. I ask this because this physical universe, this material planet and the various carbon-based life-forms – including sentient beings called human beings complete with malice and sorrow – all already existed prior to when I first emerged on this planet as a baby in 1947. Thus it is clear that the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’ did not create the suffering that the billions of human beings were experiencing in 1947 ... and neither did they create the suffering, as their experience – each and every one of them – was identical to my experience in 1947. That is, that the suffering of sentient beings existed prior to each and every human being emerging on this planet as a baby. * RICHARD: Why is one (as god) so reluctant to acknowledge responsibility for what one (as god) creates? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance, however, that is the first meaningful question you have asked. RICHARD: I am sure that you (as god) know the answer. Would you care to give forth of your wisdom to a benighted humanity? RESPONDENT: Yes, of course, I do, and the answer is evident in every instance. The explanation is in the action. Humanity does not need the answer – it simply needs to acknowledge it. RICHARD: Hmm ... yet the answer is not ‘evident in every instance’ and the explanation is not ‘in the action’ for maybe 6.0 billion human beings. Why will you not share with ‘humanity’ your knowledge? Would you have 6.0 billion human beings remain in ignorance whilst you alone know the cause of all the suffering of the sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby? Your answer of ‘yes of course I do’ followed by ‘humanity does not need the answer’ smacks to me of elitism and contumely ... especially as you said that it ‘is the first meaningful question you have asked’. Am I to take it, then, that you will patiently answer all my meaningless questions ... yet prevaricate upon being faced with my ‘first meaningful question’? * RICHARD: What I am getting at is: why are you (as god) doing/being all this mayhem and misery? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance. The explanation is in the action. RICHARD: Hmm ... unless this is the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’ , are you artfully avoiding saying that you do not know why there is malice and sorrow in 6.0 billion human beings in the first place? Do you actually know the cause of all the suffering of sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby? If not, you are in illustrious company ... neither did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan.
RICHARD: If, as you say, there is ‘no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience’ then why are 6.0 billion human beings suffering (as in malice and sorrow) in the first place? RESPONDENT: They fail to acknowledge their responsibility. RICHARD: Are you saying that a squalling baby in distress, a frightened infant waking in the dark of night, a spiteful toddler pinching their sibling, a nervously shy pre-schooler quaking in anxiety on their first day, a terror-stricken four-year-old lost in the forest and so on are all experiencing this malice and sorrow simply because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: A squalling baby in distress, a frightened infant waking in the dark of night, a spiteful toddler pinching their sibling, a nervously shy pre-schooler quaking in anxiety on their first day, a terror-stricken four-year-old lost in the forest are simply and straightforwardly incapable of ‘acknowledging their responsibility’ ... they have no knowledge and/or concept of responsibility in regards mundane matters, let alone esoteric. This response of yours is hornswoggle. * RICHARD: If the end of human suffering is so simple, as you say, that all that they (as you) have to do is to ‘want to feel differently’, then what is determining that 6.0 billion human beings should want to feel the way that they currently do? RESPONDENT: They fail to acknowledge their responsibility. RICHARD: May I ask? How old would a human being need to be to be able to comprehend that ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? RESPONDENT: Age would not be a determining factor here Richard. I have seen some very young children choose to remain serene in tumultuous circumstances, and have seen may adults become fits of anxiety under the delusion that they are victimized and powerless. RICHARD: This is more hornswoggle ... a squalling baby in distress, a frightened infant waking in the dark of night, a spiteful toddler pinching their sibling, a nervously shy pre-schooler quaking in anxiety on their first day and a terror-stricken four-year-old lost in the forest are all incapable of ‘choosing to remain serene in tumultuous circumstances’. Just because you have personally seen ‘some very young children choose to remain serene in tumultuous circumstances’ does not mean all young children choose to remain serene in tumultuous circumstances ... this is not a reasonable argument at all. And the same criterion applies to your ‘many adults’ red-herring example as well. I will re-pose my question and bid you address it as offered. How old would a human being need to be to be able to comprehend that ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? * RICHARD: What is the age of understanding that it is ‘without question, yes’, that when an assailant physically attacks you, he and/or she is really you physically attacking you? RESPONDENT: Age would not be a determining factor here Richard. I am aware that this is speculation, but it appears that young children, especially infants, react to pain but do not manifest the behaviours generally associated with resentment. Again speculating, it is possible that before adopting the non-sensible beliefs of their family and peer group concerning rights and persecution, a child is perfectly at peace with things as itself. Watching the Beautiful Children here age, Colby was about 8 years old before demonstrating behaviours based on an idea of self as a separate individual. Those behaviours being resentment of trespass, anxiety concerning fairness, and experimentation with personal space. Interestingly, Dylan (now 4 years) does a crude mocking of Colby’s 12 year old and now very well developed concern about self and other. RICHARD: Are you addressing yourself to these questions? You have clearly stated that ‘there is no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience, recognised here, thus no fatalism. When you (I) want to feel differently you (I) will’. And further, you have clearly stated that what is determining that 6.0 billion human beings should want to feel the way that they currently do is that ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’. Yet in your response (above) all you give me is ‘speculation’ and ‘again speculating’ ... are you the same person who told me ‘Yes’ when I asked ‘do you actually know the cause of all the suffering of sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby? If you are going to say ‘Yes I know the cause of all the suffering’ ... you do need to do better than merely speculate. * RICHARD: How would a sexually abused baby, a sexually abused infant, a sexually abused toddler – a sexually abused child of any gender – have any notion that all this is happening because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’? RESPONDENT: The first assumption of your question is that children view what we consider sexual abuse as abuse, or as ‘all this is happening’. RICHARD: What ‘assumption’ are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to tell me that
all the sexually abused babies and all the sexually abused infants and all the sexually abused children Are you for real? In a previous post you proudly proclaimed that ‘each instance of rape is fine’ ... and now you are arguing the toss as to whether a sexually abused child would know whether it is being sexually abused or not! RESPONDENT: Interestingly, a research project done in association with Dr. Norman Pollard, while pursuing my second college degree (in psychology) indicates that most children (the project included two groups, one three to six years old, and the other 18 years old or older, I am referring to the former group) who have been reported to have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse (as defined by the then current NYS Child Protective Service’s definition) think very little or nothing of their abuse. The idea of who is responsible for ‘all this is happening’ would not make sense to ask since nothing much is happening. RICHARD: Whoa-up here ... ‘nothing much is happening’ ? They are being SEXUALLY ABUSED ... and you were saying (above) ‘Yes I know the cause of all the suffering’ and that they are being SEXUALLY ABUSED because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’. Does this look as silly to you as it does to me when viewed sensibly in print? RESPONDENT: Also, and importantly, if the child were to be concerned with responsibility, that concern would needs be focused on who is responsible for their own feelings about the circumstance. Again speculating, young children might find such an inquiry foolish because they would have no familiarity with any possibility of any-thing other themselves being responsible. Again speculating, but not without at least reasonable evidence based on the observed development of the Beautiful Children here, children may accept responsibility for their own feelings rather like a bird takes to flight until some other possibility is suggested to them. RICHARD: Well, well, well ... No. 14 (as god) is ‘speculating again’, eh? And these ‘young children might find such an inquiry foolish’ you say? May I ask? Do you know what ‘foolish’ looks like? * RICHARD: If, as you so clearly state, that human suffering is not due to the human condition but is due to ‘not acknowledging responsibility for what one creates’ then what, may I ask, causes one (as god) to create it in the first place? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance. The explanation is in the action. RICHARD: Could you please clarify by explaining more carefully who ‘decided as me’ is ... so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’? Is it the flesh and blood body called No. 14 that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: Or is it the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’ that ‘decides as me’ ? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: Or is it a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’ ? RESPONDENT: Ahh ... yes, let us be clear here so that we aren’t put off the answer due to it being a great archaic mysticism. I will answer after completing reading your query. RICHARD: Let me guess ... your answer is that it is a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’ ? * RICHARD: I ask this because this physical universe, this material planet and the various carbon-based life-forms – including sentient beings called human beings complete with malice and sorrow – all already existed prior to when I first emerged on this planet as a baby in 1947. Thus it is clear that the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’ did not create the suffering that the billions of human beings were experiencing in 1947 ... and neither did they create the suffering, as their experience – each and every one of them – was identical to my experience in 1947. That is, that the suffering of sentient beings existed prior to each and every human being emerging on this planet as a baby. RESPONDENT: ‘Them’, as it were, is identical to the ‘suffering of sentient beings’. ‘Them’ could not create it, because they are it. RICHARD: Indeed not ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who did ‘create it’ a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: Likewise, ‘the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’’ could not decide as you, because it is you. RICHARD: Indeed not ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who did ‘decide as you’ a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: ‘The flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’’ is the decision made. RICHARD: Okay ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who made the ‘decision made’ a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: This sentence that is now the experience there, now, is you; is ‘the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’’. RICHARD: Not so ... the sentence is tiny dots at 800 times 600 resolution on a computer monitor. The experience of reading the sentence is ‘the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’’ ... not the sentence itself (unless one is a Pantheist, of course ... then I am the sentence because then ‘I am Everything and Everything is Me’). RESPONDENT: Likewise, and forgive my redundancy please, but the point may be clearer if illustrated several different ways, this sentence now being typed, which is not separate in any manner from what the Universe is now, is me, the ‘the flesh and blood body called No. 14. No. 14, or Richard or ‘Them’ is the Universe happening or what the Universe is being. There is one action at all time and that is what the Universe is being, which may be ‘the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’’ or ‘them’, or ‘fish and chips’. RICHARD: In other words: Pantheism. That means that you are Everything and Everything is You. Which means that you are tiny dots at 800 times 600 resolution on a computer monitor. RESPONDENT: Now, with that being said, and forgive me if it was said beyond tolerance, it is quite easily deduced; that which is, can not be its own cause. RICHARD: Indeed not ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who the cause of ‘that which is’ a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: There is a movement, an action, an existence, perhaps this movement is ‘suffering of sentient beings’, and this ‘suffering of sentient beings (identical to them or us)’ is not its own cause. RICHARD: Indeed not ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who the cause of ‘suffering of sentient beings’ is a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: Now since this movement is not in any manner separate from ‘you’, and knowing that your actions are not blind, nor random, nor unintelligent, it is beyond reasonable to deduce a sensible source for these actions. RICHARD: Indeed it is beyond reasonable to deduce a sensible (physical) source ... but, so that I do not fall victim to the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’, is it that who a non-sensible (non-physical) ‘source for these actions’ is a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? RESPONDENT: It is this source that I speak of when I say that which ‘‘decides as me’ the flesh and blood body called No. 14 (me)’ is the decision made, that which decides as me is something else entirely. RICHARD: And just what is that non-sensible (non-physical) source of all the suffering that is ‘something else entirely’? Is it a bodiless ‘Universal Mind’ (by whatever name) that ‘decides as me’? I guess that one could say that ‘The Timeless and Spaceless and Formless Universal Mind’ is the source of all the suffering! * RICHARD: Why is one (as god) so reluctant to acknowledge responsibility for what one (as god) creates? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance, however, that is the first meaningful question you have asked. RICHARD: I am sure that you (as god) know the answer. Would you care to give forth of your wisdom to a benighted humanity? RESPONDENT: Yes of course I do, and the answer is evident in every instance. The explanation is in the action. Humanity does not need the answer – it simply needs to acknowledge it. RICHARD: Hmm ... yet the answer is not ‘evident in every instance’ and the explanation is not ‘in the action’ for maybe 6.0 billion human beings. RESPONDENT: Of course it is, Richard. RICHARD: No ... it is not. And you say so yourself:
Which means, because maybe 6.0 billion human beings have not acknowledged it yet, that it is not ‘evident in every instance’ and the explanation is not ‘in the action’ for maybe 6.0 billion human beings. RESPONDENT: What was your reason for writing your post? RICHARD: To gather valuable information for would-be eastern spiritual mystics so as to show them what wanking looks like in print. RESPONDENT: That is the answer. What is your reason for continuing to breath? That is the answer. RICHARD: May I ask? Can you remember what the question was by now? Which is:
Hmm ... apart from answering a question with a question, this hardly constitutes an answer. * RICHARD: Why will you not share with ‘humanity’ your knowledge? RESPONDENT: Let us be clear, I have no answers. RICHARD: Indeed not. RESPONDENT: However, the answer is shared continually. RICHARD: No ... a borrowed eastern mystical belief system is what is being shared continually. It is not the answer to what actually causes malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: It does not take this letter, or any other for it to be communicated. RICHARD: Oh, this letter communicated something rather well. RESPONDENT: Look at your reasons for living, your reasons for eating, for waking, for making children (I am sorry, I am not aware, Richard of whether you have children). RICHARD: I live, eat and wake for the sheer delight of it all ... because I discovered the actual cause of malice and sorrow. * RICHARD: Would you have 6.0 billion human beings remain in ignorance whilst you alone know the cause of all the suffering of the sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby? Your answer of ‘yes of course I do’ followed by ‘humanity does not need the answer’ smacks to me of elitism and contumely ... especially as you said that it ‘is the first meaningful question you have asked’. RESPONDENT: Opinion noted, but it is built around wrong thinking. I, that which answers, is not me, but I as you, and as ‘them’. RICHARD: Aye ... you are Everything and Everything is You. You are these tiny dots at 800 times 600 resolution. RESPONDENT: I can not withhold the answer, nor can I give it. RICHARD: Is this ... um ... the mandatory paradox now? RESPONDENT: It can be said as me, but it will remain senseless until it is told as the ears that hear, or the eyes that see. RICHARD: If ‘talking ears’ and ‘talking eyes’ are what it is going to take, it will remain senseless for a long, long time. Take an anatomy lesson, and you may understand why. RESPONDENT: I can not have ‘6.0 billion human beings remain in ignorance’, but 6.0 billion people (as I) can by refusing to acknowledge their (my) responsibility for what they (I) create, be it sadness, malice, sorrow, suffering, happiness of corn muffins. RICHARD: Not so ... you clearly said (above) that the ‘source that I speak of when I say that which ‘decides as me’ the flesh and blood body called No. 14 (me)’ is the decision made, that which decides as me is something else entirely’. It would seem that this ‘something else entirely’ is responsible, non? * RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that you will patiently answer all my meaningless questions ... yet prevaricate upon being faced with my ‘first meaningful question’? RESPONDENT: You may take at as you wish ... you are responsible. RICHARD: I do wish to take it that you will patiently answer all my meaningless questions ... yet prevaricate upon being faced with my ‘first meaningful question’ ... because that is in fact what you are doing. And on top of that you tell me that ‘I am responsible’ So we go the full circle – after wading through a convoluted and borrowed eastern spiritual mysticism – you come back to your original statement:
If I may point out? You are not saying anything. You are just going around in circles. * RICHARD: What I am getting at is: why are you (as god) doing/being all this mayhem and misery? RESPONDENT: That is decided as me in each instance. The explanation is in the action. RICHARD: Hmm ... unless this is the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’ , are you artfully avoiding saying that you do not know why there is malice and sorrow in 6.0 billion human beings in the first place? RESPONDENT: For what it is worth Richard, I have intentionally practiced no trickery or artful avoidance in any part of this conversation. I have nothing to avoid or to conceal. There has been no intentional dodging or weaving or any manner of chicanery. You have asked, I have answered. RICHARD: If I may point out again? You have not answered anything ... you are still going around in circles. * RICHARD: Do you actually know the cause of all the suffering of sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: May I refer you to your statements (above):
Which means: you do not actually know the cause of all the suffering of sentient beings that existed prior to each and every human being emerging here as a baby ... because it is ‘The Unknowable’. May I ask? Is this ‘something else entirely’ the same as what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti referred to as ‘otherness’? Is it ‘that which is sacred; that which is holy’? * RICHARD: If not, you are in illustrious company ... neither did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan. RESPONDENT: LOL. Of course he did, Richard, he was I. RICHARD: So, you are saying that you are Mr. Gotama the Sakyan incarnate, eh ... that explains why what you say looks silly in print. What he had to say looks silly in print, too. RESPONDENT: For trivia’s sake, the company is rather mundane. RICHARD: Is it now ... and it is a pleasure talking with you, too.
RICHARD: There is an already always existing peace-on-earth that can only become apparent when ‘I’ as
ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolate ... that is: identity itself becomes extinct. One can decamp from one’s fate (bestowed by
blind nature) and achieve one’s destiny (implicit as this universe). It is yours for the choosing. RESPONDENT: ROTFLMAO. ‘It is yours for the choosing’. You have been a good student – you are free to go! ROTFLMAO. Through eyes filled with tears of Laughter and Joy – Much Love. RICHARD: Am I to take it, that the master has now taught me everything he knows? Because I do appreciate your patient explaining to me of the original cause of all human suffering ... who else would sedulously enucleate how ‘it is beyond reasonable to deduce a sensible source for these actions’ but you? And I particularly appreciate your accurate pin-pointing that this source of all human suffering is ‘something else entirely’ . You do have an eye for getting to the core of an issue ... a rarity on Mailing Lists. I will never forget you and all your invaluable assistance.
RICHARD: Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual.
RESPONDENT: If you would, Richard, please demonstrate the evidence that supports the implication that there is difference between ‘the actual’ and the ‘direct experience of the actual’. RICHARD: Sure ... ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Whereas, sans identity, what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. This is called ‘apperceptive awareness’ (not to be confused with ‘choiceless awareness’). Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness ... and this is a ‘direct experience of the actual’. I am not a Pantheist: I do not identify with the objects of perception in an all-embracing oneness. * RICHARD: It is very simple to identify it precisely ... it is called the survival instinct. All sentient beings have been charged by blind nature to survive at all costs. RESPONDENT: If you would Richard, please demonstrate the difference between ‘the survival instinct’ and ‘all sentient beings’ that you would have ‘charged by blind nature to survive at all costs’. RICHARD: Sure ... given that a ‘sentient being’ is any animal (‘animal as in the classification of ‘animal, vegetable or mineral’) that emerges with in-built sense-organs (which minerals and plants do not), then a sentient being is aware of ‘self’ and ‘other’ (which minerals and plants do not), however rudimentary this awareness may be. Thus comes with awareness (as consciousness emerging from matter) an initially necessary ‘survival instinct’. This ‘survival instinct’ (a set of affective passions that I describe as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) has only one purpose: the perpetuation of the species ... and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned. Thus blind nature does not care about you and me – or humankind as such – but life itself continuing. Hence the appellation ‘blind’ ... nature is only blind from a human point of view. Thus blind nature is not concerned at all about your or my well-being – or humankind as such – but I do. I like being this flesh and blood body and I like my fellow human being and wish well upon myself and anyone else (this is what ‘benevolence’ means). Now I know this attitude of actually caring and actually being concerned about us human beings is called selfish by would-be mystics ... but I happen to find 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 abhorrent. Speaking personally, I do not consider that ‘each instance of rape is fine’. RESPONDENT: Last, if you would, please demonstrate the physicality of each blind nature, all sentient beings, and the survival instinct. That is to say, please make each available as entity available to the sense of sight, smell, hearing, taste, touch. Thank you. RICHARD: Sure ... ‘all sentient beings’ are epitomised as any animal (‘animal as in the classification of ‘animal, vegetable or mineral’) that emerges with in-built sense-organs (which minerals and plants do not) and ‘blind nature’ and ‘the survival instinct’ are easily evidenced by 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 that are endemic among all sentient beings. It is natural to kill one’s fellow human being. * RICHARD: Nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. RESPONDENT: Please demonstrate the difference between ‘nature (which) is blind’ and you and me. Also, if you would, please demonstrate the sense by which ‘nature (which) is blind’ could, or could not ‘care two-hoots’. RICHARD: Sure ... ‘nature (which) is blind’ is epitomised by the instinctual passions that each and every sentient being experiences as the affective faculty. Whereas by not having <you and me > in little quotes I am referring to the flesh and blood body (sans identity). As for the colloquialism ‘could not care two-hoots’ (as I am oft-times accused of being academic in my writing style I leaven my words with idiomatic expressions from time to time) ... it is descriptive prose designed to convey that we human beings hold our own destiny in our own hands. Contrary to popular belief, no one or no thing is going to step in and save the human race. RESPONDENT: Lastly from this passage Richard, please demonstrate the physical, as opposed to the imagined nature, of ‘about’ in the sentence ‘and nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me it is only concerned with the survival of the species ...’. If you would, please demonstrate the sense by which ‘nature (which) is blind’ could be ‘only concerned with the survival of the species ...’ RICHARD: Sure ... nature is blind from a human point of view. Thus ‘blind nature’ is not concerned at all about your or my well-being – or humankind as such – but I do. I like being this flesh and blood body and I like my fellow human being and wish well upon myself and anyone else. Now I know this attitude of actually caring and being concerned about us human being is called selfish by would-be mystics ... but I happen to find 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 abhorrent. Speaking personally, I do not consider that ‘nothing much is happening’ when an infant is being sexually abused. * RICHARD: Any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore, your mind is the species’ mind ... and the species’ mind is ‘you’. Or, as you put it: ‘ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety’. <...> RESPONDENT No. 34: So, let’s use the word ‘actual’ and ‘actuality’ to indicate what ‘is here and now’. OK? RICHARD: Where I differ from the enlightened people is that the ‘Greater Reality’ that they escape
into, being a ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ void, is nothing but a delusion born out of the illusion that they were
trapped in like the 6.0 billion ‘normal’ people. RESPONDENT: If you would, please demonstrate the physical, as being other than the imagined, nature of the meaning of the word ‘differ’ in the sentence ‘Where I differ from the enlightened people ...’ Thank you. RICHARD: Sure ... the enlightened people are the ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless Void’ whereas as I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware of being in time and space as form ... and delighting in it all. To put it another way: they say ‘I am not the body’ and Richard says ‘I am this body’ and that is a big, big difference ... hence ‘where I differ from ...’. Is this not simple to see? RESPONDENT: And if I may, please explain the ‘I’ and make evident the ‘I’ of which you speak as something other than then the current actions pointed to by saying ‘I’. RICHARD: As ‘I’ am self-evident (even Mr. René Descartes knew this) then any attempt at answering this query of yours is to become embroiled in a convoluted and tortuous and tautological academia-like quibbling and nit-picking and squabbling over of differing intellectual spasms of apparently pulchritudinous gems of such scintillating brilliance as to cause any hoary eastern mystical pundit to blush with shame at his ineptitude ... and I decline. If you do not know what ‘I’ is, means or feels like then we cannot have a communication. RESPONDENT: Since there could be only difference between the action you call the flesh and blood body Richard, and the action you would call the flesh and blood body of ‘enlightened people’ (being that it is impossible for those two <Richard and enlightened people> actions to be the same) I would like to see the physicality of the qualities that could be the actualisation of the possibility of being the same, thus making it sensible for one to say ‘Where I differ from the enlightened people’. Thank you. RICHARD: Sure ... it is this simple: you are into altering behavioural patterns (rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic) whereas what I speak of is the elimination of that which causes the aberrant behaviour in the first place. As pacifists and their ilk (those who live the doctrine of non-violence) do not eliminate the source of aberrant behaviour ... then they have to imitate the actual ease of an actual freedom from the human condition by making a big splash about their ‘goodie-goodie’ behaviour. To put it simply – and in a way that might just convey it to you – this what I speak of is somewhat indicated by what is possibly the only passage in the Christian’s Holy Scriptures worthy of note. Viz.:
Whilst obviously not a direct quote, this applies to all anti-social behaviour ... not just a minor thing like sex outside of marriage. Things like all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, to give but a small yet very representative example. Which means: clean up your act on the ‘inside’ and the ‘outer’ actions are free to be appropriate to the circumstances.
RICHARD: Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. RESPONDENT: If you would, Richard, please demonstrate the evidence that supports the implication that there is difference between ‘the actual’ and the ‘direct experience of the actual’. RICHARD: Sure ... ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Whereas, sans identity, what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. This is called ‘apperceptive awareness’ (not to be confused with ‘choiceless awareness’). Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness ... and this is a ‘direct experience of the actual’. I am not a Pantheist: I do not identify with the objects of perception in an all-embracing oneness. RESPONDENT: That is all very interesting Richard and we can discuss how you choose your identification in another line. RICHARD: We surely can ... except that I did not ‘choose my identification’ in the above paragraph at all. I do not now how you got ‘you choose your identification’ out of a very clear sentence that says: ‘I do not identify ...’. Truly wondrous are the ways, with its miracles to perform, are the workings of your mind. Be that as it may ... I have received five posts from you (and there may be another when I go on-line to send this) with more than one or two puzzled queries in them. You do seem to be having some difficulty in grasping what I articulate (as evidenced by the question and answer above and the further question below). Consequently, there seems to be little point in proceeding with the other queries (all 73 of them) until the above query is answered to your complete and utter satisfaction. Therefore, I have elected to answer this one – and receive your response – before proceeding to the next ... and so on and so on. This way I will know that we are not going too fast for your comprehension ... I am prepared to stick at this one query, through thick and thin, until you have ‘got it’ ... and then we can move on with the next. RESPONDENT: However, for now it would be more helpful to me if you would please demonstrate the difference between the ‘direct experience of the actual’ and the actual that you imply is being experienced. Most simply, please show me the actual as other than ‘direct experience of the actual’. Thank you. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way ... one sits in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the eyes see these words and the hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of them. It is obvious that the physical eye-balls and the physical hand are this flesh and blood body ... and that the computer monitor is a glass and plastic object that stays on the desk when the body gets up and walks away. This indicates that there is a distinct physical difference betwixt one and the other. For a normal person (approximately 6.0 billion peoples currently alive on this planet) the experience just described is as if ‘I’ am inside this flesh and blood body looking out through ‘my’ eyes (as if looking out through a window to the world outside a house) ... and ‘I’ see an object called a computer monitor. Just to be sure that it is really there, ‘I’ reach out and feel that it is there through ‘my’ finger-tips ... thus ‘I’ am inside this flesh and blood body and ‘I’ experience the world of people, things and events ‘outside’ the body indirectly (through ‘my’ eyes, through ‘my’ ears, through ‘my’ nostrils, through ‘my’ mouth and through ‘my’ skin). Are we together thus far? I will wait until I receive your response before proceeding to explore the difference between this indirect experiencing (as just detailed) and a ‘direct experience of the actual’ as in my initial article (quoted at the top of this post). Until the workings of this indirect activity is grasped ... it is no use to proceed further. Then we can progress to the more advanced discussions.
RESPONDENT: That is all very interesting Richard and we can discuss how you choose your identification in another line. RICHARD: We surely can. RESPONDENT: Then why go through all the mash of mush that follows? Seems rather like wanking, yes? RICHARD: Goodness me, no ... it is not a ‘mash of mush’ or ‘rather like wanking’ at all. Perhaps we had better clear up this problem before I move on to responding to your reply to my answer to your query on my resolution of your first question to me at the top of the list of 93 puzzled reservations, eh? Otherwise, if this simple observation is left to rancour with you, such festering will grow into a huge doubt, in your mind, about my integrity and honesty. Therefore, I will clear up this misunderstanding – and receive your response – before proceeding to the original answer to your query on my resolution of your first question to me at the top of the list of 93 puzzled reservations. This way I will know that we are not going too fast for your comprehension ... I am prepared to stick at this one misunderstanding, through thick and thin, until you have ‘got it’ ... and then we can get on with the actual business to hand. Now, the fact is that I did not ‘choose my identification’ in the above paragraph at all. I cannot see how you got ‘you choose your identification’ out of a very clear sentence that says: ‘I do not identify ...’. And further to this point, I clearly stated in my resolution of your first question that, sans identity, what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation. Viz.: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me ... which indicates no ‘identification’ at all. I went on to explain that this is called ‘apperceptive awareness’ (and that it is not to be confused with ‘choiceless awareness’) because apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness (which clearly indicates no identity). Now, as this is a ‘direct experience of the actual’ and thus totally foreign to your experience, I did consider that you probably would not comprehend that this experiencing is entirely dissimilar to ‘Pantheism’ (wherein one solipsistically identifies as being everything) so I bethought to bring this to your attention. Hence my very clear statement: ‘I am not a Pantheist: I do not identify with the objects of perception in an all-embracing oneness’ (from which statement you somehow deduced that I ‘chose my identification’ ). Are we together thus far? I will wait until I receive your comeback before proceeding on to responding to your reply to my answer to your query on my resolution of your first question to me at the top of the list of 93 puzzled reservations. Until the understanding of this non-identification is no longer ‘rather like wanking’ or a ‘mash of mush’ in your mind ... it is no use to proceed further to the more advanced discussions.
CORRESPONDENT No. 14 (Part Six) 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 |
