|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 14
Continued on from the Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 19 RICHARD: Contrary to popular belief, there is no ‘something’ or ‘someone’ in charge of the universe. It is perfectly capable of looking after itself. RESPONDENT: Namaste’. It is clear that the choice has been made not to respond to offerings attributed to ‘Respondent’, however, if you please, concentrate on the following questions as they are now, and provide answers? RICHARD: Hmm ... where I wrote, on December 26 2000, in response to your then latest offering that I was currently not inclined to feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises by responding to any other E-Mails you might see fit to offer just then, one of the things I was referring to was a propensity on your part to pick up on syntactic aberrations and semantical oddities as if so doing demonstrated something profound. Yet picking over grammar is conduct unbecoming of an omnipotent god RESPONDENT: What actually is the universe’s self ( as in; ‘It <the universe> is perfectly capable of looking after itself’)? RICHARD: This query of yours is a perfect example of out-of-control semanticism. Viz.:
Thus as there is nary a ‘self’ to be found, in the sentence in question when I do ‘concentrate on the questions as they are now’, I see yet again why ‘the choice has been made not to respond to offerings attributed to ‘Respondent’’. In fact, ‘the questions as they are now’ are remarkably the same as the questions as they were then. RESPONDENT: What is that does the looking after, and what actual is looked after? RICHARD: The universe is that which ‘does the looking after’ and the universe is that ‘what actual is looked after’ of course ... truly marvellous is this ‘perpetual motion machine’ called the universe. RESPONDENT: Can it be argued that the universe is any-thing other than what is? RICHARD: There are those who try to. RESPONDENT: When it is posited that ‘It (the universe) is perfectly capable of looking after itself’ what is there other than ‘looking after’ (that which is) to look after? RICHARD: Unless you could satisfactorily explain what distinction you see between your substitute
phrase for ‘itself’ (‘that which is’) and the dictionary definition of ‘itself’ (‘the thing in question’ or
‘that particular thing, the very thing, that thing alone’ or ‘it, not something else’) then this query of yours is a
non-sequitur * RICHARD: There is no disembodied ‘intelligence’ that is creating anything. This universe is already here ... and it is always here now. RESPONDENT: Can it be argued that there is a body from which intelligence could be dis-embodied? RICHARD: There are those who try to. RESPONDENT: Is it not clear that the metaphysical assumption that all action is the result of an existing body to which the quality motion may attributed is illogical? RICHARD: Aye ... and, because only some action (not ‘all action’) is factually the result
of ‘an existing body’, it is about as self-centredly ‘illogical’ as any self-centred ‘metaphysical
assumption’. Such as ... um ... ‘body is an effect of the life I am (...) all bodies are an effect of the life I am’ RESPONDENT: Is it not clear that the metaphysical assumption that all action is the result of an existing body to which the quality motion may attributed is part and parcel of the world view that is exactly equal to loneliness, depression, isolation and violence? RICHARD: Furthermore, I would guess that to arrogate responsibility RESPONDENT: There will be no signature to assist with the proposed exercise of not imagining the questions coming from a particular ‘psyche’ or ‘impassioned imagination’. Thank you. RICHARD: This undergraduate ploy does not work on me ... you may as well save your time and finger-tips and stop using it.
RICHARD: There are no ‘non-instinctual passions’ whatsoever ... all passion is instinctual (including the cultivated or refined passions) at its root. As to why I say they are ‘not our very base’ (even though ‘they have grown out of the larger field of the universe’) is, quite obviously, because they are dispensable. Something (whatever) that is dispensed with, whilst that which contained or carried it remains (and remains functioning smoothly sans that something), cannot in any way be described as being a ‘very base’ in any context. Just try deleting something essential in a computer programme, for example, and see what happens. Then try deleting something deemed essential in a computer programme ... and when the computer programme continues to operate smoothly sans that which was deemed essential it will be obvious that this something was not at the programme’s ‘very base’ after all. RESPONDENT: What is essential is determined only by the intention chosen to fulfil and no-thing else. RICHARD: Would it be accurate to say that, as the very base of this physical universe is held by some to be an omnipotent god, this omnipotent god is deemed essential for this universe existing? RESPONDENT: For example, One may be the belief that food is essential, but if there is any interest in what is actual, and the belief is examined, it is clear that food is only essential to fulfil a particular intention, specifically the intention to remain a body. RICHARD: This undergraduate ploy does not work on me ... you may as well save your time and finger-tips and stop using it. RESPONDENT: Likewise, a computer program, to barrow from the analogy offered, is only essential in as much as it meets the parameters of a particular intention. RICHARD: Oh? As the borrowed analogy is in respect to the instinctual survival passions, would it be accurate to say that those very passions are essential for god’s ‘particular intention’ to manifest maliciously and sorrowfully (rather than happily and harmlessly) in the first place ... thus requiring bucket-loads of antidotal love and compassion as compensation? RESPONDENT: One can say that the basic DOS is essential to a computer, but if there is any interest in what is actual, the DOS is only essential to fulfil the specific intention of using a computer for a particular purpose (if the intention was to have an expensive putty coloured door weight, the DOS would not be essential in the least). RICHARD: Indeed not ... this is very perspicacious of you. Likewise is it that if the specific intention is to be happy and harmless then malice and sorrow ‘would not be essential in the least’ either, eh? RESPONDENT: It may be replied that certain intentions are pathological, in particular, the intention to use an expensive computer as a door weight, or the intention not to remain a body and waste away of starvation. RICHARD: As the word ‘pathological’ refers to that which involves, is caused by, or is the nature of, disease or illness then I doubt that anyone would say that intending to ‘use an expensive computer as a door weight’ is a pathological intention ... but your second example is bang on. RESPONDENT: That is fine, however, if there is any interest in what is actual it will become clear that even the behaviour of classifying particular intentions as pathological is an effort in fulfilling a particular intention. RICHARD: As I am not inclined to feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises I will pass on this infinitely regressive argument (as it could be said, for example, that the act of categorising the behaviour of classifying particular intentions as pathological is an effort in fulfilling a particular intention ... the intention, perhaps, being to appear be either a linguistic analyst par excellence or an omniscient god). RESPONDENT: There is no behaviour, nor will there ever be a behaviour that can be considered ‘essential’ in and of it self. RICHARD: Before this goes too far it this may be an apt moment to bring your attention back to the point being discussed vis-à-vis the instinctual passions being humans’ very base or not. Surely you are not suggesting that if god (as you) ceases considering the passions ‘‘essential’ in and of it self’ they will cease to exist? I only ask because you have written to me before extolling to virtues of the affective feelings ... in a way
that conveys that you would deem an emotion-filled world ‘essential’. RESPONDENT: The quality of being essential can be determined only by relativity to a particular intention. RICHARD: May I ask? What is the intention in regard to nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom?
RICHARD: Contrary to popular belief, there is no ‘something’ or ‘someone’ in charge of the universe. It is perfectly capable of looking after itself. There is no disembodied ‘intelligence’ that is creating anything. This universe is already here ... and it is always here now. RESPONDENT No. 33: Well, it can equally well be argued the other way around: that there never was anything, and what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth. RICHARD: Yet it cannot ‘equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’ (although there are those who try to argue this). There is a simple experiment that will demonstrate the actualness of physicality in a way that a thousand words would not: 1. Place a large spring-clip upon your nose. 2. Place a large piece of sticking plaster over your mouth. 3. Wait five minutes. Now, as you rip the plaster from your mouth and gulp in that oh-so-sweet and patently actual air, I ask you: do you still say ‘it can equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’? Exit: abstract argumentation. Enter: facts and actuality. Seeing the fact will set you free to live in the actuality which is already here ... and which is always here now. RESPONDENT: The proposition that the above exercise proves the actuality of ‘oh-so-sweet ... air’ is false. RICHARD: What motivates you to suggest that I was out to ‘prove’ something? I was proposing a ‘hands-on’ experiment – a practical, experiential, authentic exposition – that would demonstrate the actuality of something virtually intangible to ocular vision ... as one experience will demonstrate the actuality of what a thousand words may seek to ‘prove’ intellectually. Viz.:
Did you manage the full five minutes before ripping the plaster from your mouth and experiencing the gulping in of that oh-so-sweet and patently actual air? RESPONDENT: The only thing proved actual by the exercise is the intent to remain ‘alive’. RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure that ‘the intent to remain ‘alive’’ is proved at all (let alone ‘the only thing proved’)? Advising a child to look left, then right, then left again before crossing a busy street, for an example, could arguably be said to prove that the intent conveyed in the advice is to remain alive ... but as ‘lungs-breathing’ are a function of the autonomic nervous system (as is ‘heart-beating’) I cannot see that it ‘proved’ any such thing. RESPONDENT: If the intention to remain ‘alive’ is dis-created (not created), the gulping would not take place. RICHARD: It is simple to test your hypothesis for validity: in deep sleep or under anaesthesia it is incontrovertible that any intent to stay alive is totally absent ... yet ‘lungs-breathing’ keeps on happening (just as ‘heart-beating’ continues to occur). RESPONDENT: The gulping, as it were, has no mind for ‘oh-so-sweet and patently actual air’, but rather it has everything to do with the desire to remove the feeling of discomfort associated with the ending of ‘life’ while the intention to remain ‘alive is present. RICHARD: Agreed that the gulping reflex has no mind ... but because it is an autonomic effect associated with the lack of oxygen in the lungs in conjunction with a build-up of carbon dioxide and not the scenario you propose. RESPONDENT: In fact, if the intention to remain ‘alive is present, the gulping will take place regardless of there being ‘oh-so-sweet and patently actual air’, water, Vaseline, thumb tacks or horse manure as the present ‘gulpible’ medium. RICHARD: Agreed that the gulping will take place irregardless of whatever medium the body is immersed in (anybody that has gone under-sea diving is well aware of this) ... as ‘lungs-breathing’ is an involuntary function of a bodily organ (just as ‘heart-beating’ is). RESPONDENT: Breathing is not done because of ‘actual air’, but to relive the actual discomfort that arises as (is completely equal to) a threat to remaining ‘alive’. RICHARD: You have already stated this (further above) in slightly different words so it is apparently an important point. Viz.:
May I ask? Have you never been under anaesthesia, never been knocked unconscious or even just fainted? Or, have you never observed someone else in such a situation (wherein there it can in no way be said that ‘the intention to remain ‘alive is present’)? Just curious. RESPONDENT: If a feeling of satisfaction accompanies the above exercise, it is the satisfaction in the elevation of the threat (an actual, and the only ‘thing’ actual) experience, not satisfaction in gaining what is imagined to be ‘oh-so-sweet and patently actual air’. RICHARD: Again, I was not proposing that ‘satisfaction’ per se was to be the specific outcome of the above demonstration ... rather that the actuality of such a vaporously intangible substance as air would be intimately ascertained thanks to the sensuous immediacy that such an everyday activity (so everyday as is normally overlooked) readily provides. The whole point of the spring-clip-on-nose-large-plaster-over-mouth set-up is to bring this everyday activity, so easily taken for granted, into a sharp focus. This highly-focussed attention provides an immediate intimacy such as would demonstrate (please note ‘demonstrate’ rather than ‘prove’) that what is already always here now is not an illusion ... which is what the discussion is about (in case you have overlooked that pertinent point in your rush to rattle-on about fiscal rationales, political expediency, economic embargoes and so on). RESPONDENT: Air has no more ability to cause satisfaction than fiscal rationales, political expediency, economic embargoes and a myriad of other affairs of state can result in starvation. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate living in the air which embraces this verdant and azure planet ... walking about in and breathing in the air is such a delight and joy that each moment again brings complete complacence, total fulfilment, utter contentment ... and supreme satisfaction. Truly wondrous it is to live in the actuality which is already here ... and which is always here now.
RESPONDENT: The Lock Has Opened! Finally, with Deep Gratitude to the latest offering explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism, it is clear how to demonstrate (communicate) Truth. RICHARD: First, the ‘latest offering’ did not and never will be ‘explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism’ as there is no ‘world viewed called actualism’ (let alone any ‘metaphysics’ of same) outside of your skull ... as well you already know seeing that it has been explained to you, on many and varied an occasion, that actualism is the experiential living of what the words describe. I had occasion, recently, to provide the following explanation in regard to a bibliography I had appended as an adjunct to a response to a query:
Perhaps this is an opportune moment to flesh this (apparently) insufficient explanation out a trifle: actualism is not, and has never been, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. Put simply: it is your ‘world viewed called actualism’ which you have invented that you are criticising and has nowt to do with me. Second, I cannot comprehend why you would seek to ‘demonstrate (communicate) Truth’ to me when it
has been explained to you, also on many and varied an occasion, that I lived that/was that, night and day, for eleven years ...
unless you attach importance to tutoring elderly matriarchs qua ovo fellare. Third, I do wonder what manner of satisfaction it is you gain from continuing to tilt at windmills when the genuine article is available right under your nose for investigation. RESPONDENT: It is experience, and experience only that is immediate and actual. This is not a universe of things, it is experience alone that is the actual universe. Anything other than experience is a perspective, a worldview, an assumption. As examples: A. It is possible to experience movement. B. It is impossible to experience a body that moves. C. It is possible to experience ‘Gulping’ (The experience of trying to experience the elimination of the experience discomfort). D. It is impossible to experience a ‘... and blood body that gulps’. Both B. and D. above are assumptive perspectives imagined to explain what the actual experience was. Not only that, but that posit ‘a body that moves’ is logically incorrect, that is to say, it is not only an assumption to posit there is a body that moves, but it is a poorly constructed posit, tenable only from the perspective of the most ardent and blind adherence to a dualistic belief system. Such explanations are part and parcel of a dualistic world view that assumes every verb (experience) must be accompanied be a subject, i.e. A ‘body’ that moves; A ‘brain’ that thinks; A ‘universe’ that is in perpetual motion; A ‘heart’ that beats; A ‘hand’ that writes; ‘Emotions’ that blind; A ‘nature’ that genetically encodes; ‘eyes’ that see. As long as the dualistic metaphysical assumption that it is ‘a body’ that experiences, the confusion can never end. Likewise, as long as there is an imagined identity, any imagined identity; be it a soul that moves a body, a psyche that thinks thoughts, a body that senses what is not body, a mind that thinks, there can be no end to the behaviour of defending the imagined borders of the imagined identity (violence). Defensive behaviour may be rationalized as ‘justified’ or ‘righteous’, or it may be put off as involuntary, uncontrollable, natural or instinctive, but it will not end. Dualistic beliefs are exactly equal to the endless torment of ‘working against one’s self’ by creating the opportunity for imagine games of standing aside from and then chasing one’s emotions, feeling, etc. In other words, ‘using the mind to work on the mind’, which is exactly equal to anxiety and stress. Experience is actual, the only actual, any-thing, absolutely any-thing posited to be actual beyond experience is a false. RICHARD: I am sure that some – maybe even most – of what you write (above) is illuminating, at least to some extent, inasmuch it is a gripping exposé of ‘the world viewed called actualism’ surging through your synapses and, as there are some other peoples who are mesmerised by what they too insist upon seeing in my words as ‘the actualism philosophy’ or the ‘metaphysics of actualism’ or the ‘viewpoint named actualism’ or ‘the belief known as actualism’ or the ‘worldview called actualism’ and the ‘cult of actualism’, you may receive a resounding round of applause from them. Who knows, if you consult together you may even accidentally iron-out some of those wrinkles you keep on discovering in your ‘world viewed called actualism’. As in regards the (above) offering also being a ‘clear demonstration (communication) of Truth’:
all it takes is to use the ‘find and replace’ function of the computer to seek out every instance of the word ‘experience’
and substitute the words ‘dream’, ‘dreams’, dreamed’ and ‘dreaming’ as appropriate to tense Needless is it to say that when I read Mr. Alan Watts all those years ago, I kept on moving on (on past Mr. Nagarjuna and all the rest).
RICHARD: There are no ‘non-instinctual passions’ whatsoever ... all passion is instinctual (including the cultivated or refined passions) at its root. As to why I say they are ‘not our very base’ (even though ‘they have grown out of the larger field of the universe’) is, quite obviously, because they are dispensable. Something (whatever) that is dispensed with, whilst that which contained or carried it remains (and remains functioning smoothly sans that something), cannot in any way be described as being a ‘very base’ in any context. Just try deleting something essential in a computer programme, for example, and see what happens. Then try deleting something deemed essential in a computer programme ... and when the computer programme continues to operate smoothly sans that which was deemed essential it will be obvious that this something was not at the programme’s ‘very base’ after all. RESPONDENT: What is essential is determined only by the intention chosen to fulfil and no-thing else. RICHARD: Would it be accurate to say that, as the very base of this physical universe is held by some to be an omnipotent god, this omnipotent god is deemed essential for this universe existing? RESPONDENT: ‘A(n) god’, omni-potent or other-wise is an absurdity that represents no actuality. This is GOD, not a god, nor the god, nor some god, nor another god. God is not essential to the universe (existence), God and existence are exactly equal, not as two things compared, but exactly equivalent, synonymous, non-dual. It can be said: No God = No Universe (existence). But this is not to suggest a relationship of: No Baker = No Cake, but rather, the relationship can be viewed as: No Sun = No Daylight, where ‘sun’ does not cause ‘daylight’ but rather sun IS daylight. Another wording is offered: ‘Seek not to be moved by Love as a tree is moved by the wind. Seek to be moved by Love as the wind goes, moved by the wind, and as the tree is its own growth’. RICHARD: Okay ... you have been very explicit and unambiguous in clarifying that ‘No God = No Universe’ (as in ‘No Sun = No Daylight’) to the extent of making it clear that god and the universe are ‘exactly equal, not as two things compared, but exactly equivalent, synonymous, non-dual’ ... inseparable, in other words, as in one and the same. I would draw your attention to some words you have offered in this and various E-Mails:
This is my question: why do you (GOD) ever choose to be sorrow; why does GOD (you) ever choose to be anger, when you (GOD) or GOD (you) could choose to be happy and harmless from the beginning, now, and forever? I do look forward to you (GOD) or GOD (you) providing a very explicit and unambiguous answer to this age-old question that has bothered theologians for centuries ... an answer straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were. * RESPONDENT: Likewise, a computer program, to barrow from the analogy offered, is only essential in as much as it meets the parameters of a particular intention. RICHARD: Oh? As the borrowed analogy is in respect to the instinctual survival passions, would it be accurate to say that those very passions are essential for god’s ‘particular intention’ to manifest maliciously and sorrowfully (rather than happily and harmlessly) in the first place ... thus requiring bucket-loads of antidotal love and compassion as compensation? RESPONDENT: It is so that malice and sorrow are exactly equal to the intention to remain a separate individual (soul, body, atman, psyche, ego, etc.). RICHARD: Seeing that you are very explicitly and unambiguously stating that ‘malice and sorrow are exactly equal to the intention to remain a separate individual (soul, body, atman, psyche, ego, etc.)’ ... this may be the right moment to draw your attention to some of your own words (as already quoted further above):
As you ‘still often choose to be sadness’ it would appear that you are very explicitly and unambiguously stating that you are ‘exactly equal to the intention to remain a separate individual (soul, body, atman, psyche, ego, etc.)’, non? RESPONDENT: If there is the intention to be an individual (that which can be defined by its imagined borders, i.e. ‘I am this, while the rest is that’) all manner of behaviour will be chosen to maintain the imagined separate individuality including all means necessary to protect the borders (violence). RICHARD: As the behaviour called ‘crying and crying’ was chosen at the funeral it would appear that you are very explicitly and unambiguously stating that you have ‘the intention to be an individual’ (as in ‘it is so that malice and sorrow are exactly equal to the intention to remain a separate individual’). RESPONDENT: Also, all manner of behaviour will manifest when an imagined border is breeched (depression, anger, withdrawal, pain, fear, loathing, etc.) This should go without saying. RICHARD: Oh, I guess it should indeed ‘go without saying’ ... but this behaviour that you choose (above) is at odds with some words you wrote only yesterday, Viz:
Unless what you mean by ‘individuality’ is not the same as what you mean by ‘ego’, that is? * RESPONDENT: As for ‘bucket-loads of antidotal love and compassion as compensation’ I will ask, is the suggestion that the imagined bucket loads are required to compensate for being malicious or sorrowful behaviours? RICHARD: The phrase ‘bucket loads’ is a colloquialism (from Monty Python) which conveys, in this instance, what the more refined expression ‘god’s love is showering upon me’ conveys ... and, just as there is no need for imagined showers (of the rain-type or the bathroom-type) to make that expression expressive, so too is it with the expression ‘bucket loads’. And no, I am not suggesting that the antidotal love and compassion are compensation for malicious and sorrowful ‘behaviours’ at all ... there is much, much more to being a happy and harmless human being than merely altering one’s behaviour (be it behaving in an urbane and genteel societal manner or behaving in a cultivated bowing buddha manner). My experience (which is what I am sharing with my fellow human beings) has shown that when malice and sorrow (as affective feelings and not just as behaviour) become extinct, so too do love and compassion (as affective feelings and not just as behaviour). My experience reveals that, not only are love and compassion antidotal to malice and sorrow, they stem from the same source, inseparable, one and the same ... and could be said to be ‘exactly equal, not as two things compared, but exactly equivalent, synonymous, non-dual’ (to put it in a lingo you will understand). My experience exemplifies that, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the entire package (identity in toto) is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent. I am not GOD ... and never will be. * <snip> * RESPONDENT: There is no behaviour, nor will there ever be a behaviour that can be considered ‘essential’ in and of it self. RICHARD: Before this goes too far this may be an apt moment to bring your attention back to the point being discussed vis-à-vis the instinctual passions being humans’ very base or not. Surely you are not suggesting that if god (as you) ceases considering the passions ‘‘essential’ in and of it self’ they will cease to exist? I only ask because you have written to me before extolling to virtues of the affective feelings ... in a way that conveys that you would deem an emotion-filled world ‘essential’. RESPONDENT: Very nicely put. It is suggested that when the dualistic world view that maintains the separation between ‘the world’ and ‘feelings’ is dropped the actual nature of passion will be recognized. RICHARD: Let me guess ... there is only god’s passion? RESPONDENT: That recognition, being exactly equivalent to Infinite Responsibility, will reveal there is no ‘the instinctual passions’ what-so-ever. RICHARD: Hmm ... did you forget, in your eagerness to correct my supposed non-recognition of ‘the actual nature of passion’, to respond to the question? Because even if (note ‘if’) you were to be correct that ‘there is no ‘the instinctual passions’ what-so-ever’ there still remains the fact that you have written to me before extolling to virtues of the affective feelings (whatever their source) ... in a way that conveys that you would deem an emotion-filled world ‘essential’. As an estimated 160,000,000 emotion-filled human beings were killed in wars alone, by other emotion-filled human beings, in the last one hundred years and an estimated 40,000,000 emotion-filled human beings killed themselves, in the same one hundred years, I do most sincerely ask of you: Why is it, that to live in this emotion filled world without gratitude, the greater disease? Or, more explicitly: What is ‘the beauty of’ 160,000,000 emotion-filled human beings being killed in wars? Furthermore: Whence comes the ‘Joy for the beauty of’ 160,000,000 emotion-filled human beings being killed in
wars? And: Why should there be ‘gratitude’ that 160,000,000 emotion-filled human beings were killed in wars? So, here is the question again (slightly modified): why do you write to me in a way that conveys that you would deem an emotion-filled world ‘essential’ ... and then go on to write to me that ‘there is no behaviour, nor will there ever be a behaviour that can be considered ‘essential’ in and of it self’? And here is a clue:
There is much, much more to being a happy and harmless human being than realising that one is god ... and then altering the behaviour one displays accordingly. * RESPONDENT: The quality of being essential can be determined only by relativity to a particular intention. RICHARD: May I ask? What is the intention in regard to nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom? RESPONDENT: Of course, thank you. Sorrow arises from the intention to be what is imagined to be a caring and attentive husband and father. Sorrow also arises with the intention to be what is imagined to be a concerned friend. Sorrow has certainly never been nursed in ‘my bosom, as it were, but it is part and parcel of choosing the behaviours described above. Anger, a strong feeling of displeasure, is some-thing quite other than ‘malice’, which is understood to be a desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite, arises with the intention to have imagined needs fulfilled. Certainly there may be the experience of being angry and malicious, however, there can be the experience either anger alone or malice alone. Interestingly, over several years of caring for and treating emotionally disturbed children and adolescents the following statements were often expressed as the children, most often with some amount of anger and on occasion with malice: ‘Why don’t you just get angry with me!’; ‘How come you are always so happy?! It drives me crazy’!; ‘You are not human!’. And if the actual nature of anger were pointed out, there was often the rebuttal: ‘I don’t want to be like you, you are always happy!’. If this was interest in pursuing that statement, it most often resulted in meaning similar to: 1. Anger is how I get my needs met. 2. If I were happy like you all the time, who would pay attention to me? 3. How could I be special and attended to if I wasn’t demanding attention? 4. How would I let the world know my needs are the most important. 5. How can I make the world perform the way I need (how can I make the world make me happy?) unless I force it? Anger, as 10 years of experience with anger at its most developed reveals, is part and parcel of the intention to remain an individual identity, i.e. soul, body, psyche, person, mind, etc. Sans the intention to be an individual identity, what need for the protection of imagined borders? Sans the intention to be an individual indemnity, what importance can be given ‘your’ needs? What matter is your individual existence if in fact there is no you that exists? RICHARD: Shall I take but three examples, from what you explain away so glibly in this passage as being only the children at fault (‘expressed as the children, most often with some amount of anger and on occasion with malice’ ), and juxtapose them with a few of your many sentences so as to illustrate the point I make regarding choosing a particular behaviour to display to others? Viz.:
Children They are not yet crazed adults themselves, you see ... but I notice that you are doing your best to confound their naiveté.
RESPONDENT: The Lock Has Opened! Finally, with Deep Gratitude to the latest offering explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism, it is clear how to demonstrate (communicate) Truth. RICHARD: First, the ‘latest offering’ did not and never will be ‘explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism’ as there is no ‘world viewed called actualism’ (let alone any ‘metaphysics’ of same) outside of your skull ... as well you already know seeing that it has been explained to you, on many and varied an occasion, that actualism is the experiential living of what the words describe. RESPONDENT: This is not the case at all ... RICHARD: It is indeed the case that actualism is the experiential living of what the words describe. I have been most explicit that this is the case on many, many occasions ... you are way out of your depth here. Viz.:
Here is but one instance of my further elucidation:
As I said: I have been most explicit, that actualism is the experiential living of what the words describe, on many, many occasions. RESPONDENT: ... but thank you for the attempted further explanation of the world view called actualism in the form of a denial of the existence of the world view called actualism. RICHARD: I am in no way denying the existence of ‘the world view called actualism’ inside your skull ... you have made it quite clear that such a ‘world view’ exists for you. Quite clear. RESPONDENT: If there is interest, actualism is in fact a worldview based on a worldview being ‘a comprehensive view of the world and human life’. When the metaphysics of the world view called actualism are referred to, it is a reference to the posits as to the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value associate with the world view. RICHARD: I appreciate that you describe what the make-up of your ‘world view called actualism’ is. The experiential living of what the actualism words describe, however, provides a direct experiencing of ‘the nature of reality’ and ‘the relationship between mind and matter’ and ‘substance and attribute’ and ‘fact and value’ ... thus ‘the posits’ associated with your ‘worldview’ are not only not needed but are totally redundant. Life is so easy here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Now, the said metaphysics should be easily discerned, however, if there is interest, a comprehensive list will be gladly provided. Please inform if such a list is desired. RICHARD: Any desire whatsoever has no existence here in this actual world ... if you wish to further expose what goes on inside your skull in public that is your business entirely. RESPONDENT: Though the previous post did not include the entire metaphysics of the world view called actualism , it was a helpful to understanding the same metaphysics which have been included in several other posts over the last few years. RICHARD: I am sure that virtually any of my words can be turned into ‘the world view called actualism’ ... and not just ‘the previous post’ and ‘several other posts’. RESPONDENT: The previous offering did in fact seem key to recognizing how the world view actualism is related to actual experience (and experience is the only actual). RICHARD: May I suggest? Instead of scrutinising my words through the filter of your ‘world view called actualism’ so as to find the ‘key’ to relate your ‘world view called actualism’ to your worldview’s posited ‘actual experience’ ... why not just experience the physical-world directly instead? One experience is worth a thousand words. * RICHARD: I had occasion, recently, to provide the following explanation in regard to a bibliography I had appended as an adjunct to a response to a query: [Richard]: ‘I provided a ‘lengthy bibliography’ because my experience on this Mailing List has shown that my reports of what I experientially discovered for myself – an intimate ‘hands-on’ experiencing – are capriciously dismissed as being ideas, beliefs, opinions, viewpoints, points of view, concepts, theories, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, thoughts, inferences, judgements, positions, mind-sets, stances, images, intellectualising, analyses ... the entire 101 stock-standard denials of the possibility of being happy and harmless, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body’. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to flesh this (apparently) insufficient explanation out a trifle: actualism is not, and has never been, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however, the case is not that the explanation was insufficient in content or depth, it is that the explanation is aimed at achieving the impossible, specifically building a case for denying actualism is a world view ... RICHARD: You do seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am denying the existence of ‘the world view called actualism’ inside your skull ... I can assure you (for whatever that is worth) that I am not. RESPONDENT: ... (it is noticed that the explanation wishes to persuade that it is sufficient for denying actualism is many things, which may or may not be the case, however, no time will be given to actualism being any other particular behaviour save for being a worldview). RICHARD: As you are making it quite clear that your mind is firmly made up on this issue ... then be it far from me to persuade you otherwise or to dissuade you from your present course of action. RESPONDENT: In other words, no amount of explanation can be consider sufficient for denying the fact of the matter. RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.
RESPONDENT: The Lock Has Opened! Finally, with Deep Gratitude to the latest offering explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism, it is clear how to demonstrate (communicate) Truth. RICHARD: First, the ‘latest offering’ did not and never will be ‘explaining the metaphysics of the world viewed called actualism’ as there is no ‘world viewed called actualism’ (let alone any ‘metaphysics’ of same) outside of your skull ... as well you already know seeing that it has been explained to you, on many and varied an occasion, that actualism is the experiential living of what the words describe. <snip> * RESPONDENT: ... it is noticed that the explanation wishes to persuade that it is sufficient for denying actualism is many things, which may or may not be the case, however, no time will be given to actualism being any other particular behaviour save for being a worldview. RICHARD: As you are making it quite clear that your mind is firmly made up on this issue ... then be it far from me to persuade you otherwise or to dissuade you from your present course of action. RESPONDENT: The expressed faux consideration is a sarcastic gesture that accomplishes no-thing save for making evident the bitterness inherent in the behaviour of being an actualist. It is obvious ‘you’ have no ability to dissuade ‘me’ from any course of action, present or no. RICHARD: It is this simple: you make it abundantly clear that ‘no time will be given to actualism being any other particular behaviour save for being a worldview’ and ‘no amount of explanation can be consider sufficient for denying the fact of the matter’ ... hence my acknowledgement of the very thing you stated so unequivocally. You may, of course, read into it whatsoever you will. RESPONDENT: In other words, no amount of explanation can be consider sufficient for denying the fact of the matter. RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion. RESPONDENT: Not at all. Actually, it could be the beginning of a very wonderful conversation. If there is an honest interest in what is actual, considering the actual fact that the actualism practiced, lived by, and explained by actualists and self proclaimed experts in actualism is a worldview, it should be the end of all feeble explanations and dis-honest or deluded denials of that fact. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? As you not only see a ‘metaphysics’ and a ‘worldview’ being conveyed, but now see ‘feeble explanations’ and ‘dis-honest or deluded denials’ plus ‘sarcastic’ words and ‘bitterness’ as well, you simply provide even further evidence as to why it is pointless to continue the discussion ... I really have no interest in the minutiae of ‘the world viewed called actualism’ surging through your synapses. But if you wish to further reveal what goes on inside your skull in public that is your business entirely. Continued on in the Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 19
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 |
