Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

RICHARD: Why the use of ‘metaphysical’ axioms ... even ‘so-called’ metaphysical axioms? Both existence (this material body and this material world about) and consciousness (this body being aware of being a material body in the material world about) are definitely physical ... not metaphysical at all. Religious, spiritual and mystical ‘States Of Being’ are indeed metaphysical ... as is the abstract world of logic. But please, not this physical body being here ... and its awareness of being here. This is all very obviously temporal.

KONRAD: Why are these two terms called ‘metaphysical axioms’? Because they are so basic that you cannot derive them from something more fundamental, but you also cannot deny them without using them. To give a simple example: if you deny the existence of existence, then this denial exists, and so uses exactly that what it denies. In the same way if you deny consciousness, then you must be aware, be conscious of this denial, and therefore this denial only makes sense when there is a consciousness that understands this denial.

RICHARD: Good ... this body physically being here on this physical planet and this body being aware that it is here is thus logically proved. Also, empirical observation shows that both existence and consciousness of existence is self-evidently factual. Therefore it is not all a dream as metaphysicians would have us believe. This is an excellent point to start from.

KONRAD: Now, in general, you can say that the East is mainly consciousness oriented, and the West is existence oriented. The East was completely immersed with questions about consciousness. It hoped to find all answers to human suffering in consciousness itself. The ideal of ending all suffering, is denoted by the term ‘enlightenment’, and as such they have made many discoveries, the greatest being that of Buddha of ‘the process’. However this may be, in general the East tried to find happiness by recognizing that happiness is a state of mind, and was directed to finding methods, or, at least means, to induce it in the mind. So the question of having total control over consciousness is the focus of the East.

RICHARD: I can agree in general to what you say ... except for your last statement: ‘total control over consciousness’. The whole point of enlightenment is for the ‘controller’ to dissolve (death of the ego) and thus negate the necessity for control. Otherwise it is a discipline, a practice ... something that ‘you’ (as ego) have to do from moment-to-moment.

KONRAD: They have succeeded, but only up to a point. The greatest thing the East could achieve was total peace of mind by finding a way to ending all suffering. This ending of all suffering can be achieved by igniting the process of enlightenment, as discovered by Buddha.

RICHARD: Oh, no way is this historically correct ... spiritual enlightenment was around long before Mr. Gotama the Sakyan came on to the scene. His contribution (if he actually existed as an historical figure) was to do away with god(s) as being ultimate and a personal soul. Buddhism arose out of Hinduism (the same as Christianity arose out Judaism) and later came back to Hinduism in the form of Advaita Vedanta. He did not discount life after death, though.

KONRAD: But is ending of all suffering identical with happiness? Or, to say it differently, is the ending of a negative itself a positive? My answer to this question is: No, it is not. Therefore, let us take a look how well the West, with its orientation on existence, has done in that respect.

RICHARD: Firstly, before we do look at the West ... Buddhism does not profess to totally eliminate suffering, only personal sorrow. Their ultimate condition exists after physical death ... it is called Parinirvana. Buddhism maintains that because of the intrinsic duality of being manifested in a body, then universal sorrow continues to exist after Nirvana is attained ... for as long as the physical body is still alive. And, secondly, the bliss of Nirvana is not because of the ending of what you call a negative (suffering) it is because of the ending of the ego that causes the suffering (personal sorrow).

Anyway, the bliss of Nirvana is nothing but a gloss pasted over the top of universal sorrow in order to make physical life bearable ... eliminate ‘me’ totally (which means the end of universal sorrow) and the need for bliss ends too. And the need for love and compassion too ... but that is another story.

KONRAD: The West is mainly existence oriented. They also strived for happiness, but not by control over consciousness, but by finding ways to control existence. There is a Western equivalent of Buddha, and that is Aristotle. For he discovered logic and rational thinking. This tool turned out to be THE tool that can give us complete control over existence, and even has done it.

RICHARD: Not ‘complete control’ over existence, surely? (And there is that word ‘control’ again). And where has it already ‘done it’? Human beings can work with existence and have some degree of input into what the physical environment can produce; the environment then changes according to this input and humans adjust their next input accordingly ... and so and so on. Nowhere in all this is there any ‘complete control’ ... and there never can be ‘complete control’ of any organic process. It is all trial and error, based upon past experience, and to the degree that something works to produce the desired effect, then that is the degree that any input is successful. Nature is not abstract; nature does not fit into a mathematical equation; science can only go so far ... the rest is up to the human’s ability to adapt to the ever-changing environment.

KONRAD: From it science and technology emerged. Now the question is: has it led to happiness? You would expect me to say now: no it has not. But then you are mistaken. Logic IS the way to happiness. Ruthless application of logic, and transformation of our environment can bring us intense joy and happiness.

RICHARD: You say ‘can bring’ ... has it already? Do you live ‘intense joy and happiness’ twenty four hours a day, seven days a week? If not, then this is theoretical only ... this hypothesis needs to be demonstrated.

KONRAD: But there is a problem. For this one-sided approach of control over existence produces an analogous question as that one of the East. The question is: is the construction of unlimited positives something that also ends the negative? And then I say, No, it is NOT. So both the West AND the East have failed to bring an end to that what you call ‘the human condition’.

RICHARD: Indeed they have not ... I could not agree with you more (except that it is not a question of ‘positives’ supplanting ‘negatives’ ... as I have already indicated above).

KONRAD: Man needs two things. Man needs ways to end suffering AND needs ways to bring happiness.

RICHARD: I could be cheeky and say that woman needs it too. However, the ending of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety – both the ego in the head and the soul in the heart – is both the ending of sorrow and malice and the instantaneous beginning of happiness and harmlessness for the remainder of one’s life ... twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

KONRAD: Now let me return to you and your Actualism. Actualism is the ultimate outcome of the Western orientation on existence. The west has made a subdivision between the outside world and the inside world. Now what you have done is incorporating Man himself, as individuals, into the outside world, by pointing out that we are not psychological entities ‘trapped’ in our bodies, but we ARE these bodies. And therefore we are existents, like rocks, plants, and animals. In your words, we are not WHO’s, but we are WHAT’s that believe to be who’s. And by stating it in these terms you point out, that the division the west has made between the inside world and the outside world is false. There is only an outside world, and we are part of it. We are ‘what’s, and not ‘who’s.

RICHARD: Indeed ... I am this flesh and blood body being conscious. I am the carrots and the beans and the cheese eaten and the air breathed and the water drunk. There is no separation whatsoever betwixt this body and anything or anyone else. Everything and everyone is the very self-same stuff that this physical world – and this material universe – are. I did not come from outside this universe – there being no outside to infinity – nor was I put here by some metaphysical god for some inscrutable reason. We all come out of the ground ... and this earth is the very stuff that this universe is. We are as infinite and eternal as the universe that we are made up of ... and we can be conscious of this as an actuality. I am this very tangible universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being.

KONRAD: This vision leads to a complete reevaluation of our inner life. For, seen from this metaphysics, everything that happens inside of us, including the capability to act purposefully, is looked upon to be no more and no less than a tool of the body. The body is the important thing, and everything else that is imagined is just confusion.

RICHARD: What else is there but this very palpable physical existence ... except fanciful abstraction?

KONRAD: Especially the idea that we are ‘who’s’. You represent the ultimate step of a philosophy that is totally existence oriented.

RICHARD: It is not a philosophy ... it is an accurate description of an on-going and fully-lived experiencing of life ... complete with consciousness operating perfectly well as apperceptive awareness. However, I am somewhat intrigued by your statement in another post that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti constantly espoused this point of view. Viz.:

• [Konrad]: ‘This is especially true, if you realize, that the thought that controls the body is in essence a ‘what’ that believes to be a ‘who’. A point J. Krishnamurti has made continuously’.

Perhaps you could find the time to post a few quotes of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti where he explicitly states that you are a not a ‘who’ and that what you are is only this body being conscious. What about those times where he would leave ‘the body’ under the watchful eye of two women and ‘go away’ somewhere to be ‘worked upon’ by ‘them’? Also, it was reported that a few days prior to his physical death he said that he would soon be able to ‘go to that mountain-top’ and ‘see for himself’ what was there ... after physical death. None of this conveys the impression to me that he considered himself to be nothing other than the flesh and blood body. Quite the obverse ... he obviously fancied himself to continue on long after the body was cremated.

He also said, just prior to physical death, words to the effect that he was a manifestation of a particular intelligence that would not manifest itself temporally for another few hundred years. This is so similar to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s belief that, along with other statements that he made throughout his life, it is quite understandable that Buddhists claim him to be one of them. But, then again, so do the Advaita Vedantists ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had realised that he was Brahman ... and hinted that he was ‘The Buddha’. It is all recorded in print, if you take the time to read through the material.

Do you actually know what you are talking about, Konrad?

KONRAD: And since the essential nature of existence is a movement from indeterminateness to determinateness, or, to say it in other words, the emergence of information, this causes a mind who goes into that to absorb every form of information that exists.

RICHARD: If you say so, Konrad ... but that is not my experience. Existence is already always perfect as-it-is and is not moving from ‘indeterminateness to determinateness’ at all. Also, I only gather enough information to suit my requirements ... like writing to a logician, for example. I have no intention of spending years studying logic ... male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to uncovering the ‘mystery of life’. The only understanding worthy of the name is an experiential understanding ... which means actually living what is being spoken each moment again.

KONRAD: This causes our mind to generate all of the integrations that it can possibly form, without any bias, and thus to generate as much sensate beauty as it can possibly generate. Or, to say it simple, since this metaphysics puts NO barrier to ANY information that can possibly reach our mind, it generates as much sensate beauty as possible.

RICHARD: Maybe your mind does ... but that is not what happens here. I have no interest in beauty whatsoever ... and you already know this as you and I have communicated before. Look through the archives if you will ... you will see that I toss beauty out along with love and compassion and truth and any god whatsoever.

KONRAD: In other words, your metaphysics is a way to happiness. In fact, he represents the endpoint of the Western quest of happiness. No metaphysics can generate so much happiness as yours.

RICHARD: Well, well, well ... except for the word ‘metaphysics’ and the word ‘Western’ it would appear that you understand me (at least intellectually) ... oh no ... wait for it ... there is a ‘but’ coming.

KONRAD: So I see clearly, that you have found the ultimate road to happiness. But why, then, am I not a follower of you, or, at least a sympathiser? It is because of the above question. Is the possibility to generate a maximum of positiveness also an end of the negative? Again, I repeat, NO, it is NOT.

RICHARD: You can repeat it all you like, Konrad, but repetition of an incorrect understanding – however logically right it may be to a dualistic mind – will not make it so in actuality.

KONRAD: You may have found a way to happiness. But you have NOT found a way to end suffering.

RICHARD: Oh? Really? Now this is interesting ... what makes you so sure? Do you ever actually read what I write ... or do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?

KONRAD: Your discovery is in fact the Western version of the process of enlightenment.

RICHARD: And just what ‘version’ would that be, now?

KONRAD: It is something totally different, but it is analogous in the sense that it is its most extreme outcome.

RICHARD: Well now, is it the same ... or is it totally different? Which sentence is your final conclusion ... or are you hedging your bets?

KONRAD: In ‘the process’ there is only consciousness, and existence is ignored.

RICHARD: Whoops ... you have just shot yourself in the foot according to your own logic as detailed above. Here, let me copy and paste it for your edification:

• [Konrad] ‘If you deny the existence of existence, then this denial exists, and so uses exactly that what it denies. In the same way if you deny consciousness, then you must be aware, be conscious of this denial, and therefore this denial only makes sense when there is a consciousness that understands this denial’.

It sounded pretty good to me when I first read it ... how is it for you upon reflection?

KONRAD: In your Actualism, there is only existence, and ultimately it will lead to a denial of consciousness.

RICHARD: In this actualism there is both existence and consciousness ... have you not noticed this yet? Only I describe this freed consciousness as apperceptive awareness ... look through the writings if you will.

KONRAD: Much of this denial can already be found in you yourself. You deny the moments when you suffer.

RICHARD: And what moments would these be?

KONRAD: You have not overcome suffering, but you over flood your suffering with your happiness.

RICHARD: No, I have not ‘overcome’ suffering ... not at all. I have eliminated the root cause of suffering. Thus I do not need to ‘overflood’ anything ... happiness and harmlessness are the spontaneous results of psychological and psychic suicide.

KONRAD: You deny that you can be irritated, annoyed, and even angry, while it is perfectly clear, even from your writings, that, at times you are.

RICHARD: And where in my writings is this ‘perfectly clear’ ? And what is this ‘even from your writings’ bit, anyway? Is this another one of your ever-changing realisations ... or one of your about-face insights?

KONRAD: You do not feel your psychological disturbances, not, because they are not there, but, because when they arise, you focus your attention to something that gives you pleasure and delight.

RICHARD: Golly ... you seem to know more about me than I do. Is that really how I operate? Am I that befuddled?

KONRAD: And, of course, you deny the accomplishment of Buddha, ‘the process’. For you think you have no need for such a thing, because you run away from your own moments of discomfort.

RICHARD: Firstly, I do not deny Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s accomplishments ... just that he would not take the ‘final step’. Secondly, I praise the ‘process’ as a means to an end ... whereas you have taken it to be the end. Thirdly, what ‘moments of discomfort’ would these be, now?

KONRAD: Do you know, why it is so difficult to stop smoking?

RICHARD: I stopped smoking for five years back in 1979 ... and it was very easy. The physical withdrawal symptoms only lasted for three days and were not much of a problem at all ... after that it was down-hill all the way.

KONRAD: This is because smoking is a way to redirect your attention to something pleasant when you feel stress. Whenever there is stress, you can focus your attention to smoking. At a certain point this focusing to smoking in a stress situation becomes so automatic, that the stress not even enters consciousness. This is the principle of addiction. The particular thing you are addicted to does not matter. Only its capacity to redirect attention from suffering is important. Some means are better than others, and some are outlawed, while others are not. Still, the principle is the same.

RICHARD: And if there is no stress – ever – in your life? Where does your theory go to then? And I also drink coffee ... what dreadful secret does this information reveal to you? However, I do not touch alcohol – or any other drug – whatsoever. What does this indicate?

And will I get any brownie points for being a teetotaller?

KONRAD: Something similar is present in your metaphysics. You have, thanks to your metaphysics, far more sources of sensate pleasure than anyone else. But your redirection to these sources is so thoroughly automated, that you do not even feel your own psychic disturbances, although they are in plain sight of everybody who has a dialogue with you.

RICHARD: So we have ‘psychic disturbances’ too ... is there no end to your list of defects (or should I say ‘no end to your imagination’)?

KONRAD: I have followed your involvement with Mailing List in the past, and almost everybody on it saw both your frustration, AND your denial of this fact. Only you yourself do not see it.

RICHARD: Let us add ‘frustration’ to the list by all means ... this character analysis that you are wasting your time with is fascinating, to say the least.

KONRAD: And that is not all. There is even a more serious problem with your metaphysics.

RICHARD: Look out, folks ... there is more to come!

KONRAD: Suppose someone follows your metaphysics completely, and live it. Then, psychologically speaking, they have definitely found a way to sensate beauty. But this can only be experienced as long as they themselves are an existent. This means, that when they are confronted with death, there is instant realization that they will lose all of it. And since the happiness is so intense, this means a loss that is proportional to their happiness. This problem is the fundamental problem of happiness in every form. If you have found it, the realization that you are a finite being with only limited time at your disposal causes the very sources of happiness to transform into potential things you will lose, and therefore to psychological pain.

RICHARD: Ah, so you do believe in life after death after all. I did ask you in an E-Mail months ago and you replied in the negative then. Is this another of your sudden insights ... or were you lying to me then?

KONRAD: This fact is clearly realized in the East. It has caused a disaster there, for it has caused the East to be even hostile to the whole idea of happiness. To strive for happiness is at the same time to strive for something, that makes you to be attached to existence, and therefore to suffer when you realize that in death everything ends.

RICHARD: Yet I am on record as having written: ‘without physical death I could not possibly be happy’. I will leave it to you to work that one out.

KONRAD: Their solution: deny the world. But then you deny your own potential to be happy. This solution is at the root of for example the tremendous poverty you can find in India. It is no coincidence that this country that is the most spiritual in the world is at the same time one of the poorest. However, while the solution of denying your potential to be happy might be wrong, and it is, this does not make this problem of happiness less real. There is a real problem with happiness, and it has everything to do with our finiteness.

RICHARD: If one lives fully – which is to actually be here as this body at this moment in the universe’s eternal time and this place in this universe’s infinite space – one experiences infinitude for twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for the remainder of your life. It sure beats the specious immortality so beloved of the mystics ... who long for physical death to release them from this much-derided ‘finite’ existence.

You can always use your logic on this one, Konrad: If eternity exists, where do you think it is located? Only before birth and after death? Does eternity stop happening whilst you are alive and breathing? What kind of eternity is that? Is it an intermittent eternity? No? Is it already here ... now? Yes? No? If no, then where is it?

KONRAD: I have tried to make this problem clear to you, but you were totally blind to it. You put all kinds of things forward that had nothing to do with this problem when I addressed it, showing that you did not want to think about it. This is much like the drug addict who does not want to consider a life without his drug. He rather denies, lies, cheats and steals than even consider that another life might be healthier. In the same way you do everything to evade confrontation with this basic problem of happiness, and shows behavior that is much like a drug addict’s behavior.

RICHARD: Have I read this too quickly ... are you now adding denial, lying, cheating and stealing to the list of Richard’s defects? Are you likening me to a drug addict? There is no end to your prescient abilities ... for how else could you know all this?

KONRAD: You are the ultimate example of somebody who puts existence totally above consciousness. Experiences of informational integration causes the phenomenon of sensate beauty. (Chills along your spine because you hear beautiful music, etc.) These kinds of experiences is what you live for.

RICHARD: This becomes more and more ridiculous as you go along, Konrad. You may get ‘chills along your spine’ but I do not. I am not interested in ‘beautiful music’ ... it is all about pathos. It is designed to ameliorate suffering; where there is no suffering there is no ‘beautiful music’ ... just a pathetic tugging on other people’s heart strings. And what does ‘informational integration’ mean when it is at home?

KONRAD: K and Buddha are examples of individuals who put consciousness totally above existence. But doing this causes you to deny that happiness must be allowed to have a place in our lives too. Both ways, when taken as exclusive ways, are out of balance. Buddha’s way leads to the end of suffering, and your way leads to happiness.

RICHARD: My way leads to the extinction of any identity whatsoever. ‘My’ demise is the ending of sorrow and malice (what you call ‘suffering’ ) and the instantaneous ushering in of happiness and harmlessness.

KONRAD: Now I assert, that in order to have a completely balanced life, Man needs both. So what we need is some way of life that allows us to become happy, without at the same time cause the very happiness to become a potential source of pain in the face of death. THIS is the field in which I am operating. Therefore I assert, that we need both the orientation of Buddha, and your orientation. But in a way, whereby the disadvantages of both do not cause problems.

RICHARD: First fully understand Richard’s orientation – and probably Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s as well – then we may be able to have a fruitful conversation.

Until then you will be chasing after a ‘balanced life’ ... somewhat like a juggler.

KONRAD: I hope you liked it to hear at least something of me.

RICHARD: I do indeed, Konrad ... please write whenever you have something new to say as I am only too happy to examine any proposition that we have not already covered.

KONRAD: Whenever I talk about your vision, and what I say to others I maybe misrepresent some parts of it. I do this sometimes deliberately, because I want to make people to think as hard as they can. Therefore I make sometimes some extreme statements to shake people up. I have learnt this from the Objectivists that this is a good thing to do to make people more aware.

RICHARD: Surely it is not a case of ‘what the Objectivists say, Konrad does’, is it? You must agree with their teaching in order to do it yourself, would you not say? Or do you not take responsibility for your actions ... and blame it upon someone else’s influence? Do you personally think that lying about what another person does or does not do is an effective way of having an honest and meaningful discussion about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in this world as it is? And where do you get off, anyway, trying to ‘shake people up’ with blatant untruths and somehow believe that you can make them ‘more aware’ by ‘thinking hard’ about what amounts to nonsense? Are you for real?

*

KONRAD: The question of having total control over consciousness is the focus of the East.

RICHARD: The whole point of enlightenment is for the controller to dissolve (death of the ego) and thus negate the necessity for control. Otherwise it is a discipline, a practice ... something that ‘you’ (as ego) have to do from moment-to-moment.

KONRAD: What they wanted was to let all disturbances in consciousness end. The method to achieve this is letting the controller dissolve. Nevertheless, this does not deny that they were after ending all suffering.

RICHARD: My word, you are a slippery customer ... what a leap from ‘having total control’ to ‘letting the controller dissolve’. Would you be a devotee of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain by any chance? He slipped and slithered his way through his philosophy and was even proud of his inconsistency. And they were not ‘after ending all suffering’ ... they wanted to end personal sorrow. Their stated aim is to come upon universal sorrow so that they can invoke Divine Compassion and thus manifest Love Agapé. Their reward for doing so is Bliss, Ecstasy and Euphoria ... and mystic power over other people

KONRAD: They have succeeded, but only up to a point. The greatest thing the East could achieve was total peace of mind by finding a way to ending all suffering. This ending of all suffering can be achieved by igniting the process of enlightenment, as discovered by Buddha.

RICHARD: Oh, no way is this historically correct ... spiritual enlightenment was around long before Mr. Gotama the Sakyan came on to the scene. His contribution (if he actually existed as an historical figure) was to do away with god(s) as being ultimate and a personal soul. Buddhism arose out of Hinduism (the same as Christianity arose out Judaism) and later came back to Hinduism in the form of Advaita Vedanta. He did not discount life after death, though.

KONRAD: Remember, my roots are in Zen. They look upon these kinds of visions as aberrations of the original vision.

RICHARD: Once more you try to shift the onus onto someone else ... Zen Buddhists, this time. Do you ever stand on your own two feet? And ‘aberrations’ of what ‘original vision’ are you referring to? Did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan really invent enlightenment, then? And did Hinduism actually come out of Buddhism? Did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan not do away with god(s) as being ultimate and a personal soul ... was that someone else? Did he, in fact, disavow life after death and renounce the concept of reincarnation? What on earth are you getting at? What School of Zen are you associated with ... the Dumb-san School, perchance? What I wrote above are not ‘visions’, they are accepted historical records.

*

RICHARD: Buddhism does not profess to totally eliminate suffering, only personal sorrow. Their ultimate condition exists after physical death ... it is called Parinirvana. Buddhism maintains that because of the intrinsic duality of being manifested in a body, then universal sorrow continues to exist after Nirvana is attained ... for as long as the physical body is still alive. And, secondly, the bliss of Nirvana is not because of the ending of what you call a negative (suffering) it is because of the ending of the ego that causes the suffering (personal sorrow).

KONRAD: Again, I talk from the Zen perspective. The aim is ending all suffering. The method is the ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists.

RICHARD: Well, you do not understand Zen Buddhism, then. They do not rattle on about the supremacy of logic ... Zen Koans are designed to break the hold that dualistic thinking has on a person. Also, you say that the ‘I’ cannot end; you say that an ‘I’ is essential for controlling the body; you say that peace is not possible; you deny any ultimate solution to the human condition; you say ... gosh, let me quote you: [Konrad] ‘I deny that ‘the process’ is the ultimate solution Buddha pretends it to be for the ‘human condition’. [endquote]. Just what ‘Zen perspective’ do you have? And to top it all off, you have the cheek to end with: ‘the ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists’ . What do you mean? Which one of your many statements is true?

*

KONRAD: Logic and rational thinking is tool that turned out to be THE tool that can give us complete control over existence, and even has done it.

RICHARD: Not ‘complete control’ over existence, surely?

KONRAD: Yes, complete. In modern science it has become completely clear what is needed for it. So the insight in what requires complete control has become total. Only, to explain this takes too long. And you probably would not understand it anyway when I attempted it, because it requires a greater skill in abstract thinking than I have ever seen present in you.

RICHARD: Oh, what a cop-out this is ... if you are not prepared to explain yourself then do not make such statements in the first place. And blaming what you take to be my lack of understanding is merely you shifting the onus once again.

KONRAD: Ruthless application of logic, and transformation of our environment can bring us intense joy and happiness .

RICHARD: You say ‘can bring’ ... has it already? Do you live ‘intense joy and happiness’ twenty four hours a day, seven days a week? If not, then this is theoretical only ... this hypothesis needs to be demonstrated.

KONRAD: This is your ‘one big bang’ solution illusion again. I do not buy it.

RICHARD: What do you buy, then? You say above that you come from a ‘Zen perspective’ ... and if anyone has a ‘one big bang’ solution it is them. Their literature abounds in sudden awakenings ... do you remember? I always understood that logicians were consistent.

*

KONRAD: Your vision leads to a complete revaluation of our inner life. For, seen from this metaphysics, everything that happens inside of us, including the capability to act purposefully, is looked upon to be no more and no less than a tool of the body. The body is the important thing, and everything else that is imagined is just confusion.

RICHARD: What else is there but this very palpable physical existence ... except fanciful abstraction?

KONRAD: There this mistake again. Underestimating the abstract part of Man.

RICHARD: I do not underestimate it at all, Konrad ... to many people have died in wars fought for your much-prized ‘abstract part of man’ for me to overlook it.

KONRAD: Especially the idea that we are ‘who’s’. You represent the ultimate step of a philosophy that is totally existence oriented.

RICHARD: It is not ‘totally existence oriented’ and nor is it a philosophy ... it is an accurate description of an on-going and fully-lived experiencing of life ... complete with consciousness operating perfectly well as apperceptive awareness.

KONRAD: If you live your vision, this does not change the fact, that in the eyes of others it is a vision.

RICHARD: But I do not ‘live my vision’ ... I simply describe what I am living and you turn that description into a vision. There is an actual world, you know, not everything is abstract or mystical ... like philosophies and visions and spirituality.

*

RICHARD: I am somewhat intrigued by your statement in another post that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti constantly espoused this point of view. Viz.: [Konrad] ‘This is especially true, if you realise, that the thought that controls the body is in essence a ‘what’ that believes to be a ‘who’. A point J. Krishnamurti has made continuously’. Perhaps you could find the time to post a few quotes of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti where he explicitly states that you are a not a ‘who’ and that what you are is only this body being conscious.

KONRAD: He never did explicitly.

RICHARD: Good ... I have never seen it explicitly stated either ... so my guess is that you made it up.

KONRAD: However, it follows from his observation, that we are not persons who are bothered with anger we must try to get rid of, but we ARE this anger. Therefore, if we try to get rid of anger, it is anger that tries to get rid of anger. It is also implied in his statement, that there are only thoughts and insights. It can also be seen from the fact, that he refers to himself as ‘the speaker’.

RICHARD: I read through this response three times and for the life of me I cannot see how any of it ‘follows’ at all. If you are anger ... then you are a ‘who’. If you try to get rid of anger it is a ‘who’ trying to get rid of a ‘who’ . And where you say ‘there are only thoughts and insights’ then you are referring to a ‘who’ again by the use of the word ‘only’. As for ‘the speaker’ ... that is a substitute title for ‘mystical teacher’, not a description of a flesh and blood body.

*

RICHARD: What about those times where he would leave ‘the body’ under the watchful eye of two women and ‘go away’ somewhere to be ‘worked upon’ by ‘them’? Also, it was reported that a few days prior to his physical death he said that he would soon be able to ‘go to that mountain-top’ and ‘see for himself’ what was there ... after physical death. None of this conveys the impression to me that he considered himself to be nothing other than the flesh and blood body. Quite the obverse ... he obviously fancied himself to continue on long after the body was cremated.

KONRAD: This was the early, confused Krishnamurti. Later he was different.

RICHARD: This is the stock-standard reply of more than a few Krishnamurtiites ... and they get very coy when I ask them for the cut-off date. When, for you, did the ‘early confused Krishnamurti’ become the mature Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Was it after his physical death?

*

RICHARD: He also said, just prior to physical death, words to the effect that he was a manifestation of a particular intelligence that would not manifest itself temporally for another few hundred years. This is so similar to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s belief that, along with other statements that he made throughout his life, it is quite understandable that Buddhists claim him to be one of them. But, then again, so do the Advaita Vedantists ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had realised that he was Brahman ... and hinted that he was The Buddha. It is all recorded in print, if you take the time to read through the material. Do you actually know what you are talking about, Konrad?

KONRAD: I talk from the Zen perspective. And from this perspective it is correct. Jiddu Krishnamurti knew, that this ‘process’ that was going on in him was exactly the same process as that what was present in Buddha. He had in common with Buddha, that he became spokesperson of this process. Everybody who is a spokesperson of this ‘process’, and sees in it something that can end suffering, is, I would say, by definition, a Buddha. In this ‘tradition’ I am a very strange kind of animal. For I agree with you, that this is far too much pretence. I do not consider this ‘process’ to be enough.

RICHARD: Then why do you insist that you are ‘talking from the Zen perspective’? For a self-acclaimed logician, your thought process is very convoluted ... actually, you do not make any sense at all, here.

*

RICHARD: I have no intention of spending years studying logic ... male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to uncovering the ‘mystery of life’. The only understanding worthy of the name is an experiential understanding ... which means actually living what is being spoken each moment again.

KONRAD: I understand why you do this. For allowing abstractions into your life makes you also aware of time, since this is one of the abstractions. Your aversion against abstractions is in particular against this one, because allowing time as something real causes immediately a conflict with your own finiteness.

RICHARD: Wait a minute ... let me get this straight. You say that if I allow abstractions into my life, I then become aware of time ... and you state that time is an abstraction. Now, I consistently say that I am being here in this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space ... yet you say I have an aversion against abstractions because I would have to allow time into my life! You compound your confusion by going on to say that time is real – not an abstraction – and that I have a conflict with finiteness. Yet I consistently talk of experiencing the infinitude of this universe each moment again for the rest of my life. Where in all this is there a conflict for me?

*

KONRAD: Gathering all possible information causes our mind to generate all of the integrations that it can possibly form, without any bias, and thus to generate as much sensate beauty as it can possibly generate. Or, to say it simple, since this metaphysics puts NO barrier to ANY information that can possibly reach our mind, it generates as much sensate beauty as possible.

RICHARD: Maybe your mind does ... but that is not what happens here. I have no interest in beauty whatsoever ... I toss beauty out along with love and compassion and truth and any god whatsoever.

KONRAD: I know that you have excluded emotional beauty. But have you also excluded sensate beauty?

RICHARD: There is no such thing as ‘sensate beauty’ ... beauty is affective. Beauty is a feeling-response of the emotional and passionate ‘me’ to what is purely sensorial delight.

*

KONRAD: You may have found a way to happiness. But you have NOT found a way to end suffering.

RICHARD: Oh? Really? Now this is interesting ... what makes you so sure? Do you ever actually read what I write ... or do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?

KONRAD: Because you avoid the abstraction of time. You use terms like: ‘Everywhen’ to cover this up. This is your, as the Objectivists call it, ‘floating abstraction’ to evade reality, and the clear fact that time exists in the sense I have explained it before.

RICHARD: I must be dumb ... here is the same thing again. Apparently I avoid the ‘abstraction of time’ whilst evading the ‘clear fact that time exists’. Only now I have a ‘floating abstraction’ in order to evade reality ... yet I talk endlessly about living in this actual world of people, things and events. I see why some astute person on this List asked you what you were smoking over there.

As for my use of ‘everywhen’ ... the generalising word for all space (‘everywhere’) exists but not generalising word for all time (‘everywhen’) ... which I find cute.

*

KONRAD: Einstein was once asked whether he was able to explain his general relativity as simple as possible. He said, that the essence was that classical physicists believed, that if you remove all matter from the universe, you are left with space, devoid of matter. But according to general relativity when you remove all matter from space, then space itself has disappeared, too. The same relation exists between thought and consciousness. I have discovered, that if all thoughts are removed from consciousness, then consciousness itself has disappeared too. Apparently consciousness requires thoughts in order to exist, in the same way as space requires matter in order to exist. Without matter no space; without thoughts no consciousness.

RICHARD: The only problem with Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory is that it is just that ... a theory. You cannot ‘remove all matter from space’ no matter how many bull-dozers and dump-trucks you bring into action. Where would you put all that matter? Dump it somewhere outside of the universe? There must be an ‘outside’ for Mr. Albert Einstein to even think up this nonsense ... more abstract hypothesising once again.

KONRAD: You calling this vision nonsense only betrays that you are not able to think in the abstract, or understand that the abstract has very real consequences. E = mc^2 is the basic equation of the atomic bomb. This abstract formula has caused the very concrete destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it caused the very concrete other atomic explosions that have taken place since then.

RICHARD: As I understand it, it was Mr. Neils Bohr’s understanding of the atomic nucleus, which he likened to a liquid droplet, that was a key step in the understanding of many nuclear processes, and not Mr. Albert Einstein’s famous equation. In particular, in 1939 Mr. Neils Bohr’s formulations played an essential part in the understanding of the splitting of a heavy nucleus into two parts, almost equal in mass, with the release of a tremendous amount of energy ... thus nuclear fission. In fact, in 1943 Mr. Neils Bohr and one of his sons, Mr. Aage Bohr took part in the projects for making a nuclear fission bomb. They worked in England for several months and then moved to Los Alamos in the USA with a British research team. Mr. Albert Einstein greatly admired Mr. Neils Bohr’s early work, referring to it as ‘the highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought’, but he never accepted Mr. Neils Bohr’s claim that quantum mechanics was the ‘rational generalisation of classical physics’ demanded for the understanding of atomic phenomena. They discussed the fundamental questions of physics on a number of occasions, sometimes brought together by a close mutual friend, Mr. Paul Ehrenfest, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Leiden ... but they never came to basic agreement. Be that as it may ... the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed by applied physics and not abstract concepts. Mr. Albert Einstein’s famous concept is yet to be demonstrated ... let alone used. It remains – like most of his theories – conceptual in nature and not established in fact. His concept of curved space-time, for example, is still only mathematically correct ... and unable to be demonstrated.

*

KONRAD: The question is not whether such a scheme like removing all matter can be practically done, but whether this hypothesis can cause predictions of phenomena formerly thought to be unrelated. And indeed it does. The basic equation of Einstein’s general relativity G = 8 Pi T, states that all of space, (space-time) represented by G is connected with all of the energy T (stress-energy) through this equation. This equation then explained a connection between the perihelic motion of Mercury, the red shift of heavy stars, and the fact that clocks run more slowly when the gravitational field is more intense. Predictions that were all quantitatively vindicated. Consider also this: concretely speaking it is incomprehensible that the colour of light can be connected with motions of planets, and those two things can be connected to running clocks, and still this equation says that these phenomena ARE connected. Not only that, this equation even says something quantitatively about it, and this is then indeed found, this equation is therefore proved as good as anything can be proved in physics.

RICHARD: Aye ... well said: ‘as good as anything can be proved in physics’. There are as many theories expressly contradicting the above as there is supporting it. Physicists just do not know these things for certain ... they are experimental models only (and the more honest physicists state this clearly).

KONRAD: In other words, that these things are connected in the way that Einstein says is 100% certain. But then his statement about the connection between all space and all energy is also 100% certain.

RICHARD: Only if you say so, Konrad ... you obviously believe in him like many physicists do. Believing in Mr. Albert Einstein amounts to a religious-like certitude for the faithful.

*

RICHARD: All this can never be demonstrated ... such idle speculation brings so-called ‘discoveries’ that may be very satisfying to the logically-trained mind that is desperately searching for answers from within the human condition, but it does nothing to bring about an end to malice and sorrow in the person who dreams up these schemes. Mr. Albert Einstein did not bring about peace-on-earth, in his life-time, for himself. Why quote him to ‘prove’ your point? What, for all of his dialogues with prominent Indians, is his contribution to the study of human consciousness worth ? Zilch.

KONRAD: You cannot reproach somebody who has found a cure for gangrene that his method is not a way to repair a radio. But that is what you are doing here.

RICHARD: Not so ... it was you who bought Mr. Albert Einstein into a discussion about the nature of consciousness in order to substantiate your point, not me. As he is your authority, he thus has to be able to deliver the goods in order for me to see that he knows what he is talking about ... and he does not.

*

KONRAD: In your Actualism, there is only existence, and ultimately it will lead to a denial of consciousness.

RICHARD: In actualism there is both existence and consciousness ... have you not noticed this yet? Only I describe this freed consciousness as apperceptive awareness.

KONRAD: You deny that existence can only be understood indirectly. Therefore you deny the perspective of the existential phenomenologists. Let me give an example of their reasoning. Remember in your previous mail, that you considered Einstein’s theory to be bogus? You did this, because it is practically impossible to remove all energy from the universe. Now, the Existential phenomenologists use a similar line of reasoning to show that consciousness can be prior. What they say is: ‘Can the term ‘existence’ be meaningfully defined if there is not someone present, who is conscious of it? Some would say: Yes. Their argument is: because there was a time that there were no humans. So it is irrational to assume that at those ancient times there was no existence, pure because there was nobody who could acknowledge its existence. If there can only be existence when there is somebody who acknowledges its existence, this sentence does not have any meaning. Still, this argument can be refuted in the following way: As soon as there is somebody who is able to acknowledge the existence of existence, in the same act he acknowledges the past of the existence. Therefore existence, including the implicit consequence of its past, can only have meaning if there is someone who is able to acknowledge it. This makes a belief in existence in the sense of a ‘brute existence’ independent of us acknowledging it basically naive’.

RICHARD: Okay then, I am naive ... and if your line of reasoning is an example of sophistication then I am very pleased to be naive. Look, what I am is these eyes seeing a tree and these ears hearing it rustling and these finger-tips feeling its texture and this nose smelling its resin and this brain being apperceptively aware as all this is happening of its own accord. All of this existence/consciousness divide that you have created is evidence that you take yourself to be an ‘I’ inside the body ... which you do not deny. Just do not assume that that is how it is for me and you will begin to understand me a whole lot better.

KONRAD: In other words, if the practical impossibility of removing all matter is an argument against the theory of general relativity, then the practical impossibility of acknowledging existence without somebody who does this is an argument against the theory that existence exists independent of us acknowledging it. In other words, this type of argument shows that your ‘primacy of existence’ point of departure is self contradictory.

RICHARD: How is that so? If you were to place a plastic bag over your head and tie it tightly around your neck your consciousness would cease to exist within five to ten minutes. We the onlookers would observe that you are dead and that existence is still happening. Thus is demonstrated the primacy of existence over your consciousness.

KONRAD: I do not subscribe to their vision.

RICHARD: Then why waste all this time talking about it?

KONRAD: Still, as you see when you read closely, this type of reasoning is logically identical with the type of refutation you used against Einstein’s general relativity, and therefore should be for you just as valid. I myself was fascinated by the fact that a complete vision that is on the surface completely realistic can be formulated by taking the primacy of consciousness as its point of departure. They showed me that this is at least a field of enquiry that you are completely unaware of. Since you obviously build everything on the primacy of existence.

RICHARD: Yes, I would call acknowledging the primacy of existence as being sensible. Different people come and go ... existence always remains. This universe was already here before you were born and will still be here after you are dead. It does not take a genius to suss out which of the two is primary when it is a choice between you being primary, Konrad, or this universe.

*

KONRAD: You have not overcome suffering, but you over flood your suffering with your happiness.

RICHARD: No, I have not ‘overcome’ suffering ... not at all. I have eliminated the root cause of suffering. Thus I do not need to ‘over flood’ anything ... happiness and harmlessness are the spontaneous results of psychological and psychic suicide.

KONRAD: Yes, you have killed abstract thinking along with it. For it made you painfully aware of time.

RICHARD: Aye, abstract thinking did indeed disappear along with it ... also intuition and imagination and belief. Life is so much easier without those impediments to sanity. And I am delightfully aware of time ... I revel in being here in time and in space.

*

KONRAD: And, of course, you deny the accomplishment of Buddha, ‘the process’. For you think you have no need for such a thing, because you run away from your own moments of discomfort.

RICHARD: Firstly, I do not deny Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s accomplishments ... just that he would not take the ‘final step’. Secondly, I praise the ‘process’ as a means to an end ... whereas you have taken it to be the end. Thirdly, what ‘moments of discomfort’ would these be, now?

KONRAD: I deduced this from the fact, that you did not go into, for example my analysis whereby I connected your vision to time. Since you evaded it, I assumed you were feeling uncomfortable because of these analysis.

RICHARD: I did not go into it because it was nothing but speculative theory. Time is both actual and eternal. You sent me a mammoth dissertation on how time started before the ‘Big Bang’ ... which is a theory that I do not subscribe to, either. I did not experience any discomfort whatsoever ... I simply did not respond because you sent me many other things that I considered were far more important and interesting.

*

KONRAD: Suppose you follow Richard’s metaphysics completely, and live it. Then, psychologically speaking, you have definitely found a way to sensate beauty. But this can only be experienced as long as you yourself are an existent. This means, that when you are confronted with death, there is instant realisation that you will lose all of it. And since the happiness is so intense, this means a loss that is proportional to your happiness. This problem is the fundamental problem of happiness in every form. If you have found it, the realisation that you are a finite being with only limited time at your disposal causes the very sources of happiness to transform into potential things you will lose, and therefore to psychological pain.

RICHARD: Ah, so you do believe in life after death after all. I did ask you in an E-Mail months ago and you replied in the negative then. Is this another of your sudden insights ... or were you lying to me then?

KONRAD: Oh no. I do NOT believe in life after death. The only thing I say is, that in the face of death the sources of pleasure are sources of pain in the realisation that you will be robbed from them. This is the basic problem of happiness. Let me be clear about this. When you’re dead, you’re gone. To be more exact: there is no after life in the sense that when you close your eyes on your death bed at the moment of dying, there is a next moment wherein you open your eyes, and you then see that you still exist in another place, another form, or whatever. In that sense, dead is dead. However, the ‘I’ IS a thought. It can, as an informational structure, be present in your body, controlling your body, and it can control the body of others. So the ‘I’ can survive, hence the activity of so many people to convince others of them being right. You can even explain who you are, and another can take your characteristic. Still, as an existent this does not help much. When you close your eyes on your death bed, you become unconscious, never to be conscious again. In that sense, dead is dead. In the above I only addressed the problem. If you know you are finite, because you have a clear understanding of the concept of time, and you are happy, then you can be reluctant to give these sources of happiness up. Especially when you have worked hard to obtain them. So these sources of pleasure then become potential sources of pain. THAT is what I say, no more no less.

RICHARD: So I take it that you do not dare to be happy because you are afraid of the pain of losing it? Is this all that you are saying? I had understood you to be hinting at something non-temporal to be enduring and therefore more worthwhile cultivating. Okay, then what the above amounts to is that you are going to stay unhappy because if you become happy now you will be unhappy about losing your happiness just before your physical death. You will forego a lifetime of happiness just to avoid the imagined keen disappointment just prior to death. Is that it? Is that your fear?

*

RICHARD: If one lives fully – which is to actually be here as this body at this moment in the universe’s eternal time and this place in this universe’s infinite space – one experiences infinitude for twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, for the remainder of your life. It sure beats the specious immortality so beloved of the mystics ... who long for physical death to release them from this much-derided ‘finite’ existence. You can always use your logic on this one, Konrad, if eternity exists, where do you think it is located? Only before birth and after death? Does eternity stop happening whilst you are alive and breathing? What kind of eternity is that? Is it an intermittent eternity? No? Is it already here ... now? Yes? No? If no, then where is it?

KONRAD: Yes, and THIS reasoning is just one huge attack on the concept of time. THIS is where your Actualism falls flat on its face. In effect you are muddling with your time horizon with all of this talk about eternity, infinity, etc. It is all obfuscation. You do it in two steps. First you reduce the time horizon to zero, by only acknowledging the present, now.

RICHARD: I acknowledge what is actual, not what is abstract. And only this moment is actual. Yesterday was actual while it was happening and tomorrow will be actual when it is happening ... but only now is here. And it is always now ... and it is already here. I am not making this up ... this is not an invention. This is actually what is happening.

KONRAD: And in the second step you are trying to make the present, now, infinite.

RICHARD: I am not ‘trying’ to make time eternal ... it already is. And it is here now. Where else would eternity be?

KONRAD: And in this way you put up a smoke screen of floating abstractions so that the finiteness of your own existence becomes obfuscated.

RICHARD: If this were the case, Konrad, it would appear to make a mockery of your above assertions that I do not allow abstractions into my life!

KONRAD: If you lift this smoke screen, you will see the basic problem of happiness you are now hiding for yourself. It is this: Being aware of your own finiteness, how can you on the one hand allow happiness in your life in the full realisation that it will end? How can you allow yourself to be happy without this same happiness becoming a source of pain in the face of your own finiteness? THIS is the problem of life and living.

RICHARD: I would suggest that this is the problem of your life and your living ... not mine.

KONRAD: And what I assert, is in order to solve this problem you need both the east and the west. I just point out that you have put up an elaborate smoke screen just to evade your own finiteness, and the problem it causes with happiness.

RICHARD: I am well aware that I am due to die some time soon ... and I embrace death. If it were not for death I could not be happy.

*

KONRAD: Richard is the ultimate example of somebody who puts existence totally above consciousness. Experiences of informational integration causes the phenomenon of sensate beauty. (Chills along your spine because you hear beautiful music, etc.) These kinds of experiences is what Richard lives for.

RICHARD: This becomes more and more ridiculous as you go along, Konrad. You may get ‘chills along your spine’ but I do not. I am not interested in ‘beautiful music’ ... it is all about pathos. It is designed to ameliorate suffering; where there is no suffering there is no ‘beautiful music’ ... just a pathetic tugging on other people’s heart strings. And what does ‘informational integration’ mean when it is at home?

KONRAD: Do you mean to say, that you do not even allow sensate beauty in your life? What on earth do you then mean by happiness?

RICHARD: I mean the sheer joy and delight of being able to be the universe’s experience of itself as a sensate and reflective human being. I have written about this consistently. Simply being alive and awake is sufficient happiness ... anything I do or see or think is a bonus of pleasure on top of this existential happiness.

KONRAD: Again, I stress here, that I do NOT use the word beauty in the emotional meaning of the word, but in the sensate meaning.

RICHARD: Again ... there is no such thing as ‘sensate beauty’. All beauty is an emotional/passionate response of the entity within the body.

KONRAD: But if even THOSE sensations are not present in your life then ... oh boy! Then you have NOTHING to offer!

RICHARD: Au contraire, Konrad ... I offer the purity of the perfection of this physical universe’s infinitude ... each moment again. And peace-on-earth.

KONRAD: Then you using the word ‘happiness’ is just an empty word.

RICHARD: Not so ... it is a more full use than you can possibly imagine or conceive. It has to be lived to be believed

KONRAD: I thought that you had at least THAT to offer. I deduced it from some persons I know that have tried out your vision. No sensate beauty? I can’t believe that you say this! How meagre is your Actualism.

RICHARD: I would guess by now that you may be having a re-think, non?

*

KONRAD: I really have a question. What on earth do you mean by the term ‘happiness?’ For it seems that you only talk about ending suffering.

RICHARD: Not only ending suffering ... ending malice too. And not only becoming supremely happy ... being totally harmless into the bargain.

KONRAD: And then only by the method of obfuscating abstractions, in particular that one about time. If that is so, I have given you far more credit than you deserve.

RICHARD: You may find – eventually – that you given me far too little ‘credit’ ... but let us see what eventuates, eh?

KONRAD: For ‘the process’ of Buddha is incomparable with anything else as a way of peace of mind.

RICHARD: Not so ... I lived the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment for eleven years. An actual freedom far surpasses that.

KONRAD: Can you clarify?

RICHARD: I sure can, Konrad ... any time you are ready.

September 15 1998:

KONRAD: Richard, sometimes it is a good thing to make a fresh start. Since you did not responded to this mail, I have decided to send it again, somewhat expanded, and also to your (ex) ‘followers’.

RICHARD: Someone infamous in western history said that a lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Keep it up, Konrad, and you will start to believe that what you are saying is true ... if you are not doing so already.

KONRAD: With all of our discussions I did not fail to notice that there was something about you I did not understand. I am beginning to make more and more sense about your discovery of ‘actualism’, and what it implies. I think, I can formulate it now in words you might be able to recognise as true understanding, and therefore I think that I can make clear to you that there is a difference between you and me that is essential. A difference that does not need an admission of a denial of that what you see to be factual.

RICHARD: I do not need to make any ‘admission’ because there is no ‘denial’ on my part ... nor has there ever been. Incidentally, not having any feelings, I never suffer from ‘loss of face’ ... if I am wrong about something then I am able to acknowledge that freely.

KONRAD: For although I reproached you of not understanding me, I see now, that the converse also was the case.

RICHARD: What you see, Konrad, and what is actually happening, are rarely are the same thing.

KONRAD: Recently I have been thinking hard about consciousness, and what it exactly is. Some of this material you have received already, for I have sent my mail to No. 12 also to you. Now, let me explain what I have found. First of all, you talk about 2 identities, namely the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’. The first identity, the acting ‘I’, is the thought that controls the body.

RICHARD: Konrad, I have never said that ... it is you who says that the acting ‘I’ is the thought that controls the body ... not me. You tried to tell Vineeto in one of your posts to her that I did say so – and I asked you again and again to produce the evidence that I did until you told me that I was a ‘whining little boy’ – and here you are saying the same thing again. Do you see what I mean about ‘a lie told often enough becomes the truth’?

KONRAD: Its source is logic. In Dutch we use for the word ‘understanding’, ‘begrijpen’, which, when translated literally in English means: ‘To get a grip on’. So, the words ‘understanding something’ is in Dutch the same as ‘To get a grip on something’, while in English it is more like ‘standing under something’, which is more akin to that this something gets a grip on YOU. I find the Dutch equivalent better, for it shows that there is an intimate connection between understanding and control. In fact, it is considered to be totally equivalent. This means, that understanding is the basis of ethics. For ethics in general is (or should be) a science that involves itself with the question: ‘What should we, as human beings, and as long as we live, do with our lives’. And that is the same question as: ‘What should we, as human beings, and as long as we live, do IN our lives’. Doing always lead to consequences that should come back to us, for else our actions are considered to be senseless.

RICHARD: Aye ... my oft-repeated refrain is: ‘It is your life that you are living; as long as you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you choose; it is you who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do’.

KONRAD: There are four basic areas every human being is confronted with. The first is EXISTENCE. The second is the fact that he not just exists as an existent like rocks, but that he exists in the form of a living being. The third is the fact that he lives as a member of some group of people, as a society. And the fourth is that he has a consciousness. So every person has to deal with existence, life, society, and his own consciousness. In all of these domains there is a duality. In the existence domain it is the duality between factuality and potentiality. In the ethical domain it is the duality between reality and the imaginary. In the social domain it is the duality between civilisation and barbarism. And in the consciousness domain it is the duality between happiness and pain, the domain we are, in essence, have our ‘dialogue’ about.

RICHARD: Not so ... it is amazing the number of people who jump only on the ‘happy’ part of my ‘happy and harmless’ phrase. The subject of what you called ‘barbarism’ is paramount in what I write. You may have noticed that I once or twice referred to the fact that 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone? One cannot be happy unless one is first harmless and one cannot be harmless unless one is first happy.

KONRAD: Now I have discovered recently, that consciousness itself is the activity of a response of a principle to awareness. I repeat, since it might be difficult to understand this sentence. So what I assert is that consciousness itself is the result of a principle being present. If there is awareness, this principle responds. And this response IS consciousness. So consciousness is a reaction of a principle to an awareness.

RICHARD: Why complicate things? why does consciousness have to be ‘a reaction of a principle to an awareness’? In a normal person consciousness is what is happening when one is alive and awake and is epitomised by three faculties ... the sensate, the cerebral and the affective. Unconsciousness is what is happening when alive and in deep sleep, concussed or anaesthetised and is epitomised by oblivion. A principle is an invention – usually by society – to guide people to act in a socially acceptable way. This is because their instinctual passions – the affective faculty – needs to be bought under control. In the abnormal person the affective faculty has disappeared and no principles are required ... hence I know by first-hand on-going experiencing that consciousness is not ‘a reaction of a principle to an awareness’. But you probably will not read this bit because you have a pre-conceived belief in ‘Tabula Rasa’. Hence the rest of what you write is based upon a false premise and will be fatally flawed no matter how convincing your argument appears to be in your own eyes.

KONRAD: To give an example that makes the difference between consciousness and awareness clear, if you are sleeping and dreaming, you are aware of your dream. But in the dream-state there is no principle reacting to this awareness.

RICHARD: Are you sure that you are not confusing the word ‘principle’ with ‘principal’ ... because principles still operate in the sleeping dream-state. For normal people in the sleeping dream-state, the awake dream-state ‘I’ (the principal) who interprets the extrinsic world – the sensible environment – and guides the body to undertake the chosen course of action according to the demands of the intrinsic world – one’s desires, urges, impulses, beliefs, truths, values, morals, ethics, principles and etcetera – has been replaced by a sleeping dream-state ‘I’ who is largely incompetent due to the pseudo-extrinsic world – the dream-environment – being but pseudo-sensible events drawn by random association from the brain’s affectively-corrupted memory banks. Without a sensible base to operate from, dreams are nonsensical ... but the sleeping dream-state ‘I’ still tries to apply the principles inherited from the awake dream-state ‘I’.

KONRAD: Therefore, when you are asleep, you are not conscious.

RICHARD: I am sure that this is common knowledge ... and gaining this knowledge did not require logical analysis and deduction.

KONRAD: Since there are 4 major fields of awareness, namely existence, life, society, and our own inner life, there are four types of consciousnesses. That is, only if there are also principles present in these four areas. These four types of consciousnesses can be given 4 different names. 2: If the principle of logic responds to observation, this response is that what we consider to be the experience of understanding. So understanding is a response of the principle of logic to awareness. This is also called, at least by me, a ‘sense of life’. This sometimes also goes by the name of ‘intuition’, if the understanding is not complete. It causes the principle of logic to try to respond with more hypothesis, to transform this intuition in more complete understanding.

RICHARD: As intuition is affective then this effort is somewhat akin to the efforts of Sisyphus and his boulder (in Australia it is called ‘pushing ordure uphill’).

KONRAD: 3: If a principle of society responds to observation, the result is the experience of emotion. So the social domain has one or several social principles responding, which is the same as the experience of emotions. The intellectual domain has one or several logical principles, or logic itself as a principle responding, and the result is the experience of understanding.

RICHARD: Hmm ... there are other ways of understanding something than logical understanding, you know.

KONRAD: Now there was one thing I did not see, and that made your words to be true, at least as a description of that what you see to be descriptions of what you see.

RICHARD: I am unsure as to whether this sentence is a compliment or a criticism ... or even if it makes sense. But to clarify: I am only ever interested in facts and actuality.

KONRAD: There is both a logical identity and a social identity present in me. A logical identity, in the form of a logical principle, that is logic itself, that generates understanding. And a social identity in the form of a social principle, that generates emotions. The thoughts controlling the body have as their source ‘understanding’, which is the response of the principle of logic to existence. Therefore, the true ‘I’s are not these thoughts, what I believed, are but their source. Since a principle of logic is a principle of control, it is the true ‘controller of the body’. You can also formulate this as follows: ‘Truth controls the body’. Or, better, The distinguisher between truth and falsity lets truth control the body. This truth is then the thought, emerging from the principle of logic, that is the deepest source of action, although the action itself is done by a thought. Thinking is also a form of action. For, if this distinguisher has not complete information to make this distinction between truth and falsity, the response is ‘thinking’, and not a thought that controls the body, i.e., action in the usual sense. There is also a social principle. It tries to distinguish between ‘social’ and ‘barbaric’. It does that, not by actions in the sense of bodily movements, but by actions in the sense of communication. And it is also the generator of emotions, whose contents make a distinction between social and barbaric.

RICHARD: How on earth did you get all that from what you saw me saying ... as evidenced in your sentence ‘at least as a description of that what you see to be descriptions of what you see’?

KONRAD: So what I understand now is that which is called a ‘me’ by you.

RICHARD: Not so ... the ‘me’ that I talk of I consistently call ‘me’ as soul ... the ‘feeler’ in the heart. That is ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’.

KONRAD: [There is, to begin with, a social identity, which is called] a ‘self’ by me. And there is a generator of thoughts that, in their turn, control the body, which is called by me an ‘I’, and you at least agree that there is such an identity.

RICHARD: I call the ‘thinker’ in the head ‘I’ as ego. It is not the ‘generator of thoughts’, however.

KONRAD: So it is as you say. In almost everybody there are two identities operating.

RICHARD: Not so ... I say that there are two halves to the identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – not two identities.

KONRAD: An individual ethical ‘I’ that has as its source some form of understanding, or logic itself. Or, better, this identity IS the identity that is really the master. And there is a ‘self’, that is ‘social’ of character. It consists of a social principle, and, as such, it is an identity. These two identities are the two things that are ‘in control’ of the body, one of action, the other of speaking. They are both identities, operating in our mind.

RICHARD: Before you build a case about me ... remember that this is your understanding and not mine.

KONRAD: I disagree, however from you analysis of where they come from. Their origin is our culture, and they are therefore not innate.

RICHARD: And therein lies the rub. All sentient beings are born with the survival instincts. This creates a rudimentary animal ‘self’. Thus being an identity is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to think and reflect upon its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary ‘self’ into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and from this core of ‘being’ the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. This process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born ... which conditioning and programming is part and parcel of the socialising process.

KONRAD: Now if somebody succeeds to act totally from the ‘self’, and no longer from an ‘I’, the result is everything you describe. What then happens, is that the ‘self’ has gained domination over the ‘I’. People describe this by saying, that the emotions are too powerful for his mind to control. It results in actions to be totally from the emotional domain. It causes the feelings of self-aggrandising you described. Your remark, that almost all of the Gurus operate on this level is correct. And it is also correct, that they consider this a form of enlightenment, for there is no longer an ‘I’ that clouds the ‘issues’. Still, it is an illusion of self aggrandising, for the self has gotten himself rid of the ‘I’. But in actual fact, there is no real ‘getting rid of the ‘I’. No, the ‘Self’ has enslaved the source of ‘I’, so that only thoughts corresponding with this ‘self’ are coming up. This is a state, wherein it just looks like every action now emerging just from the ‘self’. These actions from this ‘Self’ are therefore very problematic. For everybody who bases his action solely on this ‘self’ is an impostor, a parasite, as has become recently clear by me. For such a person inevitably will use society, and therefore other people as ‘cattle’ for his own purposes. But for people outside he appears to submit his ‘I’ to society, which is, in a sense, exactly what happens. Only, since his society norms are usually not in a tautological form, he will fight for a particular form of society. And therefore he becomes a potential source of new conflicts. So you can stop acting from the ‘I’, and then you become a self-aggrandising parasite. Therefore this identity, that is at least your solution, should be eliminated, too. And then you see everything ‘exactly as it is’.

RICHARD: Aye ... when the identity in its totality becomes extinct – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – then there is only this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware.

KONRAD: I see that, as far as your observations are from your point of view, you are correct. When you achieve to eliminate both the ‘I’ and the ‘Self’, everything you say is indeed vindicated. But what is it, that can overcome this ‘self’?

RICHARD: Not, no, no ... it is not a matter of ‘overcoming’ anything. You are talking of control, here. Look, one’s identity becomes extinct at the core of one’s ‘being’. That is: ‘being’ itself ceases. No control is necessary ... this is freedom.

KONRAD: It cannot be the social domain, for this IS the self. It can also not be the understanding domain, for this IS the ‘I’. Therefore it must be the existential domain. So if existence takes over the Self, a new state is the result of this. This state is characterised by stating that the duality actuality/potentiality is the all-determining ruler. But, since consciousness in general can only be the result of a principle to awareness, this overcoming of the ‘self’ implies that there is a THIRD identity. This identity is not a ‘self’, and it is also not an ‘I’. I call this third identity a ‘BEING’. Recently I have searched the literature to see whether more people talk in forms of three beings. I found the Biblical description of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son can be identified with the ‘I’, the Father can be identified with the ‘Self’, and the Holy Spirit with ‘Being’. In Freudian literature there is ‘Ich’ ‘I’, ‘Es’ ‘Being’ and ‘Uberich’ ‘Self’. And in Gestalt literature, especially that of Walther Kempler, there is even a literal description of these three identities. Walther Kempler speaks about emotional conflict as a conflict between ‘I’ and ‘Self’ that is ‘observed’ by a third entity he actually calls ‘Being’. His description is closest to what I am talking about here. So there are not TWO but THREE identities. So bear with me, please, for we now enter a field where you might have something to learn.

RICHARD: Konrad ... if you can tell me something that I do not already know then I am only too willing to learn. It does have to make sense, however and be based in fact and actuality. As your basic premise is ‘Tabula Rasa’ ... then whatever you write is based upon a false premise and will be fatally flawed no matter how convincing your argument appears to be in your own eyes.

KONRAD: There are four basic domains. One is the social, one is the ethical, and one is the ontological. All of these four domains have their own principle. In the social domain it usually is some form of altruistic principle, although some are beginning to experiment with individualistic principles, and begin to form totally different forms of selves, causing totally different kinds of emotions. The second domain is the ethical domain. It is the domain of human action. The most basic principle is that of ‘understanding’. This principle, in its most general form is tautological. I was wrong when I thought, that the self-referential nature of this principle is at the root of that what I called ‘the process’.

RICHARD: Oh? But you were so convinced about that ... even to the point of insisting that I did not know what I was talking about ... I did not ‘understand understanding’ , you said. So ... this new thing that you have discovered: am I going to get a lecture about how I should understand this one too? Until you change your mind again, that is?

KONRAD: Something far more fundamental is going on. But I will return to that later. First I want to show what ‘the process’ is NOT, and how your and my position differ. The most deepest thing that can be reached in this domain of understanding is understanding of understanding itself. The understanding of understanding is the same as the principle of logic reacting to itself. And now we come at the point of our difference. There is a still deeper layer. This deeper layer is the ontological, or existential level. It is a level, that gives meaning to the word ‘Is’, ‘Being’. It also has a deepest principle, namely that of Parmenides, that was recently rediscovered by Ayn Rand. The Parmenidean formulation is: ‘That what is, is’. Rand formulates it as: ‘Existence exists’. This basic principle is responsible for our ability to become aware of our environment. Since consciousness itself is the activity of a response of a principle to observations, when this principle responds, the response is the experience of reality in the form of ‘IS’, of ‘BEING’. What does this mean? If this principle responds, reality is experienced in terms of ‘BEING’, of ‘IS’. Usually, the distinction between observation and understanding is exactly this distinction. The ontological principle gives us the experience of identity. It tells us, that something IS, something EXISTS. At this level there is no understanding of WHAT it is, but only awareness of the fact THAT it is. It makes, that the awareness of existence reveals itself in the form of ‘BEING’, of forms of ‘IS’. So this is not a form of intellectual understanding, in the sense of classifying and subclassing, but a form of existential awareness in terms of things and events, i.e., facts. This awareness of ‘BEING’ is therefore that what you call ‘observing facts’.

RICHARD: Not so ... but I see that this ‘BEING’ of yours is back on deck, eh? Before going further, may I copy and paste the following exchange for clarity? Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘What is central to my approach is the elimination of an identity in any way, shape or form. So far you have argued the case for the necessity of the continued existence of the sense of identity as ‘I’ in the head thinking ... what is commonly called the ego. Now you are going to go into a spirited defence of the for the necessity of the continued existence of the sense of identity as ‘me’ in the heart feeling ... what is commonly called the soul’.
• [Konrad] ‘Sorry, I do nothing of the sort’.
• [Richard]: ‘But you do ... only you call the soul the SELF ... once you even called it the BEING. Let me copy and paste for your edification. Viz.:
• [Konrad]: ‘The ‘I’ is the result of a certain calculation applied on the random generation or presence of thoughts that all have the potential to control the body, and the SELF reacting to all of these thoughts with emotions. The calculation uses as data these emotions, and consists of ordering them according to their potential ability to reduce pain, or to increase pleasure: to increase well being. This calculation is a deeper layer in us, what I call the BEING. It is where UNDERSTANDING takes place. It is able, or tries to see which thought results to actions that causes the greatest well-being. When this is seen, UNDERSTOOD by the BEING, as the outcome of the calculation, it is allowed to control the body. This whole process of calculation performed by the BEING is called: to decide. The ‘I’ is then nothing else than the thought of that what the action tries to achieve’.
• [Richard]: ‘And, although you later backed away from this model, with your propensity for changing your mind who knows when ‘the BEING’ will be back on deck, eh? After all, the Enlightened Masters consistently talk about the Ultimate State as being a ‘State of Being’. (This is where love ceases to be an emotion experienced by an ‘I’ and they identify with Love as Pure Being). And you do look to The Masters for validation of your position’.

KONRAD: This existential awareness includes our own body. We experience, not on an intellectual, but on an existential level, ‘facts’. This includes the fact of our own understanding. And if this principle only is present, the world can be seen ‘as it is’. This is what you call ‘apperception’.

RICHARD: It is not apperception, Konrad, because there is still ‘being’.

KONRAD: This third identity is able to observe the other two identities, namely ‘I’ and ‘Self’ whenever they operate. But if it is totally dominant, it has integrated and incorporated the both the ‘I’ and the ‘Self’, for now every action comes from this Parmenidean principle. All this has become clear to me, now. Now that I have an understanding of consciousness itself, I can see where exactly you stand, and I can see what you see.

RICHARD: Are you so sure of that now that you have read what I have written?

KONRAD: This deepest ontological principle is itself a form of ‘Is’. It is an identity, like both the ‘I’ and the ‘Self’. Only, it is not an ‘I’, and it is also not an ‘Self’, but it is an identity in the form of an ‘IS’.

RICHARD: Aye ... the Buddhists call it ‘isness’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti called it ‘what is’. This is still in the state of being called enlightenment.

KONRAD: Its action consists of becoming conscious of existence in the form of ‘IS’ – awareness, and IS – awareness alone. Its action are responses to the senses, and making ‘sense’ of them in the form of ‘facts’, or, as Ayn Rand puts it, ‘percepts’. It is cognition in the form of identity, but without identification in the sense of subclassing. For identification is a form of understanding. And that is NOT what this principle results in. It only generates the material our thought and thinking can use, the other two identities, to ‘get a grip on’, or ‘to give meaning and use to’. Meaning being the response of the logical ‘I’, and ‘use’ being the response of the social ‘self’. This is also an explanation of your distinction between reality and actuality.

RICHARD: I very much doubt it as ‘isness’ and ‘what is’ is metaphysical and not physical ... but do go on, please.

KONRAD: Reality is the response of the principle of logic to awareness. And actuality is the response of the principle of existence to awareness.

RICHARD: Not so ... it cannot be actuality because for you the ‘principle of existence’ is ‘BEING’. Look, reality is an illusion pasted over actuality by ‘me’ busily ‘being’ (and ‘being’ is affective whereas logic is cerebral) and is not a product of logic (non-logical peoples experience reality too). Actuality is what becomes apparent when one’s identity in its totality ceases ‘being’ ... and logic can operate unimpeded as required by the circumstances.

KONRAD: The first leads to truths, and the second leads to facts. So there is a defendable distinction between reality and actuality. If we are aware of existence in the form of facts, we observe percepts, identities. And if we are aware of existence in the form of logic, we observe concepts, identifications.

RICHARD: It is perception that leads to ‘observing percepts’ , yes ... but it is apperception that reveals actuality.

KONRAD: Now what I want to tell you, is that you can even move beyond ‘Is’.

RICHARD: Oh, good ... now we are getting somewhere in these dialogues. An actual freedom lies beyond enlightenment.

KONRAD: And even to recognise this ontological ‘Is’ identificator. Beyond this ‘It is what it is’ sayer, this ‘existence exist’ principle, which is a itself a form of ‘IS’, albeit its most general form. And when your consciousness is able to become aware of the fact, that this ‘fact admitter’ itself is an identity, that what I call ‘the process’ becomes visible. What then happens, is that the fourth domain, that of consciousness, takes complete control. For consciousness itself has then become conscious, and it reacts to itself.

RICHARD: May I ask? Where you say ‘consciousness itself has then become conscious’ do you mean the brain being aware of itself being conscious? That is, not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious ... but awareness of itself? A pure awareness? In other words: apperception?

KONRAD: How? Totally in the form of ‘process’. For when consciousness itself responds to itself, it no longer responds neither from an identity, a being, nor from an identificator, an ‘I’, nor from a social ‘Self’. No, there is only ‘total awareness’, ‘total, effortless awareness’, for it sustains itself. In other words, you can move beyond ‘IS’, beyond ‘apperception’, beyond ‘identity’. And if this happens, no identity is left any more, and the potentiality itself of us, human beings, becomes conscious. For what happens then is that consciousness itself becomes conscious. THAT is what ‘enlightenment’, ‘IS’ (forgive me the use of the word).

RICHARD: Sure ... look, I could not help but notice the throwaway line ‘beyond apperception’ in there. Are you sure that you do not mean ‘beyond perception’ (which requires a ‘perceiver’)? When the ‘perceiver’ is not ... there is apperception.

KONRAD: You probably will not believe me, for you believe that you already have achieved everything that is humanly possible. Still, consider this mail very carefully. For you will probably be aware of the fact, that my description of the ‘actual’ domain indeed does conform to your description, and even of your experience. And this was clearly not the case in the past. I also apologise if I have insulted you in any way. I simply did not understand your position. But this is something, you already knew, of course. Thanks for your efforts to make me see what you see, for you can see that I really have learnt from you. The above formulations would not have been possible, if I had not have such a very intensive dialogue with you. Since you did not respond to this mail before, I have decided to send it both to you and your (ex) followers, so that at least THEY can see, that your vision has some merit, but your claim that you really understand my position is wrong.

RICHARD: Konrad, I do not ‘claim’ to understand your position ... I can only go on what you write. And what you write changes daily ... sometimes even within the same E-Mail. I doubt that anyone can understand your position ... you do not have one!

KONRAD: I did not understand you, but now I do.

RICHARD: Let us wait and see about that, eh? After all, you have said before that you do understand me. But ... there is some chance of progress here.

KONRAD: You, however, clearly do not understand me. Are you able to do that now? Or, at least, to admit that there is something that escaped you up till now?

RICHARD: And what exactly is it ... this ‘something’ that has ‘escaped’ me, eh? This third identity that you call ‘BEING’? May I suggest that you look through my writing and see how many times the word ‘being’ (in small quotes) appears. You are still stuck in understanding the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’.

KONRAD: If that is so, you might go through a totally new transformation that enables you to see, that your act of excluding the potential is a violation of Man.

RICHARD: I make no secret that I have ceased being human ... if that is what you mean by ‘Man’ . And given that ‘being human’ means being driven to kill one’s fellow human being ... then I am well-pleased to be no longer ‘human’. Being free from malice and sorrow means that I am automatically happy and harmless.

KONRAD: That [your act of excluding the potential] is inherently evil, because it goes against that what makes us a creative force in the universe.

RICHARD: This ‘creative force’ is killing people, Konrad ... 160,000,000 in ‘creative’ wars this century alone.

KONRAD: It is a form of evil, not because the things you say are wrong. But because they are only partial right. They are evil, because you deny that there is even something beyond that what you have found. Partial truths are often more destructive than total lies. Especially when they are not recognised as partial truths, but are mistaken for total truths.

RICHARD: But I am only ever interested in facts and actuality ... not truths. Truths – and especially ‘The Truth’ – is but beliefs masquerading as facts.

KONRAD: I know. The position you are now in, wherein you believe to have found something marvellous that beats anything others have found is very comfortable.

RICHARD: Very comfortable indeed, Konrad ... if I were to become more relaxed I would be but a smear of grease upon the floor.

KONRAD: I know from experience that the adoration of your followers is something you can really become a prisoner of.

RICHARD: And what adoration would that be? And what followers? I am no leader, no charismatic master. I am a fellow human being who – by actually doing something about his life – is living in the actual world of sensate delight. Mostly it is insecurity that necessitates one being a leader with adoring followers ... and insecurity is an outcome of fear. It is fear that prevents one from actually being here now ... what I did was face the fact of my mortality. ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ are not opposites ... there is only birth and death. Life is what happens in between. Before I was born, I was not. Now that I am alive, I am here ... now. After death I will not be ... just like before birth. Where is the problem? The problem was in the brain-stem, of course. It is the instinct to survive at any cost that was the problem ... backed up by the full gamut of the emotions born out of the four basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. The rudimentary self, transformed into an identity, must be extinguished in order for one to be here, in this actual world of the senses, bereft of this pernicious entity.

‘My’ extinction was the ending of not only fear, but of all of the affective faculties. As this flesh and blood body only, I am living in the paradisiacal garden that this planet earth is. We are all simply floating in the infinitude of this perfect and pure universe ... coming from nowhere and having nowhere to go to we find ourselves here ... now. Extinction releases one into actuality ... and this actual world is ambrosial, to say the least. Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight one then lives freely in the magical paradise, which this verdant earth actually is. Being here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending.

Peace-on-earth is possible only when there is freedom from the Human Condition. Freedom from the Human Condition is the ending of identity in its totality. The elimination of the ‘identity’ is simultaneously the demise of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within oneself. Then ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... which is the only place they can live in. Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live as this flesh and blood body – one lives freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. No cooperation is required whatsoever. Now, a chain-letter effect may or may not occur in the fullness of time ... if it does, a global peace-on-earth would be possible. If it does not, then apart from the salubrity of living as perfection personified for the remainder of one’s life, one is no longer preventing the ingress of a global peace-on-earth by one’s very ‘being’.

This is the adventure of a life-time!

KONRAD: I hope, that you can break free from this self-created, pardon, I should say, being-created prison, and that you have the guts to do that. Are you able to do that?

RICHARD: As you might be becoming aware by now ... I did back in October/November 1992. You will find a description in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my Web Page ... which I sent to you at the beginning of our correspondence. However, as you are on record as saying that you do not read much of what I write – if anything at all – this information has probably passed you by. And yes ... to go through the existential angst of discovering that you are indeed nothing but a contingent ‘being’ requires courage like you have never known before.

Yet it is possible.

CORRESPONDENT No. 17 (Part Three)

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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.