|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT: Richard says he cares, but he doesn’t love. I care for the birds. I give them food and water. I care for my granddaughter. I feed her and clothe her. When I saw how desperately No. 33 behaved yesterday, I worried about him. Is that care? I sometimes am concerned about Richard, too. Is that care? The whole world cares about something. I’m just amazed how some people can use the word ‘care’ and not use the word ‘love.’ And, then there are those who can freely use the word ‘love’, and never care. There is no freedom in words. There must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality? That indeed must be a blissful state – to never a word, a thought, an idea, come to the mind . I can never know that I am seeing; that I am feeling; that I am saying as true/real/actual as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought, disturbing the mind. Utter stillness of the mind is that state of being which we are all seeking ... and making a lot of noise doing it. RICHARD: Not only ‘utter stillness of the mind’ ... utter stillness of the heart, as well. To paraphrase: not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ above). RESPONDENT: Yes, Richard, I certainly agree with you. I think that disturbances of the ‘heart’ are disturbances of the body – emotions and feelings, and I suppose ‘passion’, too. The word ‘passion’ just seems a bit stronger than ‘emotion.’ And, definitely the word ‘worried’ falls into that category of ‘disturbance,’ and even the word ‘love,’ as well as the word ‘actuality’ because they are just words. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the word ‘actuality’ does not fall into the category of ‘disturbing the mind’ or the category of ‘disturbing the heart’ . I will agree that the word ‘actuality’ falls into the category of being a word ... but you are busy with pejoratively categorising them all as being ‘just’ words when you know perfectly well that words refer to (or ‘point to’) something substantial or meaningful. This is cheap what you do here. RESPONDENT: Why? Because I said ‘actuality’ is just a word? RICHARD: No ... because you specifically asked ‘there must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality?’ And I specifically indicated the feeling/emotion/passion that lay behind two of the words you spoke (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ further above). Hence that was cheap what you did there ... I took you to be initiating an honest, meaningful discussion. RESPONDENT: I’m talking about any word. Any word that is in the brain/mind ... any presence of any term is a disturbance. RICHARD: Aye ... and any presence of any feeling or of any emotion or of any passion in the heart is a disturbance as well. RESPONDENT: I’m not talking about ‘pointing to’. RICHARD: Oh? Then what does your phrase ‘there must be something behind these words that we speak’ indicate? The feeling of ‘love’ and ‘compassion’, for example, are the deeply felt feeling-passions that are ‘behind the words [love and compassion] that we speak’ . In other words: what distinction is it that you draw betwixt what is meant by the phrase ‘something behind the words’ ... and the phrases ‘what the words refer to’ and ‘what the words point to’? RESPONDENT: Once something has been pointed out and you see it, the word is dropped ... RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that you dropped the words ‘feeling’ and ‘emotion’ and ‘passion’ right out of your response (especially my re-quote of the quote you provided to this Mailing List wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti defines love as a feeling). But, never mind, here is another quote to take its place:
RESPONDENT: ... or it just becomes useless baggage. The term does not matter, but if you hold on to the term, then it becomes your anchor, your ‘baby’. RICHARD: I am not speaking of ‘the term’ as well you know but of the feeling, of the emotion, of the passion behind the term ... which has become ‘your anchor, your ‘baby’’. I am reminded of Mr. Samuel Johnson’s comment (‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’) and Mr. Ambrose Bierce’s addendum: ‘With all due respect I beg to submit that it is the first’. Whereas I am inclined to substitute ‘feelings’ for ‘patriotism’.
RICHARD: ... you specifically asked ‘there must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality?’ And I specifically indicated the feeling/emotion/passion that lay behind two of the words you spoke (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ further above). Hence that was cheap what you did there ... I took you to be initiating an honest, meaningful discussion. RESPONDENT: I’m talking about any word. Any word that is in the brain/mind ... any presence of any term is a disturbance. RICHARD: Aye ... and any presence of any feeling or of any emotion or of any passion in the heart is a disturbance as well. RESPONDENT: It appears to me that you are deliberately trying to fuzzy up the issue, Richard. I agreed with you that any feeling, any emotion, and any passion of the body, as well as any word, hinders/prevents that stillness of mind. I said that ‘stillness’ may and probably is the actuality that we all seek. Then I went on to say that that ‘actuality’ did not have to be called anything, especially ‘actualism’. ‘What is’ is what is actual. Let’s call ‘what is’ the actual and not start a new religion by calling it ‘whatism.’ That will work just as well, won’t it? RICHARD: No ... not unless you want to ‘fuzzy-up’ the issue, of course, by introducing a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘what is’. Viz.:
I will await your response before proceeding to the latter part of your reply (regarding your theories about the superiority of beauty and love over what I experience, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body).
RICHARD: ... you specifically asked ‘there must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality?’ And I specifically indicated the feeling/emotion/passion that lay behind two of the words you spoke (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ further above). Hence that was cheap what you did there ... I took you to be initiating an honest, meaningful discussion. RESPONDENT: I’m talking about any word. Any word that is in the brain/mind ... any presence of any term is a disturbance. RICHARD: Aye ... and any presence of any feeling or of any emotion or of any passion in the heart is a disturbance as well. RESPONDENT: It appears to me that you are deliberately trying to fuzzy up the issue, Richard. I agreed with you that any feeling, any emotion, and any passion of the body, as well as any word, hinders/prevents that stillness of mind. I said that ‘stillness’ may and probably is the actuality that we all seek. Then I went on to say that that ‘actuality’ did not have to be called anything, especially ‘actualism’. ‘What is’ is what is actual. Let’s call ‘what is’ the actual and not start a new religion by calling it ‘whatism.’ That will work just as well, won’t it? RICHARD: No ... not unless you want to ‘fuzzy-up’ the issue, of course, by introducing a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘what is’. Viz.: [quote]: ‘We are always avoiding ‘what is’ ... my loneliness, emptiness, sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, fear, that is actually ‘what is’. (Part 3; ‘Truth and Actuality’; Autumn 1975; Published by Krishnamurti Foundation India; ISBN PBTA78). I will await your response before proceeding to the latter part of your reply (regarding your theories about the superiority of beauty and love over what I experience, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: LOL. I knew you would. RICHARD: As you did not put your prediction into writing before the event this is a pointless comment. RESPONDENT: There is no end to ‘what is.’ RICHARD: I beg to differ ... ‘what is’ has ended, totally, completely and utterly in one flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: I am actually still tonight. That is ‘what is.’ RICHARD: Okay ... and I am totally, completely and utterly free of the human condition: that is what actual freedom is. RESPONDENT: I knew that you would resort to quoting Krishnamurti to try and prove that what is actual is not ‘what is.’ RICHARD: As you did not put your prediction into writing before the event this is a pointless comment. RESPONDENT: You are quite adept at using another’s quotes to prove your own beliefs. RICHARD: ‘Twas you who introduced the phrase ‘what is’ into this conversation ... and not me. It was only when you went off onto your own definition of what it meant that I provided a quote so as to show what the term meant to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Which means that, as the phrase ‘what is’ is not a belief of mine, it would appear that your being ‘actually still tonight’ does nothing for your acuity, eh? * RESPONDENT: The term does not matter, but if you hold on to the term, then it becomes your anchor, your ‘baby’. RICHARD: I am not speaking of ‘the term’ as well you know but of the feeling, of the emotion, of the passion behind the term ... which has become ‘your anchor, your ‘baby’’ . RESPONDENT: And I am speaking of ‘the term’ actualism, and I am also talking about a feeling, an emotion, the passion which can also be an anchor. I’m inclined to agree with you that there are no feelings in that stillness, but there is beauty and there is love – which are not emotions, but an actuality. RICHARD: I agree they are not emotions ... I am only too happy to re-post the quote you snipped off (above):
Plus one of many quotes on beauty that I can provide (if you want more):
RESPONDENT: You deny the presence of love and beauty ... saying that they are emotions ... RICHARD: Again this is cheap what you do here ... I am not ‘saying that they are emotions’ (I even provided a quote that said ‘Love is passion’). RESPONDENT: ... but at the same time you say you ‘care’ and that ‘care’ is not an emotion ... RICHARD: Nor is it a passion. RESPONDENT: ... and that you can only ‘care’ because you are ‘carefree.’ That doesn’t make sense to me. RICHARD: I am aware of this ... this is why we are having a discussion, is it not? RESPONDENT: That is like saying you can only ‘love’ if you are ‘loveless’. RICHARD: Not so ... you appear to be caught-up in what is called ‘word-magic’ (for example ‘you can only hate if you are hate-less’ and so on). The word ‘carefree’ means being free of cares ... and not ‘careless’) RESPONDENT: I say that ‘love’ is one step beyond ‘care,’ and you just haven’t taken that step, yet. The magic of love is far superior to the mundane state of blood and bones. RICHARD: In what way is it ‘far superior’ to being actually free of the human condition? The various saints, sages and seers, who have lived love and extolled its wonders to perform, have variously exhibited anger and anguish in some form or another from time-to-time (usually designated as Divine Anger or Divine Sorrow). Are you planning on succeeding with your love and beauty where they have all failed?
RESPONDENT: A flower doesn’t bloom in a toxic dump unless it is some sort of rare flower – a freak flower. We all know to whom I am referring. It’s not No. 10; Richard; No. 12 or No. 00. RICHARD: Do you mean to say that you still have not comprehended even one basic, fundamental thing after all our e-mail exchanges? I am not in your ‘toxic dump’ as I abandoned the sinking ship of ‘humanity’ years ago ... I am incapable of living in the Land Of Lament. All is pristine in this ambrosial paradise which is perpetually just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... every body can bloom here. There is no elitism in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: A flower doesn’t bloom in a toxic dump unless it is some sort of rare flower – a freak flower. We all know to whom I am referring. It’s not No. 10; Richard; No. 12 or No. 00. RICHARD: Do you mean to say that you still have not comprehended even one basic, fundamental thing after all our e-mail exchanges? I am not in your ‘toxic dump’ as I abandoned the sinking ship of ‘humanity’ years ago ... I am incapable of living in the Land Of Lament. All is pristine in this ambrosial paradise which is perpetually just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... every body can bloom here. There is no elitism in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ... I comprehend what you have been saying. I just was not referring to you. RICHARD: Oh? What does the word between ‘No. 10’ and ‘No. 12’ (further above) refer to then?
RESPONDENT: What I feel is based upon what I think – stored memories in the body. That is what I think, and it may be, also, what I feel. I don’t know. :)) RESPONDENT No. 05: Ah, now there’s a good start: ‘I don’t know’. RESPONDENT: Well, actually, I do know. I don’t know why I lied. Perhaps it was because I was too lazy to explore the topic, and I didn’t/don’t want to get into another debate with Richard about ‘feelings’. Most of what we call ‘feeling’ is, as I said, conditioning stored in the body. For example, I getting a feeling of ‘nervousness’, or I feel ‘joy’ at the sight of someone. Those sort of feelings are based upon what I remember, what is known, and I may get a ‘pitter patter’ of the heart or a sick feeling in the stomach. No. 56 said he had a ‘feeling’ about a ‘buddha nature’, and that sort of feeling is undeniably based on having read about or having heard about a ‘buddha nature’. Isn’t that actually ‘thinking’ called ‘feeling’? How could he know about Buddha if he hadn’t read or been told that? Now, to the second area of ‘knowing’ that some people call ‘feeling’ which is not feeling at all, but actual ‘knowing’. This is the knowing that cannot be proven, as it is a experiential knowing. This is the sort of ‘knowing’ which Richard calls ‘feeling’ simply because it doesn’t fit into his definition of ‘actualism’, even though it is actually real. For example, when I related about my deceased father appearing to me in a bubble within consciousness, Richard called it a ‘feeling’. But, I know as well as I know that I’m actually sitting here, that was not a ‘feeling’, but actually real. (This is just once instance of ‘knowing’ that I have experienced that does not fall within the definition of ‘feelings’). One needs to be able to discern between ‘feeling’ and ‘knowing’. ‘Feeling’ is based upon conditioning; ‘knowing’ is not. You can know the difference. Richard cannot logically say that what I saw was a feeling, a hallucination, or any other aberration of the mind or body. He cannot in truth say that because he is not in my body, nor is he in my realm of experience. I do not deny that he lives in a veritable garden of paradise; or that he is harmless and free, and I don’t deny that is what he experiences. But, he will tell me, and he will tell all of us that he knows what is actual and we do not. And how can he do that? He can do it because he denies reality. Oh, well, here we go again. Another lecture on actuality vs. reality. RICHARD: What I am interested in is this conversation where you related about your ‘deceased father appearing to [you] in a bubble within consciousness’ and Richard calling it ‘a feeling’. You have mentioned this conversation you had with me at least once before that I recall:
I have every word I have ever written to you on file and it is a simple matter to type ‘decease’, ‘father’, ‘bubble’ and ‘spirit’ into the search function to find this conversation where you say I either dismissed it as a delusion and/or called it a feeling. Could you re-post the conversation as it is not anywhere in my records?
RICHARD: What I am interested in is this conversation where you related about your ‘deceased father appearing to [you] in a bubble within consciousness’ and Richard calling it ‘a feeling’. You have mentioned this conversation you had with me at least once before that I recall: [Respondent]: ‘There is a good possibility that Richard does not know all that is actual. For example, I do know without a doubt that the spirit that was my father effected a certain physical happening and then appeared to me to tell that he did it. This was actual occurrence which Richard dismissed as ‘my’ delusion. It seems to me that true actualism would include within its realm all that is possible to be actual. But no! If Richard doesn’t know it, then it isn’t possible’. [endquote]. I have every word I have ever written to you on file and it is a simple matter to type ‘decease’, ‘father’, ‘bubble’ and ‘spirit’ into the search function to find this conversation where you say I either dismissed it as a delusion and/or called it a feeling. Could you re-post the conversation as it is not anywhere in my records? RESPONDENT: No, I cannot. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Do you mean that you do not have it on record? RICHARD: It does not exist anywhere at all in my records. RESPONDENT: I wonder why that is? RICHARD: Would it be reasonable to deduce that, as you cannot re-post it and as I do not have it anywhere in my files, the conversation never happened/never existed in the first place? RESPONDENT: I find that strange since you have what I said, but you do have what you replied to me. RICHARD: But I have already clearly explained that I do not have what you said ... allow me to re-post my words (above) down here for your convenience:
The words ‘decease’, ‘father’, ‘bubble’ and ‘spirit’ are your words – not mine – that the search function could not locate. RESPONDENT: I do recall in my computer brain that you did respond to that post, and that you did tell me that I was either delusional or just ‘feeling’ ... something to that effect. RICHARD: And I do recall with this flesh and blood brain that the conversation never happened/never existed in the first place. RESPONDENT: But since I did say that you said it was a delusion, it is likely that is what you said. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that you already have No. 05 discussing this topic as if it actually happened:
And:
Plus the reference already quoted in my initial response further above (which is when I first searched for this dismissal you refer to):
You do seem to be getting a quite a bit of mileage out of this conversation that you cannot re-post and which I do not have anywhere in my files, eh?
RESPONDENT No. 39: I have been dealing with taking care of my mother and dealing with nursing homes and insurance companies. The question I am looking at is: Can I accept the unacceptable? The treatment I have gotten from these corporations is totally unacceptable to me and there is nothing that I can do about it. This is like having a gun pointed at me. It looks like I just have to accept the unacceptable. That may be what life is about. If I accept the unacceptable then there is no problem. (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... as long as we are alive in this world there are going to be things happen that are unacceptable. These are the things we have to learn to accept. The question I am asking is: Can I accept the unacceptable? (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... if something is unacceptable to me then that’s what I have to deal with. It’s just theory to say that unacceptability is unnecessary. (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... Are you saying I should just bend over and let the nursing home and insurance company lie and defraud my mother? There is a difference in paying what’s right and being robbed. Have you never had something happen that is unacceptable to you? (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... I am shocked by the inhumanity of it. I don’t have any choice but to accept the inhumanity. I guess that gradually the shock will wear away until the next one comes along. (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... My question is: Can I accept the unacceptable? (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... Nothing can be done. I have already tried. I am up against two crooked corporations and I am powerless. (snip) RESPONDENT No. 39: ... That doesn’t work for me. I am frozen. RICHARD: Given that people are as-they-are and that the world is as-it-is there are more than a few things which are ‘unacceptable’ (child abuse, rape, murder, torture and so on). What worked for me twenty-odd years ago, as a preliminary step, was to rephrase the question so that it makes sense (rather than vainly apply any of those unliveable ‘unconditional acceptance’ type injunctions): Can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable? RESPONDENT: What do you mean by ‘emotionally accept?’ RICHARD: To cease emotionally objecting, resisting, rejecting (or denying) and to be emotionally welcoming, consenting, receiving (or acknowledging) ... without being emotionally aloof, indifferent, apathetic (or vacillating). RESPONDENT: Do you mean to say that you accepted (saw) that you were ‘emotional’ and reacted to persons and events in an emotional way (over 20 years ago)? RICHARD: Yes ... this is the crux of the issue: ‘I’ am a feeling ‘being’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). RESPONDENT: I do think that it is intelligent to ‘stay on top’ of the emotional issue, that is, to see our behaviour and reactions at all times. RICHARD: However, one has being ‘staying on top’ (or at least trying to) all of one’s life ... are we not talking of an entirely different approach? RESPONDENT: If a reaction is seen as emotional, which most, if not all reactions are, that is all that there is to do. RICHARD: Although, as the emotional reactions keep on keeping on, this approach obviously has not worked. RESPONDENT: When there is no attempt to correct or change the reaction, which means that you are not spending energy either accepting or rejecting – that you are not using up energy doing something according to a reaction – when you are not doing that, then, you are not using up the energy that is intelligence, and therefore, that intelligence is not compromised – as you mention in the next paragraph. RICHARD: One would not have to be a genius to suss out that ‘the energy that is intelligence’ is but the deeper feelings – the energy of passion – and therefore not intelligent. * RICHARD: This way intelligence need not be compromised ... intelligence will no longer be crippled. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by ‘intelligence’ as you are writing about? RICHARD: I am referring to one’s native intelligence ... meaning ‘indigenous prudence’ or ‘congenital judicity’ or ‘autochthonous acumen’. RESPONDENT: Are you talking about ‘intelligence’ operating on a universal level – a level that is neither limited to this planet nor to a blood and bones body known as No. 39? RICHARD: No ... most definitely not. RESPONDENT: As people are most selfish and self concerned, and corporations are only interested in the bottom line, and as No. 39 is as most people, what intelligence are you talking about? RICHARD: I am meaning a down-to-earth and matter-of-fact practicality ... an innate sensibility. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that there is an ‘intelligence’ that supersedes the general condition of the human being to which No. 39 is prey – an intelligence along the lines of which K spoke? RICHARD: No ... I am not referring to anything metaphysical at all. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that to try and decide what is intelligence and what is not intelligence is a separative activity, an activity of a ‘decider’, and not an activity of intelligence ... RICHARD: True ... hence it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. Intelligence will no longer be crippled. RESPONDENT: ... not that you defined intelligence, for you did not. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of how I define ‘intelligence’ ... I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to sensibly, considerately and thus rationally observe, reflect, plan and implement considered action for beneficial reasons ... and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations. No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: I am just looking into the issue of ‘intelligence’. RICHARD: Okay ... speaking personally, I find the whole furore about what ‘intelligence’ is rather cute: there are people who talk sagely about ... um ... dolphins, for just one example, as being ‘intelligent’ and will argue their case vigorously and vociferously and scorn IQ tests as being a measure of intelligence. Yet when these self-same people turn their attention to ‘outer space’ or ‘deep space’ (as the SETI peoples do), they all of a sudden know precisely what intelligence actually is ... when they say that they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence they do not for one moment mean that they are looking for ‘intelligent’ creatures like dolphins, for example. No way ... they are looking for what intelligence is as per the dictionary definition.
RESPONDENT: It seems to me that to try and decide what is intelligence and what is not intelligence is a separative activity, an activity of a ‘decider’, and not an activity of intelligence ... RICHARD: True ... hence it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. Intelligence will no longer be crippled. RESPONDENT: ... not that you defined intelligence, for you did not. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of how I define ‘intelligence’ ... I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to sensibly, considerately and thus rationally observe, reflect, plan and implement considered action for beneficial reasons ... and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations. No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: Well, I don’t know about all that ... RICHARD: I do. RESPONDENT: ... and I don’t see much point in saying other than your definition of intelligence is limited to the definition coined by humans for humans. How convenient. RICHARD: Presumably then you prefer the definition limited to the definition coined by humans for their god (aka the truth, that which is sacred, holy and so on)? How preposterous. * RESPONDENT: I am just looking into the issue of ‘intelligence’. RICHARD: Okay ... speaking personally, I find the whole furore about what ‘intelligence’ is rather cute: there are people who talk sagely about ... um ... dolphins, for just one example, as being ‘intelligent’ and will argue their case vigorously and vociferously and scorn IQ tests as being a measure of intelligence. Yet when these self-same people turn their attention to ‘outer space’ or ‘deep space’ (as the SETI peoples do), they all of a sudden know precisely what intelligence actually is ... when they say that they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence they do not for one moment mean that they are looking for ‘intelligent’ creatures like dolphins, for example. No way ... they are looking for what intelligence is as per the dictionary definition. RESPONDENT: Oh, really? RICHARD: Yes, really. RESPONDENT: You are sure of that? RICHARD: Yes, I am sure of that (going by what I have read, heard and seen on various media). RESPONDENT: I see ‘intelligence’ defined by a human for humans. RICHARD: Aye ... you have already mentioned this before. In what way is this problematic for you? RESPONDENT: How convenient. Nothing short of being the superior one could possible do. RICHARD: As human beings are the only intelligent life-form thus far discovered ... from whence do you propose a non-convenient definition should be derived? Speaking personally, I found that to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable was to enable one’s native intelligence to emerge into full view of its own accord. And thus intelligence was no longer crippled.
RESPONDENT: It seems to me that to try and decide what is intelligence and what is not intelligence is a separative activity, an activity of a ‘decider’, and not an activity of intelligence ... RICHARD: True ... hence it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. Intelligence will no longer be crippled. RESPONDENT: ... not that you defined intelligence, for you did not. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of how I define ‘intelligence’ ... I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to sensibly, considerately and thus rationally observe, reflect, plan and implement considered action for beneficial reasons ... and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations. No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: Well, I don’t know about all that ... RICHARD: I do. RESPONDENT: Is there anything you don’t know? RICHARD: Yes ... I know a lot about some things; a little about many things; and nothing about a lot of things. In this particular instance (intelligence) I intimately know its nature, its properties, its qualities, its value ... and thus its scope. * RESPONDENT: ... and I don’t see much point in saying other than your definition of intelligence is limited to the definition coined by humans for humans. How convenient. RICHARD: Presumably then you prefer the definition limited to the definition coined by humans for their god (aka the truth, that which is sacred, holy and so on)? RESPONDENT: Not at all. RICHARD: Are you so sure about your ‘not at all’ response? You may be overlooking what you snipped out of your initial post:
An ‘‘intelligence’ operating on a universal level’ (universal intelligence) and an ‘intelligence along the lines of which K spoke’ (supreme intelligence) and ‘the energy that is intelligence’ (non-physical intelligence) is strikingly similar to the definition limited to the definition coined by humans for their god (aka the truth, that which is sacred, holy and so on), non? Viz.:
Is your ‘not at all’ response not somewhat disingenuous (for someone ostensibly being genuine about looking)? Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: I just wonder why you limit yourself to definitions? RICHARD: ‘Tis strange that an articulate explanation of the nature, properties, scope or essential qualities of a word, so as to enable clarity in communication with my fellow human being and thus obviate misunderstanding, mystification, confusion or uncertainty, would be received by you as me being limited to definitions. RESPONDENT: Do you recognize the possibility of some things you do not know about? RICHARD: Yes ... it became strikingly obvious the very first time I walked into a public library about half a century ago. Which is but one of the reasons why I suggest that it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. Intelligence will thus no longer be crippled.
RESPONDENT: Do you recognize the possibility of some things you do not know about? RICHARD: Yes ... it became strikingly obvious the very first time I walked into a public library about half a century ago. Which is but one of the reasons why I suggest that it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. Intelligence will thus no longer be crippled. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the only possible things to know that you don’t know lie within the information that other human beings have already discovered? RICHARD: No ... most definitely not. And, as an example of this, I have discovered something that no other human being has discovered thus far in human history (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: You also say that you emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that your native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding about my current condition, the full, original version of what I wrote contained a qualifier that specifically says that ‘what worked for me twenty-odd years ago, as a preliminary step, was ...’. Viz.:
The feeling ‘being’ is not extant in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Taking the latter scenario, that presents an unlimited possibility of anything being possible ... RICHARD: Aye ... that is the very point I was making (drawn from experience and not merely theorising). RESPONDENT: ... and the fact that you haven’t discovered the ‘intellectually unacceptable’... RICHARD: Au contraire ... what became apparent of its own accord had indeed been ‘intellectually unacceptable’ (and inconceivable, unimaginable, incomprehensible and unbelievable). RESPONDENT: ... [the fact that you haven’t discovered the ‘intellectually unacceptable’] doesn’t mean that your ‘native intelligence’ will, for obviously it has not. RICHARD: As I have been writing about nothing else other than this discovery, via tens of thousands of words, your ‘for obviously it has not’ rings portentously hollow ... for someone ostensibly being genuine about looking. Viz.:
Which is why I suggest that it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable
so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. In the jargon it is known as ‘being open’ (as
in the ‘unlimited possibility of anything being possible’ ) ... inasmuch as one will be embracing each situation that
life provides by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so
as to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is. This is because one
needs to somehow enable an intellectual openness ... so as to circumvent/break through what is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ Intelligence will thus no longer be crippled.
RESPONDENT: ... the fact that you haven’t discovered the ‘intellectually unacceptable’... RICHARD: Au contraire ... what became apparent of its own accord had indeed been ‘intellectually unacceptable’ (and inconceivable, unimaginable, incomprehensible and unbelievable). RESPONDENT: ... [the fact that you haven’t discovered the ‘intellectually unacceptable’] doesn’t mean that your ‘native intelligence’ will, for obviously it has not. RICHARD: As I have been writing about nothing else other than this discovery, via tens of thousands of words, your ‘for obviously it has not’ rings portentously hollow ... for someone ostensibly being genuine about looking. Viz.: [Respondent to Richard]: ‘I am just looking into the issue of ‘intelligence’ [endquote]. Which is why I suggest that it is advisable to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable so that one’s native intelligence can emerge into full view of its own accord. In the jargon it is known as ‘being open’ (as in the ‘unlimited possibility of anything being possible’ ) ... inasmuch as one will be embracing each situation that life provides by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so as to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is. This is because one needs to somehow enable an intellectual openness ... so as to circumvent/break through what is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. The ‘cognitive dissonance theory’ suggests that when experiences or information contradicts existing knowledge, attitudes, beliefs or feelings, differing degrees of mental-emotional distress is the habitual result. The distressed personality is predisposed to alleviate this discord by reinterpreting (distorting) the offending information. Concurrent with this falsification, core beliefs tend to be vigorously defended by warping discernment and memory ... such people are prone to misinterpret cues and ‘remember’ things to be as they wish they had happened instead of how they actually happened. They may be selective in what they recall, overestimating their apparent successes, while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away their failures. However it is more than merely a foolish head-in-the-sand psychological aberration, because the new, the fresh, the novel is oft-times met with determined resistance, disagreement, opposition and hostility. Indeed, the record of history shows many an occasion where someone who dared to question conventional beliefs was tortured, stoned, rent asunder, burnt at the stake, or otherwise horrifically put to death. It is difficult to comprehend the extent and depth of the brutal ignorance and downright stupidity required of the great mass of people who, unable to grasp innovative things that were to their own advantage, fought to retain the existing mind-set which was inimical to their welfare. It is the strangest of incongruities in regards to human pertinacity that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them. The scientific method has evolved, in a large part, to reduce the impact of this human penchant for jumping to such self-justifying yet erroneous conclusions. RESPONDENT: Yes, and it is not over, by far. There are many scientific discoveries yet to be made to reduce the erroneous conclusion of any who to purport to have discovered that they know what is after the death of the flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Are you saying that a person who says they know something are not being open (the specific example you provide is in regards to what happens for a person after physical death) and that one is to wait for scientists to conclusively prove it one way or the other? RESPONDENT: Only those who take the stance that ‘they know’ are not [Richard] ‘‘being open’ (as in the ‘unlimited possibility of anything being possible’) ... inasmuch as one will be embracing each situation that life provides by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so as to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is’ [endquote]. RICHARD: But I did ‘find out, once and for all, just what is going on’ and I did ‘discover what intelligence actually is’ ... yet you seem to be telling me that I should not have found out, that I should not have discovered. Does this not seem strange ... it is as if you are advocating never, ever knowing (unless, presumably, that one be a scientist)? Perhaps if I were to put it simply:
Furthermore ... would you say to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (if he were alive today) that he should be open to ‘The Masters’ of Theosophical Society? RESPONDENT: To me, it is intelligent to not rule out accepting the possibility of knowing that which has not yet been discovered, and that is the point I was making. RICHARD: This does not make sense: you talk about ‘the possibility of knowing that which has not yet been discovered’ yet the moment it is known you say that the person that discovered it is not ‘being open’ . RESPONDENT: That which is adhered to by the means of experiencing leaves little room for the new to be accepted (emotionally or factually). Viz.: [Richard]: ‘... that is the very point I was making (drawn from experience and not merely theorising)’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Again this makes no sense: someone experiences something new to human experience ... yet you say that this new discovery leaves little room for ‘the new to be accepted’ . RESPONDENT: In no way am I considering to burn you at the stake for new and revolutionary discoveries. I would more than likely banish you for your own [quote] ‘struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement ... even those conditions which enslave them’ [endquote]. RICHARD: But I am in no way enslaved (I am freed of any enslavement) ... and that which was detrimental to advancement is gone forever. RESPONDENT: The ‘cognitive dissonance theory’ seems to be a pretty good description of your current belief that you are the ‘only one’ to have the complete knowledge of ‘what is, what was, and what will be’. RICHARD: ‘Tis not a ‘belief’ ... I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples ... so as to compare notes, as it were.
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
