|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 21
RICHARD: I am a fellow human being sans identity (which was ‘being’ itself). As such, this flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth is apparent all about. It being so perfect I wish to notify my fellow human beings of its existence ... what they do with this information is their own business. RESPONDENT: Why would you want to notify other people of its existence? RICHARD: Because my fellow human beings tell me that they are (a) suffering ... and (b) wanting to know the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: It would appear that what you are doing is simply tooting your own horn, which is simply an aspect of the ego life. RICHARD: Seeing that you say it ‘would appear’ to be that way to you, I would therefore ask: do you have some problem with success in eliminating suffering? Do you really like to (a) suffer yourself ... and (b) see your fellow human beings suffering as well? If so, then are you a sado-masochist? RESPONDENT: You want people to know that you have arrived at the ultimate in order to establish yourself as a leader of sorts. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that anyone – anyone at all – who makes a discovery about anything at all relating to human life on this planet, which discovery advances human knowledge and improves the quality of human life, should keep that discovery to themselves? Are you advising me to be selfish? RESPONDENT: I have only seen you make claims about yourself. I have not seen you give advice on how we would achiever a state of total freedom. RICHARD: I was proceeding famously at the beginning of this thread (the ‘overt/covert’ power-battle between the genders) but you insisted upon rushing to the bottom and asking asinine questions about wives and winning. Twice I endeavoured to persuade you to get back onto the topic (vis a vis your ‘empower women and chaos would result’ philosophy) ... yet you insisted on trying to prove your thesis that one – or both – of my wives won some weird ‘winning the power-battle’ scenario that only existed in your fertilised imagination. So I obliged you ... yet now you petulantly cry ‘foul’ and futilely accuse me of ‘only making claims about myself’ and not ‘giving advice on how to achieve a condition of actual freedom’, eh? RESPONDENT: The point of the things you have told us could only be to convince us that you have the answer and we should come to you for it. RICHARD: But I do not want you (or anybody) ‘coming to me’ – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. * RESPONDENT: My view of this is that the mind directs the body and something behind the mind directs the mind. RICHARD: Yes ... for 6.0 billion people this ‘something behind the mind’ is their genetic identity (‘being’) echoing through the millennia via the germ cells (the spermatozoa and the ova). RESPONDENT: How can an identity be genetic? A body can be genetic ... not an identity. RICHARD: Any metaphysical identity (a psychological, emotional, psychic or autological ‘being’) is an epiphenomenon of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that forms itself, out of survival necessity, as the centre-point of the instinctual passions that blind nature genetically encodes in all sentient beings at conception in the genes ... ‘I’ am the current end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes. ‘I’ am the product of the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: You are equating human nature and animal nature here. RICHARD: Aye ... this is because human nature is built on top of the underlying animal nature (somewhat akin to ‘Windows 9x’ being built on top of ‘MSDos’). All sentient beings are born with instinctual animal passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head). This second layer is the human condition ... and is epitomised by malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion. RESPONDENT: There are serious differences between the two. RICHARD: Indeed ... the human animal, with its amazing ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, has the chance to become free of the human condition. Animals cannot think; only humans are intelligent ... and their intelligence is crippled by both the instinctual animal passions (fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and the cultivated human emotions (malice and sorrow and their – polar opposite yet complementary poles – love and compassion). * RICHARD: Being born of the biologically inherited instinctual passions genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically speaking – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. In other words: ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’ and so on. This is one’s ‘Original Face’ (to use the Zen terminology); this is the source of the ‘we are all one’ feeling that is accessed in spiritual practices and mystical mediation. Because, genetically speaking we are indeed ‘all one’ inasmuch as all carbon based life-forms – not just sentient life-forms – have a common hereditary ‘survival instincts’ origin. RESPONDENT: There is a spiritual or ego nature in man that lies outside the realm of simple survival instinct or genetic inheritance. RICHARD: Yes ... I call the ‘spiritual nature’ the ‘me’ as soul and the ‘ego nature’ the ‘I’ as ego. Animals do not display symptomatic behaviour that indicates these characteristics outside of the most rudimentary indications (as in a simplistic recognition of ‘self’ in some chimpanzees but not monkeys, for example). RESPONDENT: Not only does man want to survive and conquer but he wants to be number one. RICHARD: Indeed ... (and woman too). May I ask? Do you want to not only fail and be conquered but be number ... um ... bottom-of-the-list into the bargain? RESPONDENT: His ‘natural’ or animal state, that you refer to, puts him in a state of conflict, unlike the animals. The animal has anger or fear, kills, fights or runs and returns to rest or goes to sleep in peace. RICHARD: Being born and raised on a farm, and having a life-long interest in animals, I have been able to observe over time that, by and large, animals generally do not rest or sleep ‘in peace’ ... they are constantly on the alert, vigilant, scanning for attack. Some, like ducks for example, ‘sleep’ half of the brain at a time. Apart from bears and the such-like in hibernation (oblivion) it is not very restful being an animal. RESPONDENT: Afterwards, there is no conflict for the animal. He settles down quickly and returns shortly to a relaxed state. The animal does not retain haunting memories that put him in a state of conflict. He has only done what all animals do, and there is nothing else he can do, nor should there be. RICHARD: Okay ... animals are not aware of what they do: I have seen cats toying with a mouse in a manner that can only be dubbed cruel; I have seen cows ‘spooked’ and then stampede, in what must be described as hysteria, trampling their young as they do so; I have seen stallions displaying what can only be labelled aggression; I have seen dogs acting in a way that can only be called pining; I have seen blackbirds playing ‘catch’ with slowly-dying crickets; I have watched many animals exhibiting what must be specified as fear ... and so on. Only recently a television programme was aired here on chimpanzees about studies made over many, many years of them in their native habitat and I was able to see civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, grief, group ostracism ... and so on. It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals are not aware of their actions ... let alone the instinctual passions that drive them. As I have already remarked: as animals cannot think they are not intelligent. RESPONDENT: If a man does the same thing the animal does, he is full of conflict and needs outside support to escape from the reality of what he had done in order to achieve a state of equilibrium and rest. RICHARD: What ‘outside support’ would that be? RESPONDENT: This is nothing like the animal that inherits a genetic and instinctual way of life with no possibility of any kind of choice in the lifestyle he leads. RICHARD: Indeed ... only intelligence (the amazing ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons) will enable the first animal in the earth’s history to begin the process of being free of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: To find peace in the animal state means to be at peace with fear or anger ... killing or rape. RICHARD: Not so ... peace-on-earth only becomes apparent at the eradication of ‘fear or anger’ and all the rest ... not some chicken-hearted appeasement policy. RESPONDENT: There is nothing there that would dictate compassion or consideration for our fellow humans. RICHARD: To be compassionate is to keep the sorrow alive ... where there is no sorrow there is no compassion required. RESPONDENT: The strong survive and the weak die. That is the law of the jungle. RICHARD: Not so ... it is the fittest that survive: ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that ‘the strong’ (most muscular) always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (those who adapt) get to pass on their genes. If the most muscular are too dumb to twig to this very pertinent fact they will slowly disappear of the face of the planet over the countless millions of years that it is going to take via the trial and error process of blind nature. One can speed up this tedious natural process in one’s own lifetime and become free ... now. Of course one will, of necessity, have to relinquish the narcissistic desire to be the next manifestation of that ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (aka ‘God On Earth’) ... which means that humility must be discarded along with all those other selfish feelings. Such as ‘saving one’s immortal soul’.
RICHARD: I am a fellow human being sans identity (which was ‘being’ itself). As such, this flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth is apparent all about. It being so perfect I wish to notify my fellow human beings of its existence ... what they do with this information is their own business. RESPONDENT: Why would you want to notify other people of its existence? RICHARD: Because my fellow human beings tell me that they are (a) suffering ... and (b) wanting to know the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: It would appear that what you are doing is simply tooting your own horn, which is simply an aspect of the ego life. RICHARD: Seeing that you say it ‘would appear’ to be that way to you, I would therefore ask: do you have some problem with success in eliminating suffering? Do you really like to (a) suffer yourself ... and (b) see your fellow human beings suffering as well? If so, then are you a sado-masochist? RESPONDENT: You want people to know that you have arrived at the ultimate in order to establish yourself as a leader of sorts. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that anyone – anyone at all – who makes a discovery about anything at all relating to human life on this planet, which discovery advances human knowledge and improves the quality of human life, should keep that discovery to themselves? Are you advising me to be selfish? RESPONDENT: I have only seen you make claims about yourself. I have not seen you give advice on how we would achiever a state of total freedom. RICHARD: I was proceeding famously at the beginning of this thread (the ‘overt/ covert’ power-battle between the genders) but you insisted upon rushing to the bottom and asking asinine questions about wives and winning. Twice I endeavoured to persuade you to get back onto the topic (vis a vis your ‘empower women and chaos would result’ philosophy) ... yet you insisted on trying to prove your thesis that one – or both – of my wives won some weird ‘winning the power-battle’ scenario that only existed in your fertilised imagination. So I obliged you ... yet now you petulantly cry ‘foul’ and futilely accuse me of ‘only making claims about myself’ and not ‘giving advice on how to achieve a condition of actual freedom’, eh? RESPONDENT: Before I am going to listen to you on a subject like this, I am going to try to find out whether you know anything about it or not. RICHARD: Okay ... but having found that out, were you planning on proceeding with the topic (the overt/ covert power-battle between the genders)? RESPONDENT: The fact that you had two wives proves that there was a problem ... most likely a power struggle involved. RICHARD: Indeed there was ... that is why I am discussing this overt/ covert power-battle between the genders. As I have explained, in my first marriage I was masculine; in my second marriage I was feminine ... thus I now know, experientially and not just theoretically, both sides of the overt/covert power-battle between the genders. Neither one can ever win, as I was saying in my initial post, as it is a ‘balance of power’ scenario. RESPONDENT: If there was not, you would still be with one of them now. RICHARD: Yet I have already explained at your request. Viz.:
What is it that you are advising? That I hog-tie a fellow human being and/or put shackles on her and/or keep her locked up in the house so that she cannot move out and pursue her way of life the way she sees fit? That is not the way of equity and parity ... I have regard for my fellow human being’s integrity, it is theirs to do what they will with, and not mine. In case it is still not clear to you, in both marriages the wives had their husband die. I am not their husband ... both ‘he’ and ‘He’ were but two aspects of the ‘walk-in’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT: If you have failed twice in marriage to guide your wife ... RICHARD: Oh, but ‘I’/‘me’ guided them like all get-out ... this is why I now know, experientially and not just theoretically, both sides of the overt/covert power-battle between the genders. RESPONDENT: And [if you failed to] take charge of your family ... RICHARD: There were four children I would not be where I am now, otherwise. RESPONDENT: And if you refuse to admit it, or even acknowledge that there was a power struggle, why should anyone think you are an expert on the subject? RICHARD: Yet where have I ‘refused to admit it’ that there was a power battle? Where have I refused to ‘even acknowledge that there was a power struggle’? ‘I’/‘me’ was ‘power-struggling’ all over the place – first from the masculine side and second from the feminine side – which is why I now know, experientially and not just theoretically, both sides of the overt/covert power-battle between the genders. I have simply ‘refused to admit it’ that anyone won ... that weird ‘winning the battle’ scenario only exists in your fertilised imagination. What I have done, in the past few E-Mails, is to present to you the fact that neither of my two wives won any power battle (be it man/woman or secular/divine or whatever). The ‘I’ as ego (in full ‘Head Of The House’ regalia) who was ‘battling it out’ in the overt masculine way in the first marriage committed psychological suicide (ego death); the ‘me’ as soul (in full ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ expansion) who was ‘battling it out’ in the covert feminine way committed psychic suicide (soul death); whence I became apparent (I did nothing all this while). If you call this entire episode both or one of them winning, then you are overlooking the point that they (both of them) are still waiting for their god or goddess to manifest so as to bring about peace and harmony. If you call waiting winning, then so be it ... anyway, there is a well-established precedent for waiting: Christianity has their saviour in the second coming of Christ; Buddhism has their Maitreya; Islam has their Mahdi; Hinduism has their Kalki; Judaism has their Messiah; Taoism has their Kilin and so on. The Christian myth is of particular poignancy because their god was to have came back on a cloud blowing his trumpet and putting everything to rights nigh on one thousand nine hundred and thirty years ago ... ‘before this generation passeth away’ spake he sagely. And so all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: First admit you were a failure and learn from it. RICHARD: But I did ‘admit I was a failure and learn from it’ ... twice. The first time was after fifteen years of normal masculine marriage (‘The Male Is The Head Of The House’); the second time was after six years of abnormal feminine marriage (‘Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and The Truth’). Not only did ‘I’/‘me’ ‘learn from it’ ... ‘I’/‘me’ activated that learning and ceased being. I am neither masculine nor feminine. There is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: If you will not do that what chance is there that you are going to tell us something of value about the man-woman relationship? RICHARD: Yet as you now know, for a second time, that I did ‘do all that’, then how am I going so far in providing ‘something of value about the man-woman relationship’ according to you? (This means that the ball is back in your court now, for you to throw back your next objection to living in peace and harmony). * RESPONDENT: You are equating human nature and animal nature here. RICHARD: Aye ... this is because human nature is built on top of the underlying animal nature (somewhat akin to ‘Windows 9x’ being built on top of ‘MSDos’). All sentient beings are born with instinctual animal passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head). This second layer is the human condition ... and is epitomised by malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion. RESPONDENT: I agree with you that we have an animal nature which includes fear and aggression and so on, but this nature conflicts with a higher nature, or the potential thereof, in man. RICHARD: Yes ... this conflict is called brain/body (mind/ matter) or inner/ outer (subjective/ objective) for the materialist and soul/ body (spirit/ matter) or sacred/secular (divine/ diabolical) for the spiritualist. This conflict is identity/ body (psyche/ sensate) or affective/ cognitive (instincts/intelligence) for the actualist. RESPONDENT: I do not agree with you that the higher nature is an invention of man. It is here. RICHARD: The last time I looked up the subject there had been nigh on 1200 gods and goddesses (and that does not include the Hindu Pantheon) throughout human history and they were all ‘here’ too at the time ... busily being immortal. Where are they all now? * RESPONDENT: There are serious differences between the two. RICHARD: Indeed ... the human animal, with its amazing ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, has the chance to become free of the human condition. Animals cannot think; only humans are intelligent ... and their intelligence is crippled by both the instinctual animal passions (fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and the cultivated human emotions (malice and sorrow and their – polar opposite yet complementary poles – love and compassion). RESPONDENT: Are you implying a purpose for man’s intelligence? RICHARD: More than ‘implying’ ... I am stating that loud and clear (and woman’s intelligence too). RESPONDENT: Without a higher intelligence outside of man, there could be no such purpose. The effect would need a cause. RICHARD: The ‘cause’ is this infinite and eternal universe ... experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being (‘effect’).
There is no anthropomorphic As there was no ‘creation’ there is no causeless cause (a god by any name). * RESPONDENT: His ‘natural’ or animal state, that you refer to, puts him in a state of conflict, unlike the animals. The animal has anger or fear, kills, fights or runs and returns to rest or goes to sleep in peace. RICHARD: Being born and raised on a farm, and having a life-long interest in animals, I have been able to observe over time that, by and large, animals generally do not rest or sleep ‘in peace’ ... they are constantly on the alert, vigilant, scanning for attack. Some, like ducks for example, ‘sleep’ half of the brain at a time. Apart from bears and the such-like in hibernation (oblivion) it is not very restful being an animal. RESPONDENT: I should have just said that animals have no psychological conflict over their actions. RICHARD: Okay ... this is because animals are not intelligent (they cannot think). Thus they are not aware of their instinctually passionate
behaviour ... and, not having a ‘theory of mind’ RESPONDENT: Many animals will engage in a fight to the death and in a short time be licking their paws in a relaxed manner. RICHARD: Yep ... totally unaware of any consequences of their instinctually passionate behaviour (ignorance is bliss). There are more than a few peoples who ascribe similar ‘ignorance is bliss’ qualities to an infant human (the supposed ‘innocence’ of childhood) with their hoary Tabula Rasa theory. * RESPONDENT: If a man does the same thing the animal does, he is full of conflict and needs outside support to escape from the reality of what he had done in order to achieve a state of equilibrium and rest. RICHARD: What ‘outside support’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Physical or psychological support, using the bodily senses or bodily chemistry, or support from other people. RICHARD: You would appear to be referring to the time-honoured ‘booze, medication, therapy and/or a shoulder to cry on’, eh? * RESPONDENT: This is nothing like the animal that inherits a genetic and instinctual way of life with no possibility of any kind of choice in the lifestyle he leads. RICHARD: Indeed ... only intelligence (the amazing ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons) will enable the first animal in the earth’s history to begin the process of being free of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Are you not saying that man’s purpose is to rise above the animal nature? RICHARD: No ... this ‘to rise above animal nature’ (transcendence) belief, being the ‘Tried and True’, has had 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history to demonstrate its efficacy. As it has not ... it is the ‘tried and failed’. I would never, ever say that this is ‘man’s purpose’ (nor woman’s purpose). RESPONDENT: If you say this, you are implying a higher power. RICHARD: Yet I am not saying that, you are ... I am saying that your freedom is in your own hands; only you are preventing your own happiness and harmlessness; only you are blocking your own peace and harmony. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. * RESPONDENT: To find peace in the animal state means to be at peace with fear or anger ... killing or rape. RICHARD: Not so ... peace-on-earth only becomes apparent at the eradication of ‘fear or anger’ and all the rest ... not some chicken-hearted appeasement policy. RESPONDENT: It seems we agree on this, at least at this point. RICHARD: Good ... you mean you are agreeing that peace-on-earth only becomes apparent upon the complete and utter extirpation of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire and all their cultivated derivations of malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion? Because that is what ‘the eradication of ‘fear or anger’ and all the rest’ means in full. * RESPONDENT: The strong survive and the weak die. That is the law of the jungle. RICHARD: Not so ... it is the fittest that survive: ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that ‘the strong’ (most muscular) always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (the most adapted) get to pass on their genes. If the most muscular are too dumb to twig to this very pertinent fact they will slowly disappear off the face of the planet over the countless millions of years that it is going to take via the trial and error process of blind nature. One can speed up this tedious natural process in one’s own lifetime and become free ... now. Of course one will, of necessity, have to relinquish the narcissistic desire to be the next manifestation of that ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (aka ‘God On Earth’) ... which means that humility must be discarded along with all those other selfish feelings. Such as ‘saving one’s immortal soul’. RESPONDENT: If you live as an animal and encounter a more muscular animal than yourself, and get into a physical fight with him, there is a likelihood that you will be killed and the strong will survive at that point. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... the most ‘on the ball’; shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily or sly and so on can defeat ‘the strong’ (most muscular) from time-to-time ... as is evidenced by the long, slow evolution of intelligence. RESPONDENT: Over time, it is as you say. RICHARD: Good ... the process of evolution (that the species most fitted to their environment prosper and those no longer fitted languish) has given rise to intelligence in one species: the human animal. This process of blind nature is such that if the human animal does not mutate – which mutation is a process of blind nature ceasing to be blind – there is a fair chance that the human species will kill itself off after many more abysmal trials and tribulations. The future is yours for the choosing. The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of blind nature to so far evolve intelligence ... and if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to blind nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time and maybe that carbon-based life-form will not be so stupefied as the carbon-based life-form as epitomised by those who are waiting for a ‘higher intelligence’ or a ‘higher power’ and so on. Blind nature has all the time in the universe to manifest perfection ... and that is infinite time. Whereas you have perhaps eighty or so years. RESPONDENT: Humility can not be discarded. RICHARD: It can and it was ... when pride went the antidotal humility also vanished. RESPONDENT: It is a state of polarity relative to something higher than itself. RICHARD: Only in someone’s dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT: What would discard it? RICHARD: One’s native intelligence in operation (what people call ‘commonsense’ in the ‘real world’). RESPONDENT: The question should be ‘how do we get it?’ RICHARD: You only can get it by narcissistically desiring to be the next manifestation of the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ ... you do not get to be ‘God On Earth’ unless you are first humble. RESPONDENT: The problem with these discussions in that we already have arrived at our points of view on these subjects. The details are interesting, but I doubt anyone will change his mind. You write as though there was a higher purpose to man’s intelligence on one hand, but you will have to say there is none in order to be consistent with your other statements. RICHARD: Not so ... there is the salubrious purpose of bringing to an end, once and for all, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and such-like that beset this other-wise fair planet we all live on ... just for starters. The primary purpose, however, is so that one experientially knows, each moment again, what life is all about ... one attains to one’s destiny: I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such the universe is aware of its own infinitude. The ‘higher purpose’ is to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is. RESPONDENT: To me, this is not an intellectual pursuit whereby the truth is arrived at through logic and study. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: We are given to know one thing or another. RICHARD: To know is one thing ... to live it, each moment again, day after day for the remainder of one’s life, is something else entirely. RESPONDENT: It is up to us whether we accept what is given to us to know, or reject it. RICHARD: There is a third alternative to either accepting or rejecting. RESPONDENT: We see some things in the same light, but do not agree on the ultimate conclusions. RICHARD: Why?
RESPONDENT: The fact that you had two wives proves that there was a problem ... most likely a power struggle involved. RICHARD: Indeed there was ... that is why I am discussing this overt/ covert power-battle between the genders. As I have explained, in my first marriage I was masculine; in my second marriage I was feminine ... thus I now know, experientially and not just theoretically, both sides of the overt/covert power-battle between the genders. Neither one can ever win, as I was saying in my initial post, as it is a ‘balance of power’ scenario. RESPONDENT: First admit you were a failure and learn from it. RICHARD: But I did ‘admit I was a failure and learn from it’ ... twice. The first time was after fifteen years of normal masculine marriage (‘The Male Is The Head Of The House’); the second time was after six years of abnormal feminine marriage (‘Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and The Truth’). Not only did ‘I’/‘me’ ‘learn from it’ ... ‘I’/‘me’ activated that learning and ceased being. I am neither masculine nor feminine. There is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: Okay ... I understand (I think). I agree with you that the role of ‘male’ or ‘female’ is not an identity based in the highest truth. RICHARD: It is ‘identity’ itself which is the problem ... whether it is based in ‘the highest truth’ or not. I do wonder how you can even begin to imagine that you are agreeing with me ... I have carefully explained how my second marriage was indeed firmly ‘based in the highest truth’ (by any name) and yet here you trot out the hoary line that ‘if only marriage was based in the highest truth ... all would be well’ etc. etc. Shall I put it simply? Any power-based relationship is dysfunctional ... because power sucks. RESPONDENT: Nevertheless we have it when we start our marriage and working this problem out is what I believe marriage is really about. There is pre-existing battle raging between the sexes for power in the family. It is not a conscious battle but one that is coming down through the ages, down to our parents and into us. The man seeks ego support and sex from his wife ... in turn she seeks to take something out of his hide ... life substance ... his power. The lower role is the most powerful ... as in the old phrase ‘she stoops to conquer’. The vast majority of women hate and have contempt their fathers, either for being cruel to them and/or for being weak and contemptible. They will re create their failure of a father in their husbands to fulfil their need to continue holding men in contempt, and unless their husband gets some understanding of where they are coming from along with some guts, he will be destroyed. RICHARD: Indeed ... as I said: any power-based relationship is dysfunctional ... and it is the need for power that is the problem. * RESPONDENT: If you will not do that what chance is there that you are going to tell us something of value about the man-woman relationship? RICHARD: Yet as you now know, for a second time, that I did ‘do all that’, then how am I going so far in providing ‘something of value about the man-woman relationship’ according to you? (This means that the ball is back in your court now, for you to throw back your next objection to living in peace and harmony). RESPONDENT: We have not discussed what peace and harmony is yet so I could not have objected to it. RICHARD: Are you having me on? You objected right from the beginning of this thread ... allow me to refresh your memory:
Do you see that you are arguing for power all the way through? Do you see where I wrote ‘peace and harmony’ four times that exchange? And do you see where I wrote ‘any and all power is a sickness’ in the last line? Because it was at this point that you went rushing to the bottom asking asinine questions about wives and winning. Twice I endeavoured to persuade you to get back onto the topic (vis a vis your ‘empower women and chaos would result’ philosophy) ... yet you insisted on trying to prove your thesis that one – or both – of my wives won that weird ‘winning the power-battle’ scenario which only exists in your fertilised imagination. So I obliged you ... yet now you blandly state that ‘we have not discussed what peace and harmony is yet so I could not have objected to it’. When I did eventually elicit a receive a response to my reply (above) your answer to the paragraphs where I asked about ‘peace and harmony’ were: (1) ‘Power means more than overt action or subservience. It has to do with who guides who and there is always one who does more of that’ ... and (2) ‘The laws of the culture empower either the woman or the man if they favour one over the other’. What I see when I read all this – and other things that you have written – is a power fixation in operation ... almost a fetish, as it were. So, shall I put it this way? Peace and harmony (as in ‘equity and parity’) is when there is no power or powers whatsoever extant in this flesh and blood body ... especially ‘the highest truth’ (the supreme power-tripper if there ever was). * RESPONDENT: You are equating human nature and animal nature here. RICHARD: Aye ... this is because human nature is built on top of the underlying animal nature (somewhat akin to ‘Windows 9x’ being built on top of ‘MSDos’). All sentient beings are born with instinctual animal passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head). This second layer is the human condition ... and is epitomised by malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion. RESPONDENT: I agree with you that we have an animal nature which includes fear and aggression and so on, but this nature conflicts with a higher nature, or the potential thereof, in man. RICHARD: Yes ... this conflict is called brain/body (mind/ matter) or inner/ outer (subjective/ objective) for the materialist and soul/body (spirit/ matter) or sacred/secular (divine/ diabolical) for the spiritualist. This conflict is identity/ body (psyche/ sensate) or affective/ cognitive (instincts/ intelligence) for the actualist. RESPONDENT: I do not agree with you that the higher nature is an invention of man. It is here. RICHARD: The last time I looked up the subject there had been nigh on 1200 gods and goddesses (and that does not include the Hindu Pantheon) throughout human history and they were all ‘here’ too at the time ... busily being immortal. Where are they all now? RESPONDENT: Let’s forget the labels for the higher nature. It still exists, whatever you call it. RICHARD: No, I will not ‘forget the labels for the higher nature’ ... especially as you make liberal use of the ‘god’ label in your reply (below) that I am yet to respond to. Here, allow me to copy and paste your ‘labels for the higher nature’ up here for your perusal. Viz.:
Therefore, back to my initial response: the last time I looked up the subject there had been nigh on 1200 gods and goddesses (and that does not include the Hindu Pantheon) throughout human history and they were all ‘here’ too at the time ... busily being immortal. Where are they all now? They do not all ‘still exist’ ... only the one’s that peoples now living currently believe in. And why is this? Maybe – just maybe – a god or a goddess (any god or goddess) has no existence outside of a person’s emotion-backed feverish imagination. Have you really never noticed that all gods and goddesses were immortal ... yet when peoples stop believing in them they cease to exist? * RESPONDENT: There are serious differences between the two [human nature and animal nature]. RICHARD: Indeed ... the human animal, with its amazing ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, has the chance to become free of the human condition. Animals cannot think; only humans are intelligent ... and their intelligence is crippled by both the instinctual animal passions (fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and the cultivated human emotions (malice and sorrow and their – polar opposite yet complementary poles – love and compassion). RESPONDENT: Are you implying a purpose for man’s intelligence? RICHARD: More than ‘implying’ ... I am stating that loud and clear (and woman’s intelligence too). RESPONDENT: Without a higher intelligence outside of man, there could be no such purpose. The effect would need a cause. RICHARD: The ‘cause’ is this infinite and eternal universe ... experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being (‘effect’).
There is no anthropomorphic RESPONDENT: All you seem to be doing here is substituting the phrase ‘infinite and eternal universe’ for the usual god words. RICHARD: Not so ... it is that peoples for millennia have been stealing the properties of this physical universe and attributing them to their particular metaphysical fantasy (whichever god or goddess that is the ‘flavour of the month’). I am simply bringing those properties back where they have belonged all along ... to this infinite and eternal universe. RESPONDENT: In effect you have made the universe your god. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... in effect you have shifted the universe’s properties onto your (borrowed) fantasy ... and added a few more (power-based) qualities while you were at it in order to make it into a supreme being. RESPONDENT: You are saying that the universe has a purpose for man’s intelligence. In order for that to be true the universe must have an intelligence in it that is ‘eminently capable of, not only running itself perfectly, but also knowing itself apperceptively’. RICHARD: This universe, being infinite and eternal, is much, much more than merely intelligent. Intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, cannot comprehend infinity and eternity (as infinitude has no opposite there is none of the cause and effect relationship which is what intelligence needs in order to operate). Intelligence, therefore, could not ‘run the universe perfectly’ ... let alone know itself apperceptively. Apperception has nothing to do with thinking, reflecting, comparing, evaluating and implementing whatsoever ... apperception is unmediated perception (and perception comes immediately before thought, thoughts and thinking in any human being). If I may point out? You are way, way off base, here. RESPONDENT: If this intelligence is contained in the universe itself, that is not much different from saying there is a god above the universe; the difference being that you are saying god is in the universe. RICHARD: I am not saying that at all ... you are saying that. It is this simple: the only intelligence ‘contained in the universe itself’ is human intelligence (as far as space-exploration has so far ascertained). As humans, this universe is intelligent. RESPONDENT: Also if you see god in the universe, how would you know he is not outside of the universe projecting his intelligence into it? RICHARD: But I do not ‘see god in the universe’ at all. It is you who is blinded by all this ‘god’ business ... not me. If I may make a suggestion? Look into your power fixation first and then re-read what I have written ... it will make a lot more sense then, when read with cleared eyes. * RESPONDENT: His ‘natural’ or animal state, that you refer to, puts him in a state of conflict, unlike the animals. The animal has anger or fear, kills, fights or runs and returns to rest or goes to sleep in peace. RICHARD: Being born and raised on a farm, and having a life-long interest in animals, I have been able to observe over time that, by and large, animals generally do not rest or sleep ‘in peace’ ... they are constantly on the alert, vigilant, scanning for attack. Some, like ducks for example, ‘sleep’ half of the brain at a time. Apart from bears and the such-like in hibernation (oblivion) it is not very restful being an animal. RESPONDENT: I should have just said that animals have no psychological conflict over their actions. RICHARD: Okay ... this is because animals are not intelligent (they cannot think). Thus they are not aware of their instinctually passionate behaviour ... and, not having a ‘theory of mind’, have no conscious consideration for others (only the blind instinctual passions of provide/protect and nurture/nourish operates robotically). RESPONDENT: Many animals will engage in a fight to the death and in a short time be licking their paws in a relaxed manner. RICHARD: Yep ... totally unaware of any consequences of their instinctually passionate behaviour (ignorance is bliss). There are more than a few peoples who ascribe similar ‘ignorance is bliss’ qualities to an infant human (the supposed ‘innocence’ of childhood) with their hoary Tabula Rasa theory. RESPONDENT: The child’s underlying or potential nature has not had time to develop. Until it develops there is a kind of grace period where they are kind of angelic until their parents begin to corrupt them which does not take long at all. Compared to the adults, they are innocent. RICHARD: Uh-huh ... more ‘god-words’, I see (‘grace’, ‘angelic’). Shall we move into this or not? Apart from the many, many proper studies done on this very issue, I have personally seen an 11 month infant pinching her sibling maliciously ... which is not ‘angelic’ behaviour by any standard. Similarly, a child’s temper tantrum makes the term ‘grace period’ look either silly or meaningless. And if you are going to compare the human infant to human adults to get some imitation of innocence up and running then you must be referring to their animal behaviour (as already discussed). If you are going to classify animal behaviour as being innocent then you are equating ignorance (not knowing) with the legal definition for culpability (wherein the offender has to know that they are doing wrong in order to be guilty). This is not a court of law ... this is biology. As for ‘angelic until their parents begin to corrupt them which does not take long at all’ ... if you have ever been a parent yourself you will know by direct experience that society requires that you instil values and principles in your children through reward and punishment. Usually, by about the age of seven, your child knows ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ (as is evidenced in an exasperated parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated ‘you should know better by now’). This implies, under your definition of culpability, that you ‘corrupt’ your children by making them guilty for doing what comes natural (what you called ‘innocent’). It is this simple. * RESPONDENT: To find peace in the animal state means to be at peace with fear or anger ... killing or rape. RICHARD: Not so ... peace-on-earth only becomes apparent at the eradication of ‘fear or anger’ and all the rest ... not some chicken-hearted appeasement policy. RESPONDENT: It seems we agree on this, at least at this point. RICHARD: Good ... you mean you are agreeing that peace-on-earth only becomes apparent upon the complete and utter extirpation of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire and all their cultivated derivations of malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated pacifiers of love and compassion? Because that is what ‘the eradication of ‘fear or anger’ and all the rest’ means in full. RESPONDENT: Yes ... I agree with you. The problem is the getting there. RICHARD: Okay ... investigating the need for power is the first step to take towards ‘getting there’. * RESPONDENT: The strong survive and the weak die. That is the law of the jungle. RICHARD: Not so ... it is the fittest that survive: ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that ‘the strong’ (most muscular) always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (those who adapt) get to pass on their genes. If the most muscular are too dumb to twig to this very pertinent fact they will slowly disappear off the face of the planet over the countless millions of years that it is going to take via the trial and error process of blind nature. One can speed up this tedious natural process in one’s own lifetime and become free ... now. Of course one will, of necessity, have to relinquish the narcissistic desire to be the next manifestation of that ‘Supreme Intelligence’ (aka ‘God On Earth’) ... which means that humility must be discarded along with all those other selfish feelings. Such as ‘saving one’s immortal soul’. RESPONDENT: Humility can not be discarded. RICHARD: It can and it was ... when pride went the antidotal humility also vanished. RESPONDENT: It is a state of polarity relative to something higher than itself. RICHARD: Only in someone’s dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT: What would discard it? RICHARD: One’s native intelligence in operation (what people call ‘commonsense’ in the ‘real world’). RESPONDENT: The question should be ‘how do we get it?’ RICHARD: You only can get it by narcissistically desiring to be the next manifestation of the ‘Supreme Intelligence’ ... you do not get to be ‘God On Earth’ unless you are first humble. RESPONDENT: You never become ‘god on earth’. RICHARD: Huh? You say ‘never’ ? Are you aware of what Mailing List you are writing to? RESPONDENT: The end of humility relative to god (not man) is simply to become an extension of or subject of god. RICHARD: In the West (monotheistic mysticism), yes. In the East (pantheistic mysticism), no. In either case the principle holds true: being humble is a means to the end and not the end. It is a device, a technique, a contrivance ... a selfish machination. * RESPONDENT: The problem with these discussions in that we already have arrived at our points of view on these subjects. The details are interesting, but I doubt anyone will change his mind. You write as though there was a higher purpose to man’s intelligence on one hand, but you will have to say there is none in order to be consistent with your other statements. RICHARD: Not so ... there is the salubrious purpose of bringing to an end, once and for all, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and such-like that beset this other-wise fair planet we all live on ... just for starters. The primary purpose, however, is so that one experientially knows, each moment again, what life is all about ... one attains to one’s destiny: I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such the universe is aware of its own infinitude. The ‘higher purpose’ is to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is. RESPONDENT: As I said earlier, you have made the universe itself god, and you are a part of it, so in essence ... you are god. RICHARD: First: again it is you who are saying that ... I am not saying that at all. Second: your use of ‘you are god’ contradicts your answer to me (above) regarding humility where you say that ‘you never become god on earth ... [you] become an extension of or subject of god’. Which answer are you going to settle for ... do you or do you not become god on earth? RESPONDENT: There is no higher intelligence over you. RICHARD: But only simply because there is no ‘higher intelligence’ outside of someone’s fertilised imagination. RESPONDENT: This is a satisfying idea to the ego ... perhaps more satisfying to it than being a servant of a higher intelligence. RICHARD: Ahh ... you are back to this ‘servant of a higher intelligence’ preference of yours (aka ‘an extension of or subject of god’ ). Would you say that you are coming from the theist point of view or the deist position? Just curious. * RESPONDENT: To me, this is not an intellectual pursuit whereby the truth is arrived at through logic and study. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: We are given to know one thing or another. RICHARD: To know is one thing ... to live it, each moment again, day after day for the remainder of one’s life, is something else entirely. RESPONDENT: It is up to us whether we accept what is given to us to know, or reject it. RICHARD: There is a third alternative to either accepting or rejecting. RESPONDENT: We see some things in the same light, but do not agree on the ultimate conclusions. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: I don’t know. We do agree on a lot and there is only one truth. Perhaps you have a sort of rebellion against organized religion going on within which necessitates divergence onto another track. RICHARD: I can assure you that there is no ‘rebellion’ (religion, organised or not, was simply too puerile to rebel against) ... I happened to detect the power-tripping self-aggrandising driving force that runs all human beings inside this flesh and blood body and pulled the chain ... both ego and soul went down the gurgler. Ergo: no more need for power. Do you have another theory as to why ‘we do not agree on the ultimate conclusions’?
RESPONDENT to No. 12: Good and evil refer to the basic ways that men are inclined. Do you think all are equally inclined? Don’t think if you don’t want to. It will not change the reality of things. Even your statement that thought is full of crap is thought. The question is whether the thought is based on something seen by the higher light or something seen by your own light. Until it runs through your mind, you don’t write it down. Men will be what they are and higher spiritual powers will determine whether there are good men or not and who is what. In the meanwhile, we think, whether we like it or not. The only question is where is the thought coming from. The bad man draws bad thought; the good man draws good thought. He creates neither. He is moved by them. RICHARD: In response to your question ‘where is the thought coming from’ the following quote may be of assistance:
RESPONDENT: If K did not make it, that does not change the truths that he spoke. That would only point out that he failed to become one with them. RICHARD: How does one know – as you presumably do because you make this statement – that something is the truth if no one on earth is living the ‘Teachings’ ... especially the one who spoke ‘the truths’? Who on earth is living/ has ever lived the ‘Teachings’?
RESPONDENT: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’. RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what? RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind. RESPONDENT: That depends on whether you are talking about false love which is the other horn of the same goat, or real love which is something else again. RICHARD: This is the love I am referring to:
I would say that he is talking of your ‘real love which is something else again’.
RICHARD: This is the love I am referring to: [No. 10 to Richard]: ‘There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born’ [endquote]. I would say that he is talking of your ‘real love which is something else again’. RESPONDENT: So are you saying there is no such thing as love than? RICHARD: There is no love here in the pristine purity of this actual world ... it being so perfect nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were. RESPONDENT: If not what would you call the state of mind that you have? RICHARD: The mind which is the brain in action in this flesh and blood skull is an apperceptive mind ... unpolluted by anything of ‘the
original person still alive’ There is neither ashes nor manure here for either a ‘something new’ to be born or a new birth.
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 |
