|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: Richard, when I read your posts I keep having the impression that you could be a CIA artificial intelligence entity attempting to play the spiritual messiah role. RICHARD: Yet I repeatedly say that there is no religiosity, no spirituality, no mysticality and no metaphysicality in me whatsoever ... that I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. I also say (repeatedly) that I set my sights further than merely being (yet again) another of the long list of failed Messiahs and Masters, Gurus and God-Men, Saints and Sages, Avatars and Saviours and that I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I am free from the human condition. I speak plainly, up-front, out-in-the-open, unambiguously and frankly ... I say what I mean and I mean what I say. How on earth anyone can get ‘playing the spiritual messiah role’ out of all my critiques on the ‘Tried and Failed’ beats me. So, as I do not know why you gain that impression ... it looks as if you will have to answer your own question. RESPONDENT: What a way to lead humanity – with a machine. RICHARD: What inspires you to assume I am ‘leading humanity’ ... I propose unilateral action. And what inspires you to liken me to a machine ... when machines cannot consciously reflect, plan and implement considered activity. RESPONDENT: Maybe I am just exposing my ‘we are all too much of the herd mentality’ concern. RICHARD: Going by your ‘messiah role’ and ‘lead humanity’ comments above you may very well be correct. RESPONDENT: As well as my concerns about the possibility of a big brother watching us. What do you say? RICHARD: If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in Mr. George Orwell’s paranoid fantasy I am totally unconcerned. If one complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols one is left free to live one’s life as wisely or as foolishly as one wishes. If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in an older sibling in a family hierarchy ... such a person only has as much psychological and psychic power over you as you give them leave to have such an effect. Apart from physical power, no-one can force their power on another without the other’s acquiescence and compliance. It is a truly and remarkably free world we live in!
RESPONDENT: Richard, when I read your posts I keep having the impression that you could be a CIA artificial intelligence entity attempting to play the spiritual messiah role. RICHARD: Yet I repeatedly say that there is no religiosity, no spirituality, no mysticality and no metaphysicality in me whatsoever ... that I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. I also say (repeatedly) that I set my sights further than merely being (yet again) another of the long list of failed Messiahs and Masters, Gurus and God-Men, Saints and Sages, Avatars and Saviours and that I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I am free from the human condition. I speak plainly, up-front, out-in-the-open, unambiguously and frankly ... I say what I mean and I mean what I say. How on earth anyone can get ‘playing the spiritual messiah role’ out of all my critiques on the ‘Tried and Failed’ beats me. So, as I do not know why you gain that impression ... it looks as if you will have to answer your own question. RESPONDENT: Yes, but if we were to invent a new machine messiah, it would need to wear ‘new’ clothes. RICHARD: Okay ... immediately two questions spring to mind: 1. Why do you wish for a leader (of any sort)? 2. Why do you consider a machine would succeed where all human leaders have failed? RESPONDENT: What a way to lead humanity – with a machine. RICHARD: What inspires you to assume I am ‘leading humanity’ ... I propose unilateral action. And what inspires you to liken me to a machine ... when machines cannot consciously reflect, plan and implement considered activity. RESPONDENT: No, I meant that if experimentation with artificial intelligence (AI) was taking place, and the initial attempts were to see if AI had advanced to the point where a machine could appear human over the internet, that would be something for any parties foolish enough to be invested in attempts to manipulate / control human beings. RICHARD: I am aware that Mr. Alan Turing posited the year 2000 as being when a computer would be developed of sufficient sophistication to be able to fool the average person so well that they would have not more than a 70% chance of making the correct identification between that machine and a human being (popularly known as the ‘Turing Test’). I would guess that, just like ‘1984’, that ‘2000’ will pass into the waste bin too. RESPONDENT: Do you engage in speculative musing? RICHARD: No ... other than prosaic planning for likely outcomes (with rough and ready contingency strategies for unlikely events) I am only too happy to take each moment as it comes. Basically human history goes on repeating itself (apart from local variations) in a very predictable manner. Humans illogically fear becoming ‘robots’ ... little realising they already are. RESPONDENT: Maybe I am just exposing my ‘we are all too much of the herd mentality’ concern. RICHARD: Going by your ‘messiah role’ and ‘lead humanity’ comments above you may very well be correct. RESPONDENT: True. RICHARD: The funny part in all this (funny ‘peculiar’ not funny ‘ha, ha’) is that no one is capable of leading anyone anywhere worthwhile anyway. Only unilateral action will do the trick. RESPONDENT: As well as my concerns about the possibility of a big brother watching us. What do you say? RICHARD: If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in Mr. George Orwell’s paranoid fantasy I am totally unconcerned. If one complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols one is left free to live one’s life as wisely or as foolishly as one wishes. If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in an older sibling in a family hierarchy ... such a person only has as much psychological and psychic power over you as you give them leave to have such an effect. Apart from physical power, no-one can force their power on another without the other’s acquiescence and compliance. RESPONDENT: Well, I never have read ‘1984’, but the big brother label seems to have leapt out of the pages and into human consciousness. RICHARD: Even a cursory study of history shows that control though ‘surveillance of the citizens’ by autocratic regimes has always existed ... computerised surveillance is simply a more technologically sophisticated system. Mr. George Orwell (aka Mr. Eric Blair) gained fame (or notoriety) by playing on people’s very real fears to sell his stuff. RESPONDENT: What you say about an elder sibling seems equally the case with attempts at psychic or religious control ... why are we so easily compliant: why do we give away our freedom so cheaply? RICHARD: But nobody ‘gives away their freedom’ because nobody is free to start off with. Freedom is gained through application and diligence, through patience and perseverance. * RICHARD: It is a truly and remarkably free world we live in! RESPONDENT: As No. 14 might say: such freedom is expressed in very creative ways – some even express it by imagining it is thwarted. RICHARD: I was referring to this actual world – this physical sensate world that 6.0 billion flesh and blood human bodies live in – where nothing ‘dirty’ can get in.
RESPONDENT: Information overload. RICHARD: An ‘information overload’ is much, much better than the usual misinformation overload (not to mention the disinformation overload). Misinformation (and/or disinformation) such as ‘only the human animal wages war, rape, murder, cannibalism, infanticide and etcetera’.
RICHARD: I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT: Okay, where were you before you were conceived? (I am assuming you were born out of your mother’s womb and that you are not a computer). RICHARD: I did not exist before conception – just the same as I will not exist after death – which means that I have never been here before and never will be here again. As it is the universe that was here before my conception and as it is the universe that will be here after my death, it is the universe that is ‘Unborn and Undying’ (immortal) and not me. I am mortal.
RESPONDENT: Why are we so easily compliant: why do we give away our freedom so cheaply? RICHARD: But nobody ‘gives away their freedom’ because nobody is free to start off with. Freedom is gained through application and diligence, through patience and perseverance. RESPONDENT: What exactly does freedom mean in the way that you are using that word? RICHARD: Simple. Are you free? Yes? No? If no ... then you have no freedom to give away (only degrees of bondage). If yes ... you would be wanting to give it away by the bucket load to whomsoever was interested (except that nobody can give anybody their freedom) because it is so excellent. * RICHARD: It is a truly and remarkably free world we live in! RESPONDENT: As No. 14 might say: such freedom is expressed in very creative ways – some even express it by imagining it is thwarted. RICHARD: I was referring to this actual world – this physical sensate world that 6.0 billion flesh and blood human bodies live in – where nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. RESPONDENT: Could you explain what you mean with the phrase ‘where nothing dirty can get in’? RICHARD: A malicious and sorrowful entity, for starters ... but also a loving and compassionate entity and so on. I mean it in the sense that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti draws attention to where he says ‘I have always felt protected; there is a reservoir of goodness where evil is always trying to get in’ (not a direct quote). This actual world is so perfect, so pure, that it does not need protection ... there is no good or evil here. This is because nothing ‘dirty’ can get in (as in ‘I’ can never experience the actual). ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die – become extinct – for the actual to become apparent. In other words: Step out of the ‘real’ world into this actual world of pristine perfection by leaving ‘yourself’ behind in the ‘Land of Lament’ ... where ‘you’ belong. RESPONDENT: Also, how does that phrase tie into the rest of the sentence to which it is attached? RICHARD: It was in response to you referring to that divine waffle that says that 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 are freedom being ‘expressed in very creative ways’ ... as clearly expressed in the following ‘each instance of rape is fine’ delusion (a direct quote from god). Viz.:
There are no gods or goddesses here in this actual world ... as I said (above) nothing ‘dirty’ can get in.
RICHARD: I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT: Okay, where were you before you were conceived? (I am assuming you were born out of your mother’s womb and that you are not a computer). RICHARD: I did not exist before conception – just the same as I will not exist after death – which means that I have never been here before and never will be here again. As it is the universe that was here before my conception and as it is the universe that will be here after my death, it is the universe that is ‘Unborn and Undying’ (immortal) and not me. I am mortal. RESPONDENT: That being the case, why do you bother to state: ‘I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here’? Why make such a claim, especially when what you mean by it is so conventionally accepted as obvious? RICHARD: I was responding to your question (‘where were you before you were conceived?) as I assumed that you wanted to know. What I wrote (before you snipped it off) was that I know where I am at and where I came from and how I got here in the context of describing how I am freed to be here, now. Viz.:
I always write like this so as to forestall that hoary adage ‘he who says he knows does not know’ nonsense when talking of the ‘grace’ that mysteriously worked its miracle to gratuitously bestow the highly revered mystical freedom. The ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body, empowered with pure intent, deliberately, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, altruistically self-immolated so that I would be freed to be here. Incidentally, where you say ‘so conventionally accepted as obvious’ it may be pertinent to know that the majority of the world’s population believe in reincarnation ... and the founder of one of those ‘perpetuus mobilis’ religions (Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) did not know where he came from before he was conceived. As for the rest ... I vaguely recall the results of some survey in the USA some years ago revealing that something like 90-95% (??) of the population held some sort of belief in a creator god. Fully-fledged atheists (even materialists) are so thin on the ground that virtually all the people I meet or read about hold an agnostic position about ‘after-death’ matters anyway What does ‘conventionally accepted as obvious’ mean to you?
RESPONDENT: Why are we so easily compliant: why do we give away our freedom so cheaply? RICHARD: But nobody ‘gives away their freedom’ because nobody is free to start off with. Freedom is gained through application and diligence, through patience and perseverance. RESPONDENT: What exactly does freedom mean in the way that you are using that word? RICHARD: Simple. Are you free? Yes? No? If no ... then you have no freedom to give away (only degrees of bondage). If yes ... you would be wanting to give it away by the bucket load to whomsoever was interested (except that nobody can give anybody their freedom) because it is so excellent. RESPONDENT: You have not answered my question except by giving an example of what I would necessarily do if I lived what the word freedom evidently means to you. RICHARD: If I may point out? You asked me ‘in the way that you are using that word’ ... and silly me assumed that you wanted to know how I meant the word. If you want to know how you meant the word you would be well-advised to ask yourself that question. RESPONDENT: I do not want to give freedom away by the bucket load because that would be like offering water to fishes living in the ocean. RICHARD: Hmm ... I have heard this so-called wisdom before. As ‘offering water to fishes living in the ocean’ amounts to the same thing as offering air to humans living in the atmosphere (the atmosphere is our ‘ocean’) this inanity has no value at all. RESPONDENT: What are you saying? RICHARD: Simple. If one is not free one has no freedom to give away (only degrees of bondage). If one is free one cannot give one’s freedom away to another ... the gaining of freedom is an unilateral action. Thus, either way, not only can one not give away their freedom ... one can not have one’s freedom taken away from one. Or, to put it another way, no one is dependent upon you and you are dependent upon no one. Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT No. 3: Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo once said to us (mid 80s) that if we want enlightenment, we must want it as a drowning man wants air; that the closer we come to it, the more compelling it will be, of itself. RESPONDENT No. 20: J. Krishnamurti: ‘Why should you accept what anybody says about these matters – including myself? Why should you accept any authority about the inward movement of life? We reject authority outwardly; if you are at all intellectually aware and observant politically you reject these things. But we apparently accept the authority of someone who says, ‘I know, I have achieved, I have realized’. The man who says he knows, he does not know. The moment you say you know, you don’t know. What is it you know? Some experience which you have had, some kind of vision, some kind of enlightenment? I dislike to use that word ‘enlightenment’. Once you have experienced that, you think you have attained some extraordinary state; but that is past, you can only know something which is over and therefore dead’. RICHARD: I take it that you do not find it odd to be quoting the words of someone other than yourself so as to offset another person’s quoting of the words of someone other than themself? Does not this action of yours render the point that you are ostensibly making (do not quote an authority) null and void by your very quoting of another’s words? Especially when the first line of your borrowed wisdom specifically states ‘why should you accept what anybody says about these matters – including myself’ ... which effectively negates any and all of the (what I see to be specious anyway) words that follow in that paragraph quoted? Or is this shaping up to be a battle of the proxies? RESPONDENT: The quote does not render itself ‘null an void’ in that the quote simply says do not accept another’s authority. RICHARD: The quote renders itself null and void with its comprehensive injunction: ‘reject any authority ... on the inward movement of life’ properly includes him and everything he has to say – everything – otherwise it is a meaningless statement, a platitude, a sop for the intellectually advanced. It does not ‘simply say’ ... it instructs gloved with a superficially respectful air. It may give the impression that it ‘simply says’ by first asking ‘why do you accept’ but that courtesy is quickly followed by the implicit imperative to reject authority ‘about the inward matters of life’ because you ‘reject authority outwardly’ ... and it is imperative by the appeal to intellectual pride (as in the ‘if you are at all intellectually aware and observant’ appeal). Therefore, why would you accept what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has to say about these ‘inward matters of life’ when, by his own admission as evidenced by his ‘including myself’ identification, he is being an authority on ‘the inward matters of life’? A further problem with this is, if you do this ‘rejecting’ because he says to, then you are still ‘accepting what anybody says about these matters – including myself’ by doing so ... which exacting embargo is known as a ‘double-bind’ in psychiatry. Over all the years that I have had interactions with Krishnamurtiites I have always been fascinated on seeing how they juggled these impossibly conflicting demands. I am glad that I am not a ‘K-Reader’. RESPONDENT: What that means is that one must test out what the other is saying; investigate it; discover what it means in the light of consideration and action. RICHARD: Fair enough ... then why can one not ‘test out what [Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo] is saying; investigate and discover what [Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo] means in the light of consideration and action’ as well? Why is there to be this one rule for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words (listen) and another rule (reject) for anybody else’s? RESPONDENT: And I am not posting this as something to be accepted because I said it is so – that would be absurd – right? RICHARD: I do with this post of yours the same as I do with any other post ... I examine the supporting evidence that is presented with the purport so as to determine whether what is being said is substantiated. If I find that it is not, I tease it out (as I did above) so as to gain some feedback as to whether I understand what you are presenting or not – or whether you have thought through what you presented – and thus a to and fro – a feedback – is generated. Thus advances human knowledge. RESPONDENT: By the way, ‘battle of the proxies’ – sounds like a battle of the selves. RICHARD: By ‘proxy’ I mean others being a substitute – a stand-in – for the original protagonist. And I use the word ‘protagonist’ deliberately ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made no secret of his attitude towards anyone else in the enlightenment business ... including Zen Monks. RESPONDENT: Does your use of words like ‘battle’ reflect an attitude you hold or is it merely due to the knarl and noise of the rest of us – we conflict ridden machines? RICHARD: It is not an attitude that I hold ... I used it as an accurate representation of an aspect of life in the ‘real world’ (the ‘battle of the sexes’ and ‘battle of wills’ and ‘ego-battles’ are some other examples that ‘real world’ peoples bandy around). Gurus and God-Men have been known to battle it out before for supremacy of vision ... why be surprised when others follow suit? If it did not have such dangerous results (as history demonstrates) it would all be hilarious.
RESPONDENT: I have heard of an observation of primates, in which a group from one isolated geographic locale (Galapagos Island?) began using a new tool in a novel way of to achieve some end. Suddenly, primates in geographic locales separate and far away from the original ones began likewise using the tool. These observations provided the same results as the rat experiments, except the participants were not subjected to pain by their human observers. RICHARD: In the 1950’s primatologists in Japan discovered and carefully documented the spread, from monkey to monkey, of a particular feeding behaviour within a group of macaques (rhesus monkeys) on Koshima Islet. The primatologists supplied a group of free-range macaques with sweet potatoes. One young macaque discovered that washing the potatoes in the sea or in a stream removed the dirt and sand. Gradually some other macaques in her group learned to wash their potatoes, which learning demonstrated, according to the primatologists, a ‘pre-cultural’ transmission of technique. However, it was alleged by Mr. Lyall Watson in his book ‘Lifetide’ that suddenly and spontaneously and mysteriously monkeys on other islands, with no physical contact with the potato-washing group, started washing potatoes. Was this really monkey telepathy or wishful thinking by the author? In 1979 Mr. Lyall Watson claimed his information came from ‘personal anecdotes and bits of folklore amongst primate researchers’ and in 1986, in a response to Mr. Ron Amundson’s critique in the summer edition of the ‘Sceptical Inquirer’, 1985, pp. 348-356, Mr. Lyall Watson mentioned ‘off-the-record conversations with those familiar with the potato-washing work’ as being his source-material. It makes for an alluring NDA story, but it is not factual: according to Mr. Robert Carroll (http://skepdic.com/monkey.html) after six years not all the monkeys on Koshima Islet even, saw the benefit of washing the grit off of their potatoes, let alone elsewhere ... the claim that monkeys on other islands had their consciousness raised to the high level of the potato-washing group has no basis in fact. Mr. Markus Possel contacted Mr. Masao Kawai (one of the original primatologists):
Undeterred by facts, the claim has lead to a burgeoning cult-movement known as ‘The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon’. Viz.:
And again:
Editorial note: the text immediately above is no longer at that URL ... it remains here for its historical value and an example of how things come and go on the internet. RESPONDENT: I would even venture that indigenous peoples could probably convey the fact of a connected consciousness – not just between humans but between all life. But, would the more conceptual human bother to ask and/or listen [to them]? RICHARD: Well ... no (if by ‘the more conceptual human’ you are referring to yourself) in that it would appear that you have not ‘bothered to ask and/or listen’ , or in any way demonstrated so far in your posts, investigated whether your concepts (like your ‘divided from their source mentality’ concept) are factually-based. It seems that the motto of ‘pseudo-science’ is: do not let the facts stand in the way of the truth.
RESPONDENT: I would even venture that indigenous peoples could probably convey the fact of a connected consciousness – not just between humans but between all life. But, would the more conceptual human bother to ask and/or listen [to them]? RICHARD: Well ... no (if by ‘the more conceptual human’ you are referring to yourself) in that it would appear that you have not ‘bothered to ask and/or listen’, or in any way demonstrated so far in your posts, that your concepts (like your ‘divided from their source mentality’ concept) are factually-based. It seems that the motto of ‘pseudo-science’ is: do not let the facts stand in the way of the truth. RESPONDENT: I think the tool was an actual stick or something – not a washing trick. It did involve eating. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... can you source your reference? That is, will you provide the scientific study that documents ‘an observation of primates, in which a group from one isolated geographic locale (Galapagos Island?) began using a new tool’ which, you say, you think was ‘an actual stick or something’ and in a ‘novel way of to achieve some end’ which, you say, ‘did involve eating’ so that you and I can discuss facts rather than nebulous propaganda for the truth? I only ask because you do state that ‘suddenly, primates in geographic locales separate and far away from the original ones began likewise using the tool’ as a definitive statement. I have been closely following studies made on primates for many years now and am always on the lookout for any new information that throws light upon the human condition. To my recollection there is nothing like what you describe other than the ‘potato-washing’ study ... so I am keen to read the study that you are basing your proof of ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ upon. RESPONDENT: All that seems besides the point. RICHARD: Oh ... then what is the point? The point you originally made was that ‘a connected consciousness’ was ‘the fact’ but that it was doubtful as to whether ‘the more conceptual human’ would ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ ... is this point still valid? RESPONDENT: Maybe the non-factually-based conclusion which was arrived at in your example is an example of creating an example to prove one’s bias as well? RICHARD: I unabashedly acknowledge my bias towards facts and actuality ... I am so hooked on facts and actuality that I can no longer see the truth. Nevertheless, will you demonstrate where the point I am making is a ‘non-factually-based conclusion’? Will you demonstrate where the facts I present are me ‘creating an example’? RESPONDENT: At any rate, was there something simple you would like to start with and discuss? (Remember I have a short attention span). RICHARD: Yes, there is indeed something simple to discuss: why does the truth need pseudo-science (misinformation and disinformation) to establish its veracity?
RESPONDENT: I think the tool was an actual stick or something – not a washing trick. It did involve eating. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... can you source your reference? That is, will you provide the scientific study that documents ‘an observation of primates, in which a group from one isolated geographic locale (Galapagos Island?) began using a new tool’ which, you say, you think was ‘an actual stick or something’ and in a ‘novel way of to achieve some end’ which, you say, ‘did involve eating’ so that you and I can discuss facts rather than nebulous propaganda for the truth? I only ask because you do state that ‘suddenly, primates in geographic locales separate and far away from the original ones began likewise using the tool’ as a definitive statement. I have been closely following studies made on primates for many years now and am always on the lookout for any new information that throws light upon the human condition. To my recollection there is nothing like what you describe other than the ‘potato-washing’ study ... so I am keen to read the study that you are basing your proof of ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ upon. RESPONDENT: Richard, when you say: ‘I have been closely following studies made on primates for many years now and am always on the lookout for any new information that throws light upon the human condition’ do you mean non-human primates or all primates? RICHARD: All primates. RESPONDENT: You are aware that man is a primate, yes? RICHARD: Yes ... and so is woman. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it obvious that I do not recall the reference – did I not make clear I wasn’t sure of what the exact insight was? RICHARD: Then why present something that you are not ‘sure of what the exact insight was’ – a reference that you ‘do not recall’ into the bargain – as being an example of ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ which you said ‘the more conceptual human’ would not ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ to? RESPONDENT: I am sorry if it is out of a wish to look at the original to make sure my distillation isn’t misguided. RICHARD: You do not seem to understand what is happening here: you stated that ‘the more conceptual human’ would not ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ so as to find out if ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ (which you are so certain is factual) is actual or not. Now, irregardless of whether I am a ‘more conceptual human’ or not, I am indeed ‘bothering to ask and/or listen’ ... and you are not. It is you who made the statement of fact – not me – and you do not provide the evidence to substantiate your view-point. I provide evidence that knocks your second-hand disremembered ‘exact insight’ evidence for a six and you attempt to wriggle out of further discussion. Is this what you would call an investigation? RESPONDENT: It may very well have been an example Krishnamurti and/or David Bohm cited in a discussion. RICHARD: What is this answer supposed to do to substantiate your statement that ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ is an actuality that ‘the more conceptual human’ would not ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ so as to find out if ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ (which you are so certain is factual) is actual or not? Is it a case of ‘if Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and/or Mr. David Bohm said it was so then it is so’? Does this make it valid? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spent sixty or so years propagating the truth that if only ten or so people were to listen totally to him for just two minutes then they would transform all of humankind via this ‘connected consciousness’ business. Yet it just ain’t happened. * RESPONDENT: All that seems besides the point. RICHARD: Oh ... then what is the point? The point you originally made was that ‘a connected consciousness’ was ‘the fact’ but that it was doubtful as to whether ‘the more conceptual human’ would ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ ... is this point still valid? RESPONDENT: The point is that shocking and fostering the suffering of one animal (rats) by another (human beings) who seeks to – perhaps – lessen their own suffering is both misguided and mean. RICHARD: But the example you gave was ‘an observation of primates, in which a group from one isolated geographic locale (Galapagos Island?) began using a new tool’ which you think was ‘an actual stick or something’ and in a ‘novel way of to achieve some end’ which ‘did involve eating’. Where in this example you gave is there a demonstration of human beings ‘fostering the suffering’ of an animal? RESPONDENT: It is the act of a conflicted, callous being. RICHARD: Yet everything human beings currently do is ‘the act of a conflicted, callous being’ ... why single out what humans do to animals as being exceptional? RESPONDENT: Because animal experimentation is only justified on utilitarian grounds, I was attempting to point out that there were/are less cruel ways to acquire scientific knowledge (such as looking at the world as it is). RICHARD: But is not the example you gave (‘an observation of primates, in which a group from one isolated geographic locale (Galapagos Island?) began using a new tool’ which you think was ‘an actual stick or something’ and in a ‘novel way of to achieve some end’ which ‘did involve eating’) a shining example of a ‘less cruel way to acquire scientific knowledge (such as looking at the world as it is)’? Are you sure that the point you are making in providing this example was to emphasise ‘that shocking and fostering the suffering of one animal (rats) by another (human beings) who seeks to – perhaps – lessen their own suffering is both misguided and mean’? If so, it does not make any such point at all ... it rather serves to make the point that you originally proposed: an example of ‘the fact of a connected consciousness’ which you said ‘the more conceptual human’ would not ‘bother to ask and/or listen’ to does it not? Your ability to obfuscate successfully could do with some honing. * RESPONDENT: Maybe the non-factually-based conclusion which was arrived at in your example is an example of creating an example to prove one’s bias as well? RICHARD: I unabashedly acknowledge my bias towards facts and actuality ... I am so hooked on facts and actuality that I can no longer see the truth. Nevertheless, will you demonstrate where the point I am making is a ‘non-factually-based conclusion’ ? Will you demonstrate where the facts I present are me ‘creating an example’ ? RESPONDENT: What I am asking (I am not saying it is or is not the case) is whether you might hold the preconception that a connected consciousness paradigm is not worthy of consideration? RICHARD: I can assure you that I do not hold either ‘the preconception that a connected consciousness paradigm is not worthy of consideration’ nor even the concept that ‘a connected consciousness paradigm is not worthy of consideration’ because I know for a fact that it is not worthy of consideration. RESPONDENT: Therefore you insist on proof rather than entertain it as a possibility to be looked at. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘entertain it as a possibility to be looked at’ because I did that very thing for eleven years, night and day, as a lived reality. Thus I know that it is a fallacy and thus I do not require proof that it is a not worthy of consideration. Can I put it this way? Would you ‘entertain it as a possibility to be looked at’ that the facticity of ‘Santa Claus’ or the ‘Tooth Fairy’ or the ‘Easter Bunny’ is worthy of consideration? Because once one ceases believing in and having faith about a fantasy it vanishes forever ... one does not have to endlessly ‘entertain it as a possibility to be looked at’ just so as not to be accused of being ‘closed’ or whatever. I am asking you for your proof that ‘connected consciousness’ is a fact ... it is you who proposes the facticity of it, not me. * RESPONDENT: At any rate, was there something simple you would like to start with and discuss? (Remember I have a short attention span). RICHARD: Yes, there is indeed something simple to discuss: why does the truth need pseudo-science (misinformation and disinformation) to establish its veracity? RESPONDENT: That is a false question because you are dead sure there is no way to answer it except by refuting the premise upon which it rests. The truth cannot be established. RICHARD: Ahh ... good. This is the nub of the issue: the fact can be established because, being in the domain of time and space and form, it can be ascertained sensately (or by extensions of the senses such as microscopes and so on) whereas the truth can never be established because, being in the domain of the timeless and spaceless and formless, it cannot be ascertained sensately (or by extensions of the senses such as microscopes and so on). RESPONDENT: You do not establish a living thing. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it is done all the time. A cat or a dog or a tree or a flower or any other ‘living thing’ , being in the domain of time and space and form, can be ascertained sensately (or by extensions of the senses such as microscopes and so on) and established as fact. Whereas the truth, being in the domain of the timeless and spaceless and formless, can never, ever be described as either <living> (being born, existing for a period, then dying) or as a <thing> (a form occupying space through time). Why not try again ... and do not steal physical-world words to describe ‘the truth’ this time (like some peoples do with ‘intelligence’ and ‘here and now’ and ‘eternal’ and ‘infinite’ and so on). My next ‘something simple to discuss’ would be: why does the truth need physical-world words to lend credence to it very existence?
RESPONDENT No. 30: Is there a division between the observer and the observed, fundamentally? I think what quantum physics points to is the lack of any real division between the two: there is none. <SNIP> RICHARD: I would ask whether this ‘the observer and the observed’ relationship in quantum mechanics (which relationship seems to carry more than just a little weight on this Mailing List) has any validity at all. Mr. Victor Stenger, for example, is very clear on the subject in regards to ‘conventional quantum mechanics’. Viz.:
I am no physicist, and I am not particularly enamoured of quantum physics anyway, but the little I do understand of this – mostly mathematical and theoretical – physics tells me that it is the instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ that affects these ‘thingamajigs’ being thus investigated ... not the human being (aka ‘the observer’). Mr. Victor Stenger writes about the ‘holistic quantum mechanics’ advocates in rather mordant terms:
I submit these quotes purely in the spirit of questioning whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal ... and not because I claim any proficiency in quantum physics whatsoever. I do note, however, that more than a few mystically inclined peoples have enthusiastically jumped upon the quantum band wagon by claiming that science now supports and proves what mystics have been saying for centuries. I also note that the recent probes to the planet Mars – and to all other destinations for that matter – were predicated upon and guided by the very ‘Copernican Principles’ and ‘Newtonian Mechanics’ and ‘Euclidean Geometries’ so scorned by the latter day ‘popular-press’ pseudo-scientists posing as quantum experts. Although I am more than willing to be advised otherwise on the matter. RESPONDENT: The human being, when it is engaged in the activity of measuring, is also one of those measuring instruments and therefore affects that which is observed. RICHARD: Yet the quote I provided (above) says: [quote]: ‘if Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than ‘observers’, perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement’ . [endquote]. I took this to mean, along with many other articles I have read on quantum mechanics, that it is the inanimate instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ that affects these ‘thingamajigs’ being thus investigated and not the human being (aka ‘the observer’) ... which is different to what you are saying (‘the human being ... is also one of those measuring instruments and therefore affects that which is observed’ ). So I am still left with the question: whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal. RESPONDENT: It is a participatory universe we live in, yes? RICHARD: In what way ‘participatory’ ? This world called planet earth – and this entire infinite and eternal universe – was here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead. It therefore irrefutably exists totally independent of me and my ‘participation’ ... let alone being affected by any of my observations and measurements or whatever antic I get up to. How do you affect the universe? In what way do you affect the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’? And what sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ do you affect? And why? And is your affect beneficial? Or is your affect detrimental? And how do you determine the nature of this affect ... either way? How did you find out about all this?
RESPONDENT: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Being stunned by thinking was just an expression expressing that the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self’) was stopped for a moment. RICHARD: Oh? You would know best, of course, yet going by what you wrote at the time I would have considered that ‘being stunned by thinking’ was ‘just an expression’ of thinking how rarely ‘the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self’) was stopped for a moment’ ... rather than that you were stopped. You certainly convinced your co-respondent what a stunning thought it was that it is such a rare occurrence, anyway. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: That stopping was not a crisis either – as in an accident, physical trauma, etc. RICHARD: Indeed not: the way you wrote of the event was that it was precipitated by ‘watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees’ ... total attention, in other words, rather than being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness. RESPONDENT: Thought attempted to re-establish its dominance through reflecting on what was. I don’t think that has been effective at all in terms of allowing all of ‘one’s’ being to be given to the ‘multifaceted fullness of that’. RICHARD: Ahh ... then reflecting and being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate is of no use whatsoever, eh? Is this because ‘thought is simply too one-dimensional’ to produce anything other than a one-dimensional stunning of the thinker would you say? What does it take to produce a 3-D stunning of the thinker? RESPONDENT: But I do think that the ‘glimpse’ which stunned thought has planted a seed. RICHARD: Are you sure? Is it not the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent that is the trigger for stunning the thinker ... does not thought need to operate episodically as is required by the circumstances? If one thinks ‘upon reflection’ that ‘it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that’ then the thinker concludes that thought must stop for that to happen ... thus precluding a twenty-four-hour-a-day happening. RESPONDENT: In fact, ‘it’ happened again today. But I am not experiencing it with continuity, if that is what you’re getting at. RICHARD: Nope ... what I am getting at is why praise ‘one-dimensional’ thought for its ability to stun its thinker (as in impressed by its own brilliance in thinking that thought) when it is the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent which is the trigger for the event. May I ask? What was instrumental in evoking ‘it’ again today? RESPONDENT: Of course, when ‘it’ happens, to stick with K’s vernacular for describing it, the self is not there to experience ‘it’. RICHARD: Aye ... you already made that clear where you wrote ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ RESPONDENT: Would you be so kind as to share why you find this thread interesting enough to respond to, and what is it you are trying to point to or go into? RICHARD: I simply found it quaint that two correspondents – on a Mailing List that condemns thought in no uncertain terms – should be so much in agreement about being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely they stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate ... what with thought being so ‘one-dimensional’ and all. The best that this mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour can produce is a vow, a resolution, a promise and so on. In other words: effort. What I am ‘trying to point to or go into’ is that it is wrong thinking – rather than thinking per se – subsequent to the event as being that which prevents the happening from occurring just here right now as you read these words. Thought cops so much blame ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free.
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Seven) 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 |
