|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 31
RESPONDENT No. 25: 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? RESPONDENT: What do we mean by ‘effective’? RICHARD: Having the function of accomplishing or executing an event or a condition; having an effect or a result; efficacious, effectual, efficient, useful, of use, helpful, capable, beneficial, advantageous, of assistance, successful, profitable. RESPONDENT: In what context is ‘effectiveness’ to operate? RICHARD: In the context of being that which is instrumental in doing the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen; that which delivers the goods so longed for. In other words: the catalyst.
RESPONDENT No. 25: 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? RESPONDENT: What do we mean by ‘effective’? RICHARD: Having the function of accomplishing or executing an event or a condition; having an effect or a result; efficacious, effectual, efficient, useful, of use, helpful, capable, beneficial, advantageous, of assistance, successful, profitable. RESPONDENT: What is it that is in your mind when you use the word ‘effective’? RICHARD: Nothing more and nothing less than straight-forwardly asking my fellow human being: ‘does it work’? RESPONDENT: Is it something to be accomplished? RICHARD: Of course ... something ultimate to become apparent; a complete event to occur, take place or eventuate; an utter experiencing to happen. The greatest, the most marvellous accomplishment that a human being can aspire to. RESPONDENT: What is being accomplished by ‘stunning’? RICHARD: So far it would appear that nothing much of substance is being accomplished ... the phenomenon of ‘stunning’ thoughts is under on-going examination and discussion. RESPONDENT: I mean what is in your mind that is ‘being accomplished’ by ‘effectiveness of stunning’? RICHARD: What is occurring in this mind is an actual interest in one’s fellow human being’s experience, discovery and subsequent well-being ... hence the query: ‘how effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you’? * RESPONDENT: In what context is ‘effectiveness’ to operate? RICHARD: In the context of being that which is instrumental in doing the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen; that which delivers the goods so longed for. In other words: the catalyst. RESPONDENT: Catalyst for what? What is the goods so longed for? RICHARD: The total and complete end of human suffering ... permanently.
RESPONDENT No. 49: I have tried my best to understand what I have read so far. If I have not been successful it is because I can’t understand your way of explanation due to my poor English. RICHARD: It is not because of what you call ‘my poor English’ as English speaking peoples have difficulty understanding why a compassionate intelligence is oxymoronic also ... the affective feelings are global in their spread (no one is exempt). For example, Mr. Daniel Goleman wrote: [quote]: ‘A view of human nature that ignores the power of emotions is sadly short-sighted. The very name ‘Homo Sapiens’, the thinking species, is misleading in light of the new appreciation and vision of the place of emotion in our lives that science now offers. As we all know from experience, when it comes to shaping our decisions and our actions, feeling counts every bit as much – and often more – than thought. We have gone too far in emphasising the value and import of the purely rational – of what IQ measures – in human life. Intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’. [endquote]. (‘Emotional Intelligence’ Copyright © 1995 by Daniel Goleman; Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2 Soho Square, London W1V 6HB; ISBN 07475 2803 6). Despite his clear statement of fact, ‘intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’, the remainder of the book extols the virtues of emotions ... indeed the very name of his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is the giveaway. Feelings rule in the human world. RESPONDENT: I am not sure why this was extracted from that book in your point to No. 49. RICHARD: To demonstrate that English speaking peoples have difficulty understanding why a compassionate intelligence is oxymoronic also ... the affective feelings are global in their spread (no one is exempt). RESPONDENT: I am taking a risk of not understanding the context in which this was written. RICHARD: It is written in the context that a compassionate intelligence is oxymoronic. RESPONDENT: I have not read the above author, but I don’t see any contradiction in the author’s intent as ‘depicted above’ by you. RICHARD: Perhaps if I rearrange the sequence of the last two sentences the oxymoron becomes startlingly obvious?
Despite his clear statement of fact (‘intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’) he immediately de-emphasises the value and importance of being rational – which just does not make sense – and the remainder of the book extols the virtues of the emotions (being irrational). Indeed the very name of his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is the giveaway. RESPONDENT: Perhaps there may be a contradiction in the book, but that of course is for me to read and find out. RICHARD: There is no contradiction in the book which is not encapsulated in (a) the title ... and (b) the quotes I provided. The cognitive ability to think, recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do) is intelligence in operation. The affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – are non-cognitive instinctually reactive survival feelings at root (which other animals can do) and, no matter how refined and cultivated the feelings may be honed to, are not intelligence in operation. RESPONDENT: In simple terms, I feel the author is saying that when the emotions are in ‘sway’, intelligence comes to naught. RICHARD: Exactly ... my point is this: intelligence cannot operate cleanly and
clearly if it be crippled by the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – for the affective feelings input
a bias towards preserving ‘self’ (particularly ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’). Thus altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice –
unlike humble ‘self’-surrender – is the deliberate sacrifice of ‘self’ (‘being’) with no reward whatsoever possible
for ‘being’ ... otherwise it is not altruism RESPONDENT: That is if we let them dominate us. RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: human beings have been attempting to control the instinctual animal passions for aeons with reward and punishment and morals and ethics and principles and values and so on. By and large this enterprise is moderately successful ... the gaols do not have the majority of the citizens behind bars. Yet when push comes to shove – which especially notable in war – the instinctual passions do ‘dominate us’ ... not matter how refined the civilising process has become. Even the saints and sages and seers demonstrably show anger and anguish from time-to-time. RESPONDENT: Yet there is every opportunity to understand ourselves when we watch our feelings and emotions at their inception. RICHARD: Yes, there is indeed ‘every opportunity to understand’ as this moment is one’s only moment of being alive ... which is why I advocate asking oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? RESPONDENT: In watching our feelings and emotions, there is an exposure of who we are. RICHARD: Yes ... and such exposure is the beginning of the end of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is). The end of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) renders the already always existing peace-on-earth apparent. This entire process of initiating the demise of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) is intelligence in operation (which other animals cannot do). Mr. Daniel Goleman makes no mention of this at all anywhere in his book: despite his clear statement of fact, ‘intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’, the remainder of the book extols the virtues of emotions ... indeed the very name of his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is the giveaway. Feelings rule in the human world.
RICHARD: Many, many years ago, when I was but a tyro, a fledgling beginner in talking with my fellow human beings about being happy and harmless through the elimination of malice and sorrow, I was accosted by a self-professed ‘Born-Again Christian’ in a small town main street:
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the subsequent efforts to hone your skills as a wordsmith emerged as a result of that shock? RICHARD: Yes ... that and many, many other instances (the Jehovah Witness were very helpful to me in this regard). RESPONDENT: Is not this then a reaction to that shock? RICHARD: Yes ... it woke me up to the whole world of sophistry that I had been unaware of (I did not even know that word at the time). RESPONDENT: Why is there a ‘need’ to ‘razzle-dazzle’? RICHARD: As I do not ‘razzle-dazzle’ (let alone have a ‘need’ to) you will have to ask the person who typecast me as doing that why they think this to be so ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. * RESPONDENT: I have been talking about these matters for twenty-odd years now, and I have had to hone my skills as a wordsmith so as to pre-empt such sophistry, to such a degree that I am nowadays accused of ... um ... using an Oxford Dictionary for a pillow at night while I sleep, for example (or even that I absorb all the words and meanings which I then altruistically use to razzle-dazzle spiritualists into understanding me). RESPONDENT: But what is the need for ‘understanding you’? RICHARD: As I do not have a ‘need’ for being understood you will have to ask the person who typecast me why they think this to be so ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. RESPONDENT: Why can one not be silent to this whole mess? RICHARD: Because you are a fellow human being. RESPONDENT: Do you/me feel threatened of not speaking up? RICHARD: No ... well I do not, anyway. RESPONDENT: Do we feel bogged down ... RICHARD: No ... well I do not, anyway. RESPONDENT: ... or do we feel that we are being manipulated? RICHARD: No ... well I do not, anyway. As to whether the other is being manipulative you will have to ask the person who typecast me ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. RESPONDENT: What is that shock? RICHARD: It is a deep sensitive understanding as to the why of all the misery and mayhem. RESPONDENT: Is that shock some kind of an ‘insult’ and the mind seeks to ‘rectify’ it? RICHARD: No, it is a visceral shock that produces action ... a clean, clear and pure action. RESPONDENT: Richard, why is it that we have to use so many words to speak? RICHARD: To share, to communicate, to explain, to clarify, to elucidate what one has discovered. RESPONDENT: Sometimes all that can potentially digress the intent of discussion. RICHARD: Not if the other is sincere. RESPONDENT: Do you feel that such razzle-dazzle is ‘justifying’ a reaction to that shock? RICHARD: As I do not ‘razzle-dazzle’ you will have to ask the person who typecast me as doing that whether they think this to be a ‘justifying’ ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. RESPONDENT: Is not then that justification an ‘idea’? RICHARD: As I do not ‘razzle-dazzle’ you will have to ask the person who typecast me as doing that whether they think this to be an ‘idea’ ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. RESPONDENT: Is compassion flowing out of that razzle-dazzle? RICHARD: As I do not ‘razzle-dazzle’ you will have to ask the person who typecast me as doing that whether they think this to be ‘compassion’ ... but do not expect a sensible, reasonable, rational answer. RESPONDENT: Do we really know what compassion is? RICHARD: Yes ... well I do, anyway. RESPONDENT: Is not that ‘idea’ a belief? RICHARD: Compassion is neither an ‘idea’ nor a ‘belief’ for me ... I lived it, night and day, for eleven years. * RICHARD: The enormity of why sunk home long ago ... which is why I write as I do. RESPONDENT: If that enormity has sunk home, one would be speechless. RICHARD: Then the enormity has obviously not sunk home ... one simply cannot be speechless when the enormity of being fellow human beings simultaneously sinks home.
RICHARD: Perhaps if I rearrange the sequence of the last two sentences the oxymoron becomes startlingly obvious. 1. [quote]: ‘Intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’. 2. [quote]: ‘We have gone too far in emphasising the value and import of the purely rational – of what IQ measures – in human life’. Despite his clear statement of fact (‘intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’ ) he immediately de-emphasises the value and importance of being rational – which just does not make sense – and the remainder of the book extols the virtues of the emotions (being irrational). Indeed the very name of his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is the giveaway. RESPONDENT: I still don’t get what you see as a contradiction or a giveaway. The way I see this is as follows: A. Intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway. B. We have gone too far in emphasizing the value and import of the purely rational. I agree with point A and B. What I take as what the author takes for rational is a state not influenced by emotions. The point that the author seems to be making is that there is an inbuilt intelligence in emotions itself (not when they hold sway AND not when they are rejected/suppressed etc. (rational). Points A and B are consistent the way I see it. RICHARD: Yes, you do correctly see the point that the author is making (‘that there is an inbuilt intelligence in emotions itself – not when they hold sway AND not when they are rejected/suppressed etc. –rational’). As a generalisation, this is more or less the standard, or current, psychological and/or therapeutical expertise being advocated by leading therapists, counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists in the world today (or at least in the western world). Yet intelligence influenced by affective likes and dislikes (like and dislike as in degrees of love and hate etc., through all the emotional opposites) and intelligence influenced through all degrees of the affective approval and disapproval etc., moment-to-moment decision-making processes cannot ever be a clean, clear and pure intelligence ... because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. That is, no matter how understanding or impartial such an intelligence tries to be, it is, basically, a ‘self’-centred intelligence ... and an unselfish self (an oxymoron) is still a ‘self’, nevertheless. Feelings rule in the human world. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps there may be a contradiction in the book, but that of course is for me to read and find out. RICHARD: There is no contradiction in the book which is not encapsulated in (a) the title ... and (b) the quotes I provided. The cognitive ability to think, recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do) is intelligence in operation. The affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – are non-cognitive instinctually reactive survival feelings at root (which other animals can do) and, no matter how refined and cultivated the feelings may be honed to, are not intelligence in operation. RESPONDENT: When they are in sway, or when not understood, yes. RICHARD: If they are fully ‘understood’ then it is obvious that intelligence cannot operate cleanly and clearly and purely if it be influenced by the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – for the affective feelings input a bias towards preserving ‘self’ – particularly ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ – because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Speaking personally, the passionate memory of all emotional hurts (indeed all the affections) was extinguished when the passionate memory faculty was extirpated ... the intellectual memory operates with the clarity enabled by the absence of the instinctual passions which normally cloud the remembrance with attractions and repulsions; likes and dislikes; shoulds and should nots and so on. In other words: free of malice and sorrow. The brain has two ‘memory banks’ and the passionate memory is both non-conscious and primal. This primal memory faculty (mainly in the reptilian brain) mediates all sensory data and triggers hormonal secretions before such data reaches the intellectual memory faculty (mainly in the neo-cortical brain). Consequently, as the neo-cortex is suffused with hormonal secretions a split-second before thinking commences, all thought is tainted, polluted ... crippled by the affective faculty before it starts. All this has been empirically detected and exhaustively verified by recent technological experimentation and research into the passion of fear (for just one example). Modern empirical science has put the kibosh on ‘ancient wisdom’ once and for all. * RESPONDENT: In simple terms, I feel the author is saying that when the emotions are in ‘sway’, intelligence comes to naught. RICHARD: Exactly ... my point is this: intelligence cannot operate cleanly and clearly and purely if it be crippled by the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – for the affective feelings input a bias towards preserving ‘self’ (particularly ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’). Thus altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice – unlike humble ‘self’-surrender – is the deliberate sacrifice of ‘self’ (‘being’) with no reward whatsoever possible for ‘being’ ... otherwise it is not altruism. RESPONDENT: That is if we let them dominate us. RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: human beings have been attempting to control the instinctual animal passions for aeons with reward and punishment and morals and ethics and principles and values and so on. By and large this enterprise is moderately successful ... the gaols do not have the majority of the citizens behind bars. Yet when push comes to shove – which especially notable in war – the instinctual passions do ‘dominate us’ ... not matter how refined the civilising process has become. Even the saints and sages and seers demonstrably show anger and anguish from time-to-time. RESPONDENT: Yes, ‘spiritual ego’ in action. RICHARD: Indeed ... and the ‘spiritual ego’ is nothing more and nothing less than the rudimentary self of the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – still in operation ... only in a sublimated and transcended form. This is because the affective feelings input a bias towards preserving ‘self’ (particularly ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’) which leads to a switch in identity from ‘I’ as ego (in the head) to ‘me’ as soul (in the heart) via humble ‘self’-surrender ... only blown-up all out of proportion into a grandiose identity (‘Self’, ‘Being’, ‘God’, ‘Goddess’, ‘That’, ‘Isness’ and so on). Thus altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice – unlike humble ‘self’-surrender – is the deliberate sacrifice of ‘self’ (‘being’) with no reward whatsoever possible for ‘being’ ... otherwise it is not altruism. * RESPONDENT: Yet there is every opportunity to understand ourselves when we watch our feelings and emotions at their inception. RICHARD: Yes, there is indeed ‘every opportunity to understand’ as this moment is one’s only moment of being alive ... which is why I advocate asking oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? RESPONDENT: In watching our feelings and emotions, there is an exposure of who we are. RICHARD: Yes ... and such exposure is the beginning of the end of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is). The end of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) renders the already always existing peace-on-earth apparent. This entire process of initiating the demise of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) is intelligence in operation (which other animals cannot do). Mr. Daniel Goleman makes no mention of this at all anywhere in his book: despite his clear statement of fact, ‘intelligence can come to nothing when the emotions hold sway’, the remainder of the book extols the virtues of emotions ... indeed the very name of his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ is the giveaway. Feelings rule in the human world. RESPONDENT: Well ... I have to read the book before coming to any conclusions. RICHARD: Sure ... but whether you do or not, what I find cute is that he devotes 21 pages at the beginning of his book (pages 5-26) and 9 pages at the end of the book (pages 291-300) detailing the latest empirical data that neuro-scientists have painstakingly mapped (Mr. Joseph LeDoux in particular) which objectively demonstrate the primitive workings of the emotional or non-cognitive brain (as has been popularly dubbed the ‘lizard brain’ or ‘reptilian brain’) and then spends the remainder of the book explaining how to incorporate these primeval passions into one’s daily life ... to the extent of extolling the virtues of emotions. He acknowledges the findings of Mr. Antonio Damasio, a neurologist who has studied patients with damaged prefrontal-amygdala circuits, who argues that their decision-making ability is so bad, despite no loss in IQ, because they have lost access to their emotional learning (‘like’ and ‘dislike’ as in degrees of love and hate and so on through all the emotional opposites). He thus posits that the affective feelings are indispensable for rational decisions (and Mr. Antonio Damasio has more than just some influence in the current psychological and/or therapeutical world) and finds support from many other of his ilk who base their findings on studies of impaired people. The most of the book is about learning to balance the mind and heart – what he calls ‘emotional literacy’ – and the last few paragraphs sum it all up:
Which is but the same-old same-old ... I am none to sure it is worth buying other than its curiosity value. * RESPONDENT: But can you explain what you mean by the sentence: ‘such exposure is the beginning of the end of ‘who we are’? RICHARD: Yes ... the beginning of the end of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) inevitably comes about when one sincerely asks oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’, because this moment is one’s only moment of being alive (the past, although it was actual, is not actual now; the future, although it will be actual, is not actual now; only now is actual). Such an ‘actual-behaviour’ attention, such a ‘current-thoughts’ observation, such a ‘present-feelings’ inspection, such an on-going ‘instinctive-reactions’ examination is a ‘hands-on’ investigation into the make-up of ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) ... rather than ‘arm-chair’ philosophising, theoretical studies, psycho-analysis, therapeutic group workshops, endless forum debates and so on. Apart from finding out in ‘real-time’ what makes ‘who we are’ (who ‘I’ am/‘me’ is) tick, such a degree of exposure whittles away aspect after aspect of ‘I’/‘me’ through the very exposure itself (because ‘I’/‘me’ can only exist by lurking about in the shadows) until ‘I’/‘me’ has grown very thin, as it were ... then ‘my’ days are numbered. One is in for the ride of a lifetime!
RICHARD: ... your central point strikes me as being perhaps the most pertinent insight I have read on this Mailing List all year. For indeed it is so where each and every person continues to do nothing about their ‘pathology’, other than glorifying the ‘nightmare’ and the ‘stench of our history’, does one merit the full fruits of one’s culpability. And with reference to this accountability I take particular note of the following sentence: ‘I’m well aware that the process grinds up a lot of innocent people ... one could, of course, ask God why he has arranged things in this blatantly unfair way ... furthermore, hasn’t he hidden the miracle of love in the deepest sorrow?’ ... for herein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow (‘comforting the self’) and the perpetuation of suffering. Incidentally, the ‘innocent’ do not suffer ... innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Richard, are sorrows and sufferings the same? If not, what is the difference? If so, why are they the same? RICHARD: The two terms can be – and are – used interchangeably dependent upon context (as in ‘to live is to suffer’ and ‘all existence is sorrow’) although ‘sorrow’ is solely an affective feeling (an emotional or passionate mood) whilst ‘suffering’ can be either an affective feeling (emotional hurt or pain) or a sensate feeling (physical hurt or pain). However, strictly speaking, ‘suffering’ means ‘bear’ as in ‘undergo’, endure’ ... hence it can be said ‘one is suffering from deep sorrow’. It is helpful to draw a distinction betwixt physical pain and emotional/mental pain. Physical pain is essential, else one could be sitting on a hot-plate and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising. Emotional/mental pain (which is what I always indicate by using ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’) is totally unnecessary ... an impediment preventing salubrity. The same affective/ sensate distinction also applies to pleasure (in the ‘pleasure/pain’ context)
RICHARD: Indeed it is so where each and every person continues to do nothing about their ‘pathology’ , other than glorifying the ‘nightmare’ and the ‘stench of our history’, does one merit the full fruits of one’s culpability. And with reference to this accountability I take particular note of the following sentence: ‘I’m well aware that the process grinds up a lot of innocent people ... one could, of course, ask God why he has arranged things in this blatantly unfair way ... furthermore, hasn’t he hidden the miracle of love in the deepest sorrow?’ ... for herein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow (‘comforting the self’) and the perpetuation of suffering. Incidentally, the ‘innocent’ do not suffer ... innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Richard, are sorrows and sufferings the same? If not, what is the difference? If so, why are they the same? RICHARD: The two terms can be – and are – used interchangeably dependent upon context (as in ‘to live is to suffer’ and ‘all existence is sorrow’) although ‘sorrow’ is solely an affective feeling (an emotional or passionate mood) whilst ‘suffering’ can be either an affective feeling (emotional hurt or pain) or a sensate feeling (physical hurt or pain). However, strictly speaking, ‘suffering’ means ‘bear’ as in ‘undergo’, ‘endure’ ... hence it can be said ‘one is suffering from deep sorrow’. RESPONDENT: Are you saying, that sorrow is inevitable, but suffering is not necessary (based on choice)? RICHARD: No ... this proposition smacks of stoicism. RESPONDENT: I mean is suffering a choice available to everyone whatever may be the sorrow in the world? By suffering I am referring to the affective feeling and not the sensate feeling. RICHARD: Where you say ‘the sorrow in the world’ I presume you are referring to the ‘inner’ human world ... because there is no sorrow whatsoever in the actual world. If you are, then yes ‘sorrow is inevitable’ in that world ... and so is ‘suffering’ (the affective feeling). * RICHARD: It is helpful to draw a distinction betwixt physical pain and
emotional/mental pain. Physical pain is essential, else one could be sitting on a hot-plate and not know that one’s bum was on
fire until one saw the smoke rising. Emotional/mental pain (which is what I always indicate by using ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’)
is totally unnecessary ... an impediment preventing salubrity. The same affective/sensate distinction also applies to pleasure (in
the ‘pleasure/pain’ context RESPONDENT: ‘Not necessary’ is based on choice? RICHARD: Where there is only the one option there is no choice RESPONDENT: Or on understanding the mechanics of emotional pain/ pleasure? RICHARD: It is helpful to understand ‘the mechanics of emotional pain/pleasure’ ... provided it does not become a life-time study in lieu of action. RESPONDENT: If it is the former, what is that process behind the ‘choice’? RICHARD: Seeing the utter necessity of (unilateral) action ... now. RESPONDENT: If it is the latter, what is the process behind the pain/ pleasure? RICHARD: The physical (sensate) ‘pain/pleasure’ is, as I remarked before, essential in negotiating the physical world ... the ‘process’ of it is a straightforward cause/effect feedback system. The ‘process’ of the emotional (affective) ‘pain/ pleasure’ has to do with the instinctual survival passions ... which have become superannuated (they reached their ‘use-by date’ long ago) and are now a dead-weight around the neck of humankind. RESPONDENT: Or are these irrelevant questions? RICHARD: Only if peace-on-earth, in this life-time, is ‘irrelevant’.
CORRESPONDENT No. 31 (Part Four) 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 |
