|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 42
RICHARD: And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute ... RESPONDENT No. 33: This is non-sense. Existence changes all the time. That
which changes can not be absolute. Sorry. RESPONDENT: Can there be no movement in the absolute? RICHARD: A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ was.
RICHARD: And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute ... RESPONDENT No. 33: This is non-sense. Existence changes all the time. That which changes can not be absolute. Sorry. RESPONDENT: Can there be no movement in the absolute? RICHARD: A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ was. RESPONDENT: It must the same as the movement of life. RICHARD: Yet life is a movement in time. RESPONDENT: A matter beyond the reach of science, I hope. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not look to science for an answer.
RESPONDENT: Can there be no movement in the absolute? RICHARD: A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ was. RESPONDENT: It must the same as the movement of life. RICHARD: Yet life is a movement in time. RESPONDENT: A matter beyond the reach of science, I hope. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not look to science for an answer. RESPONDENT: Life may be a movement in time, but not in the same way that thought (psychological thought) is a movement of time. Time, as a biological frame, is probably quite a different thing. RICHARD: Be that as it may ... as that movement in ‘the absolute’ is a timeless movement then surely a biological answer is irrelevant to the question? Or is it? RESPONDENT: Science, as a product of thought, can probably not fathom the movement, but a scientific state of mind may be able to. RICHARD: Okay ... what does the ‘scientific state of mind’ have to say, then?
RESPONDENT: Let me start with a technical question. I generally like to delete everything but the text to which I reply. My feeling is that you have other preferences. So I’ve copied the part I’m replying to at the top, without deleting the rest. Let me know your feelings if it’s important to you. RICHARD: I do not mind anybody deleting as they wish ... it is very easy to keep whatever text is relevant to the flow of what is being discussed in the thread, so that any person reading it is not left guessing at what has already been covered, as I compose all my responses by inserting the replies into an already formatted duplicate copy in my word processor anyway. * RICHARD: A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ was. RESPONDENT: It must the same as the movement of life. RICHARD: Yet life is a movement in time. RESPONDENT: Life may be a movement in time, but not in the same way that thought (psychological thought) is a movement of time. Time, as a biological frame, is probably quite a different thing. RICHARD: Be that as it may ... as that movement in ‘the absolute’ is a timeless movement then surely a biological answer is irrelevant to the question? Or is it? RESPONDENT: I’m happy that your question is leaving the matter open. Biological time might be part of that primordial movement we’re positing. RICHARD: Ahh ... so by enquiring into the nature of that movement are we discovering that it is not a timeless movement after all? * RESPONDENT: A matter beyond the reach of science, I hope. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not look to science for an answer. RESPONDENT: Science, as a product of thought, can probably not fathom the movement, but a scientific state of mind may be able to. RICHARD: Okay ... what does the ‘scientific state of mind’ have to say, then? RESPONDENT: Perhaps the scientific state of mind could be analogous to the original movement, perhaps part of it. Whereas science as knowledge seems static. RICHARD: Hmm ... by using the term ‘scientific state of mind’ (as contrasted to ‘science as knowledge’) are you referring to an intelligence? In other words: is that ‘primordial movement’ intelligent? I ask this because we are enquiring into the nature of that movement.
RICHARD: ... perhaps it may help to look into the ‘Song Of Creation’ you have posted several times to this list then? Viz.: [quote]: ‘There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat. Upon that desire arose in the beginning’. (Rig Veda 10, 129). Plus it may help to spell out the relevant question a little ... how does ‘desire’ (and/or ‘mind’ and ‘matter’) arise in the beginning if there be no movement in ‘the absolute’? RESPONDENT No. 33: That is simple: desire arose as an illusion in the absolute. RICHARD: If, as you say, there is no movement in the absolute then how come desire as an illusion arose in Brahma in the first place? RESPONDENT: I still wonder how desire does arise. k says roughly from the formation of an image. For me there is something missing in that. To me it’s the ‘anticipation-projection’ of pleasure. That should spell image. Perhaps I don’t understand k’s use of ‘image’ very well. My feeling says desire is inherently an image. And that the ‘self’ is the image maker. Desire then is created by the self. k seems to say: desire comes from sensation. So it could be the coming together of self and sensation. Just that k never put it that way. Also, isn’t there a stage between k’s points of sensation and image? For me that would be pleasure. k never seems to link pleasure with the creation of desire. Not just ‘anticipated’ pleasure, but the actual pleasure of sensation. RICHARD: I was actually asking a question about the nature of ‘Brahma’ (a Hindu god of the Bronze Age peoples) and not about the nature of a human being ... but perhaps you have inadvertently answered it anyway. The nature of all the gods (and the goddesses) is nothing but human nature writ large.
RESPONDENT: ... Biological time might be part of that primordial movement we’re positing. RICHARD: Ahh ... so by enquiring into the nature of that movement are we discovering that it is not a timeless movement after all? RESPONDENT: Your question has some very tricky aspects to it. Could the movement we’re discussing be timeless, in the sense of ‘not touched by time’ – not conditioned, limited, or contingent, and yet containing time as a rhythm, a pulse of life? RICHARD: Not if it is ‘primordial’ (meaning primeval, prehistoric, the earlier times and so on). RESPONDENT: Life seems to have a movement of time, yet be free of time as measured by any instruments. RICHARD: How so? Life is a movement in time as verified by the passage of the sun in the sky by day and the wheeling of the stars in the firmament by night. RESPONDENT: The word ‘time’ may refer to a variety of things which can be quite distinct from one another. RICHARD: What ‘variety of things’? Time is the periodicity of the movement of form in space. RESPONDENT: Or is it that the movement creates time (maybe even different kinds of time), whenever it’s appropriate? RICHARD: Do you allow the possibility that time always was, already is, and always will be? RESPONDENT: The movement could then be seen as a movement of infinite potential, yet not defined or limited by any of its creations. A movement not bound by any logic concerning self-contradiction. I kind of like that one, the outlaw in me likes it. Isn’t creation a kind of outlaw among the laws of nature? RICHARD: What if there were no ‘creation’ ... that the universe always was, already is, and always will be? * RESPONDENT: Perhaps the scientific state of mind could be analogous to the original movement, perhaps part of it. Whereas science as knowledge seems static. RICHARD: Hmm ... by using the term ‘scientific state of mind’ (as contrasted to ‘science as knowledge’) are you referring to an intelligence? In other words: is that ‘primordial movement’ intelligent? I ask this because we are enquiring into the nature of that movement. RESPONDENT: Yes, absolutely. Without such primordial intelligence nothing makes sense (to me). RICHARD: Oh? What made sense to me, all those years ago, was that the source of life was not intelligent (otherwise how come all the malice and sorrow which epitomises the human condition)? An intelligent source would ‘create’ happy and harmless humans ... else make mockery of what the word intelligence means.
RESPONDENT: Could the [primordial] movement we’re discussing be timeless, in the sense of ‘not touched by time’ – not conditioned, limited, or contingent, and yet containing time as a rhythm, a pulse of life? RICHARD: Not if it is ‘primordial’ (meaning primeval, prehistoric, the earlier times and so on). RESPONDENT: I’d rather not restrict myself to that definition. Can ‘primordial’ not also mean ‘from the beginning of time’, i.e. continuing, whereas you seem to fix it in the past. RICHARD: The phrase ‘from the beginning of time’ can only be true if time did indeed have a beginning ... whereas ‘primordial’ refers to the era when (for example) this planet was young. Yet there was a time, also primordial, when this solar system’s star was young ... just as other stars can be seen to be being ‘born’, as it were, elsewhere in space ... and for those other young stars the particular era (right now) their events are occurring in is also said to be primordial (for them). Therefore, a primordial movement is purely a local event describing the beginning of the formation of a particular body in time (and space) ... not the beginning of time. * RESPONDENT: The word ‘time’ may refer to a variety of things which can be quite distinct from one another. RICHARD: What ‘variety of things’? Time is the periodicity of the movement of form in space. RESPONDENT: I don’t think it’s that simple. RICHARD: Why not? Just because other peoples take something simple and intellectually turn into being something complicated does not make it actually complicated (outside of their fertile imaginations). RESPONDENT: I’ve read discussions of time that were so confusing and complex that I gave up reading ... RICHARD: So have I ... whereas time is incredibly simple (it is already always happening just here right now). RESPONDENT: ... but still came away with a sense of time that eludes definition, or even comprehension. RICHARD: Yet time is easily defined as being the periodicity of the movement of form in space and easily comprehended by the passage of the sun in the sky by day and the wheeling of the stars in the firmament by night. RESPONDENT: So, time-wise, I live in an idiot’s paradise. RICHARD: Whereas the flesh and blood body called ‘No. 42’ is already always here in an actual paradisum voluptatis. * RESPONDENT: Or is it that the movement creates time (maybe even different kinds of time), whenever it’s appropriate? RICHARD: Do you allow the possibility that time always was, already is, and always will be? RESPONDENT: Yes, but I have doubts that that’s all there is to it. RICHARD: What on earth do you mean by ‘that’s all there is to it’ ... eternity (beginningless and endless time) means that it is an all-inclusive everywhen which boggles the mind (intellectual thought) leaving one in a state of wonder and amazement at the sheer magnitude of this marvellous universe. * RESPONDENT: The movement could then be seen as a movement of infinite potential, yet not defined or limited by any of its creations. A movement not bound by any logic concerning self-contradiction. I kind of like that one, the outlaw in me likes it. Isn’t creation a kind of outlaw among the laws of nature? RICHARD: What if there were no ‘creation’ ... that the universe always was, already is, and always will be? RESPONDENT: I’m using ‘creation’ not in the sense of ‘caused by a creator’. RICHARD: So am I ... I never bought that myth even when just a lad in short pants in grade-school. RESPONDENT: Maybe creation is that original movement. RICHARD: As the universe already always is where is the need for any ‘original movement’? RESPONDENT: Time and space could be part of some vast chaotic creation, which can play by the rules, but then break the rules in a manner incomprehensible to reason. RICHARD: I never bought the chaos theory either ... each time someone brought that subject up I would simply ask what chaos they were referring to. Chaos only exists in a chaotic mind ... this universe is simply marvellous. * RESPONDENT: Without such primordial intelligence nothing makes sense (to me). RICHARD: Oh? What made sense to me, all those years ago, was that the source of life was not intelligent (otherwise how come all the malice and sorrow which epitomises the human condition)? RESPONDENT: The pain and malice may be a by-product of intelligence. RICHARD: How so? Both malice and sorrow are rooted in the ‘self’ (which is born out of the instinctual passions) ... not in intelligence. RESPONDENT: Maybe intelligence comes out of that pain? As truth comes out of perceiving the false? Dare I go on (?): as order comes out of the perception of disorder? Perception then the key ingredient in creation? Seeing before there were eyes to see? The origin of all then the awareness of irregularity. (I’m writing with a slight buzz. I can’t say how much that may be guiding my speculations). RICHARD: As I have already remarked ... I never bought into the ‘chaos theory’. * RICHARD: An intelligent source would ‘create’ happy and harmless humans ... else make mockery of what the word intelligence means. RESPONDENT: Unless intelligence is a response to that mockery, the reading of that mockery, even the creation of a perception of mockery. RICHARD: Nevertheless, only an unintelligent source of life could bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings. * RESPONDENT: My apologies for having fun with this. RICHARD: No problem ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and not mine.
RICHARD: An intelligent source would ‘create’ happy and harmless humans ... else make mockery of what the word intelligence means. RESPONDENT: Unless intelligence is a response to that mockery, the reading of that mockery, even the creation of a perception of mockery. RICHARD: Nevertheless, only an unintelligent source of life could bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings. RESPONDENT: My apologies for having fun with this. RICHARD: No problem ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and not mine. RESPONDENT: I guess this thread is winding down for me, getting into particulars where I can only speculate, which is fun for a while. RICHARD: But why would an intelligent source bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings? It is a genuine question. RESPONDENT: But a few further thoughts occur that I will put down here. (1) the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning ... RICHARD: And what ‘beginning’ would that be? RESPONDENT: ... and your assertion that malice and sorrow couldn’t exist in an intelligent universe. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon the universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Both malice and sorrow are rooted in the ‘self’ (which is born out of the instinctual passions) ... not in intelligence’ [endquote]. I don’t think the self is born out of instinctual passions. RICHARD: Why not? The chimpanzee, for example, displays behaviour which evidences that there is a rudimentary ‘self’ in situ. RESPONDENT: It seems to me it is born in images remaining stuck in consciousness and clogging awareness and perception. RICHARD: Are you trying to tell me that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are caused by something so superficial as ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? RESPONDENT: This distortion of perception is a strike against intelligence. The afflicted brain is no longer able to process perceptions intelligently. But outside of that brain intelligence may operate. RICHARD: Are you referring to a disembodied ‘intelligence’? RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. Here is a dictionary definition:
Surely you are not suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: There seems to be considerable intelligence operating in a dog who saves a man’s life, or in any corner of the universe. RICHARD: Could you flesh out what you mean by ‘any corner of the universe’? RESPONDENT: If you agree that there may be intelligence in one brain and not in another, the source of intelligence doesn’t seems to be an issue worth investigating ... RICHARD: For as far as space exploration has thus far shown only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: ... but the reason for the malfunctioning of the human brain becomes all important. RICHARD: And it takes the intelligence which only humans have to suss out why ... I see no evidence that the dog, for just one example, is doing anything about ridding itself of its instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Why don’t we perceive our ignorance? RICHARD: Speaking personally, the identity who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did perceive ‘his’ ignorance ... and ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. !Voila! The already always existing peace-on-earth immediately became apparent. RESPONDENT: Why don’t I perceive my ignorance? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: consider looking deeper than ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’ for the cause of the ‘malfunctioning’. RESPONDENT: (This post seems not very clear, as I reread it. But I don’t have the feeling that I can improve it significantly, so it’ll have to do). RICHARD: It is okay ... I had no difficulty in responding.
RICHARD: ... why would an intelligent source bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings? It is a genuine question. RESPONDENT: There may be an aspect of intelligence that cannot avoid pain and sorrow, the ‘pain of the false’. Perhaps the false is always the door to the truth? RICHARD: Okay ... now that the discussion is getting back to the initial enquiry into the nature of the movement in ‘the absolute’ (an intelligent source otherwise known as truth or god) it is indeed apposite to ask why there would be an aspect of truth or god that cannot avoid malice and sorrow: you say it is because the false (otherwise known as evil) is always the door to the truth (otherwise known as god). Does your answer make sense to you when it is spelled out ... or is this an opportune moment to proceed with the enquiry? If so here is the way such an enquiry could be phrased:
Or:
* RESPONDENT: But a few further thoughts occur that I will put down here. (1) the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning ... RICHARD: And what ‘beginning’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can let it go as a metaphor? RICHARD: A ‘metaphor’ for what ... and, as it colours your statement with unstated implications, why would you want to ‘let it go’? * RESPONDENT: ... and your assertion that malice and sorrow couldn’t exist in an intelligent universe. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon the universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. RESPONDENT: Take my anthropomorphism with a grain of salt. RICHARD: No ... too many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on have been caused by anthropocentricism for it to be glossed-over and/or dismissed so readily as you do here. RESPONDENT: I see no harm in considering that the universe may be an expression of intelligence. RICHARD: Try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone being tortured; try telling that to the person on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to the recipient of child abuse; try telling that to someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide. More specifically, try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Hindu soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by zealous Christians; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Buddhist/Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion. If your wife and/or daughter and/or mother and/or grandmother and/or sister was being brutally raped, would you really stand by saying to her:
* RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Both malice and sorrow are rooted in the ‘self’ (which is born out of the instinctual passions) ... not in intelligence’ [endquote]. I don’t think the self is born out of instinctual passions. RICHARD: Why not? The chimpanzee, for example, displays behaviour which evidences that there is a rudimentary ‘self’ in situ. RESPONDENT: The self (being a bunch of feelings) releases hormonal secretions. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: It employs the endocrine system to express itself. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: But I see it not as part of instinct. RICHARD: I did say ‘instinctual passions’. RESPONDENT: I see it as a miscue in the brain, a miscue for which all this ‘malice and sorrow’ is the penalty we pay. RICHARD: And the chimpanzee (which is the example being discussed) also has this ‘miscue in the brain’? * RESPONDENT: It seems to me it is born in images remaining stuck in consciousness and clogging awareness and perception. RICHARD: Are you trying to tell me that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are caused by something so superficial as ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? RESPONDENT: Yes, except I’d call it ‘fateful’, not ‘superficial’. RICHARD: And the chimpanzee also has these ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? * RESPONDENT: This distortion of perception is a strike against intelligence. The afflicted brain is no longer able to process perceptions intelligently. But outside of that brain intelligence may operate. RICHARD: Are you referring to a disembodied ‘intelligence’? RESPONDENT: Yes, though some relationship to matter seems to exist. RICHARD: Well, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for an example, has it that it creates all matter. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. RESPONDENT: The difference with humans: we manage to accelerate all the destructive tendencies, because we’re blinded by the self. RICHARD: Even so, there is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons – when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die – therefore it behoves you to look again at your statement that animals ‘behave intelligently’, non? Plus, using the chimpanzee as an example once more, their ‘destructive tendencies’ are quite well documented and show a startling resemblance to humans’ destructiveness. Only recently a television programme was aired here about studies made of them over many, many years 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. Put simply: as animals cannot think they are not intelligent. * RICHARD: Here is a dictionary definition: [quote]: ‘Intelligence: (1) The faculty of understanding; intellect. (2) Quickness or superiority of understanding; sagacity. (3) The action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something). Synonyms: intellect, mind, brain, brain-power, mental capacity/aptitude, reason, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, cleverness, brightness, brilliance, sharpness, quickness of mind, alertness, discernment, perception, perspicacity, penetration, sense, sagacity; brains; (inf.): grey matter, nous. (© 1998 Oxford Dictionary). Surely you are not suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: That question I’ll leave to science. RICHARD: As you have just recently stated what you think of science I do look askance at your avoiding-the-question response.
Here is the question again: are you suggesting that animals can think? * RESPONDENT: There seems to be considerable intelligence operating in a dog who saves a man’s life, or in any corner of the universe. RICHARD: Could you flesh out what you mean by ‘any corner of the universe’? RESPONDENT: I see the universe as pervaded by intelligence, even synonymous with it. RICHARD: Are you willing to examine your seeing for veracity? * RESPONDENT: If you agree that there may be intelligence in one brain and not in another, the source of intelligence doesn’t seems to be an issue worth investigating ... RICHARD: For as far as space exploration has thus far shown only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: ... but the reason for the malfunctioning of the human brain becomes all important. RICHARD: And it takes the intelligence which only humans have to suss out why ... I see no evidence that the dog, for just one example, is doing anything about ridding itself of its instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: The dog doesn’t need to. The problem is ours alone. RICHARD: The ‘problem’ is a human problem alone only because human being possess intelligence ... humans can see the results of their instinctual passions in action (if they care enough to actually look that is) whereas animals, including the dog, will carry on blindly being run by instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. I was born and raised on a farm and I have personally seen dogs, who are not kept in at night, form into a pack and go on a hunting spree, killing many more of some farmer’s sheep than they could possibly want to eat ... in fact they are all well-fed by their owners. This example of domesticated dogs is also well-documented ... and the frenzy of killing is called ‘blood-lust’. I could go on with other examples – cats in the wild driving species to extinction – but maybe this will suffice for now? * RESPONDENT: Why don’t we perceive our ignorance? RICHARD: Speaking personally, the identity who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did perceive ‘his’ ignorance ... and ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. !Voila! The already always existing peace-on-earth immediately became apparent. RESPONDENT: Why don’t I perceive my ignorance? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: consider looking deeper than ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’ for the cause of the ‘malfunctioning’. RESPONDENT: For now this is a ball I shall have to keep bouncing. RICHARD: So I have noticed ... the question I would ask is: how much longer am I going to keep on bouncing the same-old ball with no result to show for all my bouncing?
RICHARD: ... why would an intelligent source bring forth malicious and sorrowful human beings? It is a genuine question. RESPONDENT: There may be an aspect of intelligence that cannot avoid pain and sorrow, the ‘pain of the false’. Perhaps the false is always the door to the truth? RICHARD: Okay ... now that the discussion is getting back to the initial enquiry into the nature of the movement in ‘the absolute’ (an intelligent source otherwise known as truth or god) it is indeed apposite to ask why there would be an aspect of truth or god that cannot avoid malice and sorrow: you say it is because the false (otherwise known as evil) is always the door to the truth (otherwise known as god). Does your answer make sense to you when it is spelled out ... or is this an opportune moment to proceed with the enquiry? If so here is the way such an enquiry could be phrased: Why would an intelligent truth need the false? RESPONDENT: I don’t know ‘why’. RICHARD: That is why such a question is presented again and again ... and because you did ask, in a previous post, ‘why don’t I perceive my ignorance?’ RESPONDENT: Yes, it could be. The rules that govern the universe may not be entirely the same as the rules that govern logic. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased to not be living in a universe that is governed by the rules of logic. Nevertheless, I was not looking for a logical answer all those years ago when I asked why an intelligent god would create evil (aka why would an intelligent truth need the false) ... I kept on asking. It turned out to be a seminal question. RESPONDENT: To me there is a lot of poetry in the possibility that intelligence may be the recognition of irregularity (disorder). RICHARD: Only a disorderly mind would look for order ... this universe is simply marvellous. RESPONDENT: Like side-stepping dog-poo. RICHARD: There is no ‘poetry’ in 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 so on (which is the ‘dog-poo’ under discussion). If this (supposedly) intelligent god, or truth, did not create, or need, malicious and sorrowful human beings in the first place there would not be any such ‘dog-poo’ to be side-stepped. The question remains ... why does evil, or the false, happen? * RESPONDENT: But a few further thoughts occur that I will put down here. (1) the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning ... RICHARD: And what ‘beginning’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can let it go as a metaphor? RICHARD: A ‘metaphor’ for what ... and, as it colours your statement with unstated implications, why would you want to ‘let it go’? RESPONDENT: I’m tired of getting into more discussions of time. RICHARD: I do not know you personally and can only go by what you write – you had said that ‘this thread is winding down for me, getting into particulars where I can only speculate, which is fun for a while’ then almost immediately stuck in a speculative phrase (‘the question whether intelligence was there from the beginning’) – so of course I picked-up on it. It was this degree of diligence that brought about answers for me all those years ago. RESPONDENT: I have no idea what time is. Only k’s equation of time=thought seems worth keeping. RICHARD: Yet even when thought stops the sun still marks its passage through the sky by day and the stars still wheel through the firmament by night ... so the equation ‘time=thought’ is patently incorrect. RESPONDENT: I sense that’s a feeling which may not be shared by you. RICHARD: I have no ‘feeling’ about the matter ... I observed the fact that when thought has stopped time has kept on keeping on. * RESPONDENT: ... and your assertion that malice and sorrow couldn’t exist in an intelligent universe. RICHARD: It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon the universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. RESPONDENT: Take my anthropomorphism with a grain of salt. RICHARD: No ... too many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on have been caused by anthropocentricism for it to be glossed-over and/or dismissed so readily as you do here. RESPONDENT: That’s too much of a stretch for me. RICHARD: There are too many instances of the deleterious effects of ‘anthropomorphism’ in history (religious wars, religious persecutions, religious tortures, religious suicides or martyrdom, religious domestic violence, religious child abuse and so on) to be able to take your anthropocentricism with ‘a grain of salt’. There is another reason for all the malice and sorrow than some (supposedly) intelligent god’s poetic ‘dog-poo’. * RESPONDENT: I see no harm in considering that the universe may be an expression of intelligence. RICHARD: Try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone being tortured; try telling that to the person on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to the recipient of child abuse; try telling that to someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide. More specifically, try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Hindu soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by zealous Christians; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Buddhist/Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion. If your wife and/or daughter and/or mother and/or grandmother and/or sister was being brutally raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘Take my anthropomorphism with a grain of salt ... I see no harm in considering that the universe may be an expression of intelligence’. RESPONDENT: Again for me there is too big a jump from what I said to your text above. I don’t see the connection. RICHARD: The connection is, basically, a blatant disregard of the facts so as to keep a poetic notion of this universe being an ‘expression of intelligence’ intact ... there is nothing ‘intelligent’ about all that I detailed above. It sucks. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Both malice and sorrow are rooted in the ‘self’ (which is born out of the instinctual passions) ... not in intelligence’ [endquote]. I don’t think the self is born out of instinctual passions. RICHARD: Why not? The chimpanzee, for example, displays behaviour which evidences that there is a rudimentary ‘self’ in situ. RESPONDENT: The self (being a bunch of feelings) releases hormonal secretions. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: It employs the endocrine system to express itself. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: But I see it not as part of instinct. RICHARD: I did say ‘instinctual passions’. RESPONDENT: I see it as a miscue in the brain, a miscue for which all this ‘malice and sorrow’ is the penalty we pay. RICHARD: And the chimpanzee (which is the example being discussed) also has this ‘miscue in the brain’? RESPONDENT: I’m talking of the miscue of the self. I wouldn’t say the chimp has a self. ( in k’s usage). RICHARD: I did say ‘rudimentary self’ ... so I will re-ask the question: does the chimpanzee (which is the example being discussed) also has this ‘miscue of the self’ (in a rudimentary usage)? * RESPONDENT: It seems to me it is born in images remaining stuck in consciousness and clogging awareness and perception. RICHARD: Are you trying to tell me that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are caused by something so superficial as ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? RESPONDENT: Yes, except I’d call it ‘fateful’, not ‘superficial’. RICHARD: And the chimpanzee also has these ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’? RESPONDENT: I’m not sure how to read your question. RICHARD: Read it at its face value ... for that is how I wrote it. RESPONDENT: I don’t see chimps having a self (in k’s sense). RICHARD: Again ... I was not speaking of a ‘self’ in the way Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti means a ‘self’. RESPONDENT: If your question is about the possibility of nature’s violence and intelligence cohabiting in the original movement we were discussing, my feeling is ‘why not’? RICHARD: Because only a sick god, or truth, would knowingly create evil, or need the false ... that is ‘why not’. * RESPONDENT: This distortion of perception is a strike against intelligence. The afflicted brain is no longer able to process perceptions intelligently. But outside of that brain intelligence may operate. RICHARD: Are you referring to a disembodied ‘intelligence’? RESPONDENT: Yes, though some relationship to matter seems to exist. RICHARD: Well, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for an example, has it that it creates all matter. Viz.: [K]: ‘There is something sacred, untouched by man (...) and that may be the origin of everything’. [B]: ‘If you say the origin of all matter, all nature ...’. [K]: ‘Everything, all matter, all nature’. [B]: ‘All of mankind’. [K]: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir’. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’; pages 135-136; J. Krishnamurti; HarperCollins, New York; 1979). RESPONDENT: Wonderful words. Are you implying a conflict between these lines by k and my position? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... I was indicating support for your position (and taking it one step further) as you had only said ‘seems’ to exist. Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti definitively said: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir’. Such a ‘position’ is known as panentheism (or pantheism). Viz.: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_panen.htm * RESPONDENT: Animals have instinct, and yet behave intelligently, though their faculties are different, perhaps ‘limited’. RICHARD: There is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons ... when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die. RESPONDENT: The difference with humans: we manage to accelerate all the destructive tendencies, because we’re blinded by the self. RICHARD: Even so, there is no evidence that animals can observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity in the environment about for beneficial reasons – when a drought or famine occurs they languish and die – therefore it behoves you to look again at your statement that animals ‘behave intelligently’, non? RESPONDENT: I don’t see any difficulty. RICHARD: The ‘difficulty’ is that it makes a mockery of what the word ‘intelligence’ means (or points to). RESPONDENT: Intelligence can operate in all matter, but its expressions would obviously vary. RICHARD: It has to vary all the way into meaning ‘ignorance’ to have it cover the scenario you depict (‘animals behave intelligently’) ... animals are ignorant of obvious cause and effect (as is evidenced by their inability to plan accordingly and thus languish and die when drought or famine occurs). * RICHARD: Plus, using the chimpanzee as an example once more, their ‘destructive tendencies’ are quite well documented and show a startling resemblance to humans’ destructiveness. Only recently a television programme was aired here about studies made of them over many, many years 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. Put simply: as animals cannot think they are not intelligent. RESPONDENT: Their awareness may be different from ours, but our awareness is limited, too. RICHARD: Not as ‘limited’ as the animals’ awareness ... you are on a hiding to nowhere to keep on pursuing the line that animals ‘behave intelligently’. RESPONDENT: We have an additional limitation: the illusion of the self, which remains unaware of its limitations. RICHARD: Again ... animals have a rudimentary ‘self’ (which they are totally unaware of and not only ‘unaware of its limitations’). The day that animals start writing to each other, on computers they have invented, discussing matters such as you and I are exploring here is the day I will agree with you that animals ‘behave intelligently’. * RICHARD: Here is a dictionary definition: [quote]: ‘Intelligence: (1) The faculty of understanding; intellect. (2) Quickness or superiority of understanding; sagacity. (3) The action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something). Synonyms: intellect, mind, brain, brain-power, mental capacity/aptitude, reason, understanding, comprehension, acumen, wit, cleverness, brightness, brilliance, sharpness, quickness of mind, alertness, discernment, perception, perspicacity, penetration, sense, sagacity; brains; (inf.): grey matter, nous. (© 1998 Oxford Dictionary). Surely you are not suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: That question I’ll leave to science. RICHARD: As you have just recently stated what you think of science I do look askance at your avoiding-the-question response (‘a matter beyond the reach of science, I hope (...) science as knowledge seems static’) ... here is the question again: are you suggesting that animals can think? RESPONDENT: To me it’s a question of semantics. RICHARD: Unless you can come up with a better description of what the word ‘intelligence’ points to then this response is a weak cop-out ... a wish-washy avoidance of the question. I cannot be any more straight-forward than this. * RESPONDENT: There seems to be considerable intelligence operating in a dog who saves a man’s life, or in any corner of the universe. RICHARD: Could you flesh out what you mean by ‘any corner of the universe’? RESPONDENT: I see the universe as pervaded by intelligence, even synonymous with it. RICHARD: Are you willing to examine your seeing for veracity? RESPONDENT: When we discuss non-matter, ‘veracity’ sounds wrong. RICHARD: As the ‘non-matter’ under discussion is what you call ‘the truth’ (in contrast to ‘the false’) then the usage of such a word is perfectly apt. Viz.:
Howsoever, I am only too happy to rephrase the question: are you willing to examine your seeing (of the universe being ‘pervaded by intelligence, even synonymous with it’) so as to ascertain whether your seeing is true or false? * RESPONDENT: If you agree that there may be intelligence in one brain and not in another, the source of intelligence doesn’t seems to be an issue worth investigating ... RICHARD: For as far as space exploration has thus far shown only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: ... but the reason for the malfunctioning of the human brain becomes all important. RICHARD: And it takes the intelligence which only humans have to suss out why ... I see no evidence that the dog, for just one example, is doing anything about ridding itself of its instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: The dog doesn’t need to. The problem is ours alone. RICHARD: The ‘problem’ is a human problem alone only because human being possess intelligence ... humans can see the results of their instinctual passions in action (if they care enough to actually look that is) whereas animals, including the dog, will carry on blindly being run by instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. I was born and raised on a farm and I have personally seen dogs, who are not kept in at night, form into a pack and go on a hunting spree, killing many more of some farmer’s sheep than they could possibly want to eat ... in fact they are all well-fed by their owners. This example of domesticated dogs is also well-documented ... and the frenzy of killing is called ‘blood-lust’. I could go on with other examples – cats in the wild driving species to extinction – but maybe this will suffice for now? RESPONDENT: In a human, call it bloodlust or frenzy. In an animal it’s an expression of the nature of that species, even intelligent. RICHARD: What is ‘intelligent’ about an ‘expression of nature’ that kills more than it can eat (when it already has a full belly) and/or drives species to extinction? These acts are what humans castigate each other for doing. * RESPONDENT: Why don’t we perceive our ignorance? RICHARD: Speaking personally, the identity who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did perceive ‘his’ ignorance ... and ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. !Voila! The already always existing peace-on-earth immediately became apparent. RESPONDENT: Why don’t I perceive my ignorance? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: consider looking deeper than ‘images remaining stuck in consciousness’ for the cause of the ‘malfunctioning’. RESPONDENT: For now this is a ball I shall have to keep bouncing. RICHARD: So I have noticed ... the question I would ask is: how much longer am I going to keep on bouncing the same-old ball with no result to show for all my bouncing? RESPONDENT: Bouncing this ball is still preferably to giving up the game entirely. RICHARD: I am not talking about ‘giving up the game entirely’ ... I am persevering despite you saying that this thread is winding down for you and that you are tired of talking about a certain subject. I am, as always, endeavouring to dig deeper than where discussions on this Mailing List usually stop at.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I did read your responses, but found them a bit unmanageable, and so I delayed. As I’ve mentioned before, I have an aversion to long threads. At the same time, I don’t want to withdraw from the discussion. So I’ll just select a few items from memory to respond to. It seems to me that we have come across an number of semantic differences. Our definition of intelligence is different. You seem to see it as a faculty we have, and animals don’t have – not to mention an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. That quality to me is not to be confused with pantheism, etc. Then there is this bit about my ‘anthropomorphism’ I am not projecting human intelligence on animals. Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected. It operates in our brain absent thought. It operates in plants, animals, things, according to the laws of their nature. It operates in our instinct when there is no suppression. I hope you can accept my approach and, if I’m omitting something that you would like to put back on the table, please do so. RICHARD: You can have any approach you wish as far as I am concerned as all my ‘unmanageable’ responses are encapsulated in the very first sentence I wrote to you at the beginning of this thread anyway:
I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’.
RESPONDENT: My outgoing mail seems to stall again at your address, and then blocks all outgoing mail. Is there something about your address that my service provider can’t handle? RICHARD: Not that I know of ... my records show that I have successfully received 1103 e-mails at this address in the last month and nobody else has reported any difficulty. I am subscribed to this Mailing List and received this post as normal along with all the others. * RESPONDENT: Richard, I did read your responses, but found them a bit unmanageable, and so I delayed. As I’ve mentioned before, I have an aversion to long threads. At the same time, I don’t want to withdraw from the discussion. So I’ll just select a few items from memory to respond to. It seems to me that we have come across an number of semantic differences. Our definition of intelligence is different. You seem to see it as a faculty we have, and animals don’t have – not to mention an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. That quality to me is not to be confused with pantheism, etc. Then there is this bit about my ‘anthropomorphism’ I am not projecting human intelligence on animals. Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected. It operates in our brain absent thought. It operates in plants, animals, things, according to the laws of their nature. It operates in our instinct when there is no suppression. I hope you can accept my approach and, if I’m omitting something that you would like to put back on the table, please do so. RICHARD: You can have any approach you wish as far as I am concerned as all my ‘unmanageable’ responses are encapsulated in the very first sentence I wrote to you at the beginning of this thread anyway: [Richard]: ‘A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in the absolute was’. [endquote]. I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’. RESPONDENT: You’re not responding to my discussion of our differences in the meaning we give to the word ‘intelligence’. RICHARD: I was keeping my response short as you said you had an aversion to long threads ... plus I was agreeing with you that the metaphysical meaning you give to it was the same as I started off with. Viz.:
Howsoever, I can spell it out a little if that will further the enquiry: what is in the nature of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’ that it creates, or gives rise to, malicious and sorrowful human beings rather than happy and harmless human beings in the first place? Put simply: in what way is that an intelligent act? RESPONDENT: Is that where this thread ends? RICHARD: No, I took it back to the beginning so as to start afresh ... plus you had also said to put back on the table anything you had omitted.
RICHARD: ... I was agreeing with you that the metaphysical meaning you give to the word intelligence was the same as I started off with. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘... an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. (...) Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected’. [Richard]: ‘I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’. Howsoever, I can spell it out a little if that will further the enquiry: what is in the nature of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’ that it creates, or gives rise to, malicious and sorrowful human beings rather than happy and harmless human beings in the first place? Put simply: in what way is that an intelligent act? RESPONDENT: I would not say that intelligence creates malice. RICHARD: Then it is not an ‘all pervasive’ intelligence (aka truth or god) after all. RESPONDENT: Simply that malice occurs. RICHARD: I get a somewhat similar kind of answer from Christians (who say that their all-powerful creator god did not create evil). Just stating that it ‘occurs’ adds nothing to the enquiry. RESPONDENT: But only in the domain of the self. RICHARD: There is no doubt that malice (and sorrow) occurs in the ‘self’ ... the question is what is their source or origin? RESPONDENT: The self is where intelligence cannot exist. RICHARD: Are you referring to human intelligence here or the non-material intelligence? If it is the latter then are you not saying, in effect, that the self is where god or truth cannot exist? * RESPONDENT: You sometimes charge me with anthropomorphism ... RICHARD: I actually said ‘anthropocentricism’ ... but you have since explained that the ‘all pervasive intelligence’ you refer to is a non-material intelligence which is not a projection of human intelligence. Whereas I maintain that it is, of course. RESPONDENT: ... but, in describing animal behaviour in moral terms, aren’t you the anthropomorphist? RICHARD: As I have not described animal behaviour ‘in moral terms’ your question is a non
sequitur Whereas what I said was that they were run by their genetically-inherited instinctual passions.
CORRESPONDENT No. 42 (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 |
