|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 45
RESPONDENT: Richard, your post on ‘monkey business’ is interesting for me. I know what you mean with ‘pseudo-science’. RICHARD: Good. The raison d’être of ‘pseudo-science’ is to never let the facts stand in the way of the truth. RESPONDENT: Really I have worked with small animals on interneurons (brain paths), it was my PhD, it was a cruel nonsense, some day years ago it was so clear than I abandoned forever those paths and this university world, and so I am not now interested on arguing on experiments with animals. RICHARD: But there is no ‘cruel nonsense’ about observing and carefully documenting the spread, from monkey to monkey, of a particular feeding behaviour within a group of macaques (rhesus monkeys) on Koshima Islet. The ‘cruel nonsense’ lies in how certain peoples have taken this scientific study and, falsifying the facts, bolstered the truth once more ... to the detriment of beginning to investigate the human condition in such a way as to bring to an end 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. Anyway, as what animals do to animals is ‘cruel nonsense’ and what animals do to humans is ‘cruel nonsense’ and what humans do to humans is ‘cruel nonsense’ , why be fastidious about not discussing the ‘cruel nonsense’ that humans do to animals? It is the careful observation, recording and presentation of facts that is the issue ... not personal squeamishness and/or sentimental opinion. 160,000,000 people were killed by their fellow human beings in wars this century alone ... this is were the phrase ‘cruel nonsense’ means something. RESPONDENT: But in that time we had wrote many papers in international high index impact journals. Also I guess you realize it is completely different publishing an anthropologic personal book and publishing a paper in a high impact journal. RICHARD: In what way different? Are facts the basis of ‘international high index impact journals’ or not? Are facts the basis of ‘an anthropologic personal book’ or not? RESPONDENT: Then, I am not making fun or becoming pretentious but pointing out I understand quite well what you mean and so asking you for forgetting unreal presuming affirmations like this one from No. 43 after I sent a K’s quote where a rat experiment was comment: ‘This is a trait of K-readers who generally lack academic training but presume the authority to speak on any and every subject advancing conclusions that are baseless and misleading’. RICHARD: What is ‘unreal’ and ‘presuming’ about such a comment? Why is it important to you that I ‘forget’ it? RESPONDENT: So Richard, I know quite well scientific national and international world, believe me or not, I am not going to argue at all on it with No. 43 or anyone other. RICHARD: Yet I was discussing the pseudo-scientific ‘national and international world’ ... not science per se. The truth is an age-old opponent of the fact ... science, properly conducted, establishes the fact; pseudo-science, properly conducted, re-establishes the truth. Speaking personally, I prefer the authority of the fact over the authority of the truth any day. RESPONDENT: Now, I am just interested in human brain-mind state, human conflict, my own state, and no in ‘scientific world’, something too much trivial. RICHARD: But the point is that it is ‘pseudo-science’ that is ‘too much trivial’ – not science per se – and worse: it amounts to misinformation. Are you sure that all this you wrote above is not a way to dismiss any fact that stands in the way of the truth being perpetuated? In case you have missed it, with your blanket dismissal of science through your ‘cruel nonsense’ justification, the careful scientific observation and careful documentation of the spread, from monkey to monkey, of a particular feeding behaviour within a group of macaques (rhesus monkeys) on Koshima Islet, does not support the ‘pseudo-science’ truth about mysterious transmission ... the claim that monkeys on other islands had their consciousness raised to the level of the potato-washing monkeys has no basis in fact. And to continue to promote this truth, after gaining access to the fact, is to deliberately spread disinformation. RESPONDENT: I tell you all above because for focusing in three points which I feel No. 25 and me are very interested, if it’s possible to talk about them in any way: 1. Human mind, seems to be individual or collective? 2. Human conscience, seems to be individual or collective? 3. Human sorrow, seems to be individual or collective? RICHARD: In actuality the human mind is individual and there is no ‘collective mind’ or ‘universal mind’ or ‘universal consciousness’ and so on; in actuality there is no innate ‘individual human conscience’ nor any ‘collective human conscience’; in actuality there is no individual ‘human sorrow’ nor any ‘collective sorrow’ or ‘universal sorrow’ or ‘universal compassion’ and so on. RESPONDENT: Richard, really I am not looking at all for holes on your comments, but just interested on listening how do you see those three questions, if is there any comment you see important for sharing with anyone who is waiting just for listening what you say, doesn’t matter if you comment on facts or ideas. Reading your post aroused those three questions in my mind for point to you, that’s all. If you have a bit of time, I would thank yours comments. RICHARD: There are currently 6.0 billion human minds (a human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull) on this planet. All human brains are basically of the same physiological structure and have enough, more or less similar, traits in common when in operation to reasonably deduce that, giving due allowance for gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, as well as personal idiosyncrasies, there is essentially no fundamental difference between each and every person’s mind ... yet this similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. It is the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self that stretches back to the dawn of the human species. The situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies is called the ‘Human Condition’ ... a well-established philosophical term that refers the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. Therefore, there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Cultural contingency controls – morals and ethics and so on – seek to contain the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality and so on fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained at the point of a gun anywhere in the world ... thus it is all too easy to posit both an ‘individual conscience’ and a ‘collective conscience’ . Yet the knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the feeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inculcated from birth onward through reward and punishment. One’s identity is largely made up of beliefs ... beliefs and feelings. In fact, a belief is an emotion-backed thought. The vast majority of the beliefs that one carries are not invented by oneself; they were imbibed with the mother’s milk, as it were, and added to thereupon up to the present day. They are inherited beliefs, put into the child with love and fear – reward and punishment – and added to as an adult out of awe and dread in respect to some spurious ‘after-life’ ... the carrot and the stick. It behoves one to examine each and every belief – especially those that pass for ‘truths’ – and watch them disappear out of one’s life forever. It is no wonder human beings are such a desperate lot. Beliefs and feelings are the bane of humankind ... they have been so instrumental in killing, maiming, torturing and otherwise causing such pain and suffering since the dawn of human history, that one wonders that they are given any credence at all these days. It is so liberating to be free of beliefs – of believing itself – and feelings that I recommend their elimination, through dissolution of the rudimentary animal self that all sentient beings are born with, with the utmost dispatch. It is scientifically demonstrable that everyone has the same genetically-inherited blue-print ... human
beings are all born with the same basic instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one
was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions and calentures.
For example, malice and sorrow is malice and sorrow wherever it lives. There is no difference between English malice and sorrow
and American malice and sorrow and Indian malice and sorrow and so on. Or any of the cultivated derivatives – as a broad
generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’
(sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – whatever the emotion or passion or
calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Add into the picture such affectively-based activity as imagination,
visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like
prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination But, step out of the Human Condition – as this flesh and body only being apperceptively aware – leaving the instinct-derived ‘self’ behind in the Land of Lament where it belongs, and immediately, the picture changes ... where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’, none of the above characteristics apply. Where there are no basic instincts; where there are no emotions or passions or calentures; where there is no cerebral energisation; where there is no psychic manifestations, there is no identity whatsoever. With all these genetically inherited traits null and void, there is now a freed human mind ... an autonomous human individual. No more ‘monkey business’.
RESPONDENT: Richard, your post on ‘monkey business’ is interesting for me. I know what you mean with ‘pseudo-science’. RICHARD: Good. The raison d’être of ‘pseudo-science’ is to never let the facts stand in the way of the truth. RESPONDENT: Really I have worked with small animals on interneurons (brain paths), it was my PhD, it was a cruel nonsense, some day years ago it was so clear than I abandoned forever those paths and this university world, and so I am not now interested on arguing on experiments with animals. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Because it’s completely clear for this mind, I feel it is also clear for you, so better forget it and going on with ‘no clear matters’ like if human mind-conscience-sorrow are individual or collective. It was my meaning, no wasting my time and your time falling in this ego movement of showing to the other what’s clear for both. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: But in that time we had wrote many papers in international high index impact journals. Also I guess you realize it is completely different publishing an anthropologic personal book and publishing a paper in a high impact journal. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Yes Richard, it’s reproducible, it’s knowledge. If you trace an interneuronal brain path with a fluorescent marker and peroxidase you are describing and showing microscopic photo-images, you are showing an anatomic and physiologic fact. It’s clear and simple, can we forget it? RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: No Richard, many times it is just theory, a personal interpretation. I would like to forget it if it’s clear for we both. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: I am not making fun or becoming pretentious but pointing out I understand quite well what you mean and so asking you for forgetting unreal presuming affirmations like this one from No. 43 after I sent a K’s quote where a rat experiment was comment: ‘This is a trait of K-readers who generally lack academic training but presume the authority to speak on any and every subject advancing conclusions that are baseless and misleading’. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: I can trick myself interpreting K’s words and that’s why I never mix my words with quotes, I only send quotes concerned to what is being enquired and so everyone can inquire on the false or true of the quoted words. But I am not a ‘K-reader who generally lack academic training’, it is an unreal presumption and do not depend on if my conclusions are baseless and misleading or not. I was asking you for focusing on those three questions about mind-conscience-sorrow, forgetting the rest. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: So Richard, I know quite well scientific national and international world, believe me or not, I am not going to argue at all on it with No. 43 or anyone other. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Right, and I feel it’s clear for we both, so I was asking you for forgetting it. That was my meaning. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: Now, I am just interested in human brain-mind state, human conflict, my own state, and no in ‘scientific world’, something too much trivial. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Yes I am sure, it was a way for focusing on those three questions without falling in what is ‘unreal’ and ‘presuming’ about you or about me. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: I tell you all above because for focusing in three points which I feel No. 25 and me are very interested, if it’s possible to talk about them in any way: 1. Human mind, seems to be individual or collective? 2. Human conscience, seems to be individual or collective? 3. Human sorrow, seems to be individual or collective? RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: First you say ‘there is no ‘collective mind’. Later you say ‘that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self’. There’s not more exposed sentences on the matter in your reply to my three questions. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: There’s not more exposed sentences on the matter in your reply to my three questions. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: There’s not more exposed sentences on the matter in your reply to my three questions. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: Richard, really I am not looking at all for holes on your comments, but just interested on listening how do you see those three questions, if is there any comment you see important for sharing with anyone who is waiting just for listening what you say, doesn’t matter if you comment on facts or ideas. Reading your post aroused those three questions in my mind for point to you, that’s all. If you have a bit of time, I would thank yours comments. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: It’s just an opinion Richard. Can you or anyone show how it is a fact? Can you show mind is just outcome of human brain in action? RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: You don’t know if human mind and human brain are alike. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Shit is outcome of digestive body-function but shit and guts are not the same. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Your affirmation ‘human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull’ maybe is just an idea, a conclusion of your intellect thinking on it. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Long sentences like the above one are 90 per cent of your reply to my three questions, you are showing clear facts but on different questions. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Richard, many people can understand-see easily what you say because Jiddu K. has been talking about it for seventy years. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Your words are just his words, but I am not at all meaning you sound like a K-recycled being: you are exposing facts, they are not my-yours-Jiddu’s facts, they are just facts and fortunately many people can now see them easily because Jiddu K. has been talking clearly and concisely about them for seventy years. But these long answers from you are not focused in my three questions to you, I don’t know why you have exposed it. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Same comment like above. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Same comment like above. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> * RESPONDENT: Then Richard, I really thanks your reply but I or anyone can realize that 99 per cent of your post is not focused in those three questions but on facts many people can easily realize because Jiddu K. has been talking about it for seventy years, and on ‘scientific world’. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: The rest, 1 per cent of your reply, expose: 1. ‘A human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull’ is just an idea, maybe you are right maybe not, but it is just an intellectual idea you are exposing like a fact. Can you see it? 2. Two sentences on ‘collective mind’; the first is contradicting the second. 3. One sentence on ‘collective conscience’. Just an affirmation, an idea, right or wrong you are not showing any fact but just another intellectual idea. 4. One sentence on ‘collective sorrow’. Same comment like above. In summary Richard, I am not looking for holes in your comments but verbalizing what anyone of this list can see. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: You didn’t share anything on my questions for enquiring with you, but just simple facts on mind movements which already Jiddu K. has exposed a lot of times for seventy years. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: And also sharing some ideas which you offer to me like facts. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Anyway, with this unique post you have showed a lot of facts on the ways your mind works. I or any other one can see a self-thinker working very busy into your mind and the ways your thinker-self works. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: The same occurs when I (we) watch others person’s posts of this list who claims for ‘freedom’ from ego stream. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: There’s a great different among you all, claimers of freedom. We are claming for nothing, we are just doing our best inquiring on ego system business, and so we are dead ducks but we are not full stop. It’s our vantage. A great ventage when inquiring on this mess. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: So, as you said: ‘No more monkey business’ Richard. Thank you for yours words, anyway there’s a fact: we both are in the same boat-mess (ego system) and we are doing our best. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: You Richard are really my brother and I am your brother, sharing together this hell. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: I feel this hell will have not more power on mankind, end is beginning if human mankind get go on alive for a while more of chronological time. It’s just an idea from me, maybe I am wrong maybe I am right, I don’t know but I feel it. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: May you have a sane life. RICHARD: <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RESPONDENT: Thank you for your sharing. RICHARD: Are you sure you are not thanking me for providing the opportunity to dismiss everything – absolutely everything – I wrote as either ‘just an idea’ or ‘just an opinion’ or ‘your words are just his words’ or ‘conclusions of your intellect’ or ‘not focused in my three questions’ or ‘sharing some ideas which you offer to me like facts’ or ‘we both are in the same boat-mess (ego system)’ or ‘can we forget it’ and ‘be forgetting it’ and so on and so on? Do you remember how you started your very first post to me (at the top of this page)? [Respondent]: ‘Richard, your post on ‘monkey business’ is interesting for me. I know what you mean with ‘pseudo-science’. [endquote]. Yet nowhere in this post do you show the slightest inkling that (a) my post on ‘monkey business’ is indeed interesting for you ... and (b) that you know what I mean with ‘pseudo-science’. You also snipped the relevant parts out of my answer so that you could safely say ‘there’s not more exposed sentences on the matter in your reply to my three questions’ and thus erroneously conclude that the remainder could be easily realised ‘because Jiddu K. has been talking about it for seventy years’ (whereas he never pointed to the basic instincts all sentient beings are born with as being the origin of the ‘self’). I have snipped all of my responses to you (above) so as to make it easy to see what is going on ... because there is a particularly interesting archived E-Mail (Message 00227 of Archive 99/06: Thurs, 03 Jun 1999) titled: ‘Do you really want to know what is happening in this planet?’ from someone going under the name ‘J G’ xxx@hotmail.com which you may be interested in reading, as it relates to this subject of ‘collective mind-conscience-sorrow’ that you are so keen to pursue with me if only I would ‘forget’ certain things. Viz.:
I see that the writer known as ‘J G’ xxx@hotmail.com prefers the authority of the truth over the authority of the fact when he says: [quote]: ‘when that body-brain died, J. G. will go on living in the stream but without body, just like a framework of organized thought, just like now, but without body and so without action in the material world’ . [endquote]. The writer known as ‘J G’ xxx@hotmail.com then quotes Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti saying ‘yes’ to a question put to him asking ‘is there a conscious thinking entity who knows that he is conscious when [they have] even put him in the ground’ and ‘is there a conscious entity who immaterially says ... they’ve put that body in the ground but I have consciousness of being alive’? Just what is it that you want of me ... that I agree with your (borrowed) wisdom? Methinks that you will find that I am quite capable of ‘focusing on those three questions about mind-conscience-sorrow’ without having to be ‘forgetting the rest’ at all ... I have a far-ranging focus.
RICHARD: There is a particularly interesting archived E-Mail titled: ‘Do you really want to know what is happening in this planet?’ from someone going under the name ‘J G’ xxx@hotmail.com which you may be interested in reading, as it relates to this subject of ‘collective mind-conscience-sorrow’ that you are so keen to pursue with me if only I would ‘forget’ certain things. RESPONDENT: Yes Richard, there are a lot of e-mails from me in that date, I was inquiring/ seeking very hardly by then. It is not a mystery for anyone in this list. I am using the letters ‘JG’ for referring to myself in actual posts and also I have said it 2 weeks ago clearly: JG: ‘I came here a few months ago asking one question: ‘Nobody change, why?’ Now I am just sharing what I have realized on this question. After point 5, I will leave forever’. It is not a mystery for anyone in this list Richard. Look, you are claming continually for ‘actual freedom into yourself’, it’s your job, and K is for you competition in this world of ‘salesmen of actual freedom’ where you are living, that is the core of your problem. But I am not claming for nothing. I have said many times ‘I am a dead duck’, so I can be clear, can you? I thanks you this opportunity for making clear that old post. Listen please: At that time I was enquiring on ‘why nobody (I) change?’ There are two fundamental points for seeing when enquiring on ego system: 1. <Observer is observed>. Realizing it means the end of thinker fighting with himself and making conflict-sorrow. It is a great relief. 2. <You are the word, you are the stream (of thought), you are not a permanent entity but a handful of organized thought>. Realizing it means the end of ego-thinker looking for transformation/becoming. It’s also a great relief. At that time my question was: ‘Nobody change, why?’ Inquiring on it I realised-saw that second point, which means: I (JG) cannot change because I (JG) is not a permanent entity but just a handful of organized thought. Right? I was in someway ‘shocked’ when seeing this fact (I-JG can never change, can never transform, it is an illusion because JG is not an entity, he is just the stream of thought, the ego-thinker arising in a human body-brain). Then, before leaving this list, I expressed it for everybody in that post which you mentioned, I felt it was really important and I expressed it mixed with hardness of tone, imagination and ego movements. But essence of the post is verbalisation a fact (ego-thinker is a stream of thought, it cannot change-transform, it’s not an entity). It was a fact just discovered in that moment by a mind a bit shocked because the tremendous of it. What horrible mystery have you discovered on my past Richard, where is the mystery? Why do you present it in that way? What are you looking for?? Did really my last post hurt your ego so deeply? If so, I beg your pardon. And from where is coming your wisdom and actual freedom Richard? Must I inquire on K’s talk or must I inquire in your absence of responses? From where must I borrow wisdom, from you? I didn’t want you for agreeing anything but I made you kindly three questions which you didn’t respond at all. Then I said you that you didn’t respond, and now this post is your new answer to what I said to you in that last post. From where come your claiming of wisdom Richard, from these ego movements you show so clearly to anyone? Look Richard, in that old post I used a bit fragment of a K’s talk (‘The Reluctant Messiah’ by Sidney Field) but I introduced personal comments on K’s words, and yes it was a mistake. So few months later, now, I have sent to this list that very long K’s talk on reincarnation complete (posts 2A and 2B of the thread) but without adding any personal comment, right? Maybe K’s talk has any meaning, maybe not. Now I didn’t introduce any comment but just sending the complete talk, everybody can inquire on that K’s talk on reincarnation, without any personal comment from JG. I have corrected my old mistake, it was in my hand to do it. Where is the problem? Is the problem in K’s words because he contradicts Richard completely on collective/ individual mind-conscience-sorrow? I asked you kindly for sharing your meaning on these three questions. You didn’t at all. And then I showed it to you and to anyone. I showed a bit the ways your ego-thinker works. And now this is your new reply. Why Richard? Are you so furious because it is not good for your ego-business of ‘Actual Freedom’? Say you now ‘Methinks’ for referring yourself? Good heavens, better I will stop Richard, I see my last post has aroused angry and suffering into yourself. I beg your pardon and I am not going to hurt you again. But anyone can see easily your mind movements. They are not movements of a being living in ‘actual freedom’ but hard movements of a hard ego. Must I stop here or must I explain again what means the word ‘fake’? That explanation would be the beginning of hardness of tone. So it’s just for you to go on unfolding your pained ego until getting enough relief. I am not going to feed your sorrow again. Better I stop here, I am not going to contradict you again, right? Be happy with your ‘actual freedom’. May you have a sane live. RICHARD: It seems to me that your focus, in this and your previous two posts, is as follows (and please correct it where you deem necessary):
Therefore, you asked me for my input on three questions:
My response was as follows (but numbered with your question this time):
Thus what I wrote about was that in actuality (please note ‘in actuality’) there is no collective mind ... as opposed to the imprint (please note ‘the imprint’) of a collective mind that is created by the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self that stretches back to the dawn of the human species.
Thus what I wrote about was that it is all too easy to posit both an ‘individual conscience’ and a ‘collective conscience’ despite the fact that the knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the feeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inculcated from birth onward through reward and punishment.
Thus what I wrote about was that whilst people nurse malice and sorrow to their bosoms there is indeed an illusion of ‘collective sorrow’ with it compensatory ‘universal compassion’. * The crux of the issue is that you appear to be proposing a metaphysically inherent cause (the ego-stream existing prior to physical birth) to the problem of the human condition and thus seem to be seeking a metaphysical solution (by realising that the thinker is the thought; the observer is the observed) wherein there will be no ego-stream after physical death. Whereas I discovered that it was a physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience. Which is why I asked: Just what is it that you want of me ... that I agree with your (borrowed) wisdom? I have made my position clear many, many times and, despite your assertions to the contrary, they are my words ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti never said that human beings are all born with the same basic instinctual passions, like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions and calentures such as is epitomised by malice and sorrow with their antidotal love and compassion. He said that all the problems of humankind were the outcome of conditioning (the human world created you and you created the human world) and never, ever explored the genetic blue-print ... indeed, much of the gene-mapping and verification of genetically-inherited instinctual passions has occurred since his demise. Can you proceed with an investigation on this basis (rather than psychoanalysing who you think I am) ... otherwise why bother writing to me in the first place?
RESPONDENT: Thank you very much for focusing quite exactly our both meanings, I really thanks your dedication and attention to my questions Richard. Now, I would try to express what I have caught from your words. Please, feel free for correcting any misunderstanding I could do. RICHARD: I have read through your response and have also read the post you referred me to and it would appear that your focus now is as follows (please correct it where you deem necessary.):
There are several issues that could do with some clarifying:
* RICHARD: There are currently 6.0 billion human minds on this planet (a human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull). RESPONDENT: a) how do you know that ‘a human mind is [just] a human brain in action in a human skull’ RICHARD: It is very simple to know that a human mind is indeed a human brain in action in a human skull: physical death. Firstly I start with myself: as I am a human being I have fifty two years of intimate experience of a human mind being a human brain in action inside a human skull (observation). Secondly, I verify this personal experience as being global through monitoring other human beings so as to ascertain for myself that the same, or similar, activity occurs as the human brain inside their human skull (duplication). Thirdly, I objectively validate this species-confirmed personal experience by keeping up-to-date with as many of the scientifically reproducible brain-mapping studies such as MRI scans and so on and so on as possible – and there is a wealth of information on this rapidly growing new science – which demonstrates the facticity of my personal experience (confirmation). Which means: as all the energised neuronal activity (energised by a food calorific energy) of the brain (which activity is the human mind) ceases at the physical death of the body – as is ascertained both via personal observation (subjectively) and by a myriad of scientifically documented instrumental tests (objectively) – it is patently obvious that the human mind is the human brain in action inside the human skull. By inserting ‘[just]’ into your question are you suggesting that the human mind is (a) more than the human brain in action (b) something other than the human brain in action? RESPONDENT: b) what is intelligence? RICHARD: When I use the word ‘intelligence’ I mean the same thing as the dictionary definition of intelligence: the cerebral faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) which means the ability to rationally and thus sensibly reflect, plan and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons ... and to be able to convey information to other human beings so that knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations. No other animal can do this. Speaking personally, I find the whole furore about what intelligence really is very amusing: there are people who talk sagely about ... um ... dolphins, for just one example, as being ‘intelligent’ and will argue their case vigorously and vociferously and scorn IQ tests as being a measure of intelligence. Yet when these self-same people turn their attention to ‘outer space’ or ‘deep space’ (as the SETI peoples do), they all of a sudden know precisely what intelligence actually is ... when they say that they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence they do not for one moment mean that they are looking for ‘intelligent’ creatures like ... um ... dolphins, for example. No way ... they are looking for what intelligence actually is as per the dictionary definition. RESPONDENT: Is it just outcome of a brain working? RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve intelligence after a long evolutionary process that sets the human animal apart from the other animals. By saying ‘just’ are you saying that there is intelligence somewhere else than the human brain? If so, where? And when was it discovered? Has it been verified as the same as, or different from, and/or inferior and/or superior to, the only intelligence which has been discovered so far? RESPONDENT: Is intelligence individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as intimate access to each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) and in that the faculty for intelligence is born with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet and faculty for intelligence will die with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet. As I have already remarked: similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. RESPONDENT: When something is focused there is a bit of silence-attention in brain-mind and from this silence insight arises, when brain is stillest and thought stopped insight comes. From where comes this insight? RICHARD: An insight is a function of the human brain in action in the human skull ... it is a rapid penetration into the character, nature, disposition or quality of a situation or circumstances; a sudden apprehension of the solution to a problem or difficulty; an immediate cerebral view or disclosure; it is when one mentally ‘gets’ something one has not properly understood before; it is a cognitive ‘seeing’ of something important to comprehension that comes with the understanding that the insight reveals what theoretical or abstract or conceptual thinking was unable to arrive at by the use of – sometimes laborious – sequential thought. An insight into the human condition is direct seeing, unmediated by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ ... and when the moment of insight is over, then the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards what the insight disclosed. However, one has had the insight, and the insight galvanises one into matter-of-fact thought instead of merely conceptual thought. Thinking is still linear, of course, but one now has the advantage of being able to see the obvious. Seeing the obvious relieves one from believing, trusting, hoping and having faith. There is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of the insight, that enables one to actualise the insight in one’s daily life ... and this actualisation means that one’s life is changed, irrevocably (this is a potential sticking point, incidentally, for people want to be free without having to change ... but that is another topic). It is this confidence that effects actual change, for there is an impelling movement of actualisation – being pulled from ahead – which is what comes from the choiceless action that ensues with being activated from the insight. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement – being pushed from behind – which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by the certitude of conceptual thought. There is always a smidgen or two of doubt in conceptual thought, you see. RESPONDENT: Is it individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as each insight is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) yet the capacity exists in each and every person. However, I see that you are obviously of the view that both insight and intelligence are not individual, which view you wrote about a few weeks ago:
I am very interested as to what your own discoveries are in this matter. RESPONDENT: c) Is there a ground from where any human mind arises? RICHARD: If by ‘ground’ you mean the soil beneath one’s feet ... yes (in that the human mind is the human brain in action in a human skull and this body comes out of the ground in the form of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever and the water that this body drinks). If by ‘ground’ you mean the metaphysical ‘ground’ that Mr. Paul Tillich referred to as the ‘ground of being’ then ... no. RESPONDENT: Is this ground collective? A whole? RICHARD: If by ‘ground’ you mean what the metaphysical ‘ground of being’ was misconstrued upon then ... yes, the genetic ‘ground of being’ is ‘collective’ and ‘a whole’, inasmuch as all sentient beings have the same genetically inherited rudimentary animal ‘being’ – characterised by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire – that stretches back to the dawn of the human species. Everything that ‘I’ am and all who ‘me’ is, is this ‘being’ ... and ‘being’ is what blind nature genetically encodes in all sentient beings at conception in the DNA ... ‘being’ is encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova and is – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... the origins of ‘being’ are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘Being’ is so anciently old that ‘being’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘being’ thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. If by ‘ground’ you mean the soil beneath one’s feet then, as the soil beneath one’s feet is the planet earth and as the planet earth is the same-same stuff as this very material and infinite and eternal universe is, then the human mind arises from everything everywhere and everywhen ... which is much, much more than merely the ‘collective human mind’ known by some people as the holistic ‘whole’ (who describe it as being ‘more than the sum of its parts’) and which is bandied about by more than a few peoples as being a profound truth. * RICHARD: I discovered that it was a physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience. RESPONDENT: Please, can you extend your meaning about ‘and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself)’. Please, what is your approximation, what do you mean by ‘a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience’. Feel free to express as you like, this is to much serious for me, ‘agree or disagree’ will be only my business but I will thanks a lot any personal approach on this point. RICHARD: In my investigations I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). This is a very ancient genetic memory. Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary animal ‘self’ into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and from this core of ‘being’ the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the ice-burg and not the main issue at all. There is much, much more to an investigation into the human condition than ‘the thinker is the thought’, because (to put it in the same lingo) the ‘feeler’ is the feelings ... and the feelings are, as the root of the psyche, ‘being’ itself. The physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) will not eventuate unless the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition is intimately experienced. To proceed from a sound basis, one starts with facts: to be alive (not dead) and awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) and aware and perceiving (and maybe thinking, remembering, reflecting and proposing considered action) is the human mind that every human being is born with and, as such, is similar around the globe and through all generations. Intimate access to the activity of each mind is personal (as opposed to public) but the basic activities of the mind are not individual (‘individual’ as distinguished from others by qualities of its own). This neuronal activity – consciousness itself – is what the human mind is and thus, contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not its content (content as in conditioning) but the very neuronal activity itself. Because, apart from awareness and perception and thought being what consciousness is, there is the affective
feelings (emotions and passions and calentures) such as the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire to consider.
Are they not basic traits that every human being is born with and consequently also similar? Or are they the result of
conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about malice and sorrow and any of derivatives of malice and
sorrow – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on)
and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – and the
compensatory love and compassion and any of the derivatives of love and compassion that arise out of the basic instincts? Are they
not latent traits that every human comes into ‘being’ with and thus are also similar because, whatever the emotion or passion
or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of
consciousness’? What about such affectively-based activity as imagination, intuition, visualisation, conceptualisation,
believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy,
divination Can it at least be clear that the obvious ‘contents of consciousness’ which are the result of conditioning, such as the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, are what imposes a ‘collective mind’ imprint? Yet this imprinted ‘collective mind’ (all the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams) would not be able to have the tenacious hold that it has if the human brain was indeed the ‘Tabular Rasa’ brain that so many peoples believe they are born with. All the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams have such a persistent grip only because of the powerful energy of the genetically inherited instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that stretch back to the dawn of the human species ... which passions have given rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ out of ‘being’ itself who is both savage (‘fear and aggression’) and tender (‘nurture and desire’). Is it not obvious that all the animosity and anguish that has beset humankind throughout millennia comes from that which a lot deeper than ‘the thinker is the thought’ ... all the misery and mayhem stems from an animal energy which is much, much more powerful than thought, thoughts and thinking. * RESPONDENT: Thank you very much for your serious dedication to my posts Richard. If you can show me new facts, then ‘God’ bless you, I only want to learn, from you, from K, from anyone doesn’t matter, beyond all in life I want to learn what is really happening. RICHARD: Yes, one has to want to be free from the human condition like one has never wanted anything before. Because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here about genetic inheritance can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. For it is only when one becomes curious about the workings of oneself – what makes one tick – is that person participating in their search for freedom for the first time in their life. This is because people mostly look to rearranging their beliefs and truths as being sufficient effort ... ‘I’ am willing to be free as long as ‘I’ can remain ‘me’. In other words: their notion of freedom is a ‘clip-on’. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and then the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own. One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny ... fascination leads to commitment and one can know when one’s commitment is approaching a 100% commitment because others around one will classify one as ‘obsessed’ (in spite of all their rhetoric a 100% commitment to evoking peace-on-earth is actively discouraged by one’s peers). Eventually one realises that one is on one’s own in this, the adventure of a life-time, and a peculiar tenacity that enables one to proceed against all odds ensues. Then one takes the penultimate step ... one abandons ‘humanity’. An actual freedom from the human condition then unfolds its inevitable destiny.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti never said that human beings are all born with the same basic instinctual passions, like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions and calentures such as is epitomised by malice and sorrow with their antidotal love and compassion. He said that all the problems of humankind were the outcome of conditioning (the human world created you and you created the human world) and never, ever explored the genetic blue-print ... indeed, much of the gene-mapping and verification of genetically-inherited instinctual passions has occurred since his demise. RESPONDENT: Maybe you both are telling just the same. Why everybody is continually putting words in K’s mouth? Everybody is interpreting K continually. Look, Jiddu K. has also enquired on genetically-inherited instinctual passions, and it’s wonderful if you have seen the same by yourself-personal experience. I am not interested at all in K or in anyone, I am learning from K’s insight, checking it in my own mind, because I don’t really know any other ‘source’ for learning. I have examined a lot of sources and I didn’t see any checkable source covering all the essence of human conflict, only this source (K) becomes checkable in my own mind, fact after fact. I understand you didn’t read those K’s talks because K. has been talking for seventy year all over the world, thousands of talks. He says also what you says and for me it is wonderful because when something seems to be a fact everybody has possibility of seeing it. I will send you in next post an example of K’s talk about the ‘genetic print’ of self-me. [Addendum]: Richard, if you don’t mind I will post those fragments on genetic-self at the end of this thread of numbers. I would not like to mix quotes on different points. RICHARD: Okay ... I would be very, very interested to read those talks. I have read approximately 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by his contemporaries); I have watched maybe 15 video tapes; I have listened to perhaps 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘K-readers’ face-to-face as well as on this Mailing List and never have I come across anything like this that I am discussing. I would be extremely pleased to find out something new.
CORRESPONDENT No. 45 (Part Two) 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 |
