|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 55
RESPONDENT: I regret not being able to read Richard because of the typographical characters which do not pass with my navigator and make the reading of its letters almost impossible. RESPONDENT No. 33: Sorry to hear that. If Richard is reading this, he should do something to fix this problem. RICHARD: I am only too happy to send a text-only copy of this post to (xxx.xxx@xxx.com) in this instance if that will be of assistance. This is the essence of what I am reporting: In normal human beings sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary. That is, when the finger tip touches the glass which is a few millimetres to the front of these pixels you are reading there is the immediate perception of the actuality of the physical (skin-on-glass/ glass-on-skin). Mr. Joseph LeDoux has been able to demonstrate, again and again under strict laboratory conditions, that 12-14 milliseconds after the sensory impact/ contact there is the affective perception (he has specifically addressed fear) ... and that 12-14 milliseconds after that there is the cognitive perception. As the affective perception generates what is genetically programmed to be the appropriate response (initially the inherited as ‘freeze-flee-fight’ instinctual response) the brain is flooded with a veritable cocktail of chemicals ... which means that the cognitive perception is clouded by the affective perception’s automatic response (that is, it cannot think clearly). Now comes the contentious part: by and large ‘K-Readers’ have no difficulty with and/or objection to thought stopping (no cognitive perception/ response) ... but, by and large, object strenuously to my report that the affective faculty can likewise cease (no affective perception/ response). I will re-post a paragraph I posted only a few days ago that may have been overlooked in all the furore about the ‘reality can never be known’ issue. Viz.
As immediate, direct perception (sensuous perception) does not involve either the affective faculty or the cognitive function the thinker (‘I’ as ego) and the feeler (‘me’ as soul) do not get a look-in ... hence I call this direct perception ‘apperception’ (perception unmediated by either ‘self’ or ‘Self’). Thus what I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... which means that the actuality of the physical can indeed be known, each moment again, day after day. I do not know if I can put it more briefly or succinctly than this.
RESPONDENT: Thank you for your post. I think as you and Mr. Joseph LeDoux that the sensate perception is immediate then comes emotional faculty (an emotion like the fear for example) and then cognitive perception. You call apperception sensuous, immediate perception without the emotional faculty nor the cognitive function. But do you believe that one can dissociate the sensory vision (sight of the snake for example) of the emotional answer (fear) which seems ineluctable? RICHARD: I do not have to ‘believe’ anything as apperception has been my on-going experiencing, night and day, since 1992 ... the challenge for me has been how to present this discovery to my fellow human beings (for whom the affective faculty is inviolable if not sacrosanct). Hence I need to refer to scientific (repeatable on demand) experiments so as to pre-empt responses that capriciously dismiss my experiential report as being an idea, a posit, an imagining, a belief, an opinion, a perspective, a standpoint, a view, a viewpoint, a point of view, a world-view, a concept, a theory, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, a thought, an inference, a precept, a judgement, a position, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a stance, an image, an intellectualising, an intellectual understanding, an analysis, a doctrine, a policy, a canon, a dogma, a code, a tenet, a creed, a credo, a rule, a principle, an ideology, a faith, an act of faith, an article of faith, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a cult ... the entire 101 stock-standard denials of the possibility of being happy and harmless, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. There is no fear here in this actual world ... there is no fear in a flower, a rock or in this computer monitor, for example. Only sentient beings have fear (plus the other instinctual passions such as aggression and nurture and desire). There is a way to ascertain the validity of my report for oneself: when one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness. Then there is no need to ‘dissociate’ ... ‘I’/‘me’ has never existed (in this actual world).
RICHARD: When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness. Then there is no need to ‘dissociate’ ... ‘I’/‘me’ has never existed (in this actual world). RESPONDENT: Thank you, Richard. To clarify the problem I propose an example to you. I see a frightening face. I am afraid. Where is located in this sequence ‘this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness’ which you call ‘apperceptiveness’? RICHARD: In the sequence you propose apperceptiveness is located, where it already always is, at the pure ocular perception (substitute ‘seeing’ for ‘I see’ and it may become more obvious what I am reporting). Thence comes the affective identification 12-14 milliseconds later (‘frightening’) which is followed by the cognitive recognition another 12-14 milliseconds after that (‘face’) ... thence to the identification, with all the emotion-backed memories associated with the resultant conceptualisation, of self-distress (‘I am afraid’). RESPONDENT: Would you say that you do not know the fear? RICHARD: Correct ... there is no fear here in this actual world.
RICHARD: ... this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous heedfulness ... in a word: apperceptiveness. Then there is no need to ‘dissociate’ ... ‘I’/‘me’ has never existed (in this actual world). RESPONDENT: Thank you, Richard. To clarify the problem I propose an example to you. I see a frightening face. I am afraid. Where is located in this sequence ‘this fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness’ which you call ‘apperceptiveness’? RICHARD: In the sequence you propose apperceptiveness is located, where it already always is, at the pure ocular perception (substitute ‘seeing’ for ‘I see’ and it may become more obvious what I am reporting). Thence comes the affective perception 12-14 milliseconds later (‘frightening’) which is followed by the cognitive perception another 12-14 milliseconds after that (‘face’) ... thence to the identification, with all the emotion-backed memories associated with the resultant conceptualisation, of self-distress (‘I am afraid’). RESPONDENT: Would you say that you do not know the fear? RICHARD: Correct ... there is no fear here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Richard, we can take for granted that the temporal amygdalae are essential to feel fear in front of a frightening face. According to what I believe to understand, the sight of a frightening face or another thing, has not frightened you any more for several years. How do you explain this phenomenon? RICHARD: For the first thirty-four years of my life there was a parasite living inside this body (an identity). This ‘walk-in’ dominated so much that I could hardly get a word in edgeways. Then one day ‘he’ had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and saw ‘himself’ for the very first time ... a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. Furthermore, ‘he’ saw that ‘he’ was standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth becoming apparent. To cut a long story short ‘he’ psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) ‘self’-immolated in ‘his’ totality (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. This altruistic action, set in motion with knowledge aforethought, precipitated much sensational activity at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’). However, the amygdalae are located further up into the skull (just in from behind each ear) and there was no activity happening there. As the reflex function still operates (if a hot stove is inadvertently touched the hand jerks away automatically) it is obvious to me that that the ‘seat of consciousness’ is located in the brain-stem. I would suggest the ‘Substantia Nigra’ in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’) as being the source of the instinctual self/the instinctual passions. To put it simply: as ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’, the extinction of ‘I’/‘me’ is simultaneously the extinction of fear.
RESPONDENT: I still put myself questions. About your interesting post: 1. You evoke a parasite living inside your body which dominated during the first thirty-four years of your life. Which is this parasite? Ego? RICHARD: Not just ‘ego’, no. The identity in toto RESPONDENT: 2. You wrote: ‘he’ psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) self-immolated in ‘his’ totality (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). a) How you carried out this self-immolation? RICHARD: I did not do anything – I have been here for 54 years having a ball – it was ‘he’ (identity in toto) who did all the ‘self’-immolating. As I have already remarked, ‘he’ had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and saw ‘himself’ for the very first time ... a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. Furthermore, ‘he’ saw that ‘he’ was standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth becoming apparent. It was a four-hour direct experiencing of an actual freedom from the human condition (a definitive demonstration of a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable) and which indelibly imprinted a pure intent to enable this perfection to become apparent for the twenty fours of the day. This pure intent activated the dormant naiveté (which is the closest one can come to innocence whilst being a self) and what happened from then on happened of its own accord. RESPONDENT: b) Why you call ‘me’ the ‘soul’. Is the ‘soul’ the seat of the feelings as in French the heart? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) RESPONDENT: 3. You wrote: However, the amygdalae are located further up into the skull (just in from behind each ear) and there was no activity happening there. How do you know that there was no activity in your amygdalae? RICHARD: Simply because there was no sensation of anything happening there ... this is how I wrote it (in the previous post) in full:
RESPONDENT: Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)? RICHARD: No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: 4. You know as me that the neurons of the Substantia Nigra are destroyed during the Parkinson’s disease what causes stereotyped neurological disorders. Which arguments make you think that Substantia Nigra could be the source of the instinctual self and/or of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: What caught my interest was the encephalitis that numerous people contracted as a result of the outbreak of what is popularly known as the ‘Spanish Flu’ epidemic that spread world-wide towards the end of World War I. In their case the Substantia Nigra was affected (which could be described as being ‘eaten away’ by the encephalitis), leaving them in what is popularly known as a ‘vegetative’ state ... yet large amounts of L-Dopa administered temporarily brought them out of their state into varying degrees of normality (there was a movie made about this phenomenon) complete with an intact identity. This gave rise to speculation amongst various professionals in the field that the Substantia Nigra was the ‘seat of consciousness’ (the location of identity) and, as there was much sensational activity at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain during the extinction of identity in this flesh and blood body, it makes sense to me to suggest that this speculation could very well be the case. Plus, as reptiles (and birds and fishes) do not have a ‘mammalian’ brain and/or a ‘cortical’ brain it seems obvious that the ‘seat of consciousness’ be located in what is popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’. An instinctual self, in other words, is the root of the problem.
RESPONDENT: You wrote: ‘he’ psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) self-immolated in ‘his’ totality (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). a) How you carried out this self-immolation? RICHARD: I did not do anything – I have been here for 54 years having a ball – it was ‘he’ (identity in toto) who did all the ‘self’-immolating. As I have already remarked, ‘he’ had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and saw ‘himself’ for the very first time ... a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity. Furthermore, ‘he’ saw that ‘he’ was standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth becoming apparent. It was a four-hour direct experiencing of an actual freedom from the human condition (a definitive demonstration of a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable) and which indelibly imprinted a pure intent to enable this perfection to become apparent for the twenty fours of the day. This pure intent activated the dormant naiveté (which is the closest one can come to innocence whilst being a self) and what happened from then on happened of its own accord. RESPONDENT: b) Why you call ‘me’ the ‘soul’. Is the ‘soul’ the seat of the feelings as in French the heart? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) RESPONDENT: 3. You wrote: However, the amygdalae are located further up into the skull (just in from behind each ear) and there was no activity happening there. How do you know that there was no activity in your amygdalae? RICHARD: Simply because there was no sensation of anything happening there ... this is how I wrote it (in the previous post) in full: [Richard]: ‘This altruistic action, set in motion with knowledge aforethought, precipitated *much sensational activity* at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/’reptilian brain’). However, the amygdalae are located further up into the skull (just in from behind each ear) and there was no activity happening there’. (emphasis added). RESPONDENT: Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)? RICHARD: No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: My question was much simpler. You did not feel any more the fear. However in fact the amygdalae produce the fear. Lesions of amygdalae (for example calcifications) could have explained this pathology. But, nothing was found at the time. RICHARD: If I may be presumptuous enough to say that your question was not a case of being ‘much simpler’ at all ... your question (with its conclusion ‘you did not feel any more the fear’) is missing the point. Allow me to re-post something you may be overlooking:
Plus there is no need to invoke ‘lesions of amygdalae (for example calcifications)’ to explain my experience away with. Again let me re-post something you may also have overlooked:
* RESPONDENT: 4. You know as me that the neurons of the Substantia Nigra are destroyed during the Parkinson’s disease what causes stereotyped neurological disorders. Which arguments make you think that Substantia Nigra could be the source of the instinctual self and/or of the instinctual passions? RICHARD: What caught my interest was the encephalitis that numerous people contracted as a result of the outbreak of what is popularly known as the ‘Spanish Flu’ epidemic that spread world-wide towards the end of World War I. In their case the Substantia Nigra was affected (which could be described as being ‘eaten away’ by the encephalitis), leaving them in what is popularly known as a ‘vegetative’ state ... yet large amounts of L-Dopa administered temporarily brought them out of their state into varying degrees of normality (there was a movie made about this phenomenon) complete with an intact identity. RESPONDENT: Yes, the film was drawn from a book of Oliver Sacks ‘Awakenings’ (Fifty years of sleep). RICHARD: Thank you for the reference ... the name had eluded me when I wrote to you. * RICHARD: This gave rise to speculation amongst various professionals in the field that the Substantia Nigra was the ‘seat of consciousness’ (the location of identity) and, as there was much sensational activity at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain during the extinction of identity in this flesh and blood body, it makes sense to me to suggest that this speculation could very well be the case. Plus, as reptiles (and birds and fishes) do not have a ‘mammalian’ brain and/or a ‘cortical’ brain it seems obvious that the ‘seat of consciousness’ be located in what is popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/’reptilian brain’. An instinctual self, in other words, is the root of the problem. RESPONDENT: Recent work suggests that in case of fear of visual origin, the right amygdala is activated. In case of verbal fear (by an account for example) the left is activated. RICHARD: Hmm ... are you aware that fear is a follow-up response (or rather a follow-up reaction) to the automatic reflex action? And could you countenance that where there is no identity (which means there is no fear extant) that the above observations of identity-bound peoples (aka fear-bound peoples) would no longer apply? I only ask this because you posted the following to another just as you posted this e-mail:
It is your ‘pure assumption of course!’ codicil which lends me reason to consider you may just be willing to comprehend that I am speaking of something totally new to human experience (and not just a ‘deficit temporal amygdalae’ such as the damaged peoples Mr. Antonio Damasio, for example, has done much research on). There is no precedent to go by ... re-read my first paragraph (at the top of the page) and you will see that this is all premeditated.
RESPONDENT: In my post of Thursday 19 July, I wrote: ‘We can take for granted that the temporal amygdalae are essential to feel fear in front of a frightening face. According to what I believe to understand, the sight of a frightening face or another thing, has not frightened you any more for several years. How do you explain this phenomenon?’ At the end of the letter I repeat: [Respondent]: ‘Would you say that you do not know the fear?’ [Richard]: Correct ... there is no fear here in this actual world’. It is not possible for me to exploit subtleties or ambiguities of the words in English for lack of thorough knowledge of the language but in French to know the fear is to feel it. RICHARD: It is the same in English (otherwise it is an intellectual knowing). RESPONDENT: Thus, your answer made me think that you were not aware of the fear. Today you rewrite me: [Richard]: ‘To put it simply: as ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’, the extinction of ‘I’/‘me’ is simultaneously the extinction of fear. (emphasis added). Do I have then to understand that you are aware of the fear but what this one dies out at once that perceived? RICHARD: No ... as I said previously (and re-quoted by you further above) there is no fear here in this actual world. It does not exist here; it never has existed here; it never will exist here. I cannot experience something that does not exist. RESPONDENT: If this interpretation is good, it appears in conformity to me with the teaching of K and my own observations (at least, it is what I feel for the fears whose stimulus is not visual). RICHARD: It is not ‘in conformity with the teaching of K’ ... this is something new to human experience. RESPONDENT: To finish when I wrote: ‘My question was much simpler’, I wanted to say that it was circumscribed with a particular problem, in fact, that of amygdalae and not to all the problem of the conscience. RICHARD: I did and do understand ... however, when the ‘problem of the conscience’ (consciousness) is dissolved there is no ‘problem of the amygdalae’. RESPONDENT: Thank you for the pains that you took to understand my English. RICHARD: You are very welcome.
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 |
