Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: I have many questions, but would like to start with one which I find most pressing. You wrote how the imagination is no longer active in your brain and that if you were to draw a picture of a cow you would not be able to imagine it, but would just start drawing and gradually it would take form on paper. But from my observations, thought requires mental visual imagery, i.e.; in order to write this letter I am graphically visualising mental concepts and visually recalling data relevant to what I wish to convey, before forming the sentences I type.

RICHARD: Okay ... when I start a sentence I have no means of knowing in advance what will transpire, let alone how it will end. All I need to know is the topic and the subject matter unfolds of its own accord. I do have a reliable and repeatable format and style, which has developed over the years, so it is not an ad hoc or chaotic meandering.

It is all very easy.

RESPONDENT: I am a designer by profession.

RICHARD: I used to make a living as a practising artist (as well as being a qualified art teacher) so I can relate to your profession more than just a little bit.

RESPONDENT: Could you please elaborate on how the brain can think without visually imaging, or perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean? Your time is most appreciated.

RICHARD: Oh, no ... you have not misunderstood at all. You must be referring to this passage:

• [Richard]: ‘The entire imaginative/intuitive faculty has vanished. I literally cannot visualise, form images, envision, ‘see in my mind’s eye’, envisage, picture, intuit, feel, fall into a reverie, daydream or in any way, shape or form imaginatively access anything other than directly apprehending what is happening just here right now. I could not form a mental picture of something ‘other’ if my life depended upon it. I literally cannot make images ... whereas in my earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my mind’s eye’ of ‘my’ absent mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take in ‘my’ car or whatever. If I were to close my eyes and ‘visualise’ now, what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal space of the universe at night – that has been the case for all these years now. I cannot visualise, imagine, conceptualise ... when I recall my childhood, my young manhood, my middle ages or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of someone else’s life (...) I can intellectually know what a cow is like in that I can draw a reasonable facsimile; yet as I am drawing I cannot visualise what the finished drawing will be like ... it becomes apparent as the drawing progresses’.

The brain thinks perfectly well without ‘visually imaging’ ... much, much better than any ‘I’ can do. It all started over 20 years ago when the ‘I’ who was made a living as an artist ... ‘my’ greatest work came when ‘I’ disappeared and the painting painted itself in what is sometimes known as an ‘aesthetic experience’. This is the difference between art and craft – and ‘I’ was very good as a craftsman – but craft became art only when ‘I’ was not present. All art is initially a representation and, as such, is a reflection funnelled by the artist so that he/she can express what they are experiencing in order to see for themselves – and show to others – what is going on ‘behind the scenes’ as it were. However, when one is fully engrossed in the act of creating art – wherein the painting paints itself – the art-form takes on a life of its own and ceases to be a representation during the event. It is its own actuality. One can only stand in amazement and wonder – which is not to negate the very essential patiently acquired skills and expertise – and this marvelling is what was experienced back when I was a normal person.

It was this magical way of creativity that led ‘me’ into this whole investigation of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. ‘I’ desired to live my whole life like these utter moments of artistic creation. ‘I’ wanted my life to live itself just like the paintings painted themselves and consequently here I am now ... and what I am (what not who) is the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me ... this is a direct experiencing of the actual in all its pristine freshness.

Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain ... which is an indirect experiencing of the actual (through a translucent veneer of what is called ‘reality’). As the perfection of the purity of the actual is inaccessible, the intuitive/ imaginative facility is required to enhance experience ... an ersatz picture, in other words.

An aesthetic experience is somewhat akin to a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

RICHARD: I used to make a living as a practising artist (as well as being a qualified art teacher) so I can relate to your profession more than just a little bit.

RESPONDENT: Wonderful, then you would be refreshingly unimpressed by this precisely dexterous, crafted hand, trained since childhood and many years in advertising illustrations.

RICHARD: Definitely ... what was called ‘graphic art’ was a compulsory subject in my first semester at art college and I did the minimum possible so as to qualify and move on to far, far better things (typical snobbery has the ‘fine arts’ students scorning ‘graphic arts’ students). Although that was over a quarter of a century ago ... with the excellent computer programs these days I am sure much of the then drudgery in design and illustration has disappeared, no?

RESPONDENT: I too much prefer loose creative unbound art, but these long lasting Hebbian connection, do not seem to quit, no matter what I believe or who or what is steering the ship.

RICHARD: Oh? Are you referring to what is known as ‘The Hebbian Learning Rule’ first proposed by Mr. D. O. Hebb in 1949? If so, I know nothing about it worthy of comment other than what is learned can be unlearned and what is done can be undone. The neural pathways are not hard-wired ... old connections can dissolve, dissipate, die if judiciously targeted and new, healthy networks formed.

There is nobody ‘steering the ship’ here ... free will is a myth: the situation and the circumstances dictate, each moment again, the optimum course of action. What usually happens is that ‘I’ step in – albeit a split-second later – and arrogate authorship by claiming the organic decision-making process for being ‘my’ own decision.

There is nobody in charge of the universe.

*

RICHARD: When one is fully engrossed in the act of creating art – wherein the painting paints itself – the art-form takes on a life of its own and ceases to be a representation during the event. It is its own actuality. One can only stand in amazement and wonder – which is not to negate the very essential patiently acquired skills and expertise – and this marvelling is what was experienced back when I was a normal person. It was this magical way of creativity that led ‘me’ into this whole investigation of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. ‘I’ desired to live my whole life like these utter moments of artistic creation.

RESPONDENT: You might then enjoy Stanislaw Kors. www.colors.co.za/kors/

RICHARD: Umm ... no art has any effect whatsoever upon me these days, no matter who the artist. Consequently, all I see is the structural, technical, theoretical/philosophical and culturally aesthetic qualities ... and looking at the work of Mr. Stanislaw Kors (and here comes the critique) I was immediately struck by the fact that in most of his paintings the focal point is centralised – it is particularly obvious looking at the ‘thumbnail’ page – which makes for static, rather than dynamic viewing (the eye has nowhere to roam, to feast, to savour). One could crop a quarter of the canvas off the paintings, around the edges, and very little would be lost from the main event. Thus the technique seems to be inspired by ... um ... graphic design rather than ‘lose creative unbound art’ and the images are tightly controlled, contrived and facile. I am sure the ‘dreamscape’ imagery (which he calls ‘infra-reality’) is appealing, however, in a science-fiction come new age sort of way ... with hints of ovum-like planetary birth and/or rebirth floating amidst pastel blue-mauve-pink ‘clouds’ in some escapist ‘other’ or ‘parallel’ universe where all is bright and beautiful.

The artist does not appear to like the world where 6.0 billion peoples live.

RESPONDENT: Not even the universe experiencing itself as artist?

RICHARD: No ... I am not only ‘refreshingly unimpressed’ by graphic design these days but the fine arts as well – I have not practised for twenty years – for all art is but a representation of the actual.

*

RICHARD: One could crop a quarter of the canvas off the paintings, around the edges, and very little would be lost from the main event.

RESPONDENT: Oh but much would be lost, that indispensable space forms float in, and the mysterious folds and cracks in those spaces.

RICHARD: In the context you describe, yes ... but as I have no imaginative/intuitive facilities whatsoever I see no mystery

*

RICHARD: Thus the technique seems to be inspired by ... um ... graphic design rather than ‘lose creative unbound art’ and the images are tightly controlled, contrived and facile.

RESPONDENT: Ah yes, but not nearly as ... um ... (very cute) competent is natures graphic art.

RICHARD: I am none too sure what you are wanting to convey here, but I see no ‘graphic art’ in nature.

*

RICHARD: I am sure the ‘dreamscape’ imagery (which he calls ‘infra-reality’) is appealing, however, in a science-fiction come new age sort of way ... with hints of ovum-like planetary birth and/or rebirth floating amidst pastel blue-mauve-pink ‘clouds’ in some escapist ‘other’ or ‘parallel’ universe where all is bright and beautiful. The artist does not appear to like the world where 6.0 billion peoples live.

RESPONDENT: Mmm, I seem to be missing something. Can you clarify why you deduce that paintings that are merely reflecting natures graphic forms is the work of an artist who ‘does not appear to like the world where 6.0 billion peoples live’?

RICHARD: As I do not see that his paintings are ‘merely reflecting natures graphic forms’ this is a loaded question (I have already explained that to me they are a ‘dreamscape’ imagery which he calls ‘infra-reality’). Thus anybody who prefers the dream-world over the physical world obviously does not like the world where 6.0 billion peoples live.

The direct experiencing of the physical (the actual world) each moment again is vastly superior to looking at a painting of someone’s ‘inner’ world (‘infra’ means below or beneath).

*

RICHARD: ‘I’ wanted my life to live itself just like the paintings painted themselves and consequently here I am now ... and what I am (what not who) is the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me ... this is a direct experiencing of the actual in all its pristine freshness.

RESPONDENT: This seems most sensible to me. I’ve always experienced a strong feeling of wonder and joy at the marvels of existence, what with these keen aesthetic artist’s eyes, but there has always been a frustrating feeling that something is in the way of purely experiencing that. Some sort of gap. Now with the help of your brave push into actuality, I’m beginning to see just what that gap may be. This imaginary ‘I’ claiming this moment of being alive as ‘it’s’ feeling, then this flesh and blood body is robbed.

RICHARD: Yes, there are three I’s altogether ... but only one is actual. I have been here for fifty three years: it is just that there was this dualistic loudmouth inhabiting this body, arrogating responsibility where it is not called for, such that I could not get a word in edgeways. Not that I minded, of course, it was ‘he’ who suffered, not me.

I have been having a ball all along.

*

RICHARD: Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain ... which is an indirect experiencing of the actual (through a translucent veneer of what is called ‘reality’). As the perfection of the purity of the actual is inaccessible, the intuitive/imaginative facility is required to enhance experience ... an ersatz picture, in other words.

RESPONDENT: Yes exactly. At the moment I’m reading Joseph LeDoux’s book ‘The Emotional Brain’, very interesting, but it is Win Wenger’s book ‘The Einstein Factor’ which prompted my question on imagination, coupled with my interest in creative thought (Win Wenger is an advocate of Image Streaming as a method to increase ones intelligence). In his book he gives these examples; Tesla’s Gift. • [quote]: ‘1. The intensity of Tesla’s Image Stream appeared to stimulate his genius. Among his many talents, Tesla possessed the remarkable ability to visualize his inventions in minute detail before even beginning to write them down. He would mentally build a new device part by part and test-run it, all in his imagination. So accurate were Tesla’s mental blueprints that he could diagnose a problem with a machine by the way it ran in his mind. ‘It is absolutely immaterial to me whether I run my turbine in thought or test it in my shop’, he wrote. ‘I even note if it is out of balance. There is no difference whatever, By this means, Tesla developed all the basic mechanisms of today’s global electric power grid, including high-voltage transformers, long-distance transmission lines, hydroelectric generators, and alternating current’. • 2. ‘A Baseball Genius: Some years ago, I visited a friend in Chicago. My friend’s son was trying out for the high school baseball team but feared he wouldn’t make the cut because of his poor batting average. I worked with the boy for about an hour, employing many of the techniques that you will learn to use later in this book. In the course of our session, the boy discovered that he had the greatest success when he imagined a tiny flyspeck on the baseball and aimed his bat at that flyspeck rather than at the ball itself. This flyspeck gave him just the extra focus he needed to connect with the ball. It may seem a trivial insight, but its effect on the boy’s game was astonishing. In baseball, a .250 to .300 batting average is considered quite good. But during the first ten games of the season, this boy batted .800! He not only made the team but went on to be named Most Valuable Player for both the team and the league for that year. In a single one-hour session, we had succeeded in identifying a technique that made this boy a baseball genius’. • 3. ‘Genius does seem to be linked to the intensity of our subconscious imagery, but to be effective we must strike a balance. In striving to gain access on demand to intense and vivid imagery, we must also preserve the ability to squelch it at appropriate times. This balance is best achieved through a controlled process like Image Streaming, which allows us to choose the time and place of our imaging and to remain completely conscious and alert throughout the session’ [endquote].

RICHARD: If one is going to accept the status-quo for what it is and ‘make the best of a bad situation’ then such concentrated and focussed effort as described above would probably be the better way to go. However, the way freedom works, and the basic theory/philosophy to formalise it, is this simple:

Back when I used to be able to visualise, what would happen is that it is all mapped out, planned in advance, and all that was left was a ‘colouring-in-by-numbers’ style of painting and/or drawing and/or whatever. All the creativity was confined to mental-emotional imagery department – a dream-like fantasy – which rarely, if ever, translated into pen and paper or paint and canvas ... with the resultant frustration in being unable to manifest the vision into actuality. The main reason was that the mental picture was not constrained by the physical medium and thus compromises inevitably creep in, even early in the piece. One is then left with trying to force actuality into fitting the fancy ... with less than desirable results. What I discovered, when the ‘painting painted itself’, was that actuality ruled the roost, as it were, and magically manifested perfection ... such as to leave me, as I remarked (further above) standing in amazement and wonder, marvelling at this magical creativity.

Modesty – especially false modesty – disappeared along with pride ... ‘I’ was not doing this.

I saw and understood that we humans were trying to make life fit our petty demands; our pathetic dreams; our desperate schemes ... and who am ‘I’ to know better than this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe how to do it. Because all the while, perfection was abounding all about ... magically unfolding, each moment again, if only one would give oneself permission to ‘let go the controls’ and allow it all to happen of its own accord. Again, none of this is to negate the very essential patiently acquired skills and expertise ... otherwise one is as a leaf blowing in the wind (‘think not of the morrow’ and all that nonsense). Initially I described it as ‘being like a child again but with adult sensibilities’. Of course, time would show me that being ‘child-like’ is not it ... but that was ‘my’ beginning explanation back then when seeking to understand.

Back in 1980 ‘I’ looked at the stars one night and temporarily came to my senses: there are galaxies exploding/imploding (or whatever) all throughout the physical infinitude where an immeasurable quantity of matter is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time and ‘I’ – puny, pathetic ‘I’ in an ant-like-in-comparison and very vulnerable 6’2’’ flesh and blood body – disapprove of all this? That is, ‘I’ call all this a ‘sick joke’, or whatever depreciative assessment? And further: so what if ‘I’ were to do an about-face and graciously approve? What difference would that make to the universe?

Zilch.

Ergo: ‘I’, with all my abysmal opinions, theories, concepts, values, principles, judgements and so on, am not required at all ... ‘I’ am a supernumerary. ‘I’ am redundant; ‘I’ can retire; fold ‘my’ hand; pack in the game, die, dissolve, disappear, disintegrate, depart, vamoose, vanish – whatever – and life would manage quite well, thank you, without ‘me’ ... a whole lot better, in fact, as ‘I’ am holding up the works from functioning smoothly ..

‘I’ am not needed ... ‘my’ services are no longer required.

RESPONDENT: As an aside, I also thought you might be interested in the following, which (after reading about your ‘thirtieth of October 1992 curious event’) perhaps helps me understand why the imaging faculty (so connected to feelings) is no longer active in your neo-cortex. • [quote]: ‘A Synesthetic World Neurologist Richard Cytowic has spent years studying synesthetes, people who are born fully synesthetic. Such people may see golden balls when hearing a vibraphone or a glass column when they taste spearmint. Some feel geometric shapes pressing against their skin on tasting certain foods or even twist their bodies involuntarily into characteristic shapes in response to hearing specific words. This condition brings to mind the splashes, lines, and colours the Russian journalist Shereshevesky (the man who remembered everything) saw when certain words were pronounced. Shereshevesky was, in fact, a classic synesthete. While conducting a radioactive brain scan on one synesthetic subject, Cytowic was shocked to see a wholesale diversion of blood flow from the cerebral cortex as the man entered a synesthetic experience. ‘We have never, never seen anything like it’, Cytowic later remarked. The cortex, or ‘grey matter’ is usually considered the most human part of the brain, responsible for higher intellectual thought. Because blood was diverted from the cortex during synesthesia, Cytowic hypothesized that commingling of the senses must occur deep in the limbic system, the instinctive portion of the brain that gives rise to primitive drives such as hunger, emotion, and sexual desire. In nonsynesthetic people, the cortex acts as a Squelcher, suppressing synesthesia and keeping it safely corralled in the limbic brain. On a conscious level, most of us therefore perceive sharp boundaries between the senses. But our unconscious minds apparently function in a fully synesthetic world’ [endquote]. I find it quite viable as you say, that ‘thought needs no ‘I’ to operate and function’, but I cannot help but wonder whether there isn’t a skerrick of imagination which also needs no ‘I’ to operate and function?

RICHARD: No ... if there is a ‘a skerrick of imagination’ then there is guaranteed to be a skerrick of ‘I’ lurking about somewhere cunningly disguised as ‘naturalness’ or ‘spontaneity’ or ‘unaffectedness’ or whatever.

Guaranteed.

RESPONDENT: Is all imagery connected to the limbic system, to feeling, as the synesthetes above?

RICHARD: All imagery is a product of the imaginative/intuitive facility contained within the psyche – the affective faculty – born of the instinctual passions. When the instinctual passions are deleted, the entire psyche itself ceases to exist ... thus the imaginative apparatus also disappears in toto.

RESPONDENT: Could it be that there are non feeling images, that we create an image of sorts, in our mind for each and every thought?

RICHARD: There is no such thing as ‘non-feeling images’ ... without the affective faculty there is no visualising, no forming images, no picturing, no ‘seeing in my mind’s eye’, no intuiting, no feeling, no envisioning, no falling into a reverie, no daydreaming, no conceptualising, no envisaging in any way, shape or form.

There is only the magical unfolding of the actual ... actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could imagine, dream, contrive or concoct.

RICHARD: I used to make a living as a practising artist (as well as being a qualified art teacher) so I can relate to your profession more than just a little bit.

RESPONDENT: Wonderful, then you would be refreshingly unimpressed by this precisely dexterous, crafted hand, trained since childhood and many years in advertising illustrations.

RICHARD: Definitely ... what was called ‘graphic art’ was a compulsory subject in my first semester at art college and I did the minimum possible so as to qualify and move on to far, far better things (typical snobbery has the ‘fine arts’ students scorning ‘graphic arts’ students).

RESPONDENT: Ahh, how well I remember the tyranny of abstract art, and how those of us who could draw well were ridiculed, so we sent our skills underground for 20 years. Hehe those days are over. But abstract art brought forth much needed freedom to the art world and the new freer music paralleled its emergence. Artists no longer had to have the ‘patience to acquire the skills and expertise’ necessary to become a graphic artist. It was a great break through though and allowed expressive art to be released from the graphic side of the craft – to a certain degree. Those skills which required far more than a semester, years in fact of brain-hand co-ordination and preferably before adulthood whilst still in state of awe and wonderment about everything visual, were negated – temporarily.

RICHARD: My comment was no reflection upon a person’s ability to ‘draw well’ – illustrators are exceptionally talented in the skills of their craft – but rather a comment on the restrictions of the advertising/ illustrating medium itself in that there is minimum room for personal exploration and expression in conforming to a client’s wishes to promote a product with a catchy illustration nor any creativity in the precision required by the very format itself. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding about this ‘first semester’ reference of mine ... it took me five years of intensive study and practice – imitating and copying the work of acknowledged masterworks – with much experimentation through trial and error in order to acquire the necessary skill and expertise. Please, it was your ‘precisely dexterous, crafted hand, trained since childhood and many years in advertising illustrations’ phrase I was responding to – the advertising medium itself – and not the expertise required.

Also, I was referring to graphic art as in ‘advertising illustrations’ and not the ‘abstract art’ of fine art (‘advertising illustrations’ are a far cry from the oh-so-expressive ‘abstract art’ of the twentieth century). Even so, I can relate to your description of ‘the of tyranny of abstract art’ ... although I would contend that it was not ‘freedom’ but licence. In my experience – and in my observation of other art students – one first needed to master the ability to draw and paint well to the nth degree before one could successfully move on to abstracting ... otherwise the result is but a self-indulgent mess (and that pretentious ‘expressiveness’ masquerading as abstract art was the dominant paradigm in college). The same presumably applies to all the arts – and particularly the performing arts – including music (à la Ms. Yoko Ono or Mr. John Cage for example).

*

RICHARD: Although that was over a quarter of a century ago ... with the excellent computer programs these days I am sure much of the then drudgery in design and illustration has disappeared, no?

RESPONDENT: On the contrary Richard, design and illustration is not a drudgery at all to a competent graphic artist. Anyone (unless retarded) can learn computer skills, but the dexterous hand and keen eye for composition is still indispensable in the world of computer graphics, hence the high incomes.

RICHARD: Indeed, yet the ‘drudgery’ I was referring to was nothing other than the tedious filling-in of many areas of flat colour – computers flood such areas in an instant – and not the overall ‘composition’ itself.

RESPONDENT: Artists know that everyone is an unconscious artist and that the average human eye is most astute in its perceptual tactility and insatiable in its ‘roaming, feasting and savouring’ and this has kept the world of illustration, in this crafty universe, on it’s toes indeed.

RICHARD: Sure ... although this vindication of ‘advertising illustrations’ that you are making here is at odds with your initial sentence. Viz.: [quote]: ‘you would be refreshingly unimpressed by this precisely dexterous, crafted hand, trained since childhood and many years in advertising illustrations’ [endquote] and your following observation ‘I too much prefer loose creative unbound art, but these long lasting Hebbian connection, do not seem to quit’. I do understand the need to make a living (most of my ‘bread and butter’ work was in hand-crafted ceramics such as table-ware pottery and in teaching craft-skills and art theory) and I am in no way spurning necessity. It is just that if there is a quicker, easier and more efficacious way of achieving the desired result without compromising integrity I am all for it ... and computers (with programmes such as CAD programmes) do this admirably.

RICHARD: Whereas the word ‘fantasy’, being derived from ‘phantasy’ means: ‘phantom made visible by imagination’ . ... and etymologically, the word ‘believe’ means: ‘fervently wishing to be factually true’. I only mention this because a world ‘conceived (by thought)’ can never be actual.

RESPONDENT: Well it (the thought conceived world) is actual in the sense that it is superimposed onto the actual world and thus actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world.

RICHARD: Given that a conceptual world is not the actual world (being a fantasy) to then superimpose a conceptual world onto the actual world cannot be actual in the sense that it ‘actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world’ because the superimposition renders the actual world invisible. Thus you are being divided (conceptually) from a conceptualised actual world and not from the actual world itself. Therefore, it is not actually a separation from the actual world at all but a conception of being actually divided (conceptually) from the conceptually imposed superimposition.

Pray tell me ... do you practice detachment?

RESPONDENT: Do you really expect me to believe that you have not thought in images for a year or more? Having a hard time imagining that.

RICHARD: I am factually free the intuitive/imaginative faculty irrespective of whether person (A) believes my words to be true or whether person (B) believes my words to be false. My freedom from the intuitive/imaginative faculty has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people believe or disbelieve. However, their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon their remembering at least one of their PCE’s accurately ... and herein I can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe.

I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings.

Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition and have to invent a synthetic freedom ... be it a conceptual freedom or whatever substitute for the actual they manage to spin out of their intuitive/imaginative faculty.

RICHARD: It is no wonder that you say ‘I sense that something is not quite ‘right’’ when you read what I have to say ... I am a thorough-going atheist through and through; there is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality or mysticality in me whatsoever. To be actually free of the human condition is to be sans ‘I’ as ego (the ‘thinker’) and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘feeler’) which is to be this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. And where there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (no psyche) there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty ... hence no ‘this other ‘mind’’ metaphysical projection. It is all so simple here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Why do you say that there is no imaginative faculty?

RICHARD: Because it is my on-going experience, night and day since 1992, that the entire imaginative/intuitive faculty has vanished. I literally cannot visualise, form images, envision, ‘see in my mind’s eye’, envisage, picture, intuit, feel, fall into a reverie, daydream or in any way, shape or form imaginatively access anything other than directly apprehending what is happening just here right now. I could not form a mental picture of something ‘other’ if my life depended upon it. I literally cannot make images ... whereas in my earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my mind’s eye’ of ‘my’ absent mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take in ‘my’ car or whatever. If I were to close my eyes and ‘visualise’ now, what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal space of the universe at night – that has been the case for all these years now. I cannot visualise, imagine, conceptualise ... when I recall my childhood, my young manhood, my middle ages or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of someone else’s life.

It is the affective content that makes memories ‘real’ – the entire psyche itself – and it is the self-same process that makes imagining a past or a future ‘real’ that makes an ‘otherness’ even more ‘real’ than everyday reality.

RESPONDENT: To ‘imagine’ is a sane faculty of this multi-media-brain-mind.

RICHARD: I have not been sane for many, many years. It is pertinent to acknowledge that sane people killed 160,000,000 of their sane fellow human beings in wars this century alone ... and then there is all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides to further give pause to reconsider whether sanity is such a desirable state of being as sane peoples make out.

Sanity is personally insalubrious and socially reprehensible.

RESPONDENT: I can imagine a cow right now – with or without an I or ‘me’.

RICHARD: I cannot ... I can intellectually know what a cow is like in that I can draw a reasonable facsimile; yet as I am drawing I cannot visualise what the finished drawing will be like ... it becomes apparent as the drawing progresses.

RESPONDENT: And when I say ‘this other mind’, I mean that I am not referring to the brain function, but to this dimension here – the human dimension. Blood and flesh are just particular contents of this dimension, it is not correct to posit it the other way around – meaning that the human dimension is a product of the brain.

RICHARD: Why? Mystics are notorious for doing what you talk of ... fervently imagining something awesome, projected from the flesh and blood brain, that they then adoringly say is the source of the flesh and blood brain that is hallucinating the source’s ‘reality’. This material universe is the source of this flesh and blood brain – it is this flesh and blood brain itself – and this infinite and eternal universe is already always here ... now.

I am this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being.