Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran?

RICHARD: No ... and the following quote (arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) will demonstrate why not:

• ‘We do not rush toward death, we flee the catastrophe of birth, survivors struggling to forget it. Fear of death is merely the projection into the future of a fear which dates back to our first moment of life. We are reluctant, of course, to treat birth as a scourge: Has it not been inculcated as the sovereign good – have we not been told that worst came at the end, not the outset of our lives? Yet evil, real evil, is behind, not ahead of us. What escaped Jesus did not escape Buddha: ‘If three things did not exist in the world, O disciples, the Perfect One would not appear in the world ...’. And ahead of old age and death he places the fact of birth, source of every infirmity, every disease’. (from ‘The Trouble With Being Born’ by E.M. Cioran; ©1998Arcade Books; reprint edition).

I selected that passage, after about an hour reading what is available on the internet, as indicative of what both his state of mind and his philosophical writings (the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports that he received a degree in philosophy from the University of Bucharest in 1932) would appear to stem from – the basic resentment at being born, and thus, at being here on this verdant and azure planet – and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this would be so.

Put succinctly: just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan – and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene – he was, as his articles and aphorisms clearly reflect, anti-life to the core.

*

RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran?

RICHARD: No (...) and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this [resenting being born and thus being here] would be so.

RESPONDENT: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two.

I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness.

As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death.

RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death?

*

RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran?

RICHARD: No (...) and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this [resenting being born and thus being here] would be so.

RESPONDENT: Indeed, he didn’t investigate why this would be so. What he did however was to investigate both the real-world and the spiritual solutions and not merely on the thought (superficial) level. He was dissatisfied with both but never succeeded in finding an alternative (not sure if he even tried) and as a result he oscillated in-between the two. I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death.

RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death?

RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings?

RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life?

RESPONDENT: He had 5-6 ecstasies in his life (according to him) ...

RICHARD: Do half-a-dozen or so peak-experiences constitute a monastic life, then (else why write this as a response)?

RESPONDENT: ... he lived in Paris so I assume he had extensively investigated the second part ...

RICHARD: Oh? Does the very choice to live in Paris constitute a life of debauchery (according to you)?

RESPONDENT: ... and he said that the idea of suicide kept him from actually committing it.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that the phrase ‘not just philosophical’ is not meant to convey ‘not just ideas’ after all?

RESPONDENT: As a personal opinion, he was more anti-being to the core then anti-life per see. He clearly states that being is the problem ...

RICHARD: And was it also, perchance, the idea of an end to ‘being’ that prevented him from ending it (ending that which he clearly states is the problem)?

RESPONDENT: ... but he goes one step further and equates being with life.

RICHARD: Would it be reasonable to say that equating ‘being’ with life is ... um ... is just an idea?

RESPONDENT: He investigated all the proposed solutions and he found them flawed and unsatisfactory, so he preferred to settle for none.

RICHARD: Indeed so.

You may have gathered by now that I am not so much interested in Mr. Emile Cioran per se but, rather, what you have made out of reading his writings ... I will draw your attention to this:

• [Respondent]: ‘I found some of his insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness’.

If, as you say, he made deep investigations into ‘his’ nature and found that ‘being’ was the problem, yet equated ‘being’ with life, then why would you say that his insight was very precise (let alone useful)?

RESPONDENT: He makes a very precise diagnosis of the human condition, you may check his comments on love, god, spirituality, history, evil, etc.

RICHARD: Why? If he cannot distinguish between ‘being’ and life then his ‘very precise diagnosis’ of the human condition (of love, god/evil, and so on), is not worth the paper it is printed on

RESPONDENT: He clearly says that he has no cure and that the human condition is doomed because it was flawed from the start.

RICHARD: Which is why I selected a passage (as being arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) to quote in my initial response wherein he said that birth was not only a catastrophe, a scourge – ‘a cause of calamity or suffering’ (Oxford Dictionary) – but evil, real evil, and (after quoting Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s insight on the very same theme) was the source of every infirmity, the source of every disease.

RESPONDENT: I will post a free translation of a paragraph from an interview in order to demonstrate the above; I warn you though that it looks like actualism.

RICHARD: As actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) experientially evidences that ‘being’ does not equate to life – there is no ‘being’ present in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – then whatever he has to say, coming as it does from such an invalid premise, is surely not worth reading ... let alone translating.

*

RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life?

RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are.

RESPONDENT: ... [However], I want to point out the distinction between merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices and practicing/abandoning something after a trial.

RICHARD: Okay ... then in order to be able to say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ (aka ‘not just philosophical’) you obviously have access to information I am not privy to ... accordingly, here are my amended questions:

1. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘monastery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial?
2. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘debauchery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial?
3. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘suicide’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial?

It may be handy to bear in mind, as you respond, that you are corresponding with a person that did not merely propose philosophical/ intellectual choices but did, in fact, practice/abandon what they published a report/ description/ explanation of, after that trial, and now is, as an actuality, living what they are contemporaneously publishing a report/ description/ explanation of.

*

RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life?

RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are.

RESPONDENT: ... [However], I want to point out the distinction between merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices and practicing/abandoning something after a trial.

RICHARD: Okay ... then in order to be able to say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ (aka ‘not just philosophical’) you obviously have access to information I am not privy to ... accordingly, here are my amended questions: 1. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘monastery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? 2. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘debauchery’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial? 3. at what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘suicide’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial?

RESPONDENT: The only information I had access to were his books.

RICHARD: Aye ... that is the information I was referring to (the only information I have to go by is what can be read on the internet in the course of about an hour).

RESPONDENT: As I was in the process of reading a collection of interviews, I’ve seen some interesting comments about the human condition that mirror actualism ... and I thought you might be interested.

RICHARD: Given that to ‘mirror’ refers to something which faithfully reflects or gives a true picture of something else – an exact likeness or match – how is it possible that a person who considers birth to be not only a catastrophe, a scourge – ‘a cause of calamity or suffering’ (Oxford Dictionary) – but evil, real evil, and (after quoting Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s insight on the very same theme) was the source of every infirmity, the source of every disease, could make some interesting comments about the human condition that mirror actualism?

RESPONDENT: Although I use the method you propose (cause it works), I want to understand what other people have made of (their) life, what their questions and answers were, including where they’ve got it all wrong.

RICHARD: Sure.

RESPONDENT: I’m not making an a priori rejection of everything that has been written about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

RICHARD: Nor am I suggesting that you do.

RESPONDENT: What you propose here is a new paradigm so I find it great fun to understand other people lives and ideas through this new lens.

RICHARD: What is the difference, then, between understanding Mr. Emile Cioran’s life and (purportedly) not being in the position of making judgements about his life?

RESPONDENT: Not that I’m looking for answers via this inquiry, far from it, but the understanding of how others lived plays a part in providing a support to the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

RICHARD: Okay ... as my query was specifically about your understanding of how Mr. Emile Cioran lived how is it that you can say you are not in the position of making judgements about how he lived?

RESPONDENT: ‘They’ were not that different to how ‘I’ am ticking.

RICHARD: If, as you say, what made Mr. Emile Cioran tick is not all that different from what makes you tick then why is it that you are not in the position of making judgements about how he ticked?

RESPONDENT: Did you know for example that everything/everyone can be forgiven (by God) except someone who after knew Him, became an apostate? This is the supreme treason according to Dostoievsky ... if God doesn’t exist then everything is permitted.

RICHARD: Shall we stay with the topic at hand for now ... to wit: your observation that Mr. Emile Cioran was ‘not just philosophical’/‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’ and my queries regarding same?

RESPONDENT: As for your above questions, the answer is simple: I don’t know ...

RICHARD: Oh? Does he not mention anywhere at all in his books the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘monastery’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial; the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘debauchery’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial; the date in his life when he began practicing [quote] ‘suicide’ [endquote] and the date he abandoned it after that trial?

RESPONDENT: ... [As for your above questions, the answer is simple: I don’t know] and I don’t wish to know ...

RICHARD: Oh? So the great fun it is to ‘understand other people lives’ and the part ‘the understanding of how others lived’ plays in providing support to asking yourself, each moment again, how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) and the finding out that ‘‘they’ were not that different to how ‘I’ am ticking’ not only does not need any knowing of how they lived but you do not even wish to know ... even though you want to understand what other people have made of their life, what their questions and answers were, including where they have got it all wrong (because you are not making an a priori rejection of everything that has been written about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being)?

RESPONDENT: [I don’t know and I don’t wish to know] ... * he said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life (before WWII) as philosophy provided no solutions to his suffering.

RICHARD: Okay ... is this why you say that Mr. Emile Cioran was not ‘merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’/‘not just philosophical’ when he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life (monastery, debauchery or suicide) then?

RESPONDENT: What happened next?

RICHARD: Given that he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – then ‘what happened next’ was that he lived a mediocre life, no?

RESPONDENT: He probably tried to be a Buddhist and he couldn’t as he couldn’t betray his earthly passionate nature.

RICHARD: At what date in his life did he begin practicing [quote] ‘to be a Buddhist’ [endquote] and at what date did he abandon it after that trial?

RESPONDENT: He was a man full of contradictions ...

RICHARD: At this stage the main contradiction would appear to be that, although he *said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life (before WWII), he never really did, eh?

RESPONDENT: [He was a man full of contradictions] like everyone of us.

RICHARD: Hmm ... it may be handy to bear in mind, as you respond, that you are corresponding with a person that did not merely propose philosophical/intellectual choices but did, in fact, practice/abandon what they published a report/description/explanation of, after that trial, and now is, as an actuality, living what they are contemporaneously publishing a report/description/explanation of.

RESPONDENT: Again, what are the major choices a human had in life, according to you?

RICHARD: The major choices in life that Mr. Emile Cioran had when he was born (in 1911) were, presumably, the same major choices in life that I had when I was born (in 1947).

RESPONDENT: Is it not religion/mysticism/spirituality or egoism/passions/hedonism?

RICHARD: No, the latter choice – ‘egoism/passions/hedonism’ (aka ‘debauchery’ further above) – is a religious/mystical/spiritual (aka ‘monastic’ further above) way of understanding the other major choice in life in that era ... a theological/ecclesiastical/doctrinal way of comprehension, as it were, and thus a minor choice.

Did that not stand out like a canines’ testicles do when you first read the word ‘debauchery’ (used to characterise the way untold billions of people outside monastery walls lived their lives)? It did to me ... which is why one of the first things I did, in that hour reading what is available on the internet, was to ascertain what his up-bringing was: his father, coming as he did from a long line of priests, was a Romanian Orthodox priest at the time of his birth (and became an archpriest 13 years later).

And which is also why, when I asked which one of the (according to him) three non-mediocre choices in life a human has he personally chose I spelled-them out as I did – the monastic life of piety and self-denial vis-à-vis the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence – as there is no way that all of the billions of humans not living the cloistered life can be characterised as debauched (synonyms: depraved, wanton, dissipated, dissolute, evil, wicked, and so on) by non-monastic standards.

Golly ... even this mailing lists’ dump-and-run cynic commented on how trite that wisdom was.

*

RESPONDENT: (...) I found some of his [Mr. Emile Cioran’s] insights into the human condition very precise and useful; they stem from his own deep investigations into ‘his’ nature ... they are not just philosophical, he genuinely searched for happiness. As a resume, he said that a human being had three non-mediocre choices in life: monastery, debauchery or ... suicide. In other words either the Absolute, hedonism (indulgence) or death.

RICHARD: Which one of the three did he choose ... the monastic life of piety and self-denial, the orgiastic life of impiety and self-indulgence, or the premature and self-inflicted death?

RESPONDENT: Ha ... are you trying to make a case for ‘walking the talk’ and unliveable teachings?

RICHARD: It was your phrase ‘not just philosophical’ which prompted me to ask the obvious and, as he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – he lived a mediocre life?

RESPONDENT: I am not in the position of making judgements about his life. However ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however’ qualifier)? If that is the case, then, what I would suggest is that it would be best not to write to me saying, for example, that he was ‘not just philosophical’ (aka ‘not merely proposing philosophical/intellectual choices’) as it conveys the impression that you are.

(...)

RESPONDENT: What happened next [after *he said* that he abandoned philosophy at an earlier stage in life]?

RICHARD: Given that he died in Paris (where he lived in an apartment in a fashionable quarter of the city, where he had a female companion and artistic/ literary circle of acquaintances, where he frequented cafés and accepted dinner invitations but otherwise led a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition) in 1995 at age 84 after a year-long illness, surely it can be said that – according to his own analysis – then ‘what happened next’ was that he lived a mediocre life, no?

RESPONDENT: Not the best possible life ... if that is what ‘mediocre’ means.

RICHARD: It really does not matter exactly what it means – in this context it means the opposite to non-mediocre – as the only point I am making is that, according to his own analysis, he did not live a non-mediocre life.

Look, I live in an apartment (a rented duplex) at a fashionable address; I have a female companion; I have some like-minded acquaintances; I regularly attend cafés; I (occasionally) accept a dinner invitation; I otherwise lead a predominantly quiet and non-public life; I compose written articles; I will (quite possibly) die at an advanced age ... thus, according to Mr. Emile Cioran’s analysis, I am living a mediocre life.

Or, to put that another way, I did not choose the cloistered life (monastery); I did not choose a licentious life (debauchery): I did not choose to end my life (suicide) ... thus, according to Mr. Emile Cioran’s analysis, I am not living a non-mediocre life.

Now do you get it?