|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Intelligence
RICHARD: No, not necessarily ... in evolutionary terms the long, slow evolution of intelligence has its roots in the most ‘on the ball’, the most shrewd and/or sharp and/or smart and/or cunning and/or wily and/or sly, and so on, outmanoeuvring the least ‘on the ball’ – the most dumb – and there is nothing abstract about that (the term ‘survival of the fittest’ does not mean the survival of the most muscular, as is often commonly misunderstood, but means those most fitted to the environment live to pass on their genes whilst the least fitted languish and die out). And, even more prosaically, the long, slow evolution of intelligence is also the result of successfully negotiating what has been called the vicissitudes of life: not only obtaining such basic necessities as air, water, food, shelter and clothing (if the weather be inclement) in the face of fire, flood, famine, tempest, vulcanicity, pestilence, disease, and so on, but prospering whilst doing so because of tool-making, for instance, or the utilisation of fire, for another ... none of which are abstract. Intelligence Incidentally, abstract (conjectural) thought is but one of the many ways of thinking: for instance there is practical/impractical thought; pragmatic/imaginative thought; reasoned/ expressive thought; adventitious/principled thought; prudential/philosophical (or politic/philosophic) thought; insightful/intuitive thought; judicious/ injudicious thought; rational/irrational thought; logical/illogical thought; salubrious/pathological thought, as well as illative thought (inferential, deductive, inductive thought) and reflective thought (contemplative, meditative, pensive thought) and so on. As thought is broadly categorised as being perceptive thought (sensible thought), or realistic (extrinsic) thought, and imperceptive thought (intelligible thought), or autistic (intrinsic) thought, then I guess the latter could be broadly categorised as abstract thought. RESPONDENT: Is cause/effect the way thought must operate, otherwise it is not called ‘intelligence’ or ‘thought’? RICHARD: Perhaps it would be clearer to say that non-causative (unrelated to cause/effect) thought is not intelligent thought? RESPONDENT: Is language a property of abstraction? RICHARD: No, but that would be because this is what abstraction means to me:
Whereas, seeing that you link abstraction with symbolisation (further below), it may very well mean something like this to you:
For what it is worth, as the development of language can only ever be speculation, I would guess that, as the affections are both primal and primary to cognition, language/ thought ever-so-slowly developed as an extension of the growling, grunting, groaning, moaning, whimpering sounds that are so expressive of the feeling of what is happening ... most histrionic words have an affective etymological root, I have noticed. Thus the ‘first’ thoughts in humanoids most probably would have been inchoate expressions of the primal feelings that are evident in the higher order animals. For example, tests on chimpanzees show that, when communicating with sounds (they do not have a voice-box capable of language), the Broca’s Area – the region of the frontal cortex of the human brain concerned with the production of speech – of their brain is activated. * RESPONDENT: Does an animal need the power of abstraction to have ‘theory of mind’? RICHARD: No ... being self-conscious (not to be confused with being embarrassed) is the essential requisite for ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: If a dog buries a bone, or a squirrel stores nuts or a chimp hides food to eat alone later, is all this due to a distinction of me/not me? RICHARD: I have seen a documentary where squirrels storing nuts were put through exhaustive tests to determine that it was purely instinctual – thus it has nothing to do with ‘self and other’ (let alone ‘theory of mind’) – and the same applies to dogs burying bones ... of the three examples you give only the chimpanzee deceives (hides food so as to eat alone later) as only the chimpanzee is self-conscious (monkeys, for instance, are not self-conscious) and thus capable of ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: Do you need the power of abstraction to distinguish self/other? RICHARD: No, all sentient beings (sentience means being capable of sensation or sensory perception) are able to distinguish ‘self and other’ (not to be confused with being self-conscious and thus ‘theory of mind’) ... all sentient beings are conscious as consciousness (the state or condition of being conscious) is what sentience means. Viz.:
Or, to put that another way, sentience is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.:
And to be [quote] ‘aware or conscious of a thing’ [endquote] is what being capable of distinguishing self and other is: a dog, for instance, lifting its leg on a tree is aware that, not only does what we call ‘tree’ stay where it is whilst she/he can come and go, but that it is different to, and thus distinguishable from, what we call ‘cat’, and so on. Whereas a virus, for example, not being sentient cannot. * RESPONDENT: Is mental imaging abstraction? RICHARD: As a mental image of an orange, for instance, is obviously not the orange then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Is there any other way to abstract than with language? RICHARD: Given that you link abstraction with symbolisation then ... no. RESPONDENT: Can I have a mental picture without an attending emotion? RICHARD: That would be something to find out for yourself as I cannot know what you experience and, furthermore cannot form mental images anyway as there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty extant in this body (the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility vanished along with the affective faculty) ... from what I can recall I would say no. RESPONDENT: Is memory due to the power of abstraction? RICHARD: Not as far as I am concerned ... for me memory is due to the power of reference (more on this further below). RESPONDENT: Are emotions abstractions? RICHARD: Ha ... there are no emotions in actuality (there is nothing affective here in this actual world). * RESPONDENT: Also, when you say apperception is consciousness aware of being conscious, is it the function of the neo-cortex aware of the function of the amygdalae, which is to say, thought aware of consciousness? RICHARD: No, apperception – from the dictionary definition ‘the brain’s perception of itself’ – is where being conscious of being conscious (aka the awareness of being conscious or the awareness of being aware) is unmediated or direct ... in contrast to the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. Incidentally, I would not locate consciousness in ‘the function of the amygdalae’ as the seat of consciousness is arguably located in the brain-stem, probably in Reticular Activating System (RAS or RS) in general and possibly in the Substantia Nigra (towards to top third of the RAS) in particular ... the amygdalae, in concert with the limbic system in general, function as a reflexive process only (as in the startle response) when identity is extinguished. RESPONDENT: But thought is not an awareness, is not a perceiving faculty, not a sense organ, so that couldn’t be right. RICHARD: Indeed not ... apperception happens irregardless of thought (thought may or may not be operating). RESPONDENT: What is the relationship of thought, language, intelligence, the power of abstraction and apperception? RICHARD: There are too many things mixed up together to make a meaningful all-inclusive response ... thought and language are related, obviously, but do not necessarily have a relationship with abstraction; beneficial ways of thinking are related to intelligence, obviously, but do not necessarily have a relationship with abstraction; neither thought/language nor intelligence – let alone abstraction – have any relationship with apperception: apperception occurs irregardless (when alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible). This is because apperception is current-time awareness, in that it takes place presently, at this moment in time, and is the unmediated perception of what is happening right now, at this very moment, thus staying forever current, surging perpetually on the crest of the ongoing wave, as it were, of this moment in eternal time and is the immediate experiencing of actuality at this moment in whatever form it takes ... there is only the pure conscious experiencing of the awareness of perpetuity as it is never not this moment in actuality. This moment in eternal time is the arena, so to speak, where all things happen ... and apperception makes this apparent. * RESPONDENT: Does the ability to symbolize (abstract) have anything to do with the cause/ effect nature of intelligence? RICHARD: Ahh ... symbolisation does not mean abstraction to me: symbols, be they words in thought, sound, print or pixels, refer to something, as far as I am concerned, rather than represent something, as far as some people are concerned (or so they have communicated to me). Therefore, insofar as symbols are referential they have everything to do with causation (cause and effect) and thus, with intelligence whereas, for those whom symbols are representative, they may not necessarily have anything to do with causation, or thus, with intelligence, as the representation (or so it has been communicated to me) exists in its own right. ‘Tis a fair bet that identity is the spanner in the works. RESPONDENT: If you start with sentiency as simple consciousness in a dog and then proceed up to apperception in humans I’ll appreciate it. RICHARD: Given the distinction between the reference to/representative of something (concrete/abstract) all of the above may be more confusing than clarifying ... so perhaps the most significant thing to say here is to stress that consciousness is the state or condition of a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing the quality of a state or condition) be it of a dog or a human or any other sentient being. In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory/delusory) identity who is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. Therefore, while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly immortal) phantom entity who (supposedly) makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). That the vast majority of animals are not self-conscious (are not self-aware) is the reason why, by and large, it is generally held that animals do not have a consciousness which ‘leaves the body’ at physical death. Thus apperception as you referred to it further above – ‘consciousness aware of being conscious’ – simply means the condition of a human body being conscious (that is, consciousness), sans identity/affections, being conscious of being conscious (an unmediated/immediate awareness of being conscious or a bare/direct awareness of being aware). To put that the way I prefer to put it: all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows
itself. RESPONDENT: Let’s lay down a few givens before I pose the question: • We human beings have biologically evolved over a great span of time. • At an earlier time in the earth’s history, when our long-ago ancestors do not communicate verbally in any way that we would consider to be a use of ‘language,’ animal instincts are necessary for the survival of the species. • Jumping ahead to when verbal communication is somewhat developed, these instincts are still in operation. • Jumping even further ahead to when full-blown language function is part and parcel with what it means to be human, the animal instincts are still with us. Okay, so all through the history of the species the brain has been evolving to allow for more and more sophisticated cognitive processes. Whatever adaptations have brought the species to its present form whereby language is essential to survival have been built up in support of the always-present animal survival instincts. That said, is it reasonable to conclude that language itself, as an auxiliary function of the more basic animal instincts, is coded in a way that the animal instincts require? RICHARD: No … language itself is coded in a way that efficacious communication requires. RESPONDENT: To state it another way, if language arose for survival (and why else?) … RICHARD: Language arose to facilitate efficacious communication. Virtually all animals communicate – consciously via sound, gesture, posture, and facial expression and non-consciously by scent/flavour, colour/engorgement, emotionally/ passionally, and intuitively/ psychically – to some degree yet communication is not necessarily language: the main hallmarks of a communication being a language are displacement (the ability to communicate about things or situations not currently present in space and time), narration (the ability to convey a meaningful chronicle/story or account/illustration), and productivity (the communication is able to be expanded to include new signals if and when necessary) ... all of which require a connection and relation between the strung-together signals (some form of grammatical syntax). RESPONDENT: … then doesn’t it make sense that language is always aiming back at the survival instincts? RICHARD: No … if anything language is always aiming forward (to evermore efficacious forms of communication). RESPONDENT: See, if this is so, and of course that is what I am proposing, then I don’t see how an ‘actualist’ could possibly use language without falling back into the good ol’ human condition. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I use language for its efficacy in communication … for example:
There is no way that such efficacy in communication as that can be construed as ‘falling back’
into the human condition RESPONDENT: Does an animal need the power of abstraction to have ‘theory of mind’? RICHARD: No ... being self-conscious (not to be confused with being embarrassed) is the essential requisite for ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: If a dog buries a bone, or a squirrel stores nuts or a chimp hides food to eat alone later, is all this due to a distinction of me/not me? RICHARD: I have seen a documentary where squirrels storing nuts were put through exhaustive tests to determine that it was purely instinctual – thus it has nothing to do with ‘self and other’ (let alone ‘theory of mind’) – and the same applies to dogs burying bones ... of the three examples you give only the chimpanzee deceives (hides food so as to eat alone later) as only the chimpanzee is self-conscious (monkeys, for instance, are not self-conscious) and thus capable of ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: Do you need the power of abstraction to distinguish self/other? RICHARD: No, all sentient beings (sentience means being capable of sensation or sensory perception) are able to distinguish ‘self and other’ (not to be confused with being self-conscious and thus ‘theory of mind’) ... all sentient beings are conscious as consciousness (the state or condition of being conscious) is what sentience means. (...) And to be [quote] ‘aware or conscious of a thing’ [endquote] is what being capable of distinguishing self and other is: a dog, for instance, lifting its leg on a tree is aware that, not only does what we call ‘tree’ stay where it is whilst he can come and go, but that it is different to, and thus distinguishable from, what we call ‘cat’, and so on. Whereas a virus, for example, not being sentient cannot. RESPONDENT: Something struck me in what you said about self-awareness. That it is evidenced in the ability to deceive and that it is an essential prerequisite to intelligence. RICHARD: Yes ... although putting it that way may convey an impression that trickery is an essential prerequisite for the arousal of intelligence as well (when it is but a way of determining self-awareness in this instance). This is because being self-conscious – conscious of being conscious – implies being aware of other sentient beings similarly self-conscious (hence ‘theory of mind’) and, whilst one way of determining if self-consciousness has arisen is the ability to engage in pretence (deceive and trick), being conscious that a mirrored image is oneself, and not another of one’s species, is the main way ... which is not to imply that narcissism is a prerequisite for intelligence, either. At its most simplest intelligence is the ability to anticipate eventualities and develop contingency plans rather than exigent reaction – in a drought or a famine animals, just like plants, unless particularly hardy tend to languish and/or die – in conjunction with the ability to manipulate one’s environs for beneficial purposes ... which means, at its most basic, being conscious of both place and periodicity (the cognisance of both being a sentient creature occupying space and the persistence of such existence over time) and the implications and ramifications of occupation/continuation in spatial extension and of temporal duration and acting accordingly. Intelligence also involves being aware of birth, growth, senescence, and death (but that is another topic). RESPONDENT: So with the chimpanzee, now that we know it has self-awareness, what do you say will cause the most rapid rise in it’s intelligence, or is it not a given that it will develop intelligence? RICHARD: First of all there is no consensus amongst primatologists that the chimpanzee, or any other of the apes, has developed ‘theory of mind’ – or any other animal, such as the dolphin for example, for that matter – and the following URL is worth a read in regards to this point (if only as a cautionary note): www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/05/46/index.html Having said that, long-term studies (by people such as Ms. Jane Goodall and Mr. Francis De Waal for instance) do provide compelling evidence that, at the very least, the chimpanzee is to some degree self-conscious. As to what would cause intelligence to arise (or indeed if it would) most rapidly in them: that could only be a matter of conjecture as it is the awareness of the persistence of one’s existence over time and in space, and acting accordingly, which signifies the arousal of intelligence and not self-consciousness (and thus ‘theory of mind’). RESPONDENT: If language, thought and symbolization as referentiality are so closely related, it seems to me the next step is to teach chimps sign language but surely this is being done. RICHARD: Again, there is no consensus amongst primatologists that the chimpanzee, or any other of the apes, has learned a language – however rudimentary it may be – as at the most what they can be said to have learned is to make the appropriate gestures/ sounds commonly associated with some people, some other animals, some things and some events. Virtually all animals communicate – consciously via sound, gesture, posture, and facial expression and non-consciously by scent/ flavour, colour/ engorgement, emotionally/ passionally, and intuitively/ psychically – to some degree yet communication is not necessarily language: the main hallmarks of a communication being a language are displacement (the ability to communicate about things or situations not currently present in space and time), narration (the ability to convey a meaningful chronicle/story or account/illustration), and productivity (the communication is able to be expanded to include new signals if and when necessary) ... all of which require a connection and relation between the strung-together signals (some form of grammatical syntax). RESPONDENT: There are gorillas that have been taught sign language and are able to put known words together to make up new words for items they haven’t been taught a word for, like the known words ‘finger’ and ‘bracelet’ to mean ring ... RICHARD: Once more a cautionary note: just because a gorilla – or any animal for that matter – can make appropriate gestures/ sounds which to humans means ‘finger’ and ‘bracelet’ and thus, by extension, meaning ‘ring’, or whatever, does not necessarily imply it means that for the animal ... there was a chimpanzee, for instance, who could make the appropriate gesture associated with what humans call ‘water’ and the appropriate gesture associated with what humans call ‘bird’ and upon seeing a swan on a lake one day made the appropriate gestures associated with both ‘water’ and ‘bird’ which some researchers took to indicate the chimpanzee to be meaning ‘waterbird’ ... yet all the chimpanzee may have been doing might have been nothing other than correctly identifying a large body of wet stuff and a feathered creature (in that order) and making the appropriate gestures associated with those two things. For an obvious instance of this: there is a parrot that has been trained in a similar fashion, for the same purpose, for over 16 years now that is capable of making the appropriate sounds associated with fifty objects, seven colours and five shapes, who (appropriately) vocalises ‘I’m sorry’ upon having bitten a human’s finger ... yet continues to bite and continues to vocalise that sound pattern. In other words mimicry, even if appropriately cued, does not necessitate comprehension and understanding. RESPONDENT: ... but if self-awareness is prerequisite for intelligence, then this must not be intelligence at work, or did I misunderstand you to say that it is only in chimps that we see self-awareness and not in any other animals so far? RICHARD: All I said was that, of the three example you gave (the dog, the squirrel, and the chimpanzee) only the chimpanzee has evidenced being self-conscious ... as for other apes (such as the gorilla, the orang-utan, the gibbon, and the bonobos) being self-conscious: it is not a subject I have researched as it was of no particular interest to me to know anything more than the little I wanted to know. It may be apposite to mention here that a large part of communication/ language is intuitive (in the ‘instinctive’ meaning of that word and not the ‘insightful’ meaning it sometimes has) as in affective vibes and psychic currents ... as is evidenced, for but one example, by all the ‘emoticons’ on the internet and the ‘reading between the lines’ which more than a few people deem essential for effective ‘understanding’. Also, as animals learn social skills those very skills must be taken into account when looking for evidence of both self-consciousness and ‘theory of mind’ – and indeed for evidence of language (rather that just communication) – as rote learning, as it were, does not necessitate intelligence. RESPONDENT: Your last post to me brought up so many questions, Richard, but I am only going to ask one or two at a time. I am interested in RICHARD: As the remainder of your sentence appears to have been cut off I will re-post the following (in the jargon it could be called a reality-check) as I have found, more often than not, it does pay to keep things as simple and practical as possible:
And now that intelligence has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto). No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: The $64.000 question ... Hmm, I don’t know. RICHARD: What I know is that you are yet to provide any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence. That this supreme intelligence does not act may very well be the reason why, eh? RESPONDENT: Are you more intelligent in your present condition when compared with the intelligence operating within the enlightened state? RICHARD: A freed intelligence is free to be as intelligent as it is capable of ... on an Intelligence Quotient test, for instance, I rate about the same as before – somewhat above normal – which is not to imply that IQ alone is the measure of intelligence but that it is a useful reference. RESPONDENT: And were you more intelligent when enlightened compared to when you were a happily married family man? RICHARD: A normal intelligence is a crippled intelligence – crippled by both the instinctual passions and the ‘being’ they form themselves into – and an abnormal intelligence is further crippled by the ‘being’ manifesting as a ‘Being’ ... replete with the delusion that its intelligence is a supreme intelligence, an all-embracing intelligence, an all-knowing intelligence. Taking all things into consideration (such as pacifistic nature of enlightenment for just one example) I would say less capable. RESPONDENT: It’s just like asking who’s more intelligent: God, Richard or ... you (as what you are)? RICHARD: No, it is a case of seeing that both the normal and abnormal intelligence is crippled right from the beginning ... a freed intelligence is free to be as intelligent as it is capable of. RESPONDENT: Are you implying that ‘the extraordinary intelligence of the enlightened state’ was this body intelligence and not the Self? RICHARD: No, although human intelligence does still operate, of course, albeit ham-strung ... it is more the very nature of Love Agapé, and Divine Compassion, that creates the delusion of it being a supreme, all-embracing intelligence when what it is, fundamentally, is the nurturing instinct writ large (hence it is generally classified as being the feminine principle). The all-knowing part is just megalomania, such as all dictators display, only aggrandised to the hilt. RESPONDENT: Was it because the identity vanished that ‘intelligence’ was able to operate more freely? RICHARD: No (only one half of the identity vanishes in an altered state of consciousness) ... the delusion that love and compassion are supremely intelligent, as a state of being, is what was able to operate more freely. RESPONDENT: And is the Self an usurper of this body intelligence as for the Universe properties, (as you have a direct experience of what remained – authentic and what went to the trash bin as the Absolute disappeared)? RICHARD: No, if it has usurped anything it is blind nature’s nurturing role ... but it is more a case of glorifying and glamorising that way beyond its limited capacity. RESPONDENT: The evidence I thought is the world we live in ... the Universe, light is the creative force out of which Life emerged. RICHARD: That is understandable, upon sober reflection, as without sunlight there would be no life on this planet, hence sun-gods and sun-worship, and without the sun (a star) there would be no planet earth ... however having the light of a star be the source of the universe itself is quite another matter entirely in this day and age. Modern astronomy has shot a lot of holes in the venerable wisdom of yore. RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you. RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange:
Do you not see that I am responding to what is called a tacit agreement (an unspoken yet implicit assumption that the other also takes what one considers to be necessarily true to be necessarily true as well)? So as to break the stranglehold of this tacit assumption I went on to provide two examples of how human intelligence exceeded the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state:
In the next e-mail I reminded you of what I had asked for:
Plus, after some discussion regarding the impressionable nature of a god’s sapience, I expanded upon what I had said in the previous e-mail:
Only to receive this reply:
To which I responded:
Only to receive this reply:
Shall I put it this way? Any time I have asked others – be they either self-realised people, scriptural experts, or lay-persons – for examples which would demonstrate what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses/exceeds human intelligence I have similarly drawn a blank ... and for a very good reason. To wit: it does not surpass human intelligence at all. Indeed, upon closer examination, it is remarkably unintelligent – to the point of being downright ignorant (ignorance such as advocating pacifism, for example, which would enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to, not only rule the world, but propagate/perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice) – and outstandingly unliveable into the bargain, as are all edicts handed done by bodiless entities, inasmuch as the word ‘dissociation’ would better describe what is ‘extraordinary’ about the enlightened state ... which unintelligence was my whole point of asking you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind. In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion. So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence? I look forward to your considered response. RESPONDENT: You said it [the ‘Self’] is the same at root, but a better description is always welcomed (you’re an artist after all), so how does it looked like ‘above the ground’? RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it. [Richard]: ‘Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed. (August 06 2002). As ‘nothing else existed’ there was no ground for it to be above – no planet earth, no star sun, no universe at all – as all there was was The Absolute. RESPONDENT: I used the term ‘above’ in contrast to the word ‘roots’ – the instinctual passions, so as to get a more precise image of the Self instead of the cause of its emergence. RICHARD: Okay then ... as there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed there were no roots for it to be above – no instinctual passions, no blind nature, nothing physical at all – as all there was was The Absolute. The enlightenment state is a dissociative state ... and to be fully enlightened is to be fully dissociated. RESPONDENT: As for ‘nothing else existed’ – It was like the physical world was permeated by the Absolute presence, It being everything, but I was able to draw a distinction between the senses perception of the world and the Absolute presence in all things. There is a degree of difficulty in understanding your statement ‘nothing else existed’ as in my case at least there was both the Absolute (located primarily above the Earth, more in its atmosphere rather then below the Earth’s crust, an ethereal Being) and this physical world, but looking totally different then my usual experience of it. RICHARD: All of that – the earth’s atmosphere, its crust, its nether regions, its sensate physicality – and everything else was but a dreaming ... a dream to wake others up from, and live out lucidly, until physical ‘death’ (also part of the dreaming) brought it all to an end. None of it was real ... there was only The Absolute and nothing else existed. RESPONDENT: The world of the senses, I then called Nature, was alive and intelligent (a different intelligence then humans currently posses) as it was somehow permeated by the Self. RICHARD: In what way was what you then called ‘Nature’ intelligent (a different intelligence than humans’ intelligence)? Could you provide some examples? What immediately springs to mind, for instance, are the congenital disorders which this ‘different intelligence’ bestows upon sentient beings ... such as spina bifida (a congenital malformation, in which one or more vertebrae fail to close fully over the meninges of the spinal cord, frequently causing lower limb paralysis and hydrocephalus) which human intelligence, through advanced surgical practices and physiotherapy, has been able to somewhat ameliorate and, through the mapping of the human genome, may very well be able to eventually eradicate. Then there are the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which what you called ‘Nature’ bestows upon sentient beings ... in what way is it differently intelligent to be paralysed by fear, enraged by aggression, overwhelmed by nurture, and inflamed by desire, for instance? It was questions such as these which (amongst other things) enabled an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Also, it was a different kind of perception and ‘knowledge’, a direct one, no categories or classifications needed (the scientific eye) as you directly knew the substance of any-thing. RICHARD: In the first few years of the enlightenment phase of my freedom the substance of all things was love – love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love – and it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings. And love was unspeakable, love was its own language, love said what was needed to be said, and even to say the words ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was to be saying too much for there was a truth that could never be put into words ... but the truth had to be spoken, nevertheless, hence ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was the essence of what was vocalised. This was the deepest feeling possible – an enduring (timeless) passion quite removed from the norm – as an unsurpassable state of being. It was the ultimate, the supreme, the absolute beingness of all beings or being ... it was Being in Itself. The term ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description ... it was an all-consuming State of Being totally overwhelming in all its splendour and glory. For three years, by the calendar, there was only Love – and its Compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings – then Love and its Compassion boarded an airplane and flew to India. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: This is what I would call direct knowledge or esoteric. An enlightened man has no need for books as his knowledge is experiential (a direct understanding of himself and the World). RICHARD: We have discussed this issue before:
Put differently: it is projected human knowledge and not ‘direct knowledge or esoteric’ knowledge at all. * RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you. RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange: [snipped for space]. In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind. In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion. So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence? RESPONDENT: Ha, when faced with this question I would prefer to be enlightened, but due to my present ‘comfortably numb’ condition I cannot answer it. I suppose the best example is the best answer and proof, in this case a person who is enjoying such a condition, not the self-realised and various pseudo-gurus but a genuine enlightened man (I cannot recommend one to you as I know no-one alive). RICHARD: If I may point out? We have been around this particular mulberry bush before:
All you have done this second time around is add the codicil that you know of no such person alive ... which pushes any examination of your claim about [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpassing human intelligence off into the never-never land. You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim. RESPONDENT: I also cannot see the reason why your discovery wouldn’t be of great interest to such a person, it would have been for me. Yet, the more I think about it, the more *impossible* it seems that you actually exited the Enlightened state on your own accord ... RICHARD: What do you mean by this? As I have already made it quite clear that I probably could not have done it on my own, and that if it had not have been for my previous companion I would most likely still be living the massive delusion popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, you seem to be implying something other than that. RESPONDENT: ... maybe those that are enlightened at present know not a thing that there is a different (and supposedly better) world then the Divine realm. RICHARD: Everybody I have spoken to at length – everybody – can recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) at some stage in their life ... why would they be the exception? RESPONDENT: The guru championship might reveal that there are interested individuals not only in sex, fame and fortune. Would it not be a possible-thing-to-happen for them to actually contemplate the possibility for an actual world, as this is their main activity anyway? RICHARD: If I may point out? Their ‘main activity’ is securing their post-mortem reward in an undisputedly non-actual world ... a one-way ticket to the after-death abode of their choice. RESPONDENT: Seems *impossible* because in my case the whole process of plunging into the Abyss lasted less then 10 seconds, being such an extraordinary event compared to my everyday existence, still echoing 6 years after it happened (although I don’t remember it – it’s like never happened). I’m still impressed even today, yet without the various side-effects. RICHARD: Am I to take it that the reason why it seems impossible I actually exited the enlightened state on my own accord is because, even though you only spent 10 seconds in the abyss, you are still impressed today? If so, and given that self-realised peoples are so impressed as to not exit self-realisation of their own accord, the more you think of it what do you think aided me, then? Just curious. RESPONDENT: But for those with higher rankings, skill and time spent within the Divine field would be much easier to comprehend (not being so fascinated). RICHARD: Au contraire ... ‘those with higher rankings’ are so fascinated as to be totally fascinated (narcissism, with no ego to hold it in check, can be all-absorbing). RESPONDENT: All in one, ‘97 was a very interesting year for some people, no? RICHARD: Not as interesting as ’92 ... for that was when all the spirit-ridden ‘ancient wisdom’ of the bronze-age peoples came to an end in a person intent on leaving both a well-written and a well-spoken legacy – if not a living one – for future generations. For no doubt the rear-guard action will go on into an indeterminate future. * RESPONDENT: What I can remember is that when enlightened I was more intelligent then in my normal condition ... RICHARD: Okay ... can you say (a) in what way you were more intelligent than your normal condition ... and (b) provide some examples of being more intelligent than your normal condition? I only ask because this is all I have to go on up until now:
What you have provided, so far, is an example of your intelligence being overwhelmed by the intensity of the orgasmic-like experience (to the point that the impact of the ‘highly possible logical intelligent outcome’ was rendered irrelevant by that Self’s presence) ... and that the Self did not/could not ask such a ‘logical intelligent’ question as it had no relevance to the Self. Yet somehow that has left you being still impressed that there was an intelligence surpassing human intelligence. RESPONDENT: ... it was like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being, RICHARD: Aye, that is not being questioned ... the question is whether ‘the whole comprised knowledge of Being’ is indeed an intelligence which far surpasses human intelligence and, moreover, whether it is an intelligence at all. RESPONDENT: I was feeling a much normal ‘person’ with normal reactions, free and able to enjoy life with no neurotic like symptoms. It would be better for descriptive purposes to change the term ‘person’ with ‘machine’, as this was how I viewed my body and its brain products, a stimulus-response machine (with no negative meaning attached to this word). RICHARD: It is one thing to be feeling free and able to enjoy life without neurotic-like symptoms, whilst psychotic-like symptoms prevail (disidentification from a now-seen-to-be mechanical body/brain due to identification with a non-physical being), and another thing to classify this shift of identity from the physical to the non-physical as being more intelligent than normal ... let alone being an intelligence far surpassing human intelligence. Put succinctly: the feeling of being more intelligent has nothing to do with actually being more intelligent
... a feeling is not a fact. RESPONDENT: Taking a walk in the country the other day, I was mulling over a few aspects of actualism, thinking about the nature of the identity. I was trying to observe and understand the nature of the ‘self’ by comparing my experience of this moment with my recollection of PCE’s. That is, I was thinking of my ‘self’ as the difference between an ordinary moment and a moment of pure consciousness. After a while this struck me as a bit silly (even though it is quite correct). I thought: why not just drop all ideas and definitions and start with the obvious fact: I’m this living human body, this physical organism, plonked right here in the midst of actual space and actual time, and I’m strolling along a country road. All I need to do is dare to be what I am, where I am, and when I am. (This body. This place. This moment). Why should this be difficult? Who or what can preventing such a simple occurrence? After a while, the ‘real’ but non-actual nature of ‘me’ struck me with crystal clarity. I saw once again that ‘I’ am a usurper, a feeling-backed idea, a belief, a fiction. Not only am ‘I’ and ‘my’ life a dream of sorts, the dreamer himself was fully exposed for ‘who’ he is. This dreamer can do nothing but spin feeling-based fantasies and pursue ‘self’-centred goals forever and a day. There will be no end to these dreams, fantasies, ‘self’-centred goals (no matter how cunningly disguised they may be) while ever ‘I’ exist. There will be no satisfaction for ‘me’. Not ever. I realised that it is nowhere near good enough to try to dissolve each identity-spun ‘dream’ (each lie, each error, each fiction, each belief, each fantasy, one by one); it might help a little, and it might be an interesting activity in itself, but ultimately one needs to expunge the ‘dreamer’ himself from the world. And when ‘he’ is momentarily gone, how simple it all is! Nothing new here, of course. Only the joy of seeing it again directly, instead of just understanding it intellectually. RESPONDENT No 49: (...) I too was having some thoughts on AF the other day. Specifically on how Richard refers to the rise of IQ in relation to AF. RESPONDENT: Is that so? RICHARD: No, it is not so ... I have never referred to anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: I haven’t noticed Richard saying anything about IQ. RICHARD: A computer search of all I have ever written returned the following two (2) hits:
And:
RESPONDENT: I remember him saying that common sense and memory work much better without a ‘self’ present to ‘stuff things up’, but I don’t recall him saying anything about IQ specifically. I’ve sometimes wondered about this. One of the first things that bugged me about Richard’s description of AF was the loss of capacity to imagine. RICHARD: You may be referring to the following (my response to your very first e-mail to this mailing list):
RESPONDENT: It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ ... RICHARD: And maybe, just maybe, therein lies a clue ... I report there is no intuitive/imaginative facility whatsoever in this flesh and blood body and you say that [quote] ‘it would seem *intuitively* that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ... [It would seem intuitively that the loss of this capacity would result in a drop in IQ], considering that most standard IQ tests measure visuo-spatial ability. I dunno. Maybe the brain can handle tasks commonly believed to require visualisation without the help of mental images. RICHARD: It would appear that it can indeed. RESPONDENT: ... was it [the intelligence that operated when enlightened] the intelligence of the body or that of Being or was it the intelligence of the body yet operating with/subordinated to the ‘contents’/Knowledge of Being? RICHARD: The intelligence that operated when enlightened was normal intelligence (which is an intelligence crippled by both the instinctual passions and the intuitive ‘being’ they form themselves into) further crippled by the passional/intuitional ‘being’ within manifesting as ‘Being’ itself ... replete with the delusion that its extraordinarily-crippled intelligence was a supreme intelligence, an all-embracing, all-knowing, all-creative sapience. RESPONDENT: I see, so there’s the normal intelligence (crippled) in NCE, the supreme intelligence (which is an extraordinarily crippled normal intelligence) in ASC and freed intelligence in PCE? RICHARD: Aye ... only it is what intelligence is crippled by which is important (and not so much just that it is). RESPONDENT: You say that both intelligence and consciousness are freed in your case. When living a PCE is one intelligent per se, and if yes, is this native intelligence different for different people? RICHARD: The intelligence which operates in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – a flesh and blood body’s native intelligence – is the normal intelligence sans the affective faculty/identity in toto. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is crippled in my experience by both ego and soul, to exemplify: when in a love relationship my intelligence operates better ... RICHARD: If I may ask? In what way is it that intelligence [quote] ‘operates better’ [endquote] when in a love relationship than when not? What immediately springs to mind is seeing the loved one as god-like/ goddess-like despite their obvious-to-others all-too-human flaws (the human condition) and being euphoric, ecstatic, blissful – along with all the pining, yearning, longing and heartache when apart – and being subject to covetousness, jealousy, suspicion, distrust and doubt on occasion. RESPONDENT: ... it’s probably a case of the ‘tigers’ being satiated/ satisfied and not trotting the stage (intelligence is separated from identity) while the ego is not so much interfering as it is the usual case. It’s the same thing as having a normal sex life for an instinctual driven being in contrast to being obsessed with sex. Does an identity have intelligence per se? RICHARD: No, contrary to popular belief the affective faculty (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) is not intelligent ... besides which intuition, when examined more closely, works out at having about the same accuracy as guess-work does (50% right/50% wrong). RESPONDENT: Also, what is the part played by understanding in a gradual freedom from the human condition? RICHARD: Just so as to keep it topical (and by way of example): understanding that intelligence does not, in fact, operate much better when either enlightened or in love plays a large part in clearing away the nonsense which inhibits one from taking the first step towards even beginning to gradually become free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: I ask this as understanding seems to be intimately related with our perspective of the world … some brief excerpts form the ‘Selfish Gene’ changed the way I perceived and mentally/emotionally made sense of the world. RICHARD: As the central point of the ‘The Selfish Gene’, being a gene-centred view of evolution (that genes are the unit of selection regardless of the effect they might have on organisms or species and that selection on other levels, such as by organisms and species, almost never opposes selection on genes), can be successfully argued as being an oversimplification of the relationship between genes and organisms then whatever perspective of the world you mentally/emotionally changed through reading some brief excerpts of that 1976 book will most likely not contribute even one iota of assistance in understanding – for example – that intelligence does not, in fact, operate much better when either enlightened or in love than when normal. * RESPONDENT: [So there’s the normal intelligence (crippled) in NCE, the supreme intelligence (which is an extraordinarily crippled normal intelligence) in ASC and freed intelligence in PCE]. How can you explain synchronicity events then? RICHARD: The way I can explain the simultaneous occurrence of events, which appear meaningfully related in the real-world but have no discoverable causal connection, is quite simple ... in a word: happenstance. RESPONDENT: Is it not a simplistic dismissal? RICHARD: As correlation in no way demonstrates the validity of an ‘acausal connecting principle’ (aka a pattern of connection that is not explained by causality) then ... no. The word ‘apophenia’ – the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data – which was coined in 1958 by Mr. Klaus Conrad (who defined it as the ‘unmotivated seeing of connections’ accompanied by a ‘specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness’) is a far more useful term than the word ‘synchronicity’ (a term coined by Mr. Carl Jung to describe the way an abstract world of potential, a psychophysical world where psyche and matter are connected in an undifferentiated unity and called the ‘unus mundus’ in the Middle Ages, operates and out of which causeless new creations can occur) to describe the simultaneous occurrence of events which, whilst having no discoverable causal connection, appear meaningfully related for certain peoples. Incidentally, although Mr. Klaus Conrad originally described the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data in relation to the distortion of reality present in psychosis it has become more widely used to refer to that tendency in any person at all without necessarily implying the presence of neurological or mental illness or disorder. * RESPONDENT: I can understand synchronicity explained in regards to the human/animal world by the existence of the collective unconscious, but I can’t explain the seeing/ forecasting of future events exclusively related to inanimate matter as the work of the human/animal psychic web. Synchronicity in regards to the inanimate matter can only satisfactorily be explained if matter has ‘psychic’, aka ‘electric’ properties (I can’t find a better word). RICHARD: Matter, be it either in its mass phase or energy phase, has no psychic properties. For what it is worth: even though I use the term ‘psychic currents’, to refer to the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations (colloquially known as ‘vibes’), and even though affective feelings are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, it does not necessarily mean they are electric currents ... and neither does it necessarily mean they are currents of water or air, either, as that word (literally meaning ‘to run’ as in ‘flowing’ or ‘streaming’) is nothing more than a convenient word to utilise. RESPONDENT: I still can’t comprehend how something that is not actual can have effects at an actual distance of 150 miles. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to keep it simple to start off with, by examining what is colloquially known as ‘vibes’ (emotional/passional feelings), it may be more readily comprehended: another person’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling. By going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy, somewhat analogous to a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air, creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling (a vortex of water or air is the very swirling water or air) as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. It is that vortex which is the (affective) force known as a psychic force. RESPONDENT: What is the ‘medium’ via which these psychic currents are transmitted if not the physical one? RICHARD: It is a psychic medium ... a vortical force-field, so to speak. RESPONDENT: Is there a notable difference between psychic vibes and psychic currents? RICHARD: Only in regards to a difference in the range of their effect.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 |
