Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

[Person 1]: A logical deduction from a set of facts, has the same validity as the facts themselves. A logical deduction from the presentation or thesis (involving premises or suppositions) makes clear what that thesis is implying or maintaining. Logical reasoning is then an invaluable tool in the process of communication and of understanding.

[Person 2]: This fragment of your post struck me and prompts the following quote of the definition given to logic by Ambrose Bierce in his wonderful dictionary:

‘Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and minor premise and a conclusion ... thus:

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post hole in sixty seconds ... therefore:
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post hole in one second.

This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.

RESPONDENT: Richard, is useless to try to discuss for ever and ever on the same subject.

RICHARD: Am I to take it then that you are not going to tell me just what it is about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words that you find beautiful and thus worthy of commendation?

RESPONDENT: You are conditioned by your own freedom from the human condition.

RICHARD: If to be free from the human condition is to be conditioned by that very freedom from the human condition then we may as well all pack up our pencils and paper and go home.

There are times when I am so pleased not to be a logician ... and this is one of them.

RESPONDENT No. 27: For me, the matter is simply a claim to be investigated – but it must be investigated in the manner in which the person making the claim specifies. If I am told that the only way to know it is the PCE, then that is what I have to investigate if I want to speak on equal footing.

RESPONDENT: Fair and reasonable all the way, but just for fun, here’s a bit of twisty logic to sink your teeth into:

In other words, according to this logic, the mere occurrence of a PCE proves the falsity of the Big Bang. Your own interpretation of the experience is irrelevant to R’s proof.

RICHARD: First and foremost: although you agreed it was ‘fair and reasonable all the way’ to investigate the claim in the manner specified (experientially) you immediately set out to investigate it in a manner not specified (logically).

Second, you say ‘if you accept R’s logic’ as if it was indeed Richard’s logic and not your logic – not being a logician I never present what you have presented above in my name – as the modus tollens rule (the rule that the negation of the antecedent may be inferred from the conditional statement) is not something I have any familiarity with at all ... and seeing what you have done with it have no interest whatsoever in ever gaining such familiarity.

Third, you base your entire logical conclusion upon an hypothetical answer to an hypothetical question – I did not write ‘(note ‘if’’)’ just for the sake of doing so – and even explained this in the following e-mail by saying I answered your hypothetical question as asked. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am simply trying to understand why you argue that, if time space and matter had not always existed, neither PCE nor AFftHC would be possible.
• [Richard]: ‘I am not arguing anything ... you proposed a hypothetical scenario and I responded as asked.

Fourth, if logic can indeed produce the result that you put into words (above) then I am well-pleased not to be a logician ... not being a logician I have to be rational instead.

Because if (note ‘if’) all time and all space and all form indeed had a beginning – as in there is no time, no space, no matter/there is time, is space, is matter – then there would be something other than the universe (an otherness which is time-less and space-less and form-less) which means that such a universe is not peerless (hence not perfect) thus a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the direct experience of the peerless purity this universe actually is, would not exist/could not happen ... and the summum bonum of human experience would be an altered state of consciousness (ASC) as ASC’s are epitomised by a non-material otherness by whatever name.

As it has been up until now ... and which highest good, I might add, you are doing your level best to reinstate in other e-mails by classifying a particular ASC (where the intuitive/imaginative faculty is still extant) as being a PCE.

As I coined the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience (PCE)’ you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to redefine it.

RESPONDENT: I’d like to propose the following: All questions are asking for an answer within a given context. Every question we can think of uses out of it’s context a language/ meaning and has a logical base. Could we agree that asking an impossible question is without meaning/language and logic? For if the question could be asked it is not an ‘impossible’ question! But if the question ‘is’ impossible we cannot think of a language/meaning or logic to reflect it upon, so we cannot ask it. Hence: If it is impossible it is true that it is possible AND if it is possible it is true that it is impossible. At the risk of contradicting myself: I see truth in determining the above.

RICHARD: You are applying logic to what is essentially a metaphysical theme; it is not a logical question to be solved, but a spiritual paradox to be meditated upon. It is like the Koan that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to supposedly abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment.

An ‘Impossible Question’ is this: Who am ‘I’?

The reason that it is called an impossible question is that one will never get a ‘thought-out’ answer ... which is what the proponents of logic’s supposed ability to detect truth are in need of. ‘I’, who wishes to know who ‘I’ am, can never know ‘myself’. This is because the would-be ‘knower’ is the very subject that it is desired to know. Hence the appellation: ‘The Impossible Question’.

So why does one ask it? Simply stated, if it is asked in such a way as to not get a thought-out answer – a way called keeping the question open – something happens. Logical thought – not thought itself – blows its fuses and ‘I’ cease to exist as an ego, for ‘I’ as ego am nothing but a cognitive entity. Then one is living the answer in an apotheosised field of consciousness and has the power of attaining to direct metaphysical knowledge without evident rational thought and inference.

In other words, one now intuitively knows who ‘I’ am. ‘I’ am the Self ... the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame.

KONRAD: Logic and rational thinking is tool that turned out to be THE tool that can give us complete control over existence, and even has done it.

RICHARD: Not ‘complete control’ over existence, surely? And where has it already ‘done it’? Human beings can work with existence and have some degree of input into what the physical environment can produce; the environment then changes according to this input and humans adjust their next input accordingly ... and so and so on. Nowhere in all this is there any ‘complete control’ ... and there never can be ‘complete control’ of any organic process. It is all trial and error, based upon past experience, and to the degree that something works to produce the desired effect, then that is the degree that any input is successful. Nature is not abstract; nature does not fit into a mathematical equation; science can only go so far ... the rest is up to the human’s ability to adapt to the ever-changing environment.

KONRAD: Yes, complete. In modern science it has become completely clear what is needed for it. So the insight in what requires complete control has become total. Only, to explain this takes too long. And you probably would not understand it anyway when I attempted it, because it requires a greater skill in abstract thinking than I have ever seen present in you.

RICHARD: Oh, what a cop-out this is ... if you are not prepared to explain yourself then do not make such statements in the first place. And blaming my perceived lack of understanding is merely you shifting the onus once again.

KONRAD: How about the infinite always being a finite concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation?

RICHARD: I was asked on another Mailing List last year to prove the infinitude of the universe without resorting to that ancient Greek one of going to the border and throwing a spear into ... into what?

KONRAD: And did you? Where is the argument?

RICHARD: I told the person that that example was the same as the one I learned in high school: ‘What is at the edge of the universe ... a long brick wall? And when you lean on the wall and look over ... what are you looking into?’

*

RICHARD: You are asking a logical question and insisting on a logical answer. As all logic is based upon opposites, it is a ‘problem’ that logic cannot solve. What it goes to serve is to show that logic is limited.

KONRAD: From this I infer, that you either did not answer that fellow on the other mailing list, or you gave an illogical answer.

RICHARD: Not so. I pointed out that the spear throwing example and the looking over the wall example were not examples of the use of logic. They are exercises involving the use of the imaginative faculty of visualisation. I went on to explain that – contrary to popular opinion – infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be.

An actual freedom is an enormous freedom.

KONRAD: Although thought is limited, logic, being the description of the laws of thought, is not.

RICHARD: Do you really mean that? Consider what you just wrote and see the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

KONRAD: This assertion is somewhat analogous to the statement, that although in every single case language expresses something finite, the totality of things that language can express is not finite.

RICHARD: Not necessarily so. For starters the single word ‘infinite’ does not express something finite.

KONRAD: In logic this is even more precise. There exists axiomatic systems in logic, containing an infinite number of axioms. These axioms are generated by something called: axiom schemes. These axiom schemes contain, as special cases, every tautology. This can be proved. And since every tautology is equivalent to a number of valid logical arguments, and there is no logical valid argument that is not equivalent to a tautology, this axiom scheme contains implicitly all valid logical arguments. So logic is not limited.

RICHARD: I find logic to be very limited. I can give a high school example: An arrow is shot at the target and takes two seconds to reach the bullseye. After it passes the half-way point, logically it starts to halve the remaining time taken ... a half a second to go ... a quarter of a second to go ... an eighth of a second to go ... a sixteenth of a second to go ... and so on and so on indefinitely. This is the classical example given to shown the infinity of fractions. Thus, logically, the arrow never reaches the target.

Now you know, and I know and everybody knows, that it does ... but logically it never does.

*

KONRAD: How about Olbers paradox?

RICHARD: Also not new. In fact, this ‘paradox’, which was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers and its discovery widely attributed to him, can be traced back to Mr. Johannes Kepler. Mr. Johannes Kepler, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. The ‘paradox’ relates to the hypothetical problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars then, the proponents of this theory say, every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence this argument implies that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. Various resolutions have been proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars.

KONRAD: This last thing is in contradiction with the infinite duration of the universe. For no matter how brief the lifespan of the star is, whenever it exists, it radiates light. Suppose, as you say, that the light of the stars that are present far away has not reached us. And suppose the radiation reaches us only when these stars are already long gone. Then there have to have been stars before this period. No matter how far away the space is, we consider, if we go far enough back in time, there have to have been stars then, whose light reaches us now. These stars are gone, but this does not prevent their light to reach us, and to accumulate in the way I have calculated. So if your argument is valid, the universe is not infinite in time. In other words, even if the lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the earth for the very distant ones, the space contained stars before that period containing stars that radiate light that DID reach us. Therefore the simple mathematical argument I have put forward is only refuted if you assume that there has been a period in the past wherein there were no stars whatsoever. But this contradicts the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe in time. And therefore its infinity in time. By reformulating my argument into another one supposed to be equivalent, and then refuting that one, you have not refuted the original argument, but only a straw man.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I did not reformulate your argument at all. If you look at your question above you will see that you asked: ‘how about the Olbers paradox’? That is all you put forward ... so where do you get off with this ‘straw man’ business?

KONRAD: You have guts, Richard, to have tried this one. That I must say. This is also, why I like you so much, in spite of our differences.

RICHARD: Oh, there is plenty more where that came from ... if there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there is also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that. But, so much for logic, eh?

All this while that humans having been attempting to understand the universe logically and intuitively, the universe has been doing its own thing, irregardless of what human think or feel. What one can do, though, is be here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only and then the universe will be experiencing itself as a sensate reflective human being. This is to experience infinitude as an actuality, rather than thinking out its character or feeling out its nature.

RICHARD: If there are infinite stars – and therefore infinite light – there is also infinite space – and therefore infinite dark – which means that one argument cancels the other out. Which is probably why the night sky looks as it does – a nice balance – and a rather pretty display at that.

KONRAD: Well, well. Your resources to find new arguments is apparently another infinity in you. Now, what is wrong with this argument? To begin with, darkness is the absence of light. So, again, no matter how diluted the universe is, the old mathematical argument of the intensity diminishing with the square of the distance, and the number of stars increasing with the third power applies here, too. The light cannot be absorbed by the darkness in such a way, that it disappears. This is because of the law of conservation of energy. All energy that is radiated by the stars must remain somewhere. This argument is now refuted. I am very curious about what you will come up with next.

RICHARD: I am not going to have to come up with anything next as the obvious flaw in your logic above lies in your basic premise. To wit: ‘darkness is the absence of light’. Who says so? We could just as easily say that ‘light is the absence of dark’. If you wish to prove something logically you have to posit an initial fact upon which to build your case and I, for one, cannot buy such a spurious assumption that ‘dark is the absence of light’ as being an established absolute.

Have you heard of the ‘Dark Sucker Hypothesis’?

For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to believe they were in business to supply electricity to the consumer, a service for which they charge a substantial rate. The recent accidental acquisition of secret records from a well known power company has led to a massive research campaign which positively explodes several myths and exposes the massive hoax which has been perpetrated upon the public by the power companies.

The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted light; in actuality, these ‘light’ bulbs actually absorb dark which is then transported back to the power generation stations via wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new scientific name for the device is ‘Dark Sucker’.

This is a brief synopsis of the dark sucker theory, which proves the existence of dark and establishes the fact that dark has great mass, and further, that dark particle (the anti-photon) is the fastest known particle in the universe. Apparently, even the celebrated Dr. Albert Einstein did not suspect the truth that just as cold is the absence of heat, then light is actually the absence of dark. Scientists have now proven that light does not really exist.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric light bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are right now. There is much less dark right next to the dark suckers than there is elsewhere, demonstrating their limited range. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot or on a football field have a much greater capacity than the ones in used in the home, for example.

It may come as a surprise to learn that dark suckers also operate on a celestial scale; witness the Sun. Our Sun makes use of dense dark, sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark space. Naturally, the Sun is better able to suck dark from the planets which are situated closer to it, thus explaining why those planets appear brighter than do those which are far distant from the Sun. Occasionally, the Sun actually over-sucks; under those conditions, dark spots appear on the surface of the Sun. Scientists have long studied these ‘spots’ and are only recently beginning to realise that the dark spots represent leaks of high pressure dark because the Sun has over-sucked dark to such an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. This leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems with radio communications here on Earth due to collisions between the dark particles as they stream out into space at high velocity via the black holes in the surface of the Sun.

As with all man-made devices, dark suckers have a finite lifetime caused by the fact that they are not 100% efficient at transmitting collected dark back to the power company via the wires from your home, causing dark to build up slowly within the device. Once they are full of accumulated dark, they can no longer suck. This condition can be observed by looking for the black spot on a full dark sucker when it has reached maximum capacity of un-transmitted dark ... you have surely noticed that dark completely surrounds a full dark sucker because it no longer has the capacity to suck any dark at all.

A candle is a primitive dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. And it is of no use to plug a candle into an electrical outlet; it can only collect dark ... being primitive it has no transmission capabilities. Unfortunately, these original dark suckers have a very limited range and are hazardous to operate because of the intense heat produced.

There are also portable dark suckers called flashlights. The bulbs in these devices collect dark which is passed to a dark storage unit called a battery. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied (a process called ‘recharging’) or replaced before the portable dark sucker can continue to operate. If you break open a battery, you will find dense black dark inside, evidence that it is actually a compact dark storage unit.

Over to you, Konrad.

*

KONRAD: What kind of sucker do you take me for? A dark sucker?

RICHARD: Only if you continue to believe in the ‘Olbers Paradox’ as being proof that this universe is finite. This is what logic does to you ... everything becomes conceptual. I am waiting for your logic to deal with the ‘infinite light’ versus ‘infinite dark’ actuality ... rather than duck-shove it into the ‘too hard’ department. Have we established that dark is something more than the mere ‘absence of light’ or not? Has it an actuality all of its own? For if you see that it has, as I wrote before, when you see that infinity and eternity are as actual as your toothache then life will become all of a sudden so much sweeter that you may very well pass out from the shock of so much pleasure rippling throughout this flesh and blood body.

Over to you, Konrad.

KONRAD: I repeat: you read it backwards, and therefore you do not understand. You do not see, that I deny that the ‘I’ has the identity most people, including you, say it has.

RICHARD: No, I understand all right. For example, you say that the nature of ‘I’ (what you call seeing the ‘I’-ness of ‘I’) is that no ‘I’ exists separate from thought. You explained this to me in another way only recently. Vis.:

• [Konrad]: ‘I assert, that without [‘the process’] you cannot become aware of the fact, that no ‘I’, separate from thought exists’.

These are your words, Konrad, and this is exactly what the Krishnamurtiites say ... that ‘I’ is the product of thought. In what way do you justify saying that ‘I deny that the ‘I’ has the identity most people say it has’. Now, what I ask people to look at is this: What about the sense of identity as feeling ... which in the enlightened state this identity as feeling becomes ‘Pure Being’?

People are so busy blaming only thought. This is the subterfuge that ‘me’ – busily ‘being’ and potentially becoming ‘Pure Being’ – throws up to remain in existence.

KONRAD: You are showing here that you are either unwilling or unable to understand abstract definitions. I think you are unable. An inability that might be the direct consequence of your ‘actualism’.

RICHARD: I can understand abstract definitions okay – to the degree that they are applicable – but what you are presenting is simply the same old stuff that has been handed out for ages by the great thinkers and sages of history. It is the ‘Tried and True’.

KONRAD: Let me give one example, in what way you misunderstand. (Sigh ...)

RICHARD: Why the ‘sigh’ comment? Are you becoming tired of your own verbiage? Speaking personally, I find all that you write to be such fascinating reading ... because I am amazed that you are able to get away with teaching logic as a profession. I always understood logicians to be consistent, clear and precise.

RICHARD: Now – since you are a self-confessed worshipper of logic – I will posit to you a similar question by rephrasing the one you posed to me: How about this ‘nothing’ always being only a logical concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and then a negation? In other words, you cannot say that ‘nothing is’ unless ‘something’ is first.

KONRAD: This ‘nothing’ you talk about is non-existent. And that is exactly how it should be. For nothing is another word for non-existent.

RICHARD: This is where you completely ignore what I wrote directly above. Your ‘non-existent’ nothing is only able to be talked about by positing a ‘something’ then negating it. Therefore – by your own logic – your ‘non-existent’ nothing is only a concept. You are refusing to be true to your own logic and that smacks of a lack of intellectual rigour.

*

RICHARD: Therefore, ‘something’ is what is primary, not ‘nothing’ ... as eastern metaphysics would have us believe. Eventually you will abandon logic – and intuition – and actually be here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space for the very first time.

KONRAD: I do nothing of the sort. For your logic is, alas, not powerful enough to penetrate my logic.

RICHARD: Yes it is, but you refuse to see it.

KONRAD: Okay, Richard. As you see, I am unbeatable by you in this area. I have studied logic and science constantly since my 11-th birthday. So it is now for 32 years going on.

RICHARD: And it seems to have made you blind to matter-of-fact common-sense ... down-to-earth facts and actuality.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m very new to this forum. I too was under the impression that the discussion here was ‘Truth’. I did not observe any Truth in your post; it has been all intellectual perceptions.

RICHARD: May I demonstrate something basic about assumptions masquerading as accurate deductions? Vis.:

Version No. 1.:

1. I define intellect as a barrier to Enlightenment;
2. I did not observe any Truth in your post;
Therefore:
3. It has been all intellectual perceptions.

Version No. 2.:

1. Enlightenment does not preclude intellect operating;
2. I did not observe any Truth in your post;
Therefore:
3. I cannot say it has been all intellectual perceptions.

RESPONDENT: I have to say that I thought initially that the path to actual freedom had to do a lot with logic and difficult vocabulary but I see it is much more than that.

RICHARD: Yes ... much, much more. Logic has very little work to do on the wide and wondrous path ... rational, sensible, down-to-earth thinking wins hands-down any day.

RESPONDENT: There is an inherent weakness in your methodology. The validity or invalidity of the statement ‘the truth is pathless’, does not rest on whether or not K’s teachings are rife with methods, authority, etc.

RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ in your ‘does not rest on whether or not K’s teachings are rife with methods, authority, etc.’ stands for ‘experience and paths’ (if you are referring to my phrase ‘methods, authority, experience and paths are rife’ that is). Therefore, what you are saying here (if this is indeed what you are referring to) is that the validity or invalidity of the statement ‘the truth is pathless’ does not rest on whether or not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ are rife with methods, authority, experience and paths.

In short: you seem to be saying that the validity of the ‘the truth is pathless’ statement does not rest on there being no paths in the ‘Teachings’?

RESPONDENT: The truth can have a path though K does not have one, the truth can be pathless, though K has a path.

RICHARD: I am no logician (and male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to self-investigation anyway) so I will arrange the possibilities sequentially for clarity:

1. The truth does not have a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not have a path.
2. The truth does not have a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a path.
3. The truth does not have a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti many paths.
4. The truth has a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not have a path.
5. The truth has a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a path.
6. The truth has a path; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti many paths.
7. The truth has many paths; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not have a path.
8. The truth has many paths; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a path.
9. The truth has many paths; Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti many paths.

Have I missed any possibilities? If not, could you now explain what ‘the truth can have a path though K does not have one, the truth can be pathless, though K has a path’ means to a non-logician like Richard? Because it seems that your ‘methodology’ is to contrast No. 4 with No. 2 and, overlooking/ ignoring the other seven possibilities, baldly present their conjunction as if it makes rational sense to do so? If that be logic then I am well-pleased to not be a logician.

Whereas No. 5 (with traces of No. 9 as well) is the reality evident throughout most, if not all, of the ‘Teachings’.

RESPONDENT: So what your methodology is aimed at is K’s consistency.

RICHARD: I have no use for a ‘methodology’ ... I simply see the fact that there is a vast difference betwixt the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. If you wish to formalise that factual discrepancy into some axiomatic methodological system whereby no theorem contradicts another so as to achieve a logical ‘consistency’ then that is your business.

RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic.

RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that?

RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence.

RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/ response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to.

Here is the context in which the ‘one line out of one thousand’ originated:

• [Respondent]: ‘On another note and a popular topic of discussion on this list: while I have brought this up in the past regarding Richards claim of being the 1st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term). First I would like to say that regarding the ongoing discussion between  Respondent No. 56 and the ‘defenders of the faith’ (my term – no offence intended referring to Richard, Peter, Vineeto, Respondent No. 18, et al) that I can clearly see  Respondent No. 56’s points. That said, how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? Clearly the writings of Carlos Castaneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Objections’; Wed 12/11/03 8:41 AM).

You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of; the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ was started by you (‘Question’; Wed 15/10/03 7:13 AM) and is not a topic which actualists would have any reason to discuss otherwise; it is not ‘the actualist term’ to say I was the first but rather that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history (I just happened to be the first to discover it was possible to live the pure consciousness experience (PCE) twenty four hours a day seven days a week) and it is interesting to note that objectors to being happy and harmless seize on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ topic and make an issue out of it; even though you qualify your ‘defenders of the faith’ term as being not offensively intended it does have the effect that when somebody sets the record straight (that actualism has nowt to do with faith) it can, and often does, elicit the hoary ‘you are being defensive’ reply and, as such, is just a waste of time saying it in the first place; the points you can ‘clearly see’ in another’s e-mails are spurious points (Zen Buddhism does not even remotely resemble an actual freedom from the human condition) and have been addressed extensively already (with supportive quotes); the writings of Mr. Carlos Castaneda are works of fiction and do not refer to any flesh and blood body (living or dead) nor do any of them refer to anything remotely resembling an actual freedom from the human condition; I have not only scoured the internet looking for another person actually free from the human condition I have also travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life, I have been watching television, videos, films, whatever media is available, I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and only latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail.

Are you really suggesting I should respond thus (to each and every point in your paragraph) rather than just taking the ‘one line out of one thousand’ which is germane to the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ you started a little over six weeks ago?

As for Richard ‘makes up a question’ ... given the context (your focus on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ rather than focussing on what has been discovered) is it not a legitimate question to ask if (note ‘if’) the, thus far hypothetical/fictitious, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition?

In other words: what does it take to satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic?

Lastly: what you call my ‘one line out of 1000’ answer was in direct regard to you saying that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, (supposedly) putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah ... wake me when it’s over’ response) ... so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making (rather than perpetuate the silliness masquerading as discussion you seem to favour) that nothing can satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic.

For example: would it not also be correct to acknowledge, for example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay can indeed claim to be the first to have ascended Mt. Everest (on May 29, 1953) ... after all, how can they know that someone from Tibet/ Nepal/ Mongolia/ Wherever had not already done so 10/ 100/ 1000/ 10,000 years ago and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings?

Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr Robert Peary did lead the first expedition to the north pole (if only because any number of arctic dwellers may have picnicked there in the aeons gone by)?

Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for yet another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland had not already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen?

What about Mr. Yuri Gagarin ... was he the first human being to leave the planet’s atmosphere or not?

Was Mr. Neil Armstrong the first human being to set foot on the moon or not?

Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, is there any point in discovering, say, a cure for cancer (someone, somewhere, somewhen, may have already discovered it and just because they did not tell anybody else is irrelevant)?

The entire thrust of your argument conveniently ignores what has sometimes been called ‘the law of probability’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based ... and I have written about this before:

• [Richard]: ‘Sixth, given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) yet to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of such a logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’).
Seventh, in practice then, if the extraordinary way of knowing is held to be believing that something be known, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise. Which is why I keep on asking the simple question where the person/persons already actually free from the human condition prior to 1992 is/are to be found. If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever I would be most pleased ... as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.
Thus far, especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce such a person or persons.

And, if I may point out, neither have you been able to produce such a (flesh and blood) person or persons.

KONRAD: But if I am more precise I would say even this is not true. The products of science are the result of a fusion of the experiment principle, logic and mathematics.

RICHARD: I cannot resist ... it is your use of the word ‘fusion’ that prompts me to say that one of the ‘products of science’ is the nuclear bomb.

KONRAD: No common sense is even present in it.

RICHARD: In regard to the nuclear bomb ... no commonsense whatsoever.

KONRAD: On the contrary, one of the first things you learn as a science student is to distrust common sense.

RICHARD: Hmm ... are you so sure about that? Perhaps I can demonstrate something for you with the following process of logical deduction. Vis.:

1. The cat has fleas.
2. Immersing fleas in boiling water kills them.
3. Put the cat in boiling water.

Now, this is a simplistic syllogism, I know ... but it illustrates that even scientists have to use commonsense when it comes time to move from pure science to applied science (perhaps Vineeto was asking you about ‘applied science’ when she wrote: ‘how do your concepts translate into action in your daily life?’).

KONRAD: For the results of experiment, logic and mathematics are very, very often counterintuitive.

RICHARD: Maybe you need a definition for ‘common sense’ ... so that you may stop using only a ‘fusion of the experiment principle, logic and mathematics’ ... and add a very large dash of very essential commonsense.

(Dictionary Definition): Common sense: n. and a. (also spelt: common-sense, commonsense). [Gk. koine aisthesis, L. sensus communis.]: commonsensible a. commonsensibly adv. commonsensical a. commonsensicality n. commonsensically adv. Synonyms: good sense, sense, practicality, judgement, native wit, native intelligence, level-headedness, prudence, discernment, astuteness, shrewdness, judiciousness, wisdom, horse sense, gumption, nous.
1. An internal sense regarded as uniting the impressions of the five senses in a common consciousness.
2. Good sound practical sense in everyday matters; general sagacity.
3. Ordinary or normal understanding, as possessed by all except the insane and the mentally handicapped.
(Example) R. G. Collingwood: ‘The world they represent is not the common-sense world, it is the world of delirium’.

RESPONDENT: Namaste (respectful nod).

RICHARD: G’day (affable nod).

RESPONDENT: If I have correctly understood the phenomenon ‘free from the human condition’, then it is possible that besides you Richard, there can be many more who can attain or have attained and hence can also claim to be the first yet not be it, as nobody is it.

How is this possible?

RICHARD: Let me guess ... by first asserting that individuality is a myth, perchance? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘nless you are actually here you can have some understanding of what the eternal Soul entails. You see we come in packages; individuality is a myth’. (Friday, 9/06/2006 5:46 PM AEST).

RESPONDENT: If there were i.e. an x number of actually free persons, then if they were put in a line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN in which x1 would indicate the first free, x2 the second, x 3 the third, and so on., when considered these x’s as a linear sequence then indeed x1 would be the first and x2 would be the second and so on.

RICHARD: By way of example: as there have been 12 persons to have set foot on the moon then, if they were put in a line in which No. 1 would indicate the first, No. 2 the second, No. 3 the third, and so on, when considered as a linear sequence, Mr. Neil Armstrong would be the first, Mr. Edwin Aldrin would be the second, Mr. Charles Conrad would be the third, and so on, through to the twelfth. Here they are (in a descending order of sequence):

No. 1.: Mr. Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11; July 1969).
No. 2.: Mr. Edwin Aldrin (Apollo 11; July 1969).
No. 3.: Mr. Charles Conrad (Apollo 12; November 1969).
No. 4.: Mr. Alan Bean (Apollo 12; November 1969).
No. 5.: Mr. Alan Shepard (Apollo 14; February 1971).
No. 6.: Mr. Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14; February 1971).
No. 7.: Mr. David Scott (Apollo 15; July 1971).
No. 8.: Mr. James Irwin (Apollo 15; July 1971).
No. 9.: Mr. John Young (Apollo 16; April 1972).
No. 10.: Mr. Charles Duke (Apollo 16; April 1972).
No. 11.: Mr. Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17; December 1972).
No. 12.: Mr. Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17; December 1972).

And here they are again (in an ascending order of sequence):

No. 12.: Mr. Harrison Schmitt.
No. 11.: Mr. Eugene Cernan.
No. 10.: Mr. Charles Duke.
No. 9.: Mr. John Young.
No. 8.: Mr. James Irwin.
No. 7.: Mr. David Scott.
No. 6.: Mr. Edgar Mitchell.
No. 5.: Mr. Alan Shepard.
No. 4.: Mr. Alan Bean.
No. 3.: Mr. Charles Conrad.
No. 2.: Mr. Edwin Aldrin.
No. 1.: Mr. Neil Armstrong.

Alternatively, the sequence could be represented by those No’s only (reading from left-to-right):

No. 1; No. 2; No. 3; No. 4; No. 5; No. 6; No. 7; No. 8; No. 9; No. 10; No. 11; No. 12.

Or reading from right-to-left:

No. 12; No. 11; No. 10; No. 9; No. 8; No. 7; No. 6; No. 5; No. 4; No. 3; No. 2; No. 1.

RESPONDENT: However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result ...

RICHARD: It does no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know there was a specific cause> a certain action> a definite result.

RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result] which in the very long run is a cycle ...

RICHARD: It is no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know it was a one-off, irrevocable event.

RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle] it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result ...

RICHARD: It does no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know it was most certainly so that cause preceded the result.

RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result] it is also correct to say that result precedes cause ...

RICHARD: It is no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know that it is incorrect to say that result preceded the cause.

RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result it is also correct to say that result precedes cause] as in fact they are both part of the same cycle of birth, growth and death.

RICHARD: They are no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know there is nothing factual whatsoever about that (borrowed) belief system.

RESPONDENT: Death is the condition that precedes birth ...

RICHARD: It is not ... the fertilisation of an ova with spermatozoa, with an ensuing germination/gestation, is what precedes birth.

RESPONDENT: ... [Death is the condition that precedes birth] likewise is birth the condition that precedes death ...

RICHARD: It is not ... unless pre-empted by (fatal) illness or injury senescence is what precedes death.

RESPONDENT: ... [Death is the condition that precedes birth likewise is birth the condition that precedes death] and all the way the condition that enables that cycle to continue is stable and kept in place by intent/ desire to manifest.

RICHARD: As what you are speaking of there is known as tanha (the craving for existence/ manifestation) in buddhistic circles one thing is for sure ... you have not correctly understood an actual freedom from the human condition. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Namaste (respectful nod). If I have correctly understood the phenomenon ‘free from the human condition’, then it is possible that besides you Richard, there can be many more who can attain or have attained and hence can also claim to be the first yet not be it, as nobody is it’. [endquote].

And whilst on the subject of understanding ... the Hindi word namaste comes from the Sanskrit ‘namas’ (bowing, obeisance) + ‘te’ dative of tvam (you) and thus, in conjunction with the namaskar (a bringing of the palms together before the face or chest and bowing), is a reverential acknowledgment of mutual divinity (as in ‘Tat Tvam Asi’).

And as I am not ‘That’, never have been ‘That’, never will be ‘That’, then what you are ... um ... respectfully nodding at is nothing but a self-projected image.

RESPONDENT: That desire however is corrupted by fear of becoming non existent thus one is born with fear/ desire and so unless that fear is understood one is being reborn with the same fear/ desire which is being at the core.

RICHARD: As there is no such thing as rebirth in actuality your misunderstanding of an actual freedom from the human condition has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

RESPONDENT: Becoming free from the human condition implies having ‘stepped’ outside that particular cycle ended being (part of that particular cycle of birth and death).

RICHARD: It implies no such thing ... as it involves the extinction of ‘being’ itself there is no such entity extant to have stepped anywhere (let alone outside of that buddhistic fantasy).

RESPONDENT: Now ... If one would consider the line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN as a circle ...

RICHARD: By way of example: those people who set foot on the moon – represented further above as the numerical line reading left-to-right (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 and No. 12) where No. 1 refers to Mr. Neil Armstrong, No. 2. to Mr. Edwin Aldrin, No. 3. to Mr. Charles Conrad, and so on, through to Mr. Harrison Schmitt – could be considered as being represented by a circular clock-face ... with Mr. Harrison Schmitt at the top of the circle (12 o’clock), Mr. Edgar Mitchell at the bottom (6 o’clock) and Mr. John Young and Mr. Charles Conrad to the left and the right respectively (9 o’clock and 3 o’clock).

RESPONDENT: ... [If one would consider the line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN as a circle] then x1 is not the first nor is x2 the second.

RICHARD: As the number 1 on the clock-face represents Mr. Neil Armstrong, the number 2 Mr. Edwin Aldrin, the number 3 Mr. Charles Conrad, and so on, through to the number 12 (representing Mr. Harrison Schmitt) then No. 1 (Mr. Neil Armstrong) is indeed the first, and No. 2 (Mr. Edwin Aldrin) is indeed the second.

Golly, you could turn the clock-face upside-down – roll it down a hill even – and Mr. Neil Armstrong would still be the first.

RESPONDENT: As one might say that all those x’s in that circle can be considered as having reached the condition of ‘pure intent’ of manifestation of life as a body ...

RICHARD: One might not, repeat not, say that of pure intent (equate it, that is, with the buddhistic ‘tanha’) as what is said of pure intent on The Actual Freedom Trust web site has nothing to do with any spirit being craving existence/ manifestation ... with its resultant samsara (literally ‘running around’) and dukkha.

RESPONDENT: ... that understands what it is (pure energy), being in that metaphorical circle can be considered as being on the condition of pure intent to end desire/ fear.

RESPONDENT: As this metaphorical circle is not a circle but a condition, apparently x1, is likewise as x2, and so on, simultaneously existing as at this condition nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on.

RICHARD: By way of example: it is patently obvious that No. 1 (Mr. Neil Armstrong) is not likewise as No. 2 (Mr. Edwin Aldrin), and so on, simultaneously existing as at a (purloined/ self-serving) condition where Mr. Neil Armstrong was not the first nor Mr. Edwin Aldrin the second nor Mr. Charles Conrad the third and so on.

RESPONDENT: I may be the first though who actually has gained some understanding of how this happens ...

RICHARD: Ha ... by your own logic (if that be the right word) you cannot be the first to have gained some understanding of anything as [quote] ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: ... [I may be the first though who actually has gained some understanding of how this happens] but then again as a possibility, I’m also open to the possibility that I may have misunderstood ... and again once more ... the myth of individuality is a rather persistent one and well may be so persistent, because when that condition is attained it is hardly conceivable that one is not the first that has attained it.

RICHARD: Hmm ... so persistent that, directly after having just postulated that ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’, your very first words were [quote] ‘I may be the *first* though who actually has gained some understanding ...’ [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: So ... Richard is that perhaps that one little speck in the pristine purity in the actual world; blind nature after all not being blind instinctual, but perfectly intentional in ways we (if I so may take the liberty to use it all inclusively) not (yet) fully comprehend? Not (yet) fully comprehended (that is HOW, it is possible that any person arrives at that new condition) however possibilism is interested in developing a paradigm that could explain this big HOW.

RICHARD: If I may point out? The word [quote] ‘new’ [endquote] kinda knocks your ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’ postulation for a six, does it not?

RESPONDENT: For instance how come that there are no psychic footprints to detect ...

RICHARD: There were no psychic footprints to detect for the very simple reason that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history.

RESPONDENT: ... [For instance how come that there are no psychic footprints to detect] whilst there have been/ are/ will be others?

RICHARD: There were no others prior to 1992 and, as far as is ascertainable since then, there still are no others but, as a well-documented cause-and-effect precedence has now been established, promulgated, and promoted, there is every reason why there will be.

RESPONDENT: It could be, that there are simply no ‘footprints being made’ by those who are on that condition.

RICHARD: Why could it be?

Or, more to the point, what intimate knowledge do you have of such footprints to be able to make such a supposition?

And even if it were so (which it is not) where are those others that you suppose made no psychic footprints, then?

Look, it is this simple: any previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... which is why I keep on asking the simple question as to where such a person/ persons supposedly already actually free from the human condition prior to 1992 is/ are to be found.

If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever I would be most pleased as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.

Thus far, however, and especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce such a person or persons.

RESPONDENT: [Russell E. Rierson] ‘1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that randomness is logically absurd. 2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames of reference. 3. Ergo, even if .. .physical randomness is true, physical randomness would not exist without time, or ‘change’ – from one state to the next. 4. If the physical laws are time independent then the physical laws, by definition, did not arise ‘randomly’. 5. The laws of physics are a set of organizing principles. 6. The only true example we have of an organizing principle is that of a ‘MIND’. 7. The universe came from a MIND’. [www.cerebrals.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=15414#15414]. 1. is true. 2. says that even if physical laws gave the appearance of consistency (time-dependency), they would still be consistent independently of time. If this is true, then randomness or ‘change’, takes place ‘defining time’. 3. is true. Since randomness defines time, and the physical laws are time-independent, then where did they come from? 5. is true. Since the only organizing principle that can(?) exist is a mind then 7. must be true.

RICHARD: If I am correctly understanding what you are conveying then ‘the unexplainable aspects of existence’/‘the aspects which defy awareness’ you are referring to are the cosmogonical – ‘of or pertaining to theories or accounts of the origin of the universe’ (Oxford Dictionary) – aspects as distinct from the cosmological (of or pertaining to theories or accounts of the structure of the universe).

If so, this is what your latest query would look like:

• [example only]: ‘Did you make some kind of ultimate deduction of existence that, if tested, can explain everything including the cosmogonical aspects of existence?

First of all, I never said I could explain everything: you asked me if actualism ‘says it all’ in the context of a monologue about prayer vis-à-vis everyday sense ... specifically in regards to (a) an overwhelming force and (b) unearthly powers and (c) belief transcending will and (d) glimpsing the limitlessness and (e) the belief that the undefinable exists apart from humans and (f) the meaning of existence and (g) the difference in nature between you and I and (h) the kinds of human being and (i) a point of view and (j) the meaning and direction of life.

Secondly, I made no deduction – ultimate or otherwise – which can explain the cosmogonical aspects of existence ... I am an actualist, not a logicist. Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... by and large logic is a matter I leave to the logicians.

Whilst on the topic of cosmogony ... this is what your earlier queries would look like:

• [example only]: ‘Is actual freedom a freedom from the human condition and not from the cosmogonical aspects of existence? Is this testable and how? [end example].

An actual freedom from the human condition is indeed a freedom from the cosmogonical aspects of existence and it is most certainly testable ... this is how:

• [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age.

RESPONDENT: (...) can you elaborate on your seemingly stochastic rebuttal, ‘human condition’?

RICHARD: There is nothing stochastic – ‘of, relating to, or characterised by conjecture; conjectural’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Or, to put that another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving or containing a random variable or variables’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Or, to put that yet another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving chance or probability’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Howsoever I can elaborate on my experiential response: where there is no such ‘being’ extant within a flesh and blood body – either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – it is startlingly apparent that there are no gods/goddesses in actuality (and thus no theism/theists).

RESPONDENT: (But there aren’t any gods/ goddesses in atheism-land all-together anyway).

RICHARD: Once again, you are speaking to me as you would to a materialist.

RESPONDENT: But alas, the ultimate human consciousness (vis: your flesh and blood body experiencing the universe as itself) ...

RICHARD: ‘Tis the other way around (as this flesh and blood body the universe is experiencing itself apperceptively).

RESPONDENT: ... [alas, the ultimate human consciousness] is not the ultimate universal consciousness.

RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) it is indeed not ... so what? What has that to do with me answering your query by reporting that, where there is no such ‘being’ – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – extant within a flesh and blood body (either in a PCE or upon an actual freedom from the human condition) it is startlingly apparent that there are no gods/goddesses in actuality ... and thus no theism/theists such as to bring forth 100+ page articles positing logical underpinnings for the existence of a god/goddess?

Did you not read what I wrote in response to your question about the on-line discussion forum regarding ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) – and whether the ‘Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe’ (CTMU) and a ‘Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language’ (SCSPL) are valid proofs of such a … um … a totally omnipotent entity having created the universe or not?

I re-posted it only 24 days ago (on Saturday 21/08/2004) in response to your unsubstantiated claim I passed judgement ... here it is again (for the third time):

• [Richard]: ‘... an actual freedom from the human condition not only covers ‘all this’ [all the ‘Intelligent Design’ propositions] it lies beyond it all (beyond the state of being, popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, *which is the genesis of such entities*). [emphasis added].

In other words, all gods/ goddesses are nothing other than ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) writ large ... and the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of all and any such gods/ goddesses as you or anyone else may posit.

RESPONDENT: A Coyote experiencing the universe as itself could never process that 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much it frees itself from the ‘Coyote condition’.

RICHARD: As no coyote is positing a logical underpinning for the existence of a god/goddess what on earth has that to do with what is being discussed?

RESPONDENT: Yet, to it, 2 + 2 = not-4 as well as 2 + 2 = 4.

RICHARD: Allow me to replace the word ‘it’ with the name of species which is being referred to:

• [example only]: ‘Yet, to a coyote, 2 + 2 = not-4 as well as 2 + 2 = 4. [end example].

As this immediately follows the sentence wherein you said that a coyote could ‘never’ process that 2 + 2 = 4 then, apart from being irrelevant, your two consecutive sentences are totally at odds with each other.

RESPONDENT: So it becomes apparent that the cognitive faculty predominates awareness of the world.

RICHARD: Maybe it does in your world – here in the actual world apperceptive awareness is predominant – yet even if it does it is not a cogent conclusion to draw (as in your ‘so’ phrasing) as, whatever a coyote is or is not capable of processing, it does not validate what you too are creating much ado about.

May I ask? Are you planning on keeping this up – posting (another person’s) mathematical theories/ logical propositions to a non-mathematician/ non-logician – much longer?