|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 89
RESPONDENT No 84: The human nervous system is endowed (or afflicted) with natural mechanisms or innate tendencies that can be called ‘instinctual passions’ for convenience. RESPONDENT: Correct. RESPONDENT No 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: You see it is not that Richard stops ‘being’. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not do anything: the affective ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, self-immolated in toto and has long-been extinct ... which is to be as dead as the dodo, in fact, but with no skeletal remains (there is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes), RESPONDENT: He stops being an entity. RICHARD: Again, this flesh and blood body does not do anything ... this flesh and blood body has been here all along simply having a ball (it was the identity within who did all the work). RESPONDENT: There is a difference here. RICHARD: There is no difference there, other than the one you have interpolated, at all. RESPONDENT: If he stopped ‘being’ altogether he would dissolve into oblivion without leaving a trace. RICHARD: Not so ... it was the identity who had residence who stopped ‘being’ altogether (and dissolved into oblivion without leaving a trace). RESPONDENT: But obviously Richard still is here. RICHARD: Not only is this flesh and blood body still here ... this flesh and blood body has been here all the while (since conception). RESPONDENT: He is the mortal body. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is indeed mortal ... nothing more and nothing less. * RESPONDENT No 84: The feeling of ‘being’ would not exist anywhere in the universe without these instinctual passions which are the body's biological inheritance. RESPONDENT: Without passions no feeling of ‘being an entity’ ... RICHARD: If I may interject, for the sake of clarification, before you go on? Your co-respondent was right on the nose again ... without passions there is no feeling of ‘being’, period. RESPONDENT: ... but this doesn’t mean that you are not ‘present to yourself’ (’conscious’) without these instinctual passions. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/ identity in toto, when being conscious is not being conscious in a present-to-itself manner as such a body is being conscious apperceptively (aka apperceptive awareness) ... and the word apperception is utilised here, as in all actualism writings, to refer to direct (unmediated) perception. And what this means is that, as there is no mediator present, there is no presence to be present-to-itself. RESPONDENT: Richard is still present to himself. RICHARD: This (apperceptive) flesh and blood body is not only *not* still present-to-itself it never has been and never will be ... the affective ‘being’ however, who used to have residence all those years ago, was indeed present-to-itself (right up to the instant of oblivion) thus this flesh and blood body is well aware of the distinction, between such a presence being present-to-itself, and apperceptive consciousness. RESPONDENT: He states to be the mortal body. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body ... but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this (mortal) flesh and blood body only. For example (just one instance among many):
RESPONDENT: Now in order to state something like that you have to be still present to yourself ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? In order to report something like that a (mortal) flesh and blood body only does not have to be present-to-itself (let alone ‘still’ that). RESPONDENT: ... and your present to yourself is independent from the instinctual passions ... RICHARD: If I may ask? What is [quote] ‘your present to yourself’ [endquote] ... did you mean to convey ‘and your present to yourself-ness (consciousness) is independent from being the instinctual passions, perchance? Be that what it may ... as you go on to say, further below in your e-mail, that the only thing you really know is that you are present to yourself (and that is the only real knowledge you have) and then ask why you should not remain present to yourself when the body is gone (and further go on to say, in effect, that even though human consciousness/ flesh and blood body will be gone it does not change a thing about the metaphysical truth that ‘I’, the Mind, the Transcendent, Infinite and Etcetera, is your real nature and indestructible) it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to steam-rolling over nearly anything anybody else has to say. RESPONDENT: ... otherwise Richard wouldn’t be able to state to be the mortal body. RICHARD: Hmm ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and flailing about and tread water for a while ... so as to catch your breath, so to speak, and be able to have a good look around. ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RICHARD (to Respondent No 85): (...) in regards to where you asked if I would sit, with eyes closed,
touching a porcelain cup without thought operating (so as to provide a comparison with what occurred when you did likewise) I can
provide the following information: 1. It is quite the norm for this flesh and blood body that, on a daily basis, thought is often
not operating – I tend to call it ‘mind in neutral’ – yet apperception (the mind’s perception of itself) still occurs
regardless. 2. To close the eyes is to mask but one of the senses – touch, smell, taste, hearing, and proprioception, remain
unmasked – thus, at the very least, subliminal processing of those sensations is still occurring and, consequently, a
below-the-threshold-of-conscious-awareness sensitivity of being alive right here, in space, just now, in time, is in operation. 3.
To sit, thoughtless, touching a porcelain cup (presumably only with a fingertip) is to be cutaneously feeling something, even
though it is not being recognised, just as the (seated) buttocks and thighs are also cutaneously feeling something – if only
pressure – therefore it cannot be faithfully said, without dissociating, that there are no sensations/that there is no
experience. Although all there is to go by is what you chose to write, and given you did report that you could not tell [quote]
‘that there were sensations’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘there was no experience’ [endquote], there is sufficient
indication that dissociation *was* taking place and, moreover, as you also report you felt that you were not different from
anything in the whole universe – not in terms of material but in terms of something indescribable – it is more than likely
that some trance-like affective state of being was occurring. RESPONDENT: (...) It is beyond my comprehension that my wife’s report she couldn’t tell ‘that there were sensations’ and that ‘there was no experience’ should be ‘sufficient indication that dissociation was taking place’ and ‘some trance-like affective state of being’. RICHARD: When someone – anyone at all – explains to another, in the context of having had
something happen RESPONDENT: This is a very simply and objective experiment. Everybody can do the same simple experiment and report back. What can you/everybody report back about experiencing the sensing of a cup with hand/fingers without using any feelings/ thoughts/ words to describe the experience WHILE (!) sensing the cup with the fingers/hand? RICHARD: As I have already unambiguously detailed this, in my initial response, all you are doing here is demonstrating that you did not either (1) read it ... or (2) take any notice of it. Here it is again (to save you scrolling up the page):
I cannot see how I can put it any more clearly than that. RESPONDENT: What do you take out of this experience of sensing a cup? RICHARD: That there has just been a cutaneous experience (a sensate feeling) of something. RESPONDENT: What can you remember about it? RICHARD: That there had been a sensate feeling (a cutaneal sensation) of something. RESPONDENT: The surprising answer is: nothing! RICHARD: As I have read through each and every one of the 104+ e-mails you have posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, since you first wrote 28 days ago, it is not at all surprising that your answer would be ‘nothing!’ ... and, to be quite frank, it is highly unlikely that anything else you might conjure up (if you were to write again) will be a surprise, either. RESPONDENT: And therefore [Respondent No 85] said ‘that there was no sensations’ and that ‘there was no experience’ – and for no other reason! RICHARD: Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child
abuse and suicides, and so on, are still going on unabated
RESPONDENT No. 84: These instinctual passions (which have physical causes) create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: Not exactly of ‘being’ but of ‘being a psychological/psychic entity’. RICHARD: No, your co-respondent was right on the nose: the instinctual passions, in action, automatically form themselves into a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ or, in other words, into an amorphous affective presence ... an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter. RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: What do you dispute, then (else why change what your co-respondent wrote)? RESPONDENT: Your ‘feeling being’ is what I mean with ‘being an entity’. RICHARD: What did your co-respondent mean, then, such as to occasion you to say that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? RESPONDENT: When you cease ‘feeling being’ you don’t cease to exist altogether. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body did not cease [quote] ‘feeling being’ [endquote]. This flesh and blood body did not do anything ... it was the affective ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, who not only ceased to exist but ceased to exist altogether. RESPONDENT: Sure ‘you’ [as an entity] cease to exist but not so does the body. RICHARD: Obviously this flesh and blood body has not ceased to exist ... it was the feeling ‘being’ who ceased to exist. RESPONDENT: The body is; the body exists. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly is; this flesh and blood body does indeed exist. RESPONDENT: You cannot dispute your existence. RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body is not doing, and never has done, anything of the sort your finishing comment is superfluous. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): You see it is not that Richard stops ‘being’. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not do anything: the affective ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, self-immolated in toto and has long-been extinct ... which is to be as dead as the dodo, in fact, but with no skeletal remains (there is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes). RESPONDENT: I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: Then why did you say it is not that Richard (this flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) stops ‘being’ directly after telling your co-respondent that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? RESPONDENT: But you are [be!] there. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly is here; this flesh and blood body does indeed be here. RESPONDENT: You exist. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most definitely does exist. RESPONDENT: Otherwise you couldn’t write emails. RICHARD: Indeed this flesh and blood body could not write e-mails otherwise. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): He stops being an entity. RICHARD: Again, this flesh and blood body does not do anything ... this flesh and blood body has been here all along simply having a ball (it was the identity within who did all the work). RESPONDENT: Yes, and again too, I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: Then why did you say that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stops being an entity, then, directly after telling your co-respondent that it is not that Richard (the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail) stops ‘being’? RESPONDENT: The body exists. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly exists. RESPONDENT: It comes into existence at birth and ceases to exist when it dies. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most definitely came into existence at conception and will indeed cease to exist upon physical death. RESPONDENT: That is what I mean with ‘being’ ... RICHARD: That is not what your co-respondent meant with [quote] ‘being’ [endquote] ... they were specifically referring, in the context of instinctual passions (which are most definitely affective), to the rudimentary *feeling* of ‘being’. RESPONDENT: ... or are [be] you not? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly is; this flesh and blood body does indeed be (aka bodily exist). RESPONDENT: Is this a mere dispute about words? RICHARD: No, it is about you saying that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’, but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity, and then going on to say that say it is not that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stops ‘being’ but it is that he stops being an entity ... and that there is a difference there because if he stopped ‘being’ altogether he would dissolve into oblivion without leaving a trace. To inadvertently switch from discussing the feeling of ‘being’ to discussing bodily being (aka bodily existing) is one thing ... but to first change what your co-respondent wrote and then use that very-same manner of expression – ‘being’ – to refer to bodily existing (aka bodily being) is, if not smart-aleckry, nothing short of outright dissimulation. And, moreover, to continue doing so in this e-mail is but silliness masquerading as dialogue. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): There is a difference here. RICHARD: There is no difference there, other than the one you have interpolated, at all. RESPONDENT: There is a real difference here. RICHARD: There is no real difference there, other than the one you have interpolated, at all. RESPONDENT: The entity is not but your body is. RICHARD: The entity is indeed not and this flesh and blood body most certainly is. RESPONDENT: That’s the difference. RICHARD: That is not the difference (other than the difference, that is, which you have interpolated). RESPONDENT: You ceased to be an entity [feeling being] ... RICHARD: This flesh and blood body did not cease to be an entity (feeling being) – this flesh and blood body has been here all along simply having a ball – it was the entity within who ceased to be an entity (a feeling ‘being’). RESPONDENT: ... but you still are there [being being, existence]. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body, whilst most certainly still here, is neither being being nor being existence. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): If he stopped ‘being’ altogether he would dissolve into oblivion without leaving a trace. RICHARD: Not so ... it was the identity who had residence who stopped ‘being’ altogether (and dissolved into oblivion without leaving a trace). RESPONDENT: Of course the identity stopped being. RICHARD: Then why did you tell your co-respondent that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity? RESPONDENT: I am not disputing that. RICHARD: What is it, then, that you are disputing? RESPONDENT: But your body still is [be!]. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly is; this flesh and blood body does indeed be (aka bodily exist). RESPONDENT: And if your body stops ‘being’ you are dead. RICHARD: No, this flesh and blood body has no ‘being’ ... the instinctually passionate ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, self-immolated in toto and has long-been extinct. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): But obviously Richard still is here. RICHARD: Not only is this flesh and blood body still here ... this flesh and blood body has been here all the while (since conception). RESPONDENT: Sure I don’t dispute that. RICHARD: Then why did you tell your co-respondent that if this flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stopped ‘being’ altogether there would be a dissolution into oblivion without leaving a trace? RESPONDENT: This is my point. RICHARD: Your point (if that is what it can be classified as) is that the instinctual passions do not exactly create the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’ but instead create the rudimentary feeling of being a psychological/ psychic entity and that it is not that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stops ‘being’ but that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stops being an entity and that there is a real difference there in that if the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail stopped ‘being’ altogether there would be a dissolution into oblivion without leaving a trace because obviously the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail still is here. RESPONDENT: Your body is [be = being] ... RICHARD: This flesh and blood body most certainly is (to bodily exist does indeed equal bodily existing). RESPONDENT: ... and of course it is here since conception. What is your problem? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not have a problem ... you do. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): He is the mortal body. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is indeed mortal ... nothing more and nothing less. RESPONDENT: I am not disputing this either. RICHARD: Oh? Then why say (much further below) that this flesh and blood body is indeed something more (as in something non-phenomenal)? * RESPONDENT No. 84: The feeling of ‘being’ would not exist anywhere in the universe without these instinctual passions which are the body’s biological inheritance. RESPONDENT: Without passions no feeling of ‘being an entity’ ... RICHARD: If I may interject, for the sake of clarification, before you go on? Your co-respondent was right on the nose again ... without passions there is no feeling of ‘being’, period. RESPONDENT: I am not disputing that! RICHARD: Then why tell your co-respondent that, without passions, there would be no feeling of being an entity when they had just said feeling of ‘being’? RESPONDENT: Are you out there to purposefully misunderstand me? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is not here to misunderstand you at all ... let alone purposefully. RESPONDENT: Is this your benevolence towards your ‘fellow human BEING’? RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body is not here to misunderstand you at all – let alone purposefully – your query is nothing but a purposeful irrelevancy ... a rhetorical device designed solely for (cheap) effect. RESPONDENT: And it is ‘a being’ the fellow human being or is it not? RICHARD: It is not ... this flesh and blood body only gets to meet flesh and blood bodies here, in this actual world, as ‘being’ has no existence in actuality. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): ... but this doesn’t mean that you are not ‘present to yourself’ (‘conscious’) without these instinctual passions. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/ identity in toto, when being conscious is not being conscious in a present-to-itself manner as such a body is being conscious apperceptively (aka apperceptive awareness) ... and the word apperception is utilised here, as in all actualism writings, to refer to direct (unmediated) perception. And what this means is that, as there is no mediator present, there is no presence to be present-to-itself. RESPONDENT: That is nonsense. RICHARD: It is not nonsense at all. RESPONDENT: Of course you are present-to-yourself. RICHARD: There is no ‘of course’ about it ... this flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/ identity in toto, is conscious apperceptively. RESPONDENT: You just call it ‘apperception’. RICHARD: No, this flesh and blood body does not [quote] ‘just’ [endquote] call being conscious, in a present-to-itself manner, apperception ... this flesh and blood body calls direct (unmediated) perception apperception. RESPONDENT: Presence to yourself doesn’t need a mediator. RICHARD: There does indeed need to be a mediator (the problematic identity within by whatever name) for that reflexive intuition to occur. RESPONDENT: Or do you need somebody telling you that you are [conscious] before you know that you are [conscious]? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body, being apperceptively aware, needs neither a mediator nor somebody telling this flesh and blood body that this flesh and blood body either is or is being conscious before this flesh and blood body knows that this flesh and blood body either is or is being conscious. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): Richard is still present to himself. RICHARD: This (apperceptive) flesh and blood body is not only *not* still present-to-itself it never has been and never will be ... the affective ‘being’ however, who used to have residence all those years ago, was indeed present-to-itself (right up to the instant of oblivion) thus this flesh and blood body is well aware of the distinction, between such a presence being present-to-itself, and apperceptive consciousness. RESPONDENT: Apperceptive consciousness is exactly that: ‘PRESENCE’. RICHARD: No, not at all ... when that presence is then apperception is not. RESPONDENT: And what is present here? Presence is present. RICHARD: Yet what is true for you there is not the case here (there is no presence present in this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: And what is that? That is consciousness. RICHARD: For you, there ... yes; for this flesh and blood body, here ... no. RESPONDENT: And I call it ‘being present to oneself’. RICHARD: You can call apperceptive consciousness [quote] ‘being present to oneself’ [endquote] until the cows come home yet it still would not make it so in actuality. RESPONDENT: If you were not present to yourself you were dead ... RICHARD: Oh? What then of your answer to your rhetorical question (further below)? Viz.:
And here is what you go on to say immediately after that:
Thus what you were really saying looks something like this:
RESPONDENT: ... or in coma. RICHARD: And is that also what you believe ... or is it a fact? RESPONDENT: You just call it ‘apperceptive consciousness’. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does not call [quote] ‘being present to oneself’ [endquote] apperceptive consciousness ... this flesh and blood body is quite specific as to what apperception is. RESPONDENT: I don’t see an issue here. RICHARD: And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, still go on unabated. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): He states to be the mortal body. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body ... but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this (mortal) flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: I don’t get this. How can a body report anything? RICHARD: By being alive, not dead, being sensible, not insensible (comatose), and being awake, not asleep. RESPONDENT: There must be consciousness first ... RICHARD: There must be an alive (not dead) body first. RESPONDENT: ... and interpretation of (sense) data to report something. RICHARD: An alive (not dead) body subliminally processes sensation continuously – there are, if memory serves correctly, up to maybe 150,000 nerve impulses per second – whether awake or asleep, and when awake deliberatively evaluates sensation so as to provide a considered verbal report ... either orally or literately. RESPONDENT: A stone cannot report anything. RICHARD: As a stone is not sentient it cannot sense anything ... let alone process sensation. RESPONDENT: And a body cannot report anything either. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does. RESPONDENT: The report doesn’t come from the body. RICHARD: The reporting which this flesh and blood body provides does. RESPONDENT: It does come from your interpretations. RICHARD: It comes from this flesh and blood body’s deliberative assessment of the continual processing of sensations. RESPONDENT: And you can interpret because you are alive and conscious about the body’s sensations. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body can purposefully assess because it is alive, sensible, awake and thus, conscious about this flesh and blood body’s continuous processing of sensations. * RICHARD: For example (just one instance among many): [Richard]: ‘... what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ...’ RESPONDENT: ‘Apperceptive human being’ – There it is. RICHARD: Ha ... that expression could just as well be written as ‘an apperceptive human creature’ ... or even as ‘an apperceptive creature’. Viz.:
Just bye-the-bye ... did you notice what is written in parenthesis in that part of the quote (immediately after the word ‘only’). RESPONDENT: That’s what I am saying all the time. RICHARD: That is not what your co-respondent was referring to ... they were most specifically speaking of the instinctual passions creating the rudimentary feeling of ‘being’. Here it is again (to save you scrolling up the page):
And:
RESPONDENT: You are a ‘being’ ... RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is not a ‘being’ ... and has never been one (this flesh and blood body has been just here, right now, all along simply having a ball). RESPONDENT: ... you just stopped being an entity ... RICHARD: This flesh and blood body did not stop anything ... it was the entity, who used to have residence all those years ago, who stopped being an entity (aka ceased to exist). RESPONDENT: ... [what you call ‘feeling being’]. RICHARD: Again, this flesh and blood body did not do anything ... it was the feeling ‘being’, who used to have residence all those years ago, who ceased to exist (aka stopped being an entity). * RICHARD: ‘(...) It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed ...’ RESPONDENT: Yes, I totally agree. RICHARD: You do not *totally* agree ... look (from immediately below):
You clearly say that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is really something else, something which is not a body, called the Principle. RESPONDENT: Even Buddha wouldn’t dispute that. RICHARD: As Mr. Gotama the Sakyan could only find a solution to all the ills of humankind in the place where the sun don’t shine then whatever he may or may not dispute is not even worth the palm leaf he did not write it upon. Viz.:
Put succinctly: it is an after-death realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). RESPONDENT: But what does make the carrot grow? RICHARD: Put simply: nothing does make the carrot grow ... where there are conditions conducive to growth (such as fertile soil, potable water, and warm sunlight) the carrot grows of its own accord. RESPONDENT: What brings everything into existence? RICHARD: If by ‘everything’ you mean all space and all time and all matter (aka the universe) then nothing does ... the universe is already always existent. RESPONDENT: The boundary condition of life and that is the Principle, Truth, Infinite, Consciousness, Transcendent etc. RICHARD: Do you not see that it is the very asking of such a question – what is the (ultimate) cause of everything – which creates such an answer? To put that another way: upon closer inspection such a question, whilst appearing profound to more than a few peoples, is based upon an unexamined presupposition (that everything is not already always existent) which, of course, predetermines such an answer ... and which leads to all manner of twaddle, dressed-up as sagacity, about uncaused causes which, being noumenal, can only be apprehended intuitively. * RICHARD: ‘I am nothing other than that [the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe] ... that is what I am, literally’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: This ‘stuff’ is the phenomenal side of something else. RICHARD: As the word ‘phenomenal’ refers to that which is sensately perceptible then essentially you are asserting that there is (a) another side to the stuff of the universe ... and (b) that postulated other side is not sensately perceptible. RESPONDENT: And that something else you really are ... RICHARD: First you assert that there be something else, other than the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe which this flesh and blood body is, and then further assert that the postulated something else is what the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail really is. RESPONDENT: ... [neither a body nor an entity – hence it is called ‘the Principle’]. RICHARD: Hmm ... by some sleight-of-hand the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail, which is asserted to really be something else other than the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe, turns out to be neither a body nor an entity but a sensately imperceptible postulate called the Principle. And, not all that surprisingly, that intuitively perceived postulate (unlike a flesh and blood body) is immortal. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Body/consciousness is the phenomenal side of this something else. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back to the subject to hand, this flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this mortal flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself) ... yet you tell your co-respondent that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail does not stop ‘being’ and that, in order to report something like that, this flesh and blood body has to still be present-to-itself. * RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): Now in order to state something like that you have to be still present to yourself ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? In order to report something like that a (mortal) flesh and blood body only does not have to be present-to-itself (let alone ‘still’ that). RESPONDENT: That is nonsense. RICHARD: It is not nonsense at all. RESPONDENT: As I pointed out above: A body like a stone doesn’t report anything. RICHARD: As a body, being sentient, is not at all like a stone then what you pointed out further above is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Only if there is PRESENCE is there a report. RICHARD: Au contraire ... this flesh and blood body, even though sans presence, readily provides the report being referred to (that this flesh and blood body is mortal).
RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): ... and your present to yourself is independent from the instinctual passions ... RICHARD: If I may ask? What is [quote] ‘your present to yourself’ [endquote] ... did you mean to convey ‘and your present to yourself-ness (consciousness) is independent from being the instinctual passions, perchance? RESPONDENT: You may ask! RICHARD: Thank you. RESPONDENT: It is very simple. You are still here. You are still present, although the entity is gone. Your PRESENCE [to yourself] doesn’t depend on the entity and the passions. RICHARD: In which case what you were saying to your co-respondent looks something like this:
Do you see that saying ‘your presence to yourself’ is distinctly different from saying ‘this flesh and blood body is still here; this flesh and blood body is still present’? RESPONDENT: The entity is not consciousness ... RICHARD: If I may point out? It has nowhere been suggested that the entity is consciousness. RESPONDENT: ... it is a parasitical content of consciousness. RICHARD: Not so ... the entity is the affective feelings in action. Viz.:
Or is that another one of what could be called your Clayton’s agreements (the agreement you have when you do not actually have one)? RESPONDENT: When the entity is gone, consciousness is still there. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, when the entity is gone, the flesh and blood body being conscious is still there (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition). RESPONDENT: You call it apperceptive consciousness. RICHARD: Indeed so, and for a good reason: being sans any presence whatsoever a flesh and blood body only, when conscious (awake), is able to be sentient (perceptive) in an unmediated manner ... and such an unmediated perception is vastly different to a present-to-oneself perception. RESPONDENT: I call it PRESENCE, that is, being ‘present to oneself’. RICHARD: Yet to call an unmediated perception a being-present-to-oneself perception does not miraculously make it so. RESPONDENT: Because language is limited you might think I am talking about ‘an entity’ [‘oneself’] but I am not. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with any (purported) limitation of language. RESPONDENT: Consciousness works in such a way that it is its very content and that is PRESENCE. RICHARD: Oh? And what is consciousness without an object, then, if not pure presence? * RICHARD: Be that what it may ... as you go on to say, further below in your e-mail, that the only thing you really know is that you are present to yourself (and that is the only real knowledge you have) ... RESPONDENT: You don’t know more. RICHARD: Ha ... just for starters this flesh and blood body, being sans any mediator whatsoever, intimately knows that there is no presence to be present-to-itself. * RICHARD: ... and then ask why you should not remain present to yourself when the body is gone ... RESPONDENT: That was rhetorical question to point out that there is no way to know whether the presence to oneself ceases when the body is gone. RICHARD: Except there is indeed a way to know whether the presence to oneself ceases when the body is gone. RESPONDENT: Personally speaking, I believe that if the body goes also the particular presence to oneself goes. RICHARD: But only the *particular* presence to oneself, eh? RESPONDENT: I don’t have to be an actualist count on that. RICHARD: As no actualist worth their salt would propose that only the particular presence-to-oneself goes at physical death your comment has nothing to do with not having to be an actualist as actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – experientially demonstrates that presence-to-oneself in toto has no existence in actuality. RESPONDENT: Even the masters of the different traditions state the same. RICHARD: None of the masters of any of the different traditions say the same as what actualism experientially evidences. RESPONDENT: If the candle [body] is gone, so is the flame [individual consciousness]. RICHARD: Given that the word ‘consciousness’ is, for you, synonymous to the term ‘presence to oneself’ then what you are saying (further above) can also be expressed something like this:
Would it be reasonable to presume you also believe that universal consciousness does not go when both the candle and the flame go? RESPONDENT: But there is the Principle and the Principle is immortal. RICHARD: Ah, it is no wonder, then, you be so insistent that your presence to yourself does not depend on the entity and the passions (but is consciousness itself), eh? * RICHARD: ... (and further go on to say, in effect, that even though human consciousness/ flesh and blood body will be gone it does not change a thing about the metaphysical truth that ‘I’, the Mind, the Transcendent, Infinite and Etcetera, is your real nature and indestructible) ... RESPONDENT: Yes that is in fact true. RICHARD: Not so ... it is only in fantasy true. * RICHARD: ... it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is ... RESPONDENT: I understand very well what this body is. RICHARD: As you have (further above) asserted that the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is not a body but is really a sensately imperceptible postulate called the Principle it is blatantly obvious that you do not understand at all what this flesh and blood body is ... let alone ‘very well’. * RICHARD: ... [is] reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to steam-rolling over nearly anything anybody else has to say. RESPONDENT: I am not steam-rolling over anybody else. RICHARD: What is this, then (for just one instance): 89, 2 May 2005) • [Respondent]: ‘That is nonsense. Of course you are present-to-yourself. You just call it ‘apperception’. [endquote]. On second thoughts perhaps a juggernaut would make a better analogy than steamroller. RESPONDENT: People asked me questions and I tried to explain my point of views. RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my observation so as to be in accord with what you say you are doing ... to wit: it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to trying to explain your point of views over nearly anything anybody else has to say. For example, when this flesh and blood body provided the experiential report that, as there is no mediator present in this flesh and blood body, there is no presence to be present-to-itself, here, you resorted to trying to explain your point of views over that experiential report by telling this flesh and blood body that such an experiential report is nonsense and that of course the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is present-to-itself and just calls it apperception. RESPONDENT: I also have questions and if your answers make sense to me I am only too happy to accept them. RICHARD: As your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, there is no way, were the current situation to continue, that my answers to your questions will make sense to you. Perhaps the following may be of assistance:
* RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): ... otherwise Richard wouldn’t be able to state to be the mortal body. RICHARD: Hmm ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: What do you suggest with this statement? RICHARD: Simply that ... (1) there is eleven years of intimate experiencing, night and day, of that which the masters of the different traditions speak of for this flesh and blood body to recall (as contrasted to your book-learnt understanding) ... and (2) as what this flesh and blood body has to report/ describe/ explain is beyond that (that which the masters of the different traditions speak of) then all of your book-learnt understanding is about as useful as the teats on a bull are when it comes to participating in the discussions on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: If you repeat yourself it is fine. If I repeat myself it is not fine? RICHARD: No ... to go back to putting it simply again: your juggernaut-like modus operandi will not work when it comes to interacting with this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: English is not my native language. Sometimes it is difficult for me to express myself elegantly, hence, I am repetitive to make sure that I will be understood. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with your command of the English language and everything to do with your presumption that you, from your book-learnt understanding, know better than this flesh and blood body does just what it is that this flesh and blood body is experiencing. RESPONDENT: I see your benevolence towards your fellow human being [which of course is not a being] is well accentuated. RICHARD: If only you actually meant that (especially that which you bracketed) then something fundamental might become clear. * RICHARD: What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and flailing about and tread water for a while ... so as to catch your breath, so to speak, and be able to have a good look around. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. RICHARD: What is there not to understand? It is quite clearly stated, up-front and out-in-the-open, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that actualism is the third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism – that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history – so it stands to reason, if nothing else, that it would be to the reader’s advantage to actually read what is on offer. RESPONDENT: What is the problem? RICHARD: In a nutshell: fondly imagining that, here on this mailing list, you are still at the shallow end (and can thus still touch bottom if need be) when you are not.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 85): In regards to where you asked if I would ... (remainder snipped for reasons of space). RESPONDENT: (...) It is beyond my comprehension that my wife’s report she couldn’t tell ‘that there were sensations’ and that ‘there was no experience’ should be ‘sufficient indication that dissociation was taking place’ and ‘some trance-like affective state of being’. RICHARD: When someone – anyone at all – explains to another ... (remainder snipped for reasons of space). RESPONDENT: You are indeed the master word twister. RICHARD: Perhaps if the words you have responded to with your (unsubstantiated) allegation were to be
examined, section-by-section, something might become progressively apparent ... and it must be borne in mind that they are a reply
specifically addressed to you informing me (further above) that the appraisal given in my initial response, as asked for
I start off by making it clear that my response would be the same no matter who it was asking me for an appraisal of their experience.
I make it clear that my appraisal, being contextualised, is specific to a situation in a given set of circumstances ... and provide a footnote to that effect. Viz.:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Here is the remainder of the aforementioned footnote to that effect:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.
Here is the second part of the aforementioned footnote which explicates why they are consequently enquiring as to whether they are either actually or virtually free from the human condition:
And, just for the record, here is the related text:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Further enquiries have shown that it was actually seventeen days after the wakeup (and not five) ... even so there is no word-twisting there (let alone masterly word-twisting) as all it was is a dating error based upon the second e-mail being posted five days after the first.
Here is the text relating to that section:
As they are the exact-same words there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Here is the text relating to that section:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.
Here is the text relating to that section:
Thus again there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Here is the text relating to that section:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Here is the text relating to that section:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.
As this is but a qualifier (which makes it clear that it is only the information considered both relevant and adequate, by the person concerned, which is suggestive enough for what immediately follows) there is no word-twisting there at all ... let alone masterly word-twisting.
Here is the explanatory paragraph relating to that section:
Thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either.
In this section I provide a footnote so as to demonstrate what the words ‘some trance-like affective state’ are related to:
I could also, of course, have provided the following:
As it is okay for you to appraise it as ‘Brahma’, without (presumably) accusing yourself of being a master word-twister, then it is surely okay for me to appraise it as ‘some trance-like affective state of being’ ... thus there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting).
Here is the commentary I provide as a footnote:
As the word ‘thoughtless’ literally means ‘without thought’ (the suffix ‘-less’ forms adjectives and adverbs from nouns with the sense ‘free from, lacking, without’) it is but another way of saying ‘without thinking’ ... therefore there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting). As the word ‘non-sensate’ refers to the information provided about not being able to tell there were sensations then it is not a twisting of words to say that the feeling of being not different from anything in the whole universe is a non-sensate feeling ... let alone masterly word-twisting. As the word ‘immaterial’ is but another way of saying ‘not in terms of material’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either. As the word ‘indescribable’ is but another way of saying ‘in terms of something that is not describable’ there is, again, no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting). As the word ‘undifferentiation’ is but another way of saying ‘not different from anything’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting). As the words ‘everything existent’ is but another way of saying ‘the whole Universe’ there is no word-twisting there at all (let alone masterly word-twisting), either. As the expression ‘an oceanic Therefore, whatever it is that your cavalier allegation – ‘you are indeed the master word twister’ – is based-upon it is not to be found in the text you appended it to in this e-mail. * RESPONDENT: Great for you! RICHARD: As you did not substantiate your allegation – ‘you are indeed the master word twister’ – your exclamatory commendation is without substance. RESPONDENT: You just take the words somebody says ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I did not [quote] ‘just’ [endquote] take the words written ... I read them all carefully, referred to what else had been written previously to another, and considered each of them in the context of the sentence, the paragraph, the e-mail, and the thread they were in. RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] as it pleases your world view ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? An actual freedom from the human condition is not a [quote] ‘world view’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] and then take them apart ... RICHARD: If I may interject yet again? I took no words apart, either in my initial response or my follow-up, and it is only in this e-mail that I have gone step-by-step through the words somebody said ... my own words. RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says] accordingly to your logic and ... RICHARD: If I may interject even yet again? I read the words according to what is being directly experienced (an actual freedom from the human condition). RESPONDENT: ... [You take the words somebody says accordingly to your] ideology. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is not my [quote] ‘ideology’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: That is a fantastic method to put people off and you are certainly an over-achiever in that. RICHARD: If I may point out? Here is an example of what remains of your accusation after all what is fantasy is left off:
Do you see that the alleged [quote] ‘fantastic method’ [endquote] has no existence outside of your skull? If so, do you see that there is nothing to purportedly [quote] ‘put people off’ [endquote] with? And if you do see that, do you also see there is nothing for me to supposedly be [quote] ‘certainly an over-achiever’ [endquote] in? * RESPONDENT: I see zero benevolence here. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
It is because I wish well for my fellow human being that I responded, in the first instant with a carefully detailed reply which explained why I considered it not to be either an actual or virtual freedom from the human condition, and in the second with a carefully considered explanation of why I wrote what I wrote in the first ... and I would be doing neither person a favour if I carelessly replied, in either instance, with an ill-considered response. RESPONDENT: I see zero happiness here. RICHARD: Given that what you see is (1) the master word twister ... and (2) a person that just takes another’s words ... and (3) a person that has a world view ... and (4) a person that takes other’s words apart ... and (5) a person that accords other’s words to their logic ... and (6) a person that accords other’s words to their ideology ... and (7) a person that uses No’s 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as a fantastic method to put people off ... and (8) a person that is certainly an over-achiever in No. 7 then it is not at all surprising that you see no happiness. RESPONDENT: I see zero harmlessness here. RICHARD: Again, it is not at all surprising that you see no harmlessness, either. RESPONDENT: All I see here is a master ability to take peoples’ accounts and interpret them as it fits into one’s world view best. RICHARD: That would explain why you (a) see no benevolence ... and (b) see no happiness ... and (c) see no harmlessness. RESPONDENT: Maybe I am just blind ... RICHARD: There is no ‘maybe’ about it ... you are indeed blind. RESPONDENT: ... but I doubt it. RICHARD: You can, of course, doubt that you are blind all you will ... yet it will not alter the fact of your blindness one little bit. * RESPONDENT: [Irene, Richard’s ex-wife to Vineeto]: ‘I saw through Richard’s
‘peaceful’ living; it was (and is) expressed in glee for winning yet another argument, especially the one-up-man-ship he is so
proud of having eliminated’. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm) RICHARD: Aye, what my previous companion wrote there, in 1998, is indeed sick. Now here is a notion for you to consider: why are those words on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – the portion only I have authorial access to and which I have total editorial control over – if they be so damaging (else why quote it) as to render what is on offer on the entire web site null and void in one short sentence? A trifle curious, non?
CORRESPONDENT No. 89 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
