|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 89
RICHARD: If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. RESPONDENT: What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: interpretations) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke. RICHARD: So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ... RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you refer to? What pivotal word do you mean? RICHARD: I am referring to the word on which your sentence hinges ... and which can have at least two meanings even without scare-quotes: ‘see: perceive with the eye (...) have the faculty of sight’. And: ‘see: perceive mentally (...) attain to comprehension, understand’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: If you mean to ask why I put the word ‘sees’ in scare-quotes here is the answer: [quote] ‘Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually ‘made up’ by the brain’. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html). RICHARD: Hmm ... if that is the line you would like to pursue then obviously we cannot say what you want us to say as the person you postulate may very well be making up all manner of things about the proposed object (that it might really be a wheelbarrow, for instance, and not a bottle after all). RESPONDENT: The person’s brain might be mistaken – due to dim light – and ‘sees’ a coke bottle if in fact it is a ‘sprite bottle’, such errors happen often. RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you: why not just drop the last two words off your sentence (so as to do away with your scare-quotes)? For example:
All that remains now is to clear up the matter of whether it can be known to be a bottle or not and you can get on with whatever it is you are wanting to convey. * RICHARD: Provided there be, of course, an object in the first place (as that would require being able to know that objects exist). RESPONDENT: Your brain ‘sees’ an object ... RICHARD: No, this brain sees an object. * RICHARD: ... [so far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will] ... (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand that. RICHARD: You want us to say something (as per your abbreviated form of ‘let us say ..’ further above) do you not? RESPONDENT: The sentence ‘Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’ does not mean I want you to literally say ‘A person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’. Can you not see that I give an example? RICHARD: Of course I can see that you give it as an example. * RICHARD: Yet the something you want us to say is, according to you, unable to be known as knowledge is interpretation. RESPONDENT: I don’t see your point. RICHARD: How can you know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation? * RICHARD: Viz.:
It is your call. RESPONDENT: I am not sure what I am called for. RICHARD: You are the one making the claim that knowledge is interpretation – not me – so it is up to you to deal with the consequences ... one of which is that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who does not know anything. * RICHARD: Apart from that ... is it reasonable to presume that you are not going to provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Ok, here it is. [snip link]. RICHARD: You may find the following useful:
RESPONDENT: Do you say it is then Vineeto and Peter who use scientific theories as support for the facts ... RICHARD: No ... all that is happening is some technical assistance is being presented so that you can get on with providing an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body. Could it be possible that your continued failure to do so is because no such instance exists? * RICHARD: In the meanwhile, and more to the point, is it not the case that your initial usage of [quote] ‘believes in’ [endquote] in this current exchange was but a continuation of your ‘superstition of facts’ theme ... despite your ostensible comprehension a scant week ago? RESPONDENT: No, it is not. RICHARD: Okay ... then just as there is no need for belief in regards facts, for anybody, there is no need for belief in regards visually seeing an object – or touching an object or smelling an object or tasting an object or hearing an object – as sensate perception is direct (also for anybody). I have written about this before ... here is one instance:
RESPONDENT: Richard believes in ‘scientific facts’ as long as they don’t
conflict with his ‘direct RICHARD: First of all, after nearly 6 months of being subscribed to the mailing list, and after having posted 280+ e-mails receiving extensive feedback, it is just silliness masquerading as sensible discussion to say that Richard [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] in anything ... let alone in facts. RESPONDENT: My usage of the word *believes* is mis-understandable. I beg for pardon, English is not my mother-tongue; what I meant and better had said and say is the following: ‘Richard uses ‘scientific facts’ to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of ‘actual facts’ ...’. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
In a similar fashion to there being no ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ facts there are no ‘actual facts’ as opposed to ‘scientific facts’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – and, moreover, as you modify ‘scientific facts’ into meaning ‘scientific theories’, further below in this e-mail being responded to, then by taking out the word ‘actual’, and by replacing ‘scientific facts’ with ‘scientific theories’ (as per your amendment), what you are saying looks something like this:
And as ‘direct’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then what you are saying, in effect, looks something like this:
If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. RESPONDENT: What I want to convey ... (...) RICHARD: Apart from that ... is it reasonable to presume that you are not going to provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Ok, here it is. [snip link]. RICHARD: You may find the following useful:
RESPONDENT: Do you say it is then Vineeto and Peter who use scientific theories as support for the facts ... RICHARD: No ... RESPONDENT: Ok, asked differently: Do Vineeto and Peter (who wrote the text on the actual freedom webpage I quoted from) use scientific theories as support for the facts YOU experienced apperceptively ... RICHARD: You may find the following useful in regards to both that and your related query which followed:
* RICHARD: ... all that is happening is some technical assistance is being presented so that you can get on with providing an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/described/explained by this flesh and blood body. Could it be possible that your continued failure to do so is because no such instance exists? RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘[I]t is always pleasing when science proves what
one has already sussed out for oneself’. (../richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-ilanshalif.htm RICHARD: You may have overlooked this first part of that section you provided the above quote from:
And here is the relevant part of the original request:
RESPONDENT: Besides, I hope it is clear to everybody here that it is more than unfair (not only to me but also to them) if you distance yourself from Vineeto and Peter’s writings ... RICHARD: Perhaps some highlighting, this time around, might put a temporary halt to your tendency
towards jumping to conclusions
May I ask? Why do you make those statements-as-if-they-were-fact in the first place? If you were to put your speculations – for that is all they are – in the form of a question then all this to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails, which your current modus operandi generates, would not be necessary. Also, the sheer volume of what you create precludes me from providing detailed and referenced replies to each and every one of your speculations-presented-as-if-fact and which leaves me no alternative but to pick through all what you send for the most outstanding of the misunderstandings/ misrepresentations and/or misinformation/ disinformation you come up with. Here is a suggestion: why not just take one point/ one issue/ one topic at a time and follow it through, without branching out into all manner of side-tracks and/or off-shoots, until you are finally satisfied before moving onto another? ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RESPONDENT: What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: interpretations) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke. RICHARD: So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ... RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you refer to? What pivotal word do you mean? RICHARD: I am referring to the word on which your sentence hinges ... and which can have at least two meanings even without scare-quotes: ‘see: perceive with the eye (...) have the faculty of sight’. And: ‘see: perceive mentally (...) attain to comprehension, understand’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: If you mean to ask why I put the word ‘sees’ in scare-quotes here is the answer: [quote] ‘Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually ‘made up’ by the brain’. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html). RICHARD: Hmm ... if that is the line you would like to pursue then obviously we cannot say what you want us to say as the person you postulate may very well be making up all manner of things about the proposed object (that it might really be a wheelbarrow, for instance, and not a bottle after all). RESPONDENT: The person’s brain might be mistaken – due to dim light – and ‘sees’ a coke bottle if in fact it is a ‘sprite bottle’, such errors happen often. RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you: why not just drop the last two words off your sentence (so as to do away with your scare-quotes)? For example: [example only]: ‘Let us say a person sees a bottle’. [end example]. All that remains now is to clear up the matter of whether it can be known to be a bottle or not and you can get on with whatever it is you are wanting to convey. RESPONDENT: Ok fine. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter is settled. * RICHARD: Provided there be, of course, an object in the first place (as that would require being able to know that objects exist). RESPONDENT: Your brain ‘sees’ an object ... RICHARD: No, this brain sees an object. RESPONDENT: What exactly do you mean when you say ‘the brain sees’? RICHARD: Just the same as with the cutaneous, aural, olfactory, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensations ... sensory perception. RESPONDENT: I understand that you have direct experiences how that seeing takes place. RICHARD: As ‘direct experience’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then ... yes, there is indeed apperceptive awareness of ocular sensation taking place. RESPONDENT: Do you also have a ‘theory’ how that seeing takes place? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Are you aware of modern scientific theories how that seeing takes place? RICHARD: Some years ago I read-through some of what is presented in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ... as I recall it such studies are incomplete (as in still a lot to be learnt/ discovered). RESPONDENT: If your brain sees an object (‘coke bottle’), can your brain carry on and see something else like ‘glass’, or ‘molecules’, or ‘quantum states’? RICHARD: This brain sensately sees objects in the same way it touches, smells, tastes, and hears same ... recognition of an object, as ‘bottle’ and/or ‘glass’ (molecules and quantum states are mathematical models), requires cognition in the form of discernment, discrimination and so on. RESPONDENT: Or are these reinterpretations already part of the ratiocination process, which cannot be done without an intact entity? RICHARD: By putting the word [quote] ‘reinterpretations’ [endquote] into your query it cannot be answered as-is. What I can say is this: cognition and/or recognition, in the form of discernment, discrimination, and so on, does not necessarily require ratiocination – ‘the action or process of reasoning, esp. by using syllogisms; an instance of this; a conclusion arrived at by reasoning’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as it mostly operates on ‘automatic pilot’, so to speak. * RICHARD: ... [so far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will] ... (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/ everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand that. RICHARD: You want us to say something (as per your abbreviated form of ‘let us say ..’ further above) do you not? RESPONDENT: The sentence ‘Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’ does not mean I want you to literally say ‘A person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’. Can you not see that I give an example? RICHARD: Of course I can see that you give it as an example. RESPONDENT: Ok, cool. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point: for a meaningful discussion to take place the re must be a mutually agreed upon basis, and/or parameters, to what is to be discussed ... and in this case you want us to say something about something which, according to you, cannot be known. Put succinctly: I am not interested in discussing your interpretations of the way you interpret your reinterpretations of your brain’s interpretations of what goes by the name ‘bottle’. * RICHARD: Yet the something you want us to say is, according to you, unable to be known as knowledge is interpretation. RESPONDENT: I don’t see your point. RICHARD: How can you know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation? RESPONDENT: Your knowledge is ... RICHARD: If I might stop you right there? I specifically asked you a question about how *you* can know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation (according to you) ... I did not, repeat not, ask you for yet more of your statements-as-if-they-were-fact about how your interpretations of the way you interpret your reinterpretations of your brain’s interpretations might or might not apply to this flesh and blood body. Look, I am well aware of the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical injunction to be in a state of ‘not-knowing’ (because of the realised/ enlightened/ awakened ones saying that nothing can be known) so I will take this opportunity to point out that this is an actualist mailing list, and not a spiritualist one, and that despite what the realised/ enlightened/ awakened ones say things can indeed be known. * RICHARD: Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge’ is ‘interpretation’, either the brain’s interpretation or the entity’s reinterpretation of the brain’s interpretation’. [endquote]. It is your call. RESPONDENT: I am not sure what I am called for. RICHARD: You are the one making the claim that knowledge is interpretation – not me – so it is up to you to deal with the consequences ... one of which is that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who does not know anything. RESPONDENT: Maybe that helps in your understanding of what I mean when I say ‘we cannot know anything’ ... RICHARD: I am already cognisant of what you mean when you say that *you* cannot know anything: ... I am making it clear that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who maintains, via fallacious reasoning, that nothing can be known yet insists on discussing things as if they can be. You just cannot have it both ways ... either admit that you can (and do) know things or cease writing/ talking/ thinking forthwith. It is your call.
RESPONDENT: Richard believes in ‘scientific facts’ as long as they don’t
conflict with his ‘direct RICHARD: First of all, after nearly 6 months of being subscribed to the mailing list, and after having posted 280+ e-mails receiving extensive feedback, it is just silliness masquerading as sensible discussion to say that Richard [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] in anything ... let alone in facts. RESPONDENT: My usage of the word *believes* is mis-understandable. I beg for pardon, English is not my mother-tongue; what I meant and better had said and say is the following: ‘Richard uses ‘scientific facts’ to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of ‘actual facts’ ...’. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
In a similar fashion to there being no ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ facts there are no ‘actual facts’ as opposed to ‘scientific facts’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – and, moreover, as you modify ‘scientific facts’ into meaning ‘scientific theories’, further below in this e-mail being responded to, then by taking out the word ‘actual’, and by replacing ‘scientific facts’ with ‘scientific theories’ (as per your amendment), what you are saying looks something like this:
And as ‘direct’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then what you are saying, in effect, looks something like this:
If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. (...) RICHARD: ... here is the relevant part of the original request: [Richard]: ‘If you could provide an instance of a *scientific theory* being used ...’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Ok. I cannot. RICHARD: In which case I invite you to scroll back up to the top of this page and re-read the original based-on-nothing-at-all-statement of yours which initiated all this to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. What a load of codswallop that was, eh? RESPONDENT: Only because I cannot doesn’t mean you do not ... RICHARD: Whoa-up right there, Mr. Don Quixote According to an ‘ancient and honourable’ story Now, the whole point of such tactics is not just so as to get one’s opponent on a back-foot, by putting them into a defensive position, but mostly to get them to use-up their limited amount of ten-second media bytes on other issues than the main event – which is what they have to offer to the general well-being of individuals in particular and the populace at large – and the corollary here is that the sheer volume of traffic generated on this mailing list precludes me from responding to each and every point/ issue/ topic/ objection/ quibble each and every person may choose to type-out and send. So what I do, when it becomes patently obvious that a co-respondent has no intention of actually finding out about what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is to make sure that their credibility/ integrity rating has reached zero by answering enough of their commentitious allegations to establish that the word ‘sincerity’ is nowhere to be found in their dictionaries. Then I set-up my e-mail client to automatically direct all of their e-mails into a folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Mailing List – Silly’ (instead of into ‘Actual Freedom Mailing List – Sensible’) and days, sometimes weeks, can pass by before I get around to briefly scanning them. Put succinctly: the only way your ‘because-I-cannot-doesn’t-mean-you-do-not’ insinuation can be refuted is to post the entire contents, of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, to this mailing list ... and that is something that just ain’t going to happen. ‘Nuff said?
RESPONDENT: I don’t know why I should be labelled as a ‘spiritualist’ or an ‘intellectualist’ by doing what I do. I don’t see, for example, the postulation of a ‘noumenon’ as the outcome of an intellectual and/or a spiritual attitude. (...) RESPONDENT: You would have to read Rene Guenon’s writings to understand that ‘pure intellectual intuition’ is not identical with the intellect or with reason. RICHARD: As I have no intention of reading all that Mr. Rene Guenon ever wrote perhaps you could provide some text of his where he explains why, then, he uses the word ‘intellectual’ and does not just say ‘pure intuition’? RESPONDENT: I am currently staying with friends away from home and my library; all I can give you for the time being are quotes I found on a quick search on the internet: ‘... the Westerners of today no longer know what pure intellect is; in fact they do not even suspect that anything of the kind can exist; ...’. RICHARD: As that is in response to my query about you having just said ‘pure intellectual intuition’ is *not* identical with the intellect then why are you providing that quote? Here is the definition again which started this: [quote] ‘intellectualist (philosophy): an adherent of intellectualism [the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason]’. (Oxford Dictionary). Given that further below you say Mr. Rene Guenon tries to gain (transcendental) knowledge by means of ‘pure intellectual intuition’ would it be correct, then, to say that it is knowledge derived from the action of the pure intellect? RESPONDENT: What would that be ‘pure intellect’? RICHARD: Buddhi.
RESPONDENT: Richard believes in ‘scientific facts’ as long as they don’t
conflict with his ‘direct RICHARD: First of all, after nearly 6 months of being subscribed to the mailing list, and after having posted 280+ e-mails receiving extensive feedback, it is just silliness masquerading as sensible discussion to say that Richard [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] in anything ... let alone in facts. RESPONDENT: My usage of the word *believes* is mis-understandable. I beg for pardon, English is not my mother-tongue; what I meant and better had said and say is the following: ‘Richard uses ‘scientific facts’ to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of ‘actual facts’ ...’. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:
In a similar fashion to there being no ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ facts there are no ‘actual facts’ as opposed to ‘scientific facts’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – and, moreover, as you modify ‘scientific facts’ into meaning ‘scientific theories’, further below in this e-mail being responded to, then by taking out the word ‘actual’, and by replacing ‘scientific facts’ with ‘scientific theories’ (as per your amendment), what you are saying looks something like this: [example only]: ‘Richard uses scientific theories to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of facts ...’. [end example]. And as ‘direct’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then what you are saying, in effect, looks something like this: [example only]: ‘Richard uses scientific theories to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with facts experienced apperceptively ...’. [end example]. If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/described/explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. (...) RICHARD: ... here is the relevant part of the original request: [Richard]: ‘If you could provide an instance of a *scientific theory* being used ...’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Ok. I cannot. RICHARD: In which case I invite you to scroll back up to the top of this page and re-read the original based-on-nothing-at-all-statement of yours which initiated all this to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. What a load of codswallop that was, eh? RESPONDENT: Only because I cannot doesn’t mean you do not ... RICHARD: Whoa-up right there, Mr. Don Quixote ... RESPONDENT: Why do you do cut my sentence in half? RICHARD: Simply because tilting at windmills is a time-wasting exercise in futility. So far it has taken seven e-mails on my part (this is the eighth) so as to get you to see that your [quote] ‘Richard believes in (...) therefore’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘Richard uses (...) therefore’ [endquote] statements-as-if-they-were-fact were not based upon anything at all ... that in fact they were based on nothing, on zilch, on zip. On a big fat zero. In other words they were your concoctions; your inventions; your fabrications; your confabulations ... they were something you made up out of your imagination, something you typed-out without even checking whether there were any such instances. Viz.:
Just in case you still do not get it
Needless is it to add that, just because no instances of that ever actually happening can be demonstrated, it [quote] ‘doesn’t mean you do not’ [endquote]?
CO-RESPONDENT: Does translation/ interpretation stop with ‘me’? RICHARD: Yes. CO-RESPONDENT: Aren’t all other contents of consciousness, including sensation, similarly constrained by the impossibility of stepping outside the perceiving apparatus? RICHARD: There is no constraint: as a flesh and blood body only one is the perceiving apparatus (to use your phrasing) and, as flesh and blood bodies are not separate from that which they form themself with, one is the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: Sounds quite cool. That is like saying: There is no constraints: As a contingent being only one is the constraints and because a contingent being is not separate from that which makes them contingent, one is the absolute experiencing itself in a constraint way ... as such the absolute is aware of its own infinitude. RICHARD:
VINEETO: But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling being inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real world of ‘re-interpretations’. RESPONDENT: Yes, yes, I understand all these things. They don’t conflict with my speculations. I don’t doubt the actual world. What I doubt is that the actual world is non-contingent; you present the actual world as if it was non-contingent, as if it was absolute. All you guys do is replacing ‘the Absolute’ with ‘the universe’ and come up with statements like ‘one is the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ...’ RICHARD:
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard says ‘I am the universe experiencing itself as this flesh-and-blood body.’ I’d rather say ‘I am the Absolute experiencing itself as a contingent being’. RESPONDENT: I have to add that the Absolute would not be able to say ‘I am the Absolute’. because that which says ‘I am’ is already a contingency of the Absolute. So whatever makes a statement of self-reference [‘I am’] cannot be the Absolute. The Absolute, therefore, doesn’t ‘speak’, it is Silence. RICHARD:
CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I see no reason why not. Example only: while you clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, you are utterly unable to point this out in a way that makes a difference, and your inability to do so makes further meaningful dialogue impossible. And all the while it is portrayed as/regarded as your problem and your problem only. (See No. 89’s fruitless conversations with the actualists re the nature of matter, for example. RICHARD: Those conversations regarding the nature of matter were only fruitless because they were
stymied right from the start with the assertion, in an e-mail entitled [quote] ‘Matter does not mean anything at all’
[endquote], that matter does not appear anywhere in phenomenal space and has no phenomenal meaning. RESPONDENT: After all this is said and done, it is almost terrifyingly simple: The actualists unconsciously equate’ actual freedom’ with’ absolute freedom’. The’ actual world’ is taken as the’ absolute world’. ‘Direct’ experiences are taken as’ absolute’ experiences. ‘Facts’ are taken as’ absolute truths’. ‘Apperceptive awareness’ is taken as’ absolute awareness’. RICHARD:
CO-RESPONDENT: Does translation/interpretation stop with ‘me’? RICHARD: Yes. CO-RESPONDENT: Aren’t all other contents of consciousness, including sensation, similarly constrained by the impossibility of stepping outside the perceiving apparatus? RICHARD: There is no constraint: as a flesh and blood body only one is the perceiving apparatus (to
use your phrasing) and, as flesh and blood bodies are not separate from that which they form themself with, one is the infinite
and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: That is HARD-CORE METAPHYSICS projected upon the physical world. The dogma of the Holy Trinity: The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the ‘consubstantial Trinity’. The Actualist’s dogma of the pseudo-‘consubstantial Trinity’: FATHER: ‘the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe’. SON: ‘a flesh and blood body’. HOLY SPIRIT: ‘the perceiving apparatus. These THREE are ONE [‘are not separate’]. Upon the pseudo-‘consubstantial Trinity’ absolute attributes [infinite and eternal, undying and unborn, permanent] are projected and thereby turned into a pseudo-‘Absolute’. RICHARD: [Respondent]: ‘I SEE that Richard’s Third Alternative gives a completely new perspective altogether BUT I THINK (actually HOPE) that his experience can be *explained and reduced to fit into a spiritual framework*’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Rather a psychiatric condition. Dogma 1: Declare con-substantiality [‘are not separate’] of ‘flesh and blood body’ and ‘perceiving apparatus’ and ‘universe’. RICHARD: First of all: given that, by the term ‘perceiving apparatus’, it is reasonable to presume my co-respondent was referring to the ocular, cutaneous, aural, olfactory, gustatory and proprioceptive senses, then why would it be dogma – ‘an opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a church or sect; [or] an arrogant declaration of opinion’ (Oxford Dictionary) – to state what is patently obvious (that they are not separate from a flesh and blood body)? Further to that point ... are you declaring, then, that they are indeed separate from a flesh and blood body? Second, given that the very stuff of a flesh and blood body is the 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), in what way is it dogma – ‘an opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a church or sect; [or] an arrogant declaration of opinion’ (Oxford Dictionary) – to state what is patently obvious (that flesh and blood bodies are not separate from the universe which they form themselves with)? More to that point ... are you declaring, then, that they are indeed separate from the universe? Lastly, it is quite telling that, by thinking/ hoping you can rather explain and reduce my experience to fit into a (as yet unnamed) psychiatric condition, you equate it with a particular religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical tenet or doctrine – regarding the tripartite nature of a specific god, which nature goes by the name of ‘homoousios’ (of one substance), as opposed to ‘homoiousios’ (of like substance) – authoritatively laid down in the Creed of Nicaea, in 325 CE, by all but two of the bishops assembled at the Council of Nicaea (and later re-affirmed in 381 CE at the Council of Constantinople) and which has become known as the Nicene Creed, in order to do so. Do you realise that by so doing you are, in effect, declaring the august personalities assembled there to be a bunch of whackoes? RESPONDENT: Dogma 2: Give the ‘substance’ a name ‘Matter’ and ascribe to it absolute attributes: infinite and eternal, undying and unborn, permanent ... ‘Matter [the substance] is not only primarily ...’ Dogma 3: ‘... but all there is’. Define all else as ‘playing out of an illusion/ delusion’. RICHARD: The key to understanding that passage of mine, which you classify as [quote] ‘HARD-CORE METAPHYSICS’ [endquote], lies in comprehending that the total absence of constraint is for a flesh and blood body only (a body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto). Viz.:
There is a vast distinction betwixt being an identity inside a body perceiving through the senses and being a body perceiving as the senses (being the same-same stuff as the stuff being perceived) ... so vast as to be in a different category entirely. Thus, despite your assertions to the contrary, this flesh and blood body does not ascribe – ‘assign or impute to someone or something as an action, effect, product, etc., or as a quality, characteristic or, rarely in a material sense, property’ (Oxford Dictionary) – to the universe any such attributes (which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, are ‘qualities or characters ascribed, esp. in common estimation, to a person or thing’) as you mention ... let alone as dogma. RESPONDENT: Dogma 4: The ‘world to come’(*) is the ‘actual world’. RICHARD: As this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – is already here right now the only dogma there is for you to see is that which lies in the particular religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical tenets or doctrines authoritatively laid down by august personalities which you are (futilely) thinking/ hoping you can equate my experience to in order rather explain and reduce my experience to fit into a (as yet unnamed) psychiatric condition. RESPONDENT: (*)after life = the life after the dead of ‘the entity’ (synonymous to ‘the Evil’ and ‘Satan’). RICHARD: Identity in toto is not synonymous to a particular religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical representation of human malice writ large (and if its extinction were to be considered synonymous it would be to the death of both ‘Good’ *and* ‘Evil’/ ‘God’ *and* ‘Satan’ as they are but the two sides of the same coin). RESPONDENT: Eschatological promise (after victory over ‘Satan’): microcosmically being ‘happy and harmless’; macrocosmically ‘peace on earth’. RICHARD: Due to what is patently evident in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), where identity is in abeyance, there is the entirely pragmatic expectation that the already always existing benignity and benevolence inherent to this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe (and which has nothing to do with affective happiness and harmlessness) will similarly be apparent when identity is extinct. In other words, not only is there no mere promise in actualism ... distinctions such as microcosmic/ macrocosmic do not apply either.
RESPONDENT: It should have occurred to me much earlier that all Richard does is making ‘dogmatic assertions’ about sense perceptions (what he calls ‘reporting direct experiences) ... RICHARD: Perhaps that is because earlier on you were busily engaged with what occurred to you then ... such as your ‘superstition of facts’ speculation, your conjectures about facts being theories, and your postulations regarding interpretations. So, here we go once again into your latest flight of fancy, eh? First of all ... here is what a dictionary has to say:
Here are the obvious questions:
RESPONDENT: ... which (the dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions) are independent of science as it is of religion/ philosophy. RICHARD: The apperceptive awareness of something is only independent of science – ‘the intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study (the natural sciences) that apply objective scientific method to the phenomena of the physical universe’ (Oxford Dictionary) – inasmuch those peoples duly qualified enough to be deemed scientists are, both currently and previously, not apperceptively aware.In short: science is being, and has been, conducted by identities within a body ... personalities once-removed from actuality. RESPONDENT: Whatever you say is one of the 101 ways (theory, perspective, viewpoint, opinion, intuition ...) and will be countered with a ‘dogmatic assertion about sense perceptions’ and as such it is indeed ‘fighting windmills’. RICHARD: Disregarding your latest speculation for the nonce ... it is pleasing to see that you are beginning to comprehend, albeit somewhat dimly, the futility of applying real-world wisdom to this actual world (a world you are totally oblivious to, and forever shut out of, by your very being). RESPONDENT: It must be give a demonic person like Richard some kind of satisfaction ... RICHARD: Here is what that word can refer to:
Yet just a scant sixty-four minutes prior to this (on Friday 23/09/2005 at 8:38 PM AEST), when you speculated microcosmically and macrocosmically about life after the death of [quote] ‘the entity’ [endquote], you were most particular that it be [quote] ‘synonymous to ‘the Evil’ and ‘Satan’ [endquote]. Could it be that you attach little importance to consistency in argument? RESPONDENT: ... [It must be give a demonic person like Richard some kind of satisfaction], possibly ‘the apperceptive awareness of infinite power’ ... RICHARD: There is no such power as you allude to, either infinite or otherwise, here in this actual world. For example:
RESPONDENT: ... [It must be give a demonic person like Richard some kind of satisfaction, possibly ‘the apperceptive awareness of infinite power’], to see how they all fight ‘windmills’ (dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions) ... RICHARD: Ha ... you have inadvertently hit the nail right on the head insofar as that phrase you keep repeating (‘dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions’), as if mere repetition miraculously imbues facticity, is one of those very windmills you are choosing to tilt at. Incidentally, it is not [quote] ‘all’ [endquote] co-respondents who choose to argue about imaginary issues instead of taking the opportunity to have a sensible discussion ... only some of them. RESPONDENT: ... [It must be give a demonic person like Richard some kind of satisfaction, possibly ‘the apperceptive awareness of infinite power’], to see how they all fight ‘windmills’], and that might also be the deeper reason for why Richard didn’t ‘retire from this debating society’. [No 53 to Richard]: ‘You did say 2006 would be the year you would leave internet guru-dom for good, did you not?’ [endquote]. RICHARD: I would suggest obtaining your information from a reputable source ... for example:
And by way of explanation:
Then three months later:
And a few weeks after that:
RESPONDENT: ‘Whoa-up right there, Mr. Don Quixote’. RICHARD: Perhaps if what you prefaced that comment with were to be re-presented matter-of-factly:
You would have to be kidding, right?
RESPONDENT: Richard’s dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions are a metaphysical impossibility, a scientific absurdity, bad philosophy and religious heresy ... RICHARD: As your latest speculation about apperceptive awareness is just that (your latest speculation) it may be helpful to re-present what you write as per two of your previous speculations:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... but because Richard claims his dogmatic assertions to belong to a complete different domain than metaphysics, philosophy, science, and religion it renders their take on his dogmatic assertions irrelevant ... RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... simply because Richard equates his dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions with his sense perceptions (direct experiences) ... RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... that is, if you equate the report with the reported, then you have immunized your report against any kind of criticism ... RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... if so, criticising the report is criticising the reported ... RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... and criticising the reported is as if somebody tries to prove you away that you hold a banana in the hand. ‘Whoa-up right there, Mr. Don Quixote’. [Richard to Respondent] RICHARD: As I am none too sure what you are wanting to convey there I will pass for now. RESPONDENT: Again Richard applies a metaphysical principle: ‘Subject and object ore one’. ‘The knower and the know are one in the act of knowing’. ‘The report, the reported, and the act of reporting is one’. RICHARD: Do you see how you first had to intercalate your latest speculation – ‘dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions’ – in order to have it correspond with what the realised/ enlightened/ awakened ones report (that the observer is the observed/ that the seer is the seen)? RESPONDENT: Richard’s dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions and his sense perceptions are understood as being ‘one’ in ‘apperceptive awareness’, which renders any criticism impossible. RICHARD: Here we go again:
And:
RESPONDENT: Question: Is it possible (1) *to become* actually free without reiterating Richard’s dogmatic views ... RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... and (2) *to be* actually free without reiterating Richard’s dogmatic views? RICHARD: And again:
And:
RESPONDENT: The answer is obviously ‘no’. RICHARD: Now here is a radical question for you: is it possible to become/be actually free from the human condition without experiencing what is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE)? The answer is, obviously, no. RESPONDENT: Richard is certainly the first (and possibly also the last) who makes these dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions ... RICHARD: Possible translation: Richard is certainly the first (and possibly also the last) realised/ enlightened/ awakened being who makes these dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions ... to wit: that there is no noumenon in actuality; that phenomenon has always existed and always will; that there is nothing other than this universe (aka infinite space, eternal time, perdurable matter); that this universe is a veritable perpetuum mobilis ... and so on. In short: having come across a fellow human that does not fit into your category (no realised/ enlightened/ awakened being ever reports any such thing) you have deliberately chosen to re-classify that fellow human’s reports into being theories, interpretations, dogmatic assertions, and so forth. RESPONDENT: ... and also the first (and possible the last) who equates his dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions with his sense perceptions, which doesn’t prove anything regards the question whether Richard was the first who experienced the end of the ‘entity’ ... RICHARD: As Richard does not do what your latest speculation (which is, of course, but a variation on previous speculations) has him doing it is not at all surprising it does not prove that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history. RESPONDENT: ... it is very likely that there were countless people before him (and will be after him) who experienced the end of ‘psychological suffering’ by means of ‘self-immolation’ and the entire loss of the ‘affective, imaginative and intuitive faculty’ without making the same dogmatic assertions as Richard does and without equating these dogmatic assertions with their experiences. RICHARD: Hmm ... by conveniently ignoring/ overlooking large parts of Ms. Bernadette Roberts’ reports – parts which, by the way, are fundamental – of a similar ‘no-self’ state of being to typical eastern mysticism (and as contrasted to typical western mysticism) a case can be made that countless others, both before and after her, have similarly attained/ will similarly attain to a ‘no-self’ state of being ... all of whom have not reported/ will not report that there is no noumenon in actuality; that phenomenon has always existed and always will; that there is nothing other than this universe (aka infinite space, eternal time, perdurable matter); that this universe is a veritable perpetuum mobilis ... and so on. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so forth, will go on forever and a day.
RESPONDENT: This [the ‘dogmatic assertions’ variation on earlier similar speculations] all shows only one thing too clearly: If you thought yourself to be the Absolute before self-immolation, you will still think yourself to be the Absolute after self-immolation – just in ‘physical’ disguise. RICHARD: It does no such thing ... what it does show, however, is the lengths you will go to (up to and including shooting yourself in the foot) in order to think/ hope you can rather explain and reduce my experience to fit into an unnamed psychiatric condition by likening it to religiosity and/or spirituality and/or mysticality and/or metaphysicality. For example: the many and various realised/ enlightened/ awakened beings report that the observer is the observed/the seer is the seen ... thereby, according to your rationale, immunising themselves from criticism by equating their report with what they report. Yet all it takes is a pure consciousness experience (PCE) for it to be patently obvious they are so
narcissistic RESPONDENT: How? RICHARD: There is no how – that entire ‘dogmatic assertions’ variation on your earlier similar speculations is a flight of fancy from beginning to end – as the timeless and spaceless and formless (and thus metaphysical) absolute, which the aggrandised identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago experienced, perished simultaneous to ‘his’ expiration ... revealing, as it were, that it was this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe which had been absolute (as in not contingent/ existing without any other and thus without compare/ incomparable as in peerless/ matchless) all along. RESPONDENT: (1) Immunize yourself by equating the report with the reported. RICHARD: Here is a scenario for you: supposing one were to say that the plastic and silicon object these words appear as pixels on is a computer monitor, and not a wheelbarrow, then in what way is that statement of what is patently obvious an equating of the report (that the plastic and silicon object these words appear as pixels on is a computer monitor and not a wheelbarrow) with what is being reported (the fact that the plastic and silicon object these words appear as pixels on is a computer monitor and not a wheelbarrow)? Furthermore, in what way is that statement of fact (that the plastic and silicon object these words appear as pixels on is a computer monitor and not a wheelbarrow) an immunisation from criticism? RESPONDENT: (2) Attach the attributes of the Absolute to the reports. RICHARD: As the primary attributes, as you call them, of a metaphysical absolute are that it be an immaterial/ incorporeal (as in timeless and spaceless and formless) absoluteness there is no way that anybody can attach, as you claim, those characteristics to either the reports of that which is physically absolute or to that physically absolute which is being reported (this spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perpetual universe). RESPONDENT: And you will be reporting about the Absolute – just in ‘physical’ disguise – and nobody will be able to do anything about it. RICHARD: Au contraire, anybody with sufficient nous can (a) intellectually discern the marked distinction between that which is reported as being timelessly and spacelessly and formlessly (immaterially/ incorporeally) absolute and that which is reported as being materially/ corporeally (of infinite spatiality and eternal temporality and perdurable materiality) absolute ... and (b) intellectually comprehend that a metaphysical absolute is contingent upon time and space and form existing in the first place (were it not for physicality no such thing as a metaphysical proposition could even begin to be postulated) ... and (c) experientially ascertain the startlingly obvious difference betwixt the two absolutes via an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE). And it is the latter (wherein the tire hits the road so to speak) which is the final arbiter of all matters
experiential RESPONDENT: The only one who could uncover our ‘Absolute in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free ... RICHARD: Sure ... but not somebody that is free of identity in toto, though. RESPONDENT: ... [The only one who could uncover our ‘Absolute in disguise’ is someone who is entity-free] but such a person (like BR for example) will not be acknowledged as an ‘authority’ by Richard for the very reason that s/he wouldn’t make the same dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions ... RICHARD: No ... such a person as Ms. Bernadette Roberts, for example, whilst being acknowledged as having the experiential authority (as in the intimate investigational expertise) to report knowledgably about a metaphysical absolute will not be acknowledged as having the experiential authority (as in the intimate investigational expertise) to report knowledgably about the physical absolute. RESPONDENT: ... hence, so prescribes the perverse logic (based on the immunising fallacy: report = reported) ... RICHARD: It is indeed perverse ... but as what you are referring to (the report being the reported) is your rationale, and not mine, then that perversion is yours and yours alone. RESPONDENT: ... [hence], s/he cannot be entity-free and must be in ASC! RICHARD: No, such a person is indeed [quote] ‘entity-free’ [endquote] – else they cannot have the experiential authority (as in the intimate investigational expertise) to report knowledgably about a metaphysical absolute (as evidenced in an ASC) – as distinct from being free of identity in toto (as evidenced in a PCE). RESPONDENT: As to his ‘followers’ (Vineeto, Peter, others) they cannot help but must believe him ... RICHARD: On the contrary, such persons as you mention can, and do, verify for themselves experientially (via PCE’s or even via both PCE’s and ASC’s) that what Richard has to report/ describe/ explain is in accord with fact and actuality. Incidentally, experience over many years has shown that it is usually religionists and/or spiritualists and/or mystics and/or metaphysicalists who gratuitously toss in epithets like [quote] ‘followers’ [endquote] and other pejorative words of that ilk ... such as, for instance, ‘disciples’. RESPONDENT: ... [they cannot help but must believe him] and reiterate – like good disciples used to do – their ‘Absolute in disguise’s dogmatic assertions. It is indeed a sad story. RICHARD: As it is your story, and not mine, then the (self-inflicted) sadness you are feeling is yours and yours alone.
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ... I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry? You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry? And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ... I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry? RESPONDENT: Yes, I have first hand experience that I got angry. RICHARD: So you know, do you not, from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry? * RICHARD: You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry? RESPONDENT: And here is the reason why it becomes tricky: No, I don’t have first-hand experience that the friend of mine got angry. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the question actually asked: that friend of yours who replied in the affirmative that he was angry knows, does he not, from first-hand experience that it is a fact he got angry? * RICHARD: And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? RESPONDENT: And here is again the reason why it becomes tricky: No, I don’t have first hand experience that all those people got angry. RICHARD: And here is again the question actually asked: each and every one of those people who report getting angry knows, do they not, from first-hand experience that it is a fact they are angry? * RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)? RESPONDENT: It remains tricky because, whether I, the friend of mine, or anybody else reports first-hand experiences, it doesn’t change the fact that I can only know my own experiences first-hand. RICHARD: I will present my three-part question as three separate questions this time around:
And:
And:
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 |
