|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 90
RESPONDENT: ... I’ve recently discovered a few pages on your site that are accompanied by the most appalling music. RICHARD: A possible clue as to why may be found in what you have to say much further below:
In short: the quality of the playback of the midi-files you are referring to depends upon the quality of a computer’s sound card and speakers ... even so some peoples have an aversion to electronic tones anyway (no matter how technically superior the quality of a sound system is). RESPONDENT: Wish you were here, by Pink Floyd and other middle-of-the-road seventies rock classics. RICHARD: You are now (‘middle-of-the-road’) talking about taste ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: I quite like the songs themselves, not ecstatically but a fair amount, but I find the versions of them here, aside from the jarringly crude recording, are, although not without interest, cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes). RICHARD: As I am not a midi-file recordist I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether they have all been recorded in the manner you assert they have been or not ... if you could point me to where those midi-file versions can be found, which meet your criteria of recording excellence, it would be most appreciated. Needless is it to add that if you cannot then what you assert here is purely rhetorical (designed for cheap effect)? RESPONDENT: Either this is because a) my taste is irrelevant ... RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Further to my confusion about your refutation of ‘taste is irrelevant’ I find that you say this; [quote] ‘Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity’. [endquote]. RICHARD: You can only be referring to the following exchange:
RESPONDENT: When I meet someone and get an impression of them from their actions and choices (their taste), am I not appraising the situation and circumstance in order to make a good decision about personal (and possibly communal) salubrity? RICHARD: I will first point out that the actions (aka behaviour) in the scenario I sketch in the above exchange are rape and child abuse whereas the actions under question by you in this exchange are the embedment by me of particular midi-files (electronic tones) in web pages and the construction of specific web page layouts ... and then ask you if you are aware of the phrase ‘chalk and cheese’? Next I will point out that nowhere in the above exchange was the topic of taste (aka aesthetics) canvassed ... and then ask you if you are aware of the term ‘red-herring’? Lastly I will point out that what I say (in the quote you provide) is ‘making a decision’ ... whereas you say ‘make a good decision’. As the situation and circumstance you have appraised as being (a) appalling (b) middle-of-the-road (c) jarringly crude recordings which are (d) cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) in order to make that [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] decision about my personal and, possibly, communal salubrity is the quality of the play-back of midi-files (electronic tones) on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality – as compared to, presumably (as you have not pointed out where those midi-file versions can be found which meet your criteria of recording excellence), the play-back of the original instrumental melody (musical notes) on a high-fidelity sound system – it must be somewhat difficult, surely, to maintain a straight face whilst asking me whether you are not appraising that situation and circumstance in order to make the aforementioned good decision ... let alone going on to ask if such a judgement be intelligent? RESPONDENT: Thus although taste varies from person to person, there is still intelligent judgement, which is a form of taste. No? RICHARD: I will first point out that what I say (in what you call my refutation) is ‘objective judgement’ ... whereas you say ‘intelligent judgement’. Here is what you have to say might look like were it to be in accord with what I actually said:
No. * RESPONDENT: b) my taste is wrong ... RICHARD: Given that what is appealing to one person, aesthetically speaking, is as equally appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing that line of reasoning. RESPONDENT: c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason ... RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits: [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is poor music to my taste (and what is a poor layout to my taste) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [end example]. Now try the obverse: [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is excellent music to my taste (and what is an excellent layout to my taste) for some divinely inscrutable reason’. [end example]. And here is a third alternative: [example only]: ‘you have chosen particular music (and a specific layout) for an entirely prosaic reason’. [end example]. RESPONDENT: ... My dictionary defines ‘prosaic’ as ‘commonplace and unromantic’. Okay, fair enough. But why then is it so hard to read? (...) And it is hard to read because very loud electronic music is playing over the top of it. RICHARD: If I may point out? The loudness of the play-back of the midi-files (electronic tones) you are referring to on a computer anywhere – and not only on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality – is dependant solely upon what level the computer’s volume control slider is set to ... which control, being at the computer operator’s discretion, is not in my hands. RESPONDENT: Aside from what I make of the music, it’s very presence is rather distracting isn’t it? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) someone – anyone – who finds the presence of sound – any sound – distracts them from reading something – anything – then they surely would have long ago either (a) slid the volume control down to zero ... or (b) clicked the ‘mute’ button. * RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: I am very willing to accept any of these options are true because they have all been true in the past. RICHARD: Surely you do not go about determining whether each and every person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste in graphic design and electronic tones? If so, since when has your taste in same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: I tried to explain that I am not certain that you are fraudulent (I gave it as one of four options – RICHARD: Here are your other three options:
As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/ determiner indicates and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning and (c) as that particular music (and a specific layout) was chosen for an entirely prosaic reason then the only option left standing is option (d) ... to wit:
RESPONDENT: ... [I gave it as one of four options –] and given my pleasure at the actual written content – which I might not have adequately expressed – an option no more important than the others ... RICHARD: As the others – (a), (b) and (c) – are demonstrably options without substance your follow-up comments add nothing to a sensible discussion. Furthermore, as you have elsewhere fleshed out just how much your particular taste plays a big part in your life it is disingenuous, to say the least, to now claim that you tried to explain you are not certain whether I am fundamentally fraudulent because of my choice of particular electronic tones (and a specific layout). Just by the way ... are you aware of the difference betwixt electronic tones and instrumental notes? RESPONDENT: ... and that I am not certain of my tastes. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with being certain of your tastes ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: Perhaps I don’t really feel that, or I didn’t express myself accurately enough. RICHARD: Oh, you express yourself quite accurately ... are you familiar with the word ‘fastidious’? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Either way I am sure that I don’t understand what taste is or why it seems so pleasurable (a well-made salad dressing; not too this, not too that ...) and informative (the subtle manifest tip of the ice-burg of psyche), yet superficial (my taste is always changing) and deceptive (I still make extremely poor taste judgements; poor to who? To me a bit later). Where does taste come from? RICHARD: From perception (sentience) itself ... the word ‘aesthetics’ is derived from the Greek ‘aisthētikos’, from ‘aisthēta’ (meaning ‘things perceptible by the senses’), which comes from ‘aisthesthai’ (meaning ‘perceive’). Aesthetics are, fundamentally, based upon the human body and its relationship with the environment at large: this flesh and blood body, for instance, is of the male gender; has a heterosexual orientation; is of Caucasian stock; and is 6’ 2" high and weighs 12.5 stone ... change any of those bodily characteristics and aesthetic appreciation alters accordingly. Further to that point, the quality, quantity and disposition of photosensitive receptors called rods (about 130 million cells
which detect size, shape, brightness and movement) and cones (about 7 million cells which detect fine detail and colour) in the retinas varies from
body to body and affects visual appreciation ... colour blindness being the most obvious instance. Similarly for auditory appreciation the range of
frequency (hertz), or pitch, and intensity of tone (decibels), or loudness, can vary from person-to-person ... the phrase ‘tone-deaf’ bespeaks
of the most extreme example. Also gastronomic appreciation (flavour) depends not only upon the quality, quantity and disposition of the taste buds
(papillae) on the tongue, palate and throat/larynx but upon the olfactory Consequently, just as I do not even attempt to adjudge anybody according to my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation which this
flesh and blood body enjoys), when someone seeks to impose their tastes on me – which also includes instinctual drives
RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement [about the midi-files on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site] taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that. RICHARD: Good ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: And yet it also seems like it’s my taste operating when I form an objective judgement. I didn’t mean to equate poor website layout (such as it might be) with rape, its just that I don’t understand what the difference between forming an opinion about the former and about the latter. I mean lets say I meet a rapist, but don’t know it. Are there clues to his sexual deviancy in his other choices? Is it possible to know someone through these choices? The way someone speaks, dresses, organises their house, that kind of thing. Are they not instructive? RICHARD: I was not asking my co-respondent, in that exchange you quoted from, to form an opinion about whether someone they meet be a rapist (or a child abuser) or not ... I was clearly talking about the behaviour (aka the actions) of raping and child abusing. Here is the relevant section again:
Do you not see I clearly say that *when* a person rapes someone, or *when* a person abuses a child, that activity is called behaviour? RESPONDENT: What exactly is the difference between ‘objective judgement’ and ‘taste’? RICHARD: To give an obvious example (so as to keep it simple): in a court of law the presence of the alleged rapist’s semen is considered conclusive enough evidence to make an objective judgement whereas assessing their mode of speech, their manner of dressing, their domestic setup, and that kind of thing, is not even considered circumstantial evidence. Yet that is all beside the point being made, in that exchange you quoted from, as it was about judging another’s behaviour (aka actions) – as in being judgemental about a rapist or child abuser (condoning/ approving/ being opinionless/ disapproving/ proscribing and so forth) – and not about whether they are a rapist/a child abuser or not. Now, the equivalent would be to take the web pages on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to a court of law so as to have them assessed on the basis of the evidence presented as to whether they are (for example) cheesy and corny or not ... and then, and only then, could you judge my behaviour (my actions) in the manner of the exchange you quoted from. Incidentally, it is a well-known adage that taste cannot be legislated against (although there are those who try). RESPONDENT: I see that, as you say, taste is down to my physical abilities and sense organs and so on, but doesn’t that merely dispose me to types of data rather than quality of data? RICHARD: By what aesthetic standard can you objectively judge quality ... and since when has same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: I mean I might not like beetroot (for example), but don’t see someone’s taste in beetroot as poor taste. RICHARD: And some people like midi-files (electronic tones) and other people do not ... how does that make the former’s taste [quote] ‘cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes)’ [endquote] as an objective judgement? RESPONDENT: On the other hand I don’t like pointy shoes, tonnes of make-up and tiny leather handbags, but there I see someone’s taste in such thing as a sign that they are an uptight nightmare. RICHARD: You have mentioned this before:
I have never been interested in a female because of her appearance, her clothing, her accessories, her cosmetics, her hairstyle – even when, by the way, a normal male – as it is how she is as a person, as a fellow human being, which interests me. RESPONDENT: Am I insane in this? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... it is but the biological imperative (attraction/ aversion) taken to such an attenuated degree of feeling repulsion/ repugnance/ revulsion (disgust) that it might very well be described as fastidiousness. Popular prudence has it not to judge a book by its cover ... such reasoning is easily swept aside in an instant, however, when the (reproductive) survival urges, impulses and drives surge into action. RESPONDENT: I really am prepared to admit that I am. I mean people I’ve met with impeccable taste have also been terrible in their way. RICHARD: Impeccable according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: Just more agreeable (interesting, fun) to me. RICHARD: As a generalisation, peoples with particular proclivities quite often seek the company of those with similar proclivities. RESPONDENT: Taste is for me a shifting frustration and often a weight around my neck. An example of the former is your music, which now I find I quite like. I don’t find it jarringly middle-of-the-road and appalling anymore. An example of the latter is that I regret having sent a letter to a friend where I made poor taste judgements. RICHARD: Aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, is something to be enjoyed for what it is ... and not something to be conclusively judged as either poor or impeccable (and so on). In the years I successfully made a living as a practising artist I never took any notice of the critics’ opinions ... indeed, if I had I would never had made a living out of it as my artistic output came about despite both the institutionalised training I received during three years fulltime study at art college and the two years fulltime application of same immediately following graduation (wherein I had to teach art part-time of an evening to supplement my then-meagre income). It was only when ‘I’ got out of the way and the painting painted itself, so to speak, or the drawing drew itself/the sculpture sculpted itself/the pottery formed itself (and so on) that craft – all the painstakingly acquired skills – became art. I clearly remember the opening night of my first one-man exhibition (in a major city of this country I reside in): it virtually sold-out on that first night and, of course, being the star of the show ‘I’ was the recipient of the judgements of those assembled who chose to voice their opinion ... yet what they did not realise, as only ‘I’ knew how that artistic output came about, was that their opinion was of no value to ‘me’ whatsoever either one way or the other. The opinion of another identity did not mean a thing either. * RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: Well, yes. I suppose that was my main concern, a (probably futile) attempt to judge you through my taste ‘organs’. And yet I found the other three options plausible, even if you didn’t. RICHARD: Here are your other three options:
As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/ determiner indicates ... and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning ... and (c) as that particular music (and a specific layout) was chosen for an entirely prosaic reason in just what way did you find them plausible? * RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: Well, perhaps I am wrong? RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged then how on earth can you be either wrong or right? RESPONDENT: Perhaps my taste is just a huge red-herring? RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged your taste is indeed a huge red-herring. RESPONDENT: Perhaps your words are intelligent but your taste in music is not? RICHARD: Not intelligent according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: Many times I have failed to understand someone at first, this might be such a time. I ask for clarification. RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged is it any wonder you have many times failed to understand someone at first? * RICHARD: As the others – (a), (b) and (c) – are demonstrably options without substance ... RESPONDENT: Yes, to you they are. Now I think I can rule out (c), but I still can’t rule out (a) or (b) as I still cannot see the difference between judging someone in one way (‘objective judgement’) and judging them in another (‘taste’). RICHARD: Here are your other two options:
As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/determiner indicates ... and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning in just what way can you still not rule them out? RESPONDENT: I am no longer interested in the music and webpage layout (the former I now find to be tasteful, the latter I still find in poor taste) but in these questions generally. RICHARD: It makes no difference whether you find the former and the latter to be either tasteful/ distasteful or distasteful/tasteful (or even tasteful/ tasteful or distasteful/ distasteful) ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. * RICHARD: ... as you have elsewhere fleshed out just how much your particular taste plays a big part in your life it is disingenuous, to say the least, to now claim that you tried to explain you are not certain whether I am fundamentally fraudulent because of my choice of particular electronic tones (and a specific layout). RESPONDENT: Yes, I did try to judge you by your choice of tones and layout, but I was far from certain that you are fundamentally fraudulent because of the fact I did not approve of those choices. RICHARD: Okay ... do watch out for the obverse (that your approval of another’s aesthetic choices conclusively demonstrates they are not fundamentally fraudulent). RESPONDENT: Taste does play a big part of my life, but I am questioning that. RICHARD: Please bear in mind that none of the above is to decry taste per se ... just that in terms of forming an objective judgement taste is irrelevant. * RICHARD: Just by the way ... are you aware of the difference betwixt electronic tones and instrumental notes? RESPONDENT: Er, electronic tones come from electronics and instrumental notes from instruments? RICHARD: Obviously ... but my question was about the difference in sound – resonance, timbre, and so on – as to compare the quality of the play-back of midi-files (electronic tones) on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality with, presumably (as you have not pointed out where those midi-file versions can be found which meet your criteria of recording excellence), the play-back of the original instrumental melody (musical notes) on a high-fidelity sound system, and to then find the former [quote] ‘cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes)’ [endquote] is an exercise in futility. * RESPONDENT: ... I am not certain of my tastes. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with being certain of your tastes ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: What point does someone’s poor aesthetic choices cross over into objectively poor? RICHARD: The problem with a loaded question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas this can:
Someone’s aesthetic choices never cross over into objectively poor ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: For example if someone at work dresses badly, perhaps that is subjective? RICHARD: Dresses badly according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: If they wear lots of make-up, again subjective? RICHARD: Wear lots of makeup according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: But if they don’t wash and start to offend my nose – does that then become objective judgement? RICHARD: You have now strayed into matters of personal hygiene ... which are matters relating to social protocols, etiquette and decorum, and not aesthetics. RESPONDENT: What about if they start shitting in my filing cabinet? Is that now objectively poor judgement? RICHARD: You have now strayed into matters of communal sanitation ... which are matters relating to communicable diseases, infection and contagion, and not aesthetics. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps I don’t really feel that [that you are fraudulent], or I didn’t express myself accurately enough. RICHARD: Oh, you express yourself quite accurately ... are you familiar with the word ‘fastidious’? Viz.: ‘fastidious: scrupulous or overscrupulous in matters of taste, cleanliness, propriety, etc.; squeamish [excessively fastidious or scrupulous in questions of propriety, honesty, etc.]’. (Oxford Dictionary).RESPONDENT: Yes, I am familiar with that word. Let’s say I am fastidious then. How do I get out of it? RICHARD: By realising that, as aesthetic appreciation varies from person to person it cannot ever be objective, by being scrupulous/ overscrupulous in matters of taste you are going nowhere ... and fast? RESPONDENT: See below for my difficulties in understanding the PCE direct perception thing. RICHARD: I will address your difficulties in understanding pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) and direct perception later in another e-mail. * RICHARD: (...) just as I do not even attempt to adjudge anybody according to my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation which this flesh and blood body enjoys), when someone seeks to impose their tastes on me – which also includes instinctual drives and, most likely, unexamined cultural aesthetics/fashionable vogues as well – it all slides off me like water off a duck’s back. RESPONDENT: Fair enough. I do see the insanity of judging people by my personal proclivities – it has certainly caused me a lot of frustration and pain in the past. I’ve probably been relying on taste, rather than actual fact, too much in my life. But again, is there NO room for understanding someone through their aesthetic choices? RICHARD: If by ‘understanding’ you are referring to what you previously designated as determining whether they be [quote] ‘fundamentally flawed’ [endquote] then ... no; if by ‘understanding’ you mean ascertaining why (for instance) a particular female uses [quote] ‘tonnes and tonnes of make-up’ [endquote] then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Please explain. RICHARD: You already have yourself ... here:
Stripped of all the cultural aesthetics/ fashionable vogues, and the underlying instinctual drives, aesthetic choices in general are nothing more complicated than that (aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, is neither objectively poor nor objectively impeccable). In other words, it is all a matter of personal taste.
RESPONDENT: If the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and blood body ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial). RESPONDENT: What is the difference between ‘through’ and ‘as’. Please explain as if to a simpleton (or at least someone who gets confused by double negatives) in a way a simpleton can experientially understand. RICHARD: As I have no experience of providing such an explanation to either a simpleton or someone who gets confused by double negatives then if you could explain to me what you mean by [quote] ‘the universe is experiencing itself *through* this flesh and blood body’ [emphasis added] in the manner you request – in a way a simpleton, or at least someone who gets confused by double negatives, can experientially understand – it would be most appreciated. Otherwise, obviously, these e-mail exchanges are going to keep on getting longer and longer to no avail. RESPONDENT: ... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity, doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself (in other forms)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: But why? RICHARD: Because at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe cannot continue in some way to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms by this flesh and blood body leaving something behind. * RESPONDENT: And if that, is it not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: But why? Doesn’t the universe experience itself as/through all kinds of stuff, before and after I die? RICHARD: The problem with a two-choice question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas this can:
As the word ‘experience’ refers to a sentient creature participating personally in events or activities then the universe does not experience itself as all kinds of stuff – either before or after you die – and, more to the point, as a dead sentient creature is no longer sentient it is not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies. RESPONDENT: I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’, rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: But why? Isn’t ‘experience as’ an ongoing thing? RICHARD: The [quote] ‘experience as’ [endquote] a particular flesh and blood body obviously cannot continue after that flesh and blood body is dead. RESPONDENT: Please don’t just say ‘no’. Tell me how no. RICHARD: I never did *just* say ‘no’ in that initial exchange ... I went on to immediately tell you (now sequentially further below) how the way you mean ‘I’ cannot possibly be in some way said to continue after the flesh and blood body dies. I will put it all back in its original sequence for your convenience: 90, 16 June 2005). Do you now see that I have already told you how no? * RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand your answers to death. You said that the end of the flesh and blood body does not leave behind anything which continues to experience itself in other forms. RICHARD: By replying in the negative to your query – wherein you posited that (1) if the universe is experiencing itself *through* this flesh and blood body and (2) if actual pleasure comes from just being *that* experience without possession or identity and then asked whether it follows that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself in other forms – all I am saying (after first pointing out that universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body) is it does not follow that the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body continues in some way at the end of this flesh and blood body by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Still don’t understand. Why are you saying that? RICHARD: Because it is patently obvious that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: How do you know? RICHARD: By it being patently obvious that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: What do you mean? RICHARD: That at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. * RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the entire ‘infinite and eternal’ universe started when I was born and will finish when I die? RICHARD: No ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: But doesn’t the universe continue after I die? RICHARD: Yes (just as it does after any body dies). RESPONDENT: If so it continues to experience itself as other bodies, doesn’t it? RICHARD: Yes, just as it does now (the universe also experiences itself as a cat or a dog and so on). * RESPONDENT: Thus everyone else I perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to me will, as soon as I die, stop experiencing the universe. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying thus everyone else you perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to you will, as soon as you die, stop experiencing the universe. RESPONDENT: Why not? RICHARD: Because all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RICHARD: I don’t see it! Aren’t you saying that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself will not continue? RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: I’m starting to think I’m talking with a very sophisticated computer programme. RICHARD: You may find the following to be illuminative:
* RESPONDENT: In fact, if I die, you, Richard, will stop being actual. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying in fact, if you die, I, Richard, will stop being actual. RESPONDENT: But how can actuality continue without my body to experience it? RICHARD: Just the same as it did prior to you being born (as I, Richard, was actual before that date you are not needed at all). RESPONDENT: And if actuality does continue, then surely I (not the body-mind-vibe, but the experience ‘as’) am that? RICHARD: If you are not [quote] ‘the body-mind-vibe [endquote] then just what are you to be [quote] ‘the experience ‘as’ [endquote]? * RESPONDENT: Isn’t what you are saying a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game? RICHARD: No ... what I am saying is not a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game. RESPONDENT: Okay, how isn’t it? RICHARD: How what I am saying is not a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game is that all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. * RESPONDENT: When I leave this room for example, the chair I am sitting on may cease to exist as a physical fact for me, but it obviously continues to exist, because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times in the past. RICHARD: Whereas when I leave this room, for example, the chair I am sitting on does not cease to exist as a physical fact (as an always-on camera would readily demonstrate) for me as it obviously continues to exist ... if only because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times previously. RESPONDENT: Then surely actuality continues? RICHARD: Indeed it does ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. * RESPONDENT: I suppose the answer to these questions is tied up with your comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz? RICHARD: No ... the answer to those questions is not tied up with my comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz. RESPONDENT: Why not? RICHARD: Because all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it ‘the real world’ which dies with my body? RICHARD: Unless the real-world has already died (concomitant to your altruistic ‘self’-immolation) prior to your physical demise ... yes. * RESPONDENT: How do you know that nothing continues after your body dies though? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that nothing continues after this flesh and blood body dies your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: Does something continue after I die then? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Is it the universe? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Does the universe experience itself in other things? RICHARD: Not ‘in’ other things ... no (nor as other things either); as other bodies ... yes. * RESPONDENT: And how is it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death that query of yours also has no answer. RESPONDENT: Does something survive after I die? RICHARD: Yes, but not something of that flesh and blood body which in some way this universe can experience itself as that flesh and blood body in other forms. * RESPONDENT: They [a lot of the answers about death on The Actual Freedom Trust web site] just seem to be affirmations that it is so. RICHARD: What, specifically, just seems to you to be affirmations that it is so? RESPONDENT: I mean what you say about death seem to me to be assertions that cannot be demonstrated. RICHARD: What, specifically, do I say about death on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is it that seem to you to be assertions that cannot be demonstrated? RESPONDENT: I mean it can be demonstrated that the body dies. RICHARD: Obviously. RESPONDENT: But how can it be demonstrated that something which ‘is here’ which in SOME sense ‘I’ am does not continue? RICHARD: Where, specifically, do I say on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that [quote] ‘something which ‘is here’ which in SOME sense ‘I’ am does not continue’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: By ‘I’ I mean the whole universe. RICHARD: Okay ... here is an example of what you wrote (above) might look like then:
Where, specifically, do I say something like that, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, inasmuch it seems to you to be assertions that cannot be demonstrated? * RESPONDENT: I’d still sort of thought of it all like that though, that something which in some fundamental sense I am will continue – without mind, body and vibe. RICHARD: The very stuff of what you are (‘what’ not ‘who’) continues ... matter itself, being neither created nor destroyed, is eternal. RESPONDENT: Oh. And the experience of it continues as well? RICHARD: Not the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body ... no. RESPONDENT: Not ‘my’ experience, but ‘the’ experience? RICHARD: Not the experience of the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body ... no. * RESPONDENT: I [in some fundamental sense without mind, body and vibe] will kind of dissolve back into the infinite eternal universe. RICHARD: Various bits and pieces of what you are (such as flakes of skin for an obvious instance) are falling off you each moment again ... physical death simply means all of what you are is available at once for recycling. RESPONDENT: Except the universe itself. RICHARD: The various bits and pieces of what one is at physical death are no different from the universe per se. RESPONDENT: Which is not available for recycling, but is recycling itself/ RICHARD: All of the various bits and pieces of the universe (matter either as mass or energy) are continuously recycling ... this universe is a veritable mobilis perpetuum. RESPONDENT: I suppose what I’ve got to ask is ‘am I the universe?’ RICHARD: No, all there is to ask, if that be what you want to do, is whether what you are, as that flesh and blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sentient creature (the universe cannot experience itself as a rock, for instance, as rocks are not sentient). RESPONDENT: It does seem like a bit of a grand claim. RICHARD: There is nothing grand (as in ‘grandiose’) about being the universe’s experience of itself as a flesh and blood body ... it is, however, indeed grand (as in ‘great’, ‘full-grown’, abundant’) for the universe to experience itself apperceptively because, as such, it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: I suppose I sort would like to feel I am, but, evidence lacking, cannot be sure. Please provide evidence if you have it. RICHARD: As your supposition – in your ‘I suppose what I’ve got to ask’ phrasing – is not what is on The Actual Freedom Trust web site there is nothing which needs evidence being provided. * RESPONDENT: How exactly is that [thinking in some fundamental sense, without mind, body and vibe, I will kind of dissolve back into the infinite eternal universe] wrong, if it is? RICHARD: What exactly is wrong is that who you are (‘who’ not ‘what’) has no existence in actuality ... let alone being able to dissolve into it upon the death of the body you have a parasitical residence in. RESPONDENT: But aren’t thoughts actual? RICHARD: Ha ... you can think all you will, that in some fundamental sense (without mind, body and vibe) you will kind of dissolve back into the infinite eternal universe, yet no amount of any such thought will ever make it actual. RESPONDENT: Aren’t feelings actual? RICHARD: You can feel (be it a grand feeling or otherwise) that you are the universe yet no amount of any such feeling will ever make it actual. RESPONDENT: I mean I am actually having the feeling of a headache now. There is this body, which is not someone else’s body, and which my brain and other people’s brains conveniently call ‘No. 90’, and this ‘No. 90’ is having a headache. Actually. And not fun either. Being actual doesn’t seem to make it more fun. RICHARD: Here is what you initially said:
And now !Lo and Behold! you are busy with musings about how being actual does not make that body having a headache fun. RESPONDENT: But it seems I am not being actual. Thus all my other questions about how that is done. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) this one question only – about how nothing currently called ‘No. 90’ whatsoever will [quote] ‘continue after the flesh and blood body dies’ [endquote] – can be comprehended then all your other questions about how being actual be done will fall into place.
RESPONDENT: Richard (...) one quick question: How do you KNOW that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago didn’t become actually free? RICHARD: Unless you can provide suitably referenced information which unambiguously demonstrates that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago did become actually free from the human condition your query is about a hypothetical person – an intellectual creation, an abstract person, an imaginative entity – who has no existence outside of your skull. In other words, your query currently looks something like this:
RESPONDENT: Richard (...) one quick question: How do you KNOW that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago didn’t become actually free? RICHARD: Unless you can provide suitably referenced information which unambiguously demonstrates that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago did become actually free from the human condition your query is about a hypothetical person – an intellectual creation, an abstract person, an imaginative entity – who has no existence outside of your skull. In other words, your query currently looks something like this: [example only]: ‘How do you KNOW that a hypothetical person/an intellectual creation/an abstract person/an imaginative entity who has no existence outside of my skull didn’t become actually free? [end example]. RESPONDENT: Fair enough ... RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding here is what a dictionary has to say about that expression:
If that blatantly obvious way I can know how your hypothetical person – your intellectual creation/ your abstract person/ your imaginative entity who has no existence outside of your skull – did not become actually free is indeed reasonable then why on earth did you persist with your hypothetical/ intellectual/ abstract/ imaginative argument (further below)? RESPONDENT: ... it’s just that (I think) you claim to be the only person ever yet to be actually free. RICHARD: More to the point I report being the first *flesh and blood* person to be actually free from the human condition ... and interestingly enough the many and various hypothetical persons already (purportedly) actually free from the human condition prior to 1992, which many and various peoples write to me about from time-to-time, did not exist in their many and various skulls prior to those many and various peoples coming across The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Might I suggest? Just pause for the nonce so as to allow the implications and ramifications of that observation to sink in before reading on ... and I will put it in personal terms for your convenience:
RESPONDENT: I didn’t realise that you mean by this, ‘as far as you know’. RICHARD: It depends upon what the person whom I am responding to wants from me: if they want information about an ordinary way of knowing I add the ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’ qualifier to my account of regular research; if they want information about an extraordinary way of knowing I provide an experiential report. Not that it makes much difference, of course, as by and large they remained convinced that their hypothetical person is more credible than this flesh and blood person (even though they knew nothing about an actual freedom from the human condition prior to coming across The Actual Freedom Trust web site). Again I will suggest a pause before reading on ... and I will put it thisaway this time:
RESPONDENT: I mean, yes, my hypothetical person is an intellectual creation (etc), but ... RICHARD: If I might interject (before your negative conjunction takes you away from the import of what you have just acknowledged)? Your hypothetical person is an intellectually created free-from-the-human-condition person ... and not just yet another one of the many, many, not-actually-free-from-the-human-condition people in the past who had no access to written records and who lived and died far from any kind of historical civilisation. RESPONDENT: ... [but] it seems clear to me that there were many, many people in the past (let’s say the remote past), who had no access to written records and who lived and died far from any kind of civilisation. RICHARD: Indeed so ... the peoples of the New Guinea highlands, for example, first came into contact with peoples from elsewhere in the world circa 1932-33. RESPONDENT: I don’t think all these people were or are pure inventions of my mind (at least not in the same way that, say, Martians are). RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is only the hypothetical person already (purportedly) actually free from the human condition, prior to you even knowing that there was an actual freedom from the human condition, who is a pure invention of your mind. RESPONDENT: I think they actually existed. RICHARD: The peoples of the New Guinea highlands, for example, certainly did ... I have seen both black and white footage of the first contact and several interviews, on colour video, of some still recently alive (being but 70-odd years out of isolation they could still clearly remember the first contact). Needless is it to add that none of them have spoken of a remote ancestor being actually free from the human condition (or of even knowing about such a condition)? RESPONDENT: It seems to me that you are saying for sure that none of them were ever actually free. Are you? RICHARD: Yes, both for as far as I have been able to ascertain by regular research and as experientially determined by the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, nobody either living or dead prior to 1992 has ever been actually free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: If you are, how do you know? RICHARD: By both regular research over the period 1981-2005 and the experiential exploration through the period 1985-1992 of the identity then inhabiting this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Is it through strange and extraordinary knowledge ... to which I have no access? RICHARD: Anyone can follow in the footsteps of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, if they so desire, and thus ascertain for themselves that only one person has gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment (previously considered to be only possible after physical death). RESPONDENT: Unless you can provide suitably referenced information which unambiguously demonstrates that a tribesman of Papua New Guinea twelve thousand years ago did not become actually free from the human condition I’ll have to assume that it was possible that he may have. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
You are, of course, free to assume whatever you like about your hypothetical person – your intellectual creation, your abstract entity, your imaginative figure – who has no existence outside of your skull. You could assume that theoretical personage also be a Martian, for instance, for all the difference it would make.
CORRESPONDENT No. 90 (Part Three) 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 |
(Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 