|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 97
RESPONDENT: The statement that ‘this moment has no duration’ can also be found in St Augustine’s autobiography, as you are certainly aware. The meditation on time is a nice read, although the rest is the usual religious stuff, filled with virginity, sinning, repenting, grace, heaven and hell. RICHARD: Having never read anything by Mr. Aurelius Augustinus I did a little research: presuming that by autobiography you mean his book ‘The Confessions’, and further presuming that the passage you speak of is to be found in ‘Book XI’, nowhere could I find anything relating to what ‘this moment has no duration’ refers to ... to time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Sorry, I had forgotten the title when writing to you but assumed you knew it. ‘The Confessions’ are indeed his autobiography. I thought that your statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to Augustine’s, Confessions, book XI, chap. XV: ‘(...) If any portion of time be conceived which cannot now be divided into even the minutest particles of moments, this only is that which may be called present; which, however, flies so rapidly from future to past, that it cannot be extended by any delay. (...)’ [endquote]. I think ‘not extended by any delay’ and ‘no duration’ are rather similar. But if the word ‘moment’ in your sentence, contrary to what I presumed, doesn’t mean ‘this present moment’ but refers to ‘time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever’ then this sounds dangerously 4-dimensional to me. RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: What other moment could it be except this one, always? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are answering in the affirmative (that you have indeed noticed that it is never not this moment)? If so, what would make you think that my statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say about a conceptual [quote] ‘portion of time’ [endquote] which cannot be divided into even the minutest particles of [quote] ‘moments’ [endquote] and which portion of time only may be called [quote] ‘present’ [endquote] but which such a moment however [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] then? RESPONDENT: I have never been to the future, neither to the past, except when thinking about it. RICHARD: Are you referring to future and past events ... or future and past time? RESPONDENT: My girlfriend once remarked that even consciousness is a function of memory, given that it is always a quarter of a second late compared to the ‘actual’ time ‘outside’ of the nervous system. RICHARD: Given that your usage of [quote] ‘even’ [endquote] links your girlfriend’s remark to your previous sentence it is apposite to point out that, by observing that this moment has no duration, I am not referring to a function of memory ... on the contrary:
* RICHARD: If not, then are you aware that time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/present/future) is but a convention? RESPONDENT: Aware since high school physics class, yes; there, we were told that the concept of ‘entropy’ was introduced in order to show that this convention is ‘real’ and that time ‘has’ to have a direction. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are really answering in the negative (else why add a negating codicil to what is otherwise an affirmative)? * RICHARD: To explain: presumably some pre-historical person/ persons noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and then to water-clocks/ sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/ spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, energy-clocks (aka ‘atomic-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around its radiant star. Put succinctly: it is not time itself (eternity) that moves ... it is objects existing in (infinite) space which do. RESPONDENT: To make sure I understand you correctly: Are you saying that time is a measure of change – no change (movement), no time? RICHARD: No, I am saying that it is conventional time – time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) – which has no existence in actuality; time itself (eternity), just like space (infinity), most certainly exists. There is a vast stillness here. * RESPONDENT: Last, I would like to remind you that the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by Plato, Phaedo :-). RICHARD: Why would you like to remind me who the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by? RESPONDENT: Well, I haven’t anywhere seen you giving credit to the author of this quote which you fondly and regularly use. RICHARD: I copy-pasted [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] into the search engine of this computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Richard, please don’t pretend not to understand that I was quoting the original, Plato, while your version replaces ‘for man’ with ‘second-rate living’ ... RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. * RESPONDENT: I thought it might be nice to provide this mailing list with the source ... RICHARD: Why did you think it might be nice to provide this mailing list with the source? RESPONDENT: By now the mailing list has made it clear that they are familiar Plato, so it was useless name-dropping; at the time, given your passion for referencing I wondered why in this case you were not as intellectually honest as usual. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: I thought that the reason could be that Plato is known for his mystically inspired idealism which you wouldn’t like to be associated with. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: I know, I know, there isn’t any ‘you’ to despise anything, let alone an association, except maybe with impurity and the human condition. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. * RESPONDENT: ... i.e. Plato, Phaedo, a dialogue featuring Socrates. RICHARD: A search through an on-line version of ‘Phaedo’ for that quote returned nil hits ... a search through ‘Apology’, however, found the following passage: ‘... if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me’. [endquote]. If that is indeed the phrase you are referring to it has also been rendered as follows: ‘If again I say it is the greatest good for a man every day to discuss virtue and the other things, about which you hear me talking and examining myself and everybody else, and that life without enquiry is not worth living for a man, you will believe me still less if I say that’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: But you have the point that I misquoted the source (thanks for the lesson never to quote from memory); it is indeed the passage you gave from ‘The Apology’. RICHARD: I did not have any such point: I was clearly (a) ascertaining if that is indeed the phrase you are referring to ... and (b) pointing out that, were that to be the case, there is another rendering of the phrase. Having never studied philosophy, and being thus unfamiliar with the quote, I wanted to ascertain if the crux of the phrase – the blanket assertion that such a life is [quote] ‘not worth living’ [endquote] – was consistent throughout various renditions or but a vagary of the translation process ... because nowhere have I ever said that the unexamined life/life without enquiry (aka a normal life) is any such thing for any person irregardless of gender. On the contrary:
Do you see I am clearly not saying, as Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say, that the unexamined life/life without enquiry is [quote] ‘not worth living’ [endquote]? * RESPONDENT: An unhappy and harmful specimen of the intellectual kind, although quite good at contemplation. RICHARD: In which case, and for whatever it is worth, then ... Mr. John Elson, in a review [in the ‘Time Magazine’of January 25, 1988] of Mr. Isidor Stone’s book ‘Gadfly’s Guilt: The Trial Of Socrates’, considers that the author [quote] ‘argues persuasively that the beloved Socrates was in reality a cold-hearted, elitist, pro-Spartan snob who was openly contemptuous of Athens’ vaunted democracy and favoured totalitarian rule by a philosopher-king’ [endquote]. The article at the following URL, originally published in ‘The New York Times Magazine’ (April 8, 1979, pp. 22 ff.), sheds some light upon why: [snip link]. There are occasions where I am particularly pleased not to have ever studied philosophy ... and this is one of them. RESPONDENT: But with a serious lack in repetitiveness, probably due to the absence of the copy & paste function in 400 BC. RICHARD: Ha ... you would have to be referring to this exchange: [Respondent]: ‘Another parallel you might like to explore or might already have – as a method, not in its premises – and which could be considered a ‘precursor’ of AF would be phenomenology. The names connected with it are Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, Edith Stein, Sartre, Derrida. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you whether they or who of them were happy and harmless. [Richard]: ‘I can ... the German philosopher Mr. Edmund Husserl was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion); the French philosopher Mr. Maurice Merleau-Ponty was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion); the German philosopher Mr. Martin Heidegger was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion); the Silesian philosopher Ms. Edith Stein was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion); the French philosopher Mr. Jean-Paul Sartre was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion); the French philosopher Mr. Jacques Derrida was not happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion). [Respondent]: ‘I have a strong suspicion for Stein and Derrida, though, for Derrida at least towards the end of his life. But I’ve been wrong before. [Richard]: ‘All it takes is to provide (attributed and suitably referenced) quotes which unambiguously report freedom from both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion’. [endquote]. There is a distinct possibility, now, that you will never again misconstrue just what unconditional felicity/ innocuity is, eh? RESPONDENT: Never again, never again, never again, never again, never again, never again. RICHARD: In which case, were this e-mail exchange to go no further (for whatever reason), then this discussion has already been of immense benefit.
RESPONDENT: The statement that ‘this moment has no duration’ can also be found in St Augustine’s autobiography, as you are certainly aware. The meditation on time is a nice read, although the rest is the usual religious stuff, filled with virginity, sinning, repenting, grace, heaven and hell. RICHARD: Having never read anything by Mr. Aurelius Augustinus I did a little research: presuming that by autobiography you mean his book ‘The Confessions’, and further presuming that the passage you speak of is to be found in ‘Book XI’, nowhere could I find anything relating to what ‘this moment has no duration’ refers to ... to time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Sorry, I had forgotten the title when writing to you but assumed you knew it. ‘The Confessions’ are indeed his autobiography. I thought that your statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to Augustine’s, Confessions, book XI, chap. XV: ‘(...) If any portion of time be conceived which cannot now be divided into even the minutest particles of moments, this only is that which may be called present; which, however, flies so rapidly from future to past, that it cannot be extended by any delay. (...)’ [endquote]. I think ‘not extended by any delay’ and ‘no duration’ are rather similar. But if the word ‘moment’ in your sentence, contrary to what I presumed, doesn’t mean ‘this present moment’ but refers to ‘time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever’ then this sounds dangerously 4-dimensional to me. RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: What other moment could it be except this one, always? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are answering in the affirmative (that you have indeed noticed that it is never not this moment)? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: In which case it be patently obvious that it cannot be something which [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] portions of time, eh? * RICHARD: If so, what would make you think that my statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say about a conceptual [quote] ‘portion of time’ [endquote] which cannot be divided into even the minutest particles of [quote] ‘moments’ [endquote] and which portion of time only may be called [quote] ‘present’ [endquote] but which such a moment however [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] then? RESPONDENT: Augustine operates ad absurdum. He says: imagine a moment with a duration. He then proceeds to show that this proposition is absurd: ‘the present’ is always divisible (modern physics would add the question if this is indeed the case after reaching the shortness of the Planck time. But this is a discussion list on actuality, not on physics). So, finally, the extension of the moment approaches zero; indeed, if we follow Augustine’s reasoning, it is zero: It is ‘not extended by any delay’. Equal, in my first (mis)understanding, to your ‘no duration’. RICHARD: Okay ... as what I have to report/ describe/ explain about this moment having no duration cannot be even remotely compared with Mr. Aurelius Augustinus’ conceptual [quote] ‘present’ [endquote], which flies rapidly from future to past similarly conceptualised portions of time, then that is the end of that mode of perception being what a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) directly experiences. All that remains to be settled now, before moving on to other topics, is the matter of what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say in ‘Apology’. * RESPONDENT: Last, I would like to remind you that the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by Plato, Phaedo :-). RICHARD: Why would you like to remind me who the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by? RESPONDENT: Well, I haven’t anywhere seen you giving credit to the author of this quote which you fondly and regularly use. RICHARD: I copy-pasted [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] into the search engine of this computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Richard, please don’t pretend not to understand that I was quoting the original, Plato, while your version replaces ‘for man’ with ‘second-rate living’. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You are most welcome:
www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/audiotapeddialogues/anunexaminedlifeissecondrateliving.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is [quote] ‘An unexamined life is second-rate living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb26.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is [quote] ‘An unexamined life is second-rate living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb26a.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is but a computer-generated copy of the previous e-mail to the above co-respondent it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-altruism.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is but a selected-correspondence copy of the e-mail to the above co-respondent it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: In the
variant ‘Yet an un-examined life is second-hand living’ one can read it on:
www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb14b.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page, just as the copy-pasted quote you provided clearly
shows, is [quote] ‘Yet an unexamined life is second-hand living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide
the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’
replaced with ‘second-rate living’. * RESPONDENT: I thought it might be nice to provide this mailing list with the source ... RICHARD: Why did you think it might be nice to provide this mailing list with the source? RESPONDENT: By now the mailing list has made it clear that they are familiar Plato, so it was useless name-dropping; at the time, given your passion for referencing I wondered why in this case you were not as intellectually honest as usual. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Just happened. RICHARD: As no such thing has indeed just happened it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: I thought that the reason could be that Plato is known for his mystically inspired idealism which you wouldn’t like to be associated with. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Just happened. RICHARD: As no such thing has indeed just happened it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: I know, I know, there isn’t any ‘you’ to despise anything, let alone an association, except maybe with impurity and the human condition. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Just happened. RICHARD: As no such thing has indeed just happened it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. * RESPONDENT: ... i.e. Plato, Phaedo, a dialogue featuring Socrates. RICHARD: A search through an on-line version of ‘Phaedo’ for that quote returned nil hits ... a search through ‘Apology’, however, found the following passage: ‘... if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me’. [endquote]. If that is indeed the phrase you are referring to it has also been rendered as follows: ‘If again I say it is the greatest good for a man every day to discuss virtue and the other things, about which you hear me talking and examining myself and everybody else, and that life without enquiry is not worth living for a man, you will believe me still less if I say that’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: But you have the point that I misquoted the source (thanks for the lesson never to quote from memory); it is indeed the passage you gave from ‘The Apology’. RICHARD: I did not have any such point: I was clearly (a) ascertaining if that is indeed the phrase you are referring to ... and (b) pointing out that, were that to be the case, there is another rendering of the phrase. Having never studied philosophy, and being thus unfamiliar with the quote, I wanted to ascertain if the crux of the phrase – the blanket assertion that such a life is [quote] ‘not worth living’ [endquote] – was consistent throughout various renditions or but a vagary of the translation process ... because nowhere have I ever said that the unexamined life/life without enquiry (aka a normal life) is any such thing for any person irregardless of gender. On the contrary: [snip quote to that effect]. Do you see I am clearly not saying, as Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say, that the unexamined life/life without enquiry is [quote] ‘not worth living’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: Of course; you say ‘second-rate’ or ‘second-hand’ living, with references quoted above. RICHARD: Then why would you like to remind me who the phrase [quote] ‘the unexamined life is *not worth living* for man’ [emphasis added] is by? Furthermore, why would you assert that such an all-dismissive phrase it is a quote which I fondly Moreover, why would you claim you have not anywhere seen me giving credit to the author of such an all-dismissive quote? Even more to the point, why would you allege that what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say is [quote] ‘the original’ [endquote] of some, as yet unprovided, texts of mine wherein you aver I too have seen fit to use such all-dismissive terminology (as in ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’) with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’? * RICHARD: (...) There is a distinct possibility, now, that you will never again misconstrue just what unconditional felicity/ innocuity is, eh? RESPONDENT: Never again, never again, never again, never again, never again, never again. RICHARD: In which case, were this e-mail exchange to go no further (for whatever reason), then this discussion has already been of immense benefit. RESPONDENT: An so I would, to further the e-mail exchange, like to ask some questions ... RICHARD: I have no intention of furthering the e-mail exchange until the last remaining matter, as specified by you in your preface to your third e-mail, is also settled. Viz.:
Although why you would choose to drop the discussions on apperception – right after informing me that what interests you most is the specific quality of (my) experience – in favour of the mode of perception of Mr. Aurelius Augustinus and Mr. Plato has got me beat. RESPONDENT: (...) I will also readily accept being unequivocally told by either your saying so or your silence that you wish not to answer the questions. RICHARD: Ha ... as any instance of me not responding to something you write, or to anything anyone else writes, is most certainly not a case of me not wishing to answer the questions it may be handy to bear in mind that an absence of any such answers has nothing to do with anything other than sheer volume precluding me being able to respond to everything and anything you or anyone else writes. Put bluntly: if you (or anyone else) choose to read into what you describe as [quote] ‘your silence’ [endquote] something other than that prosaic fact then more fool you (or them).
RESPONDENT: The statement that ‘this moment has no duration’ can also be found in St Augustine’s autobiography, as you are certainly aware. The meditation on time is a nice read, although the rest is the usual religious stuff, filled with virginity, sinning, repenting, grace, heaven and hell. RICHARD: Having never read anything by Mr. Aurelius Augustinus I did a little research: presuming that by autobiography you mean his book ‘The Confessions’, and further presuming that the passage you speak of is to be found in ‘Book XI’, nowhere could I find anything relating to what ‘this moment has no duration’ refers to ... to time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Sorry, I had forgotten the title when writing to you but assumed you knew it. ‘The Confessions’ are indeed his autobiography. I thought that your statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to Augustine’s, Confessions, book XI, chap. XV: ‘(...) If any portion of time be conceived which cannot now be divided into even the minutest particles of moments, this only is that which may be called present; which, however, flies so rapidly from future to past, that it cannot be extended by any delay. (...)’ [endquote]. I think ‘not extended by any delay’ and ‘no duration’ are rather similar. But if the word ‘moment’ in your sentence, contrary to what I presumed, doesn’t mean ‘this present moment’ but refers to ‘time itself (the arena, so to speak, in which objects move) being without any movement whatsoever’ then this sounds dangerously 4-dimensional to me. RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: What other moment could it be except this one, always? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are answering in the affirmative (that you have indeed noticed that it is never not this moment)? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: In which case it be patently obvious that it cannot be something which [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] portions of time, eh? * RICHARD: If so, what would make you think that my statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say about a conceptual [quote] ‘portion of time’ [endquote] which cannot be divided into even the minutest particles of [quote] ‘moments’ [endquote] and which portion of time only may be called [quote] ‘present’ [endquote] but which such a moment however [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] then? RESPONDENT: Augustine operates ad absurdum. He says: imagine a moment with a duration. He then proceeds to show that this proposition is absurd: ‘the present’ is always divisible (modern physics would add the question if this is indeed the case after reaching the shortness of the Planck time. But this is a discussion list on actuality, not on physics). So, finally, the extension of the moment approaches zero; indeed, if we follow Augustine’s reasoning, it is zero: It is ‘not extended by any delay’. Equal, in my first (mis)understanding, to your ‘no duration’. RICHARD: Okay ... as what I have to report/ describe/ explain about this moment having no duration cannot be even remotely compared with Mr. Aurelius Augustinus’ conceptual [quote] ‘present’ [endquote], which flies rapidly from future to past similarly conceptualised portions of time, then that is the end of that mode of perception being what a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) directly experiences. All that remains to be settled now, before moving on to other topics, is the matter of what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say in ‘Apology’. RESPONDENT: Richard, are you a robot? RICHARD: I have been asked similar questions before ... for instance:
I do not read/watch science fiction but as I get these type of questions from time to time, from peoples who either conveniently overlook or are oblivious to what is known as ‘theory of mind’, I have gradually been made aware of various ‘Star Trek’ characters, for instance, and it is pertinent to point out that the stuff of science fiction (creations of imagination) is entirely different to actuality ... a writer replete with identity/ feelings trying to visualise life sans identity/ feelings can, it would seem, only conceive of a robotic/ automated android-like organism speaking in a flat, monotone voice and devoid of both a sense of humour and any caring/ consideration for other sentient creatures (aka fellowship regard). RESPONDENT: Don’t be so predictable! RICHARD: There is no way you could have predicted that, upon doing a little research (and presuming that by autobiography you meant Mr. Aurelius Augustinus’ book ‘The Confessions’ plus further presuming that the passage you spoke of was to be found in ‘Book XI’), I would nowhere find anything relating to what ‘this moment has no duration’ refers to ... unless, of course, you only ever wanted to have me going off on a wild-goose chase from the very beginning. In other words, taking you to be sincere I went on-line, located a copy of ‘The Confessions’, downloaded it, started reading but soon stopped (due to its range), went back on-line, located a web page which provided a chapter-by-chapter commentary, ascertained where the ‘meditation on time’ was to be found (Book XI), came back to the down-loaded copy, read the entire chapter ... only to draw a blank. And when you then explained why you thought what I have to say could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say I still took you to be sincere. RESPONDENT: I hereby beg you to consider I never even compared what you said to anything anybody else ever wrote or reportedly said. RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? RESPONDENT: Let’s move on. RICHARD: All that remains to be settled now, before moving on to other topics, is the matter of what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say in ‘Apology’. * RESPONDENT: Last, I would like to remind you that the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by Plato, Phaedo :-). RICHARD: Why would you like to remind me who the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by? RESPONDENT: Well, I haven’t anywhere seen you giving credit to the author of this quote which you fondly and regularly use. RICHARD: I copy-pasted [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] into the search engine of this computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Richard, please don’t pretend not to understand that I was quoting the original, Plato, while your version replaces ‘for man’ with ‘second-rate living’. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You are most welcome:
www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/audiotapeddialogues/anunexaminedlifeissecondrateliving.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is [quote] ‘An unexamined life is second-rate living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb26.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is [quote] ‘An unexamined life is second-rate living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb26a.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is but a computer-generated copy of the previous e-mail to the above co-respondent it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-altruism.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page is but a selected-correspondence copy of the e-mail to the above co-respondent it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: In the variant ‘Yet an un-examined life is second-hand living’
one can read it on: www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb14b.htm. RICHARD: As all what is to be found on that page, just as the copy-pasted quote you provided clearly shows, is [quote] ‘Yet an unexamined life is second-hand living’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated if you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used the quote ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: Richard, my patience has an end. RICHARD: Did you know your patience has an end before reaching for the keyboard to inform me that you
would like to remind me who the phrase [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] is by?
Furthermore, did you know it had an end before asserting that such an all-dismissive phrase it is a quote which I fondly Or is it something you have just discovered because of your co-respondent is asking you to provide the texts in question so as to be able to have a meaningful discussion about something concrete? RESPONDENT: Consider all my implications, allegations or accusations withdrawn. RICHARD: I have not asked you to withdraw anything ... on the contrary, I am asking you to provide the texts in question so that they be on the table, so to speak, rather than have you (a) wonder, in absentia, why there is an unusual intellectual dishonesty ... and (b) think, in absentia, of a dislike for association with mystically inspired idealism ... and (c) know, anyway, there is not any ‘me’ to despise anything. Viz.:
Incidentally, a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) has no passion whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Consider them to be done because of careless reading of your website. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with careless reading of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... all it takes is a comparison of two simple phrases. Therefore, if you could provide the relevant texts it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Consider my answers to be perfect echoes of whatever you wrote ... RICHARD: As they were nothing of the sort I will do no such thing. RESPONDENT: ... or wish me to write. RICHARD: I do not wish you to write anything about echoes ... all that is required is the relevant texts. RESPONDENT: Or better, pretend they were never even made ... RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? RESPONDENT: ... for brevity’s sake and out of respect for the time of the participants of this mailing list. Everybody interested in the matters we discussed can easily take a look at a provided link ... RICHARD: This has nothing to do with anybody else ... my only interest in the matter lies in this discussion with you. RESPONDENT: ... and I think we can trust people’s ability to read for themselves and conclude that you were right. RICHARD: As I always advise throwing trust out of the window (right along with its companions belief, faith, hope and certitude) then what you think is beside the point ... the point being a noticeable dearth of relevant texts to have a discussion about. * RESPONDENT: (...) I will also readily accept being unequivocally told by either your saying so or your silence that you wish not to answer the questions. RICHARD: Ha ... as any instance of me not responding to something you write, or to anything anyone else writes, is most certainly not a case of me not wishing to answer the questions it may be handy to bear in mind that an absence of any such answers has nothing to do with anything other than sheer volume precluding me being able to respond to everything and anything you or anyone else writes. RESPONDENT: Could we now move on to what might interest people ... RICHARD: It is not a case of what might interest people ... this is about what interests you. RESPONDENT: ... i.e. other matters, i.e. questions Respondents No. 25, No. 90 and myself put to you? RICHARD: I have no intention of moving on to the other questions you put to me until the last remaining matter, as specified by you in your preface to your third e-mail, is also settled. Viz.:
Although why you would choose to drop the discussions on apperception – right after informing me that what interests you most is the specific quality of (my) experience – in favour of the mode of perception of Mr. Aurelius Augustinus and Mr. Plato has got me beat. RESPONDENT: I don’t think the sheer volume of those to be overwhelming. RICHARD: You may find the following illuminative:
In other words, there being no compulsion or obligation whatsoever, I could just as easily not write at all. Over to you.
(...) RICHARD: ... what would make you think that my statement ‘this moment has no duration’ could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say about a conceptual [quote] ‘portion of time’ [endquote] which cannot be divided into even the minutest particles of [quote] ‘moments’ [endquote] and which portion of time only may be called [quote] ‘present’ [endquote] but which such a moment however [quote] ‘flies so rapidly from future to past’ [endquote] then? RESPONDENT: Augustine operates ad absurdum. He says: imagine a moment with a duration. He then proceeds to show that this proposition is absurd: ‘the present’ is always divisible (modern physics would add the question if this is indeed the case after reaching the shortness of the Planck time. But this is a discussion list on actuality, not on physics). So, finally, the extension of the moment approaches zero; indeed, if we follow Augustine’s reasoning, it is zero: It is ‘not extended by any delay’. Equal, in my first (mis)understanding, to your ‘no duration’. RICHARD: Okay ... as what I have to report/ describe/ explain about this moment having no duration cannot be even remotely compared with Mr. Aurelius Augustinus’ conceptual [quote] ‘present’ [endquote], which flies rapidly from future to past similarly conceptualised portions of time, then that is the end of that mode of perception being what a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) directly experiences. All that remains to be settled now, before moving on to other topics, is the matter of what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say in ‘Apology’. RESPONDENT: Richard, are you a robot? RICHARD: I have been asked similar questions before ... for instance: [Co-Respondent]: ‘In which way one person that lost his being and ego, is different than a robot?’ [endquote]. I do not read/watch science fiction but as I get these type of questions from time to time, from peoples who either conveniently overlook or are oblivious to what is known as ‘theory of mind’, I have gradually been made aware of various ‘Star Trek’ characters, for instance, and it is pertinent to point out that the stuff of science fiction (creations of imagination) is entirely different to actuality ... a writer replete with identity/ feelings trying to visualise life sans identity/ feelings can, it would seem, only conceive of a robotic/ automated android-like organism speaking in a flat, monotone voice and devoid of both a sense of humour and any caring/ consideration for other sentient creatures (aka fellowship regard). RESPONDENT: This is a very cool answer; I would classify it as irony in the second degree, aka taking something serious which is obviously meant as a joke, thus deflating the joke. RICHARD: It was not obvious you meant it as a joke ... especially so as you immediately followed it with an exclamatory injunction not to be something. RESPONDENT: Don’t be so predictable! RICHARD: There is no way you could have predicted that, upon doing a little research (and presuming that by autobiography you meant Mr. Aurelius Augustinus’ book ‘The Confessions’ plus further presuming that the passage you spoke of was to be found in ‘Book XI’), I would nowhere find anything relating to what ‘this moment has no duration’ refers to ... unless, of course, you only ever wanted to have me going off on a wild-goose chase from the very beginning. In other words, taking you to be sincere I went on-line, located a copy of ‘The Confessions’, downloaded it, started reading but soon stopped (due to its range), went back on-line, located a web page which provided a chapter-by-chapter commentary, ascertained where the ‘meditation on time’ was to be found (Book XI), came back to the down-loaded copy, read the entire chapter ... only to draw a blank. And when you then explained why you thought what I have to say could be compared to what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say I still took you to be sincere. RESPONDENT: I hereby beg you to consider I never even compared what you said to anything anybody else ever wrote or reportedly said. RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? RESPONDENT: Right. RICHARD: Ah, so I guessed that one right (that it was a joke to be hereby begged to consider you had never compared what I have to say with what Mr. Aurelius Augustinus had to say), then? RESPONDENT: Let’s move on. RICHARD: All that remains to be settled now, before moving on to other topics, is the matter of what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say in ‘Apology’. RESPONDENT: o.k., for non-existing heaven’s sake. RICHARD: No, for your sake. * RESPONDENT: Last, I would like to remind you that the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by Plato, Phaedo :-). RICHARD: Why would you like to remind me who the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by? RESPONDENT: Well, I haven’t anywhere seen you giving credit to the author of this quote which you fondly and regularly use. RICHARD: I copy-pasted [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] into the search engine of this computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Richard, please don’t pretend not to understand that I was quoting the original, Plato, while your version replaces ‘for man’ with ‘second-rate living’. RICHARD: If you could provide the relevant texts where I have regularly used that quote, with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Well, my original phrasing should have been: Richard, please don’t pretend not to understand that I was quoting the original, Plato, while your version replaces ‘not worth living for man’ (instead of ‘for man’) with ‘second-rate living’. RICHARD: This is why I have persisted with this thread ... you are still saying [quote] ‘the original’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘your version’ [endquote] as if nothing explanatory I have written makes any difference. RESPONDENT: Now, if we take the sentence ‘An unexamined life is second-rate living’ and replace the ‘second rate living’ with ‘not worth living for man’, we get Plato’s version, which is ‘An unexamined life is not worth living for man’ and vice versa. RICHARD: There is no [quote] ‘Plato’s version’ [endquote] ... all you have done is pick-up on the words ‘unexamined’ and ‘life’, from something I once said in 1997 (transcribed from a tape-recording) and used twice in writing circa 1998 on another mailing list, and run with it. RESPONDENT: Furthermore than wondering whether you are robot, I now wonder whether you are a computer program which only reacts to exactly what it is fed, with no ability to recognize the intention when it recognizes an error. RICHARD: I recognised what you impersonally describe as [quote] ‘the intention’ [endquote] when you first informed me that you would like to remind me who the phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ is by ... indeed, it is so similar to the same intention which runs through that entire e-mail of yours as to be virtually identical. RESPONDENT: Although I think that by now Google is more advanced on this than you. RICHARD: There is no way Google could ascertain that [quote] ‘the intention’ [endquote] is to try and make the case that philosophers and theologians and metaphysicians and the such-like have been talking about an actual freedom from the human condition for centuries ... that I have done a great job in synthesising – clearly and explicitly – things that have been around for a long time. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Richard, my patience has an end. RICHARD: Did you know your patience has an end before reaching for the keyboard to inform me that you would like to remind me who the phrase [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] is by? RESPONDENT: Yes. However, I didn’t know your style of discussion well enough by then. RICHARD: My style of discussion mirrors what it took for this flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition ... to wit: scrupulous honesty in regards to everything which one (as an identity) instinctually knows/ intuitively feels and thus (affectively) thinks to be true. To use a colloquialism ... if you cannot stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. * RICHARD: Furthermore, did you know it had an end before asserting that such an all-dismissive phrase it is a quote which I fondly and regularly use? Moreover, did you know it had an end before claiming you have not anywhere seen me giving credit to the author of such an all-dismissive quote? Even more to the point, did you know it had an end before alleging that what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say is [quote] ‘the original’ [endquote] of some, as yet unprovided, texts of mine wherein you averred I too had seen fit to use such all-dismissive terminology (as in ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’) with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’? RESPONDENT: The structure of the necessary word-by-word operation in order to transform Plato’s phrase into yours is by now (for the first time, I admit) correctly explained. RICHARD: May I ask? What occurs when you read the following:
RESPONDENT: I will discount the adverb ‘fondly’ in the above, as it refers to some emotional involvement in the activity one is engaged in, which I am glad you didn’t explain again, is impossible in your case. Thank you for providing the definition. RICHARD: You are very welcome. RESPONDENT: I will also discount the adverb ‘regularly’ in the above, as you have used the phrase originally in three documents ... RICHARD: The third document is a computer-generated copy of the previous e-mail to the very-same co-respondent. RESPONDENT: ... a fourth one containing a copy of the third and a fifth containing the slightly different verbing ‘Yet an un-examined life is second-hand living’, two other documents on Vineeto’s part of the AF website containing references to the sentence such as ‘it strikes you that an unexamined etc.’ and as I am not sure whether this can be unequivocally subsumed under the definition you thankfully also provided, i.e. in this case ‘recurring or repeated at fixed times, recurring at short uniform intervals.’ RICHARD: What will it take for you to be sure, then, if once verbally in 1997 plus twice literarily circa 1998, and never again through to 2005, does not unequivocally bespeak irregularity of such an infrequent occasionality as to hardly qualify for the word ‘irregular’ even? * RICHARD: Or is it [having a patience which has an end] something you have just discovered because of your co-respondent is asking you to provide the texts in question so as to be able to have a meaningful discussion about something concrete? RESPONDENT: If what I just did isn’t nit-picking at its worst, I don’t know what nit-picking is (but I maybe you will rush to provide me with a definition). RICHARD: I always find it cute when clarity is described as nit-picking ... yet it was you, not me, who took something said once and written twice, 7-8 years ago, and made more than a few assumptions about it, was it not? RESPONDENT: For future cases, I will ask you to put your considerable intelligence to a more productive use. RICHARD: What did you expect me to do when you, not only put it as a [quote] ‘last’ [endquote] on your second e-mail, but chose to come back to it in your third ... at the expense of continuing the discussions about apperception (right after informing me that what interests you most is the specific quality of (my) experience)? In fact, and more generally, just what did you expect a person sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto to do when sending them an e-mail comprised in a large part of philosophical/ metaphysical topics despite being informed up-front and out-in-the-open, that actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential and not philosophical ... roll over and play dead? * RESPONDENT: Consider all my implications, allegations or accusations withdrawn. RICHARD: I have not asked you to withdraw anything ... on the contrary, I am asking you to provide the texts in question so that they be on the table, so to speak, rather than have you (a) wonder, in absentia, why there is an unusual intellectual dishonesty ... and (b) think, in absentia, of a dislike for association with mystically inspired idealism ... and (c) know, anyway, there is not any ‘me’ to despise anything. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘... given your passion for referencing I wondered why in this case you were not as intellectually honest as usual. I thought that the reason could be that Plato is known for his mystically inspired idealism which you wouldn’t like to be associated with. I know, I know, there isn’t any ‘you’ to despise anything, let alone an association, except maybe with impurity and the human condition’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: This remark is what I call predictable. RICHARD: Whereas what I am doing is explaining why it is essential to have the texts to be discussed out in the open ... for what is the use of speculating about something which does not exist/ never happened? RESPONDENT: But what seems to me like a conditioned response in the manner of Pavlov’s dog be can as well be described as perseverance. RICHARD: How would you describe speculating, in absentia, about something which does not exist/ never happened, then? * RICHARD: Incidentally, a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) has no passion whatsoever. RESPONDENT: This style of response is what I meant with the ironical question ‘are you a robot?’. RICHARD: This is what you wrote:
Am I to take it that you deliberately used the word ‘passion’ (and the word ‘fondly’) so as to see if you could get a Pavlovian response out of me? * RESPONDENT: Consider them to be done because of careless reading of your website. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with careless reading of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... all it takes is a comparison of two simple phrases. Therefore, if you could provide the relevant texts it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Consider my answers to be perfect echoes of whatever you wrote ... RICHARD: As they were nothing of the sort I will do no such thing. RESPONDENT: ... or wish me to write. RICHARD: I do not wish you to write anything about echoes ... RESPONDENT: No? RICHARD: No ... all that is required is the relevant texts. * RESPONDENT: Or better, pretend they were never even made ... RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? RESPONDENT: Right. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: ... for brevity’s sake and out of respect for the time of the participants of this mailing list. Everybody interested in the matters we discussed can easily take a look at a provided link ... RICHARD: This has nothing to do with anybody else ... my only interest in the matter lies in this discussion with you. RESPONDENT: Please consider that I am also a participant of this mailing list ... RICHARD: What has considering your participation in this mailing list got to do with my only interest in the matter lying in this discussion with you? RESPONDENT: ... and that my time, not being retired, is limited. RICHARD: You may find the following quite beneficial in regards maximising your limited time, then:
RESPONDENT: With the style of discussion, going through endless email exchanges again and again picking at minutiae, one gets quite frustrated. RICHARD: Again, this is why I have persisted with this thread ... you saying [quote] ‘minutiae’ [endquote] indicates that nothing explanatory I have written makes any difference. * RESPONDENT: Could we now move on to what might interest people ... RICHARD: It is not a case of what might interest people ... this is about what interests you. RESPONDENT: Which, to spare you looking up my last mails and to quench your thirst of relevant texts to have a discussion about, are the questions ... RICHARD: I have no intention of moving on to the other questions you put to me until the last remaining matter, as specified by you in your preface to your third e-mail, is also settled.
CORRESPONDENT No. 97 (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 |
