|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 81
To No 65: Actually, I am amazed. There is somebody who understands what I am saying the same way I understand what I am saying and he rephrases it even better than I was able to do. No 81, you have made your position quite clear on this list many times, in many ways, very often sprinkling your posts with quotes from Eastern philosophy and religion, so there can be little doubt as to what you are saying and where your interest lies. Given that you write as you do you would be much better off on any of the philosophical discussion lists where metaphysical wisdom is still valued. Going by what I observed over the years, this particular list is mainly populated by people who are attracted by what is written on the Actual Freedom website, namely in becoming free from the human condition including the eons-old human belief in a Greater Reality of some sort. A vital prerequisite of becoming free from one’s religious/spiritual/metaphysical beliefs is to be fed up with them, or at the very least suss of them in the first place, which you don’t seem to be at all. To No 65: Before somebody can dispute my argument s/he has to understand it the same way I understand it, otherwise s/he disputes something else. What is primary is that there is an understanding of what I am saying and that (see above) is what I am saying. But then again one would obviously need to abandon this stance when one comes across something new that one has not come across before – what one needs to do then is sit down and make the effort to overcome the cognitive dissonance that inevitably occurs such that one can clearly understand the new paradigm. In this case, demanding that one’s old thinking and old ways are best is an exercise in futility. The ‘primary’ topic on this list is the investigation into the human condition, namely one’s beliefs, convictions and superstitions. To insist that others on this mailing list understand your beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals and superstitions in order that you can proselytise yet another version of the ‘Tried and Failed’ is the very opposite of what the practice of actualism is about. What actualism is about is made perfectly clear on the AF homepage – [emphasis added]  AF
Homepage
As such, your insistence that others need to understand your argument ‘the same way [you] understand it’ before it can be disputed is a stance that is contrary to the very aim and raison d’être of this mailing list. Now dear actualists please dispute it! You may have also overlooked the essential prerequisite for becoming free from the human condition, which is that there is only one person one can, and needs to, change and that is oneself. For very obvious reasons nobody can do the questioning and investigating of your beliefs for you – should that be what you are interested in – you will have to take yourself apart all by yourself and for yourself. I want to understand in which ways you think my argument is faulty. Since you asked – your argument is faulty from beginning to end, 180 degrees opposite in fact. Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the AF website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more.
To No 65: Actually, I am amazed. There is somebody who understands what I am saying the same way I understand what I am saying and he rephrases it even better than I was able to do. No 81, you have made your position quite clear on this list many times, in many ways, very often sprinkling your posts with quotes from Eastern philosophy and religion, so there can be little doubt as to what you are saying and where your interest lies. Given that you write as you do you would be much better off on any of the philosophical discussion lists where metaphysical wisdom is still valued. <snip>I want to understand in which ways you think my argument is faulty. Since you asked – your argument is faulty from beginning to end, 180 degrees opposite in fact. Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the AF website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more. First of all I don’t understand why you chose ‘diversion tactics’ as the email subject. It is quite amazing to see how hostile you guys are getting if somebody is not a 100% in line with your ‘whatever’ [I’d like to say ‘ideology’ but I refrain for a moment]. I am not ‘diverting’ and I am not using any ‘tactics’ nor do I have any ‘hidden agenda’. I thought you guys are happy and harmless. Why does it seem you think the worst about me? Aaron has already started spell casting.
No 32: Maybe there should have been three different versions of actualism one can choose from: ‘beginner’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘you’re fucked’. Re: GOD, 3.5.2005 No 32: I’ve read through much of the last few days messages and I gain an impression of madness writ large. Or would you prefer rotten? Madness, 4.5.2005 I don’t know if you can relate to this but your postings reminded me of the early years of putting the actualism method to task, which were thrilling, often weird, bizarre and mostly un-natural times as I proceeded to ween myself off my old ways of thinking and intuiting. I recorded some of those experiences in my letters to Alan and thought you might find them interesting – <snipped for space> Those times definitely pass as thinking on one’s feet instead of with one’s heart becomes more familiar and intelligence is allowed to gain more ground with the withering of the passions. But as I proceeded I also knew I was ‘fucked’ as you say it, because turning around and going back ceased to be a possibility, let alone an option. In the meantime, non-carborandum (loosely translatable as ‘don’t let the buggers get you down’)! Your’s and Alan’s reports are very interesting. Are these symptoms still coming up or was it only back then [1998] for a short time period that the ‘I’ was struggling for survival? I understand you are in VF, that is, your ‘I’ is still intact but diminished. Is this correct? Are you going fully for it [self-immolation, AF] or are you happy to stay where you are? I understand that Alan is not going fully for it. In the case you go fully for AF what are you doing to keep up the process? Thanks for your time and effort, Given that you have thus far spent a lot of your time and effort to dismiss and ignore all that I have written to the point of saying that the words I use have no meaning whereas the philosophers and metaphysicalists whose writings you post on this list have got it right, may I inquire why you are asking? In the meantime I can refer you to what I wrote to No 32 above –
To Richard: That’s the core teachings of the metaphysical doctrine and that’s pretty close to what you report. Have you checked out this link:
Have you ever inadvertently held a piece of writing upside down and wondered why it makes no sense and suddenly when you realize what is happening, you turn it round and are able to read and understand the words? Actualism is similarly senseless when approached from a strictly ‘self’-centred perspective, which is normally the case since, per no fault of anyone, every human being is endowed with a psychological/psychic ‘self’ via the instinctual passions and the social conditioning. It takes much more than skimming through the AF website and merging the writings with one’s previous accumulated knowledge in order to understand the radical and iconoclastic nature of actualism. Much, much more. First of all I don’t understand why you chose ‘diversion tactics’ as the email subject. It is quite amazing to see how hostile you guys are getting if somebody is not a 100% in line with your ‘whatever’ [I’d like to say ‘ideology’ but I refrain for a moment]. I am not ‘diverting’ and I am not using any ‘tactics’ nor do I have any ‘hidden agenda’. I thought you guys are happy and harmless. Why does it seem you think the worst about me? No 66 has already started spell casting. ‘Diversion tactics’ was the name of the thread. I did see no reason to change it. Yes. I had a hunch it was after I already had sent out the email. Sorry for that. This may be a good opportunity – because it just happened – to point out that the actualism method in practice is designed to become attentive to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive in order to become aware of one’s feelings as they are happening – in this case, to be aware of one’s feelings before pressing the ‘send’ button. A lot of toing and froing of emails as well as possible embarrassment can then be avoided. The actualism method is based on the fact that all sentient beings are born pre-primed with certain distinguishing instinctual passions, the main ones being fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This instinctual program is located in the primitive ‘lizard’ brain and the almost instantaneous thoughtless automatic instinctual response is termed the ‘quick and dirty’ response. The primitive area of the brain makes an initial quick scan of all sensorial input and, if an instinctive reaction is required, almost instantaneously floods the body and neo-cortex with chemicals which then inevitably cause an automatic and unfettered emotional response – hence an instinctive thoughtless reaction becomes an instinctual passionate reaction. LeDoux empirically investigated the pivotal role of the amygdala in producing the feeling of fear, in particular the relationship between the thalamus (relay centre), the amygdala and the neo-cortex (modern brain). The most significant of LeDoux’ experimentation with regard to fear is that the sensory input to the brain is split at the thalamus into two streams – one to the amygdala and one to the neo-cortex. The input stream to the amygdala is quicker – 12 milliseconds as opposed to 25 milliseconds to the neo-cortex. Less information goes to the amygdala quicker – it operates as a quick scan to check for danger. Indeed LeDoux regards the amygdala as the alarm system, for bodily safety – hence the necessity for a quick scan and an almost instantaneous instinctive (thoughtless) response. This ‘quick and dirty processing pathway’ results not only in a direct automatic bodily response to either an actual or a perceived danger, but because the amygdala also has a direct connection to the neo-cortex – it causes us to emotionally experience the feeling of fear – i.e. we feel the feeling of fear a split-second later than the bodily reaction. Not only is the primitive brain’s response ‘quick and dirty’, it is
also very powerful in that it primes the whole body for action – which is precisely why instinctual reactions and the
resulting instinctual passions are ultimately so hard to keep in control. Now, these are things we all know well from
personal experience as well as from observation of others but it is fascinating that scientific investigation of the
‘hardware’ of the human brain is now providing the biological evidence of how what is known as ‘human nature’
operates. (See Therefore from experience and observation one can say that one’s responses are by default almost always ‘quick and dirty’, i.e. thoughtless and instinctual … unless one applies an ongoing attentiveness to how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. This attentiveness eventually allows me to recognize as and when the automatic instinctual response is happening and the very awareness itself disempowers it.
To No 32: I recorded some of those experiences in my letters to Alan and thought you might find them interesting – <snipped for space> Those times definitely pass as thinking on one’s feet instead of with one’s heart becomes more familiar and intelligence is allowed to gain more ground with the withering of the passions. But as I proceeded I also knew I was ‘fucked’ as you say it, because turning around and going back ceased to be a possibility, let alone an option. In the meantime, non-carborandum (loosely translatable as ‘don’t let the buggers get you down’)! Your’s and Alan’s reports are very interesting. Are these symptoms still coming up or was it only back then [1998] for a short time period that the ‘I’ was struggling for survival? I understand you are in VF, that is, your ‘I’ is still intact but diminished. Is this correct? Are you going fully for it [self-immolation, AF] or are you happy to stay where you are? I understand that Alan is not going fully for it. In the case you go fully for AF what are you doing to keep up the process? Thanks for your time and effort, Given that you have thus far spent a lot of time and effort to dismiss and ignore all that I have written to the point of saying that the words I use have no meaning whereas the philosophers and metaphysicalists whose writings you post on this list have got it right, … I am not at all ignoring what you are writing. I am simply not agreeing with a great deal of your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] but that’s a complete different story. To dismiss your dismissal of everything I write as being ‘a completely
different story’ is yet another example of your * … may I inquire why you are asking? Genuine interest. I have read vast amounts of the AF webpage over the last 12 months. I also bought Richard’s journal and read vast parts of it. I wouldn’t’ be here if I didn’t think there is some value in your research. I also reemphasized several times [!] that I hold your method for very useful regardless of my criticism of your ‘ideology’ [for lack of a better word]. To reduce the effects of the ‘ego’ on one’s and others well-being is a noble preoccupation in all traditions. When you say that the actualism method is ‘to reduce the effects of the ‘ego’’ you blithely ignore what is writ large in all actualism writings on the AF website – that an actual freedom from the human condition involves the extinguishing of both ego and soul whereas the ‘noble preoccupation in all traditions’ involves the death of the ego such that the soul (by whatever name it is called in whatever tradition) survives in order to rule the roost. In your fervour to fit actualism into these traditions you hold so dear you persistently dismiss and stubbornly ignore just what is on offer here. As such, to practice the method in order only to reduce the ego is to pervert the method into being something it is not. Also, I have had some experiences about 10 years ago which resemble your’s and Alan’s. Because I had these intense ‘fights’ so to speak with ‘myself’ only for a limited time period I was interested if the same was true for you or if these ‘fights’ with your ‘self’ are ongoing and if yes what are you doing to keep them ongoing or runs the process on auto-pilot or did it change in ‘quality’. As those reports were from 28.7.1998 and 5.1.1999 I had added a present day comment to them which you ignored not only the first time but also when I reposted it with added emphasis the second time –
Maybe, just maybe, it is possible for you to conceive that what you are talking about is not the same as what I am talking about as actualism is not about fighting with one’s ‘self’? Please distinguish between the Abe who criticizes your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] regards the ‘ultimate questions’ on the one hand and the Abe who is genuinely interested into your experiences regards ‘self’ immolations on the other hand. I’d rather wait until you two guys have made up your minds about actualism – particularly since the former seems to be well and truly strutting the stage, so much so that the other guy cannot get a word in edgeways.
That’s the core teachings of the metaphysical doctrine and that’s pretty close to what you report. Have you checked out this link: Yes, I saw that page but I didn’t find Richard’s conversations with these objections helpful or conclusive. If none of the 25 responses to the objection that actualism is just a rehash of what ‘the Ancients’ taught was ‘helpful or conclusive’ to you then you will probably have to remain with your objection as no further amount of words is likely to make a difference to you. By the way, a <snip> There is just no way how you can demonstrate to me that ‘life’ is a derivative of some blind physical processes [theory of evolution]. That is just ‘stupid’ to me. That I don’t believe for one second. Yep, you said it well, ‘there is just no way how you can demonstrate to me ...’ – therefore I won’t bother. Given that you insist in sticking with your traditional beliefs I have no interest in presenting you with an alternative.
I know for a fact that there is no God because I know for a fact that God is a construct of ‘my’ fear and hope, of ‘my’ passionate imagination. No imagination – no God, no passion – no God. It is essential to go this far in order to become free of the human condition in toto. The only thing you know for fact is that ‘your’ version of ‘God’ doesn’t exist because that God was a construct of ‘your’ fear and hope, of ‘your’ passionate imagination. And now that construct is gone. If there is God s/he is certainly beyond of ‘our’ fears, hopes and passionate imaginations. So the question whether there is God or is not God and what kind of God etc can never be known for fact. You believed in an idol [’your’ version of God] and realized that this ideal doesn’t exist and now you conclude ‘God’ [the real one so to speak] doesn’t exist. You must be talking about your version of God then, the Principle or Godhead or Atma or whatever name you want to call it. There are no gods of any kind here in the actual world. That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me. Of course not – your God is preventing you from using common sense.
To Richard: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. Richard: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. Incidentally, it was not a [quote] ‘lofty goal’
[endquote] ... it was a very down-to-earth, sensible, and practical goal. Not you, of course, the others (your former wife, Vineeto, Peter, Aaron, and others). As long as your method does not get them beyond what Buddha’s method does, I don’t see your claims justified – that your method does what we don’t have any evidence that it does what you claim it does. Not so. The actualism method has already got me far ‘beyond what Buddha’s method does’, and any other spiritual method for that matter. In a relatively short time (about 2 years compared to 17 fruitless years on the spiritual path) I gained a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow, which allows me to feel carefree most of the time and to be considerate of others at all times. This virtual freedom from malice and sorrow is not only a delicious way of experiencing life whilst still remaining a feeling being, it would also mean, with an eventual global spread of happy and harmless people, an end to human conflicts and an end to what can only be described as the human malaise. That said, I am under no illusion that this will happen in my lifetime but I am well pleased that I made the effort. After all pragmatic claims require pragmatic proofs.
Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. Richard: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect. Incidentally, it was not a [quote] ‘lofty goal’ [endquote] ... it was a very down-to-earth, sensible, and practical goal. Not you, of course, the others (your former wife, Vineeto, Peter, No 66, and others). As long as your method does not get them beyond what Buddha’s method does, I don’t see your claims justified – that your method does what we don’t have any evidence that it does what you claim it does. Not so. The actualism method has already got me far ‘beyond what Buddha’s method does’, and any other spiritual method for that matter. In a relatively short time (about 2 years compared to 17 fruitless years on the spiritual path) I gained a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow, which allows me to feel carefree most of the time and to be considerate of others at all times. This virtual freedom from malice and sorrow is not only a delicious way of experiencing life whilst still remaining a feeling being, it would also mean, with an eventual global spread of happy and harmless people, an end to human conflicts and an end to what can only be described as the human malaise. I am under no illusion that this will happen in my lifetime but I am well pleased that I made the effort. After all pragmatic claims require pragmatic proofs. [quoting himself]: ‘Buddha taught a technique called ‘mindfulness’ (and most likely the technique was very different 2500 years ago than today) which had as an aim to stop instinctive and affective behaviour whether for good or bad. I don’t see how what you achieved with Richard’s method is ‘far beyond’ that. Buddha’s mindfulness is based on dis-association and dissociation in order to nurture the transcendent ‘Self’ or ‘Being’ whereas the actualism method diminishes both good and bad feelings and fosters the felicitous feelings thereby diminishing both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as ‘Being’. For starters, being blissfully removed from the world via denial, transcendence and dissociation is a world of difference to happily (and harmlessly) experiencing this moment of being alive in the world as-it-is with people-as-they-are. For you to claim that Mr. Buddha taught a technique aimed at stopping one’s good ‘instinctive and affective behaviour’ as well as one’s bad ‘instinctive and affective behaviour’ is mind-boggling – you wouldn’t like to reconsider your claim perchance? You retrained yourself as to reduce the effects of your feelings, instincts and passions upon your behaviour. Your reading of the website has been somewhat superficial because the actualism method is clearly not a re-training ‘to reduce the effects of your feelings’ – the actualism method results in abandoning one’s beliefs in anything meta-physical, mystical and spiritual – upon closer inspection they are all recognized as silly for being obstacles to being happy and harmless. Haven’t you noticed that a fact that you know as a fact does not trigger any malicious or sorrowful feelings when questioned whereas each and everyone of one’s beliefs when questioned by others immediately brings a whole range of defensive, aggressive and doubtful emotions into play. With no beliefs to defend or uphold the very arising of all those feelings supporting and/or defending one’s beliefs, be they spiritual, metaphysical, religious, political, cultural, philosophical or whatever, simply disappears. Eliminating one of the major causes of feelings such as righteousness and/or indignation means that one is more able to be happy and harmless. In other words – no cause, no effect. For example, in the past you might have gone mad screamed if somebody had spoken to you in derogative language. Nowadays you might not even ‘feel’ the insult, or if you still feel the insult you feel it much less than before, which enables you NOT to act based on the feelings of insult. Yes, following Buddha’s method I would have merely retained myself not to feel insulted by staying cool, remaining aloof and acting superior. Whereas with the actualism method, when and as a feeling arises, I neither repress nor express the feeling but apply attentiveness to the fact that I am feeling melancholic, annoyed, bored, frustrated and so on with the aim to get back to being happy and harmless as soon as possible. Being attentive in that way I find the trigger that set me off feeling that way in the first place, in order that I can find the root cause of the feeling’s onset and clearly seeing the root cause is also the end of it. To give you an example – the other day No 88 wrote that ‘Vineeto, being of German origin, is so responsive to it, makes me suspect otherwise’. I actually had to ask Peter to explain what George meant by this because when I used actualism to inquire into all the reasons that caused me to being malicious and sorrowful, insulted and angry, I had to, along all the other aspects of my social identity, also dismantle my German identity and its associated range of feelings, beliefs, attitudes and cultural/historical encumbrances. Think about it – if all the Arabs and Christians, Jews and Palestinians, Hutus and Tutsis, Chinese and Americans, English and Irish, Greeks and Turks, Prussians and Russians, Greenies and world-traders, vegetarians and omnivores, hawks and pacifists, left wingers and right wingers, and so on would stop feeling themselves to be of a particular creed, of a particular nationality, of a particular tribe, of a particular social, political and/or philosophical group, then they would have no need whatsoever, no matter what anyone says, to feel insulted on grounds of their nationality, creed, convictions and beliefs – that would be the end of all the wars and feuds and conflicts on the planet. Buddha’s method certainly has not achieved that after a good long trial of 2500 years.
Richard: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses
(both literally and figuratively)’. our direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. As for me, when I began to pay attention to my own mind’s ‘initial, automatic and first interpretation’ and particularly to my affective and instinctual interpretation did I discover how to distinguish between direct sensory experience and the instinctual affective interpretation of the direct sensory experience.
Richard: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses (both literally and
figuratively)’. Your direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. My VERBAL reinterpretations of what happens in R’s brain are of course only my VERBAL reinterpretations. My VERBAL reinterpretations can be close or far from ‘how it really is’. All I was pointing out is that your ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but your own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience and as such is far, far, far from ‘how it really is’. * As for me, when I began to pay attention to my own mind’s ‘initial, automatic and first interpretation’ and particularly to my affective and instinctual interpretation did I discover how to distinguish between direct sensory experience and the instinctual affective interpretation of the direct sensory experience. I make some progress here as well. You see what I am saying is that your direct sensory experience is only ‘direct’ in the sense that is not reinterpreted by the entity; your direct sensory experience is not ‘direct’ in the sense that it can know ‘how it really is’ because you would have to be able to step outside of your brain/senses to know directly ‘how it really is’. So your direct sensory experiences are your brain’s NON-VERBAL interpretations of sense data which will be reinterpreted VERBALLY [‘making sense of your sense data’]; in this sense your direct sensory experiences they are not ‘direct’, they are still ‘mediated’ [not by the workings of the entity anymore but by the workings of your brain]. No, your statement is a statement of ‘me’ inside the brain holding the reigns, so to speak. When there is no entity inside, as experienced in a pure consciousness experience, then there is no ‘interpreter’ of sensory experience because the senses *are* the brain on stalks. All the speculation of what the brain is doing with sensory information is but speculation of ‘me’, the interpreter, who will do anything to remain in existence and in control. So regardless of what you write me, it is, it only can be, it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations of what was initially an automatic and NON-VERBAL interpretation of your brain [what you call ‘direct sensory experience’]. I’d be delighted if you could tell me where my argument is faulty from your point of view. Given that you said ‘regardless of what you write me, (…) it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations …’ nothing that I say will make any difference to your firm conviction that your speculation applies not only to you but to everyone. But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling being inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real world of ‘re-interpretations’. But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling ‘being’ inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real’ world of ‘re-interpretations’. If you take my report, and those of other actualists, into consideration, allow that your speculations of your ‘work in progress’ are not factual and crank up your naivete, you might even be able to remember one of those direct pure un-interpreted and non-affective experiences for yourself. A memory of a past PCE then might even twig you to look for, and find, a pure consciousness experience now. It was certainly the end of not-knowing and the beginning of the ending of believing for me.
Richard: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses
(both literally and figuratively)’. Your direct experience is your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data; which is not your ‘view’ but your brain’s working and your brain’s working is your direct experience. The brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation of sense data is NON-VERBAL. All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. Progress towards what? * My VERBAL reinterpretations of what happens in R’s brain are of course only my VERBAL reinterpretations. My VERBAL reinterpretations can be close or far from ‘how it really is’. All I was pointing out is that your ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but your own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience and as such is far, far, far from ‘how it really is’. Your pointing out that my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is nothing but my own ‘brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s direct experience is not only a total incorrect understanding of what I said but also totally irrelevant for the question how far, far, far, or close, close, close my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is from ‘how it really is’. To figure out how far, far, far, or close, close, close my ‘VERBAL reinterpretations’ that direct experience is only one’s brain’s interpretation is from ‘how it really is’ I suggest the following thought experiment: <snip> The only way you could make any ‘progress’ towards understanding would be to stop your ‘interpreter’ dead in his tracks. The reason I say this because in the course of your 350+ emails to this list it has become blindingly obvious that your ‘interpreter’ is programmed with a software that is unable to take notice of, let alone comprehend, anything outside ‘his’ pre-conditioned metaphysical framework and ‘he’ frantically produces one interpretation after another and one unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable speculation after another. Just look at what re-interpretation of Richard’s experiential description ‘he’ came up with (in the snipped part of this post) –
* Given that you said ‘regardless of what you write me, (…) it must be your brain’s VERBAL reinterpretations …’ nothing that I say will make any difference to your firm conviction that your speculation applies not only to you but to everyone. If I was a neurobiologist working for the ‘National Institute of Neurological Disorder and Stroke’ making these speculations would that change a thing for you? Not a bit, because any neurobiologist would have a parasitical entity he thought and felt as being ‘me’ which would pre-empt the possibility of the unmediated direct sensate experiencing such as is readily apparent in a pure consciousness experience. * But for what it’s worth, it is my repeated experience that the ‘interpreter’, both the little man/woman inside one’s head and the feeling being inside one’s heart and gut, can go in abeyance – and Richard’s ‘interpreter’ has completely and permanently ‘self’-immolated. In other words, there is an actual world than can be directly experienced outside of the ‘real world of ‘re-interpretations’. Yes, yes, I understand all these things. They don’t conflict with my speculations. I don’t doubt the actual world. What I doubt is that the actual world is non-contingent; you present the actual world as if it was non-contingent, as if it was absolute. (snipped a whole range of more translations, see above). No, you don’t ‘understand these things’. Your ‘interpreter’ has again fooled you with his instant metaphysical knee-jerk translation. To say it again for emphasis – unless you make ‘him’ cease his endless speculations and blatant reinterpretations and sit down and listen, there won’t be any progress in understanding what the actual world is about and unless you are at least even slightly prepared to begin to take what is written on the AF website at face value (without re-interpretation) an empirical/experiential understanding is simply impossible. And unless one is able to arrive at an empirical/ experiential understanding, all one is doing is belief-hopping and speculation-rotating.
All you do is present ‘your brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience in order to make-believe that this interpretation is also happening in Richard’s brain, while all along it is happening only in your own brain. You even don’t get my argument; if you got my argument you would be able to see that I cannot give you my brain’s initial, automatic and first interpretation’ of Richard’s report of his direct sensate experience; ... what I can give you and give you is my VERBAL reinterpretations and you are doing the same and R is doing the same of what was initially our brain’s interpretation of sense data! Given that you also said, just a few hours after this post –
I will wait until your work-in-progress has come to some conclusion before I make any further comment. I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. Vineeto – Progress towards what? to a closer understanding of actualism how ‘it really is’. And yet this is what you said in the rest of this post, in reply to my explanations, and not only once but five times so as to set this particular speculation in concrete, as it were –
Can you not see that these two statements are mutually exclusive? Besides, actualism is all about changing oneself, and *only* oneself. How else is one to ever become free from other people’s problems?
R’s dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions are a metaphysical impossibility, a scientific absurdity, bad philosophy and religious heresy, but because R claims his dogmatic assertions to belong to a complete different domain than metaphysics, philosophy, science, and religion it renders their take on his dogmatic assertions irrelevant; simply because R equates his dogmatic assertions about sense perceptions with his sense perceptions [direct experiences], that is, if you equate the report with the reported, then you have immunized your report against any kind of criticism; if so, criticising the report is criticising the reported and criticising the reported is as if somebody tries to prove you away that you hold a banana in the hand. That’s right, with the slight correction that these are not Richard’s dogmatic assertions but your own dogmatic assertions assigned to Richard. You invented them, you deal with them.
I would appreciate your further comments now to make some progress. Progress towards what? ... to a closer understanding of actualism how ‘it really is’. And yet this is what you said in the rest of this post, in reply to my explanations, and not only once but five times so as to set this particular speculation in concrete, as it were –
Can you not see that these two statements are mutually exclusive? Yes, I can see that. The latter statement was rather a question than a statement. I just want to make sure if my understanding is correct that you claim that only if the ‘interpreter’ [the self, the entity, the affective, imaginative, and intuitive faculty] is gone I will be able to see that they are not dogmatic assertions of sense perceptions but ‘how it really is’ and ‘what they really are’. Is this correct? No. Let me put it this way – if you were on Safari and came across an animal you have never seen before, wouldn’t it be more sensible to ask the accompanying guides who are experts in their field about this new situation rather than shooting off one battery of random speculation after another? Besides, if you were to put a question mark behind your statements-as-if-they-are-facts they would more likely stop looking like dogmatic assertions and more easily convey the nature of inquiry. Footnote: 1.) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911959960&sort=d&start=8778 http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911960690&sort=d&start=8778 http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911960760&sort=d&start=8778
Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
