Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 49


September 02 2004

RESPONDENT: But an ego-less man does not have any desires or beliefs, that is, desires of the essence of belief whatsoever hence the inability to objectify anything let alone a deity.

RICHARD: As the narcissistic state of being popularly known as self-realisation, or spiritual enlightenment, is a solipsistic state of pure subjectivity there are no objects – as in the term ‘Consciousness Without an Object’ to describe an egoless state or condition of being conscious (inasmuch all existence is intuitively known to be but a manifestation of being itself) – let alone the capacity to objectify that which has been realised ... which is the profound realisation that one *is* being itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’).

An argument (as in your ‘but’ and ‘hence’ phrasing) predicated upon a category error is fatally flawed from the get-go.

RESPONDENT: Which poses the problem of whether or not God is real.

RICHARD: For one in the egoless state of being a god/goddess is indeed real – more real than anything else – but is never actual (as in having objective existence).

RESPONDENT: For without belief there can be no God for him at all ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘which means’ explanation)? There is a vast difference between believing in a god/ goddess and in realising that god/goddess ... insofar as the belief has become (is) a reality for the egoless person.

RESPONDENT: ... [For without belief there can be no God for him at all] which means, he is completely closed up to any possibility of believing let alone believing in God without tangibility or some kind of *experience* of God.

RICHARD: What the word ‘tangibility’ usually refers to – being tangible, palpable, sensible, perceivable, touchable/ feelable, smellable, audible, visible, tastable, observable, noticeable, detectable, distinguishable, discernible, appreciable, and so on – is not generally what a god/goddess is ... the distinction betwixt an extrinsic experience (objectivity) and an intrinsic experience (subjectivity) is a marked distinction.

Thus would it not be more in keeping with the general thrust of your (non-objectification) argument to say, for example, ‘without realizability ...’? Vis.:

• [example only]: ‘... without realizability or some kind of (intrinsic) experience of god/goddess’.

RESPONDENT: My rational self is inclined to go with the logic of believing simultaneously, in the simple, straightforward paradoxical conundrum of the mysterious nature of God as two infinitely opposing truths, natures, or things both of which are in complete opposition to each other as should be the essence of omnipotence as a Being comprehensible to none other than itself.

RICHARD: Mystical literature often mentions how the polar opposites continue to exist (as complimentary poles) upon self-realisation. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe the integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites) and/or ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites/ united duality).

For example:

• ‘The self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the ‘supraordinate personality’, such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuli, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or of the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united. (par. 790, Volume Six, ‘The Collected Works of C. G. Jung’; ©1953-1979 Princeton University Press, Princeton).

RESPONDENT: So we find the omnipotent one called God as both a rationality of an ‘impossibility’ as a being, or the purest of impossibilities in of itself and existence to some, as well as an irrationality of the form of an absoluteness or certainty to others. The ultimate conception of a being is to conceive the categorical formulation, of the utmost impossibility of unions in nature, of the total opposition of Nothing and Being which seem to stand in infinite diametric opposition thus providing us with the contingent prerequisite of an axiomatic definition or theorem of a limitless and hence omnipotent God.

Do you agree Richard?

RICHARD: No, I do not agree: mystical experience renders your (intellectual) assertion – ‘the utmost impossibility of unions’ – null and void ... just as actual experience does with your (borrowed) assertion – ‘a Being comprehensible to none other than itself’ – further above as I have no problem whatsoever in comprehending ‘Being’ (and I am most certainly not that).

Apart from that, and as a suggestion only, try substituting the first person pronoun for the (attributive) plural pronoun in ‘so we find’ and for the (definite article) determiner in ‘the ultimate conception’ and for the (objective) plural pronoun in ‘thus providing us’ and see what happens. Vis.:

• [example only]: ‘So *I* find the omnipotent one called God as both a rationality of an ‘impossibility’ as a being, or the purest of impossibilities in of itself and existence to some, as well as an irrationality of the form of an absoluteness or certainty to others. *My* ultimate conception of a being is to conceive the categorical formulation, of the utmost impossibility of unions in nature, of the total opposition of Nothing and Being which seem to stand in infinite diametric opposition thus providing *me* with the contingent prerequisite of an axiomatic definition or theorem of a limitless and hence omnipotent God’.

The tendency to ... um ... to objectify takes many forms, does it not?

September 05 2004

RESPONDENT: Consider a context or scenario where you are in complete and utter happiness.

RICHARD: Why? Here in this actual world there *is* only complete and utter happiness (and harmlessness).

RESPONDENT: This would be the reason you would have for not concerning yourself with imagining other possibilities or dreaming about other scenarios.

RICHARD: Not so ... apart from being incapable of imagining and/or dreaming (the intuitive/ imaginative faculty is no longer extant) as this apperceptive flesh and blood body I am this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective creature: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: So you have really no need to believe ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? It has nothing to do with either need or no-need. Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘I have been incapable of believing for nigh-on twelve (12) years now ...’.

RESPONDENT: ... [So you have really no need to believe] in anything, but of course rather to know. Not simply do you have no need to believe, but also you cease with it as it is all part of your development as this new and happy being.

RICHARD: No, it is not a matter of ‘development’ (synonyms: growth, expansion, progress, advance, increase, maturity, enlargement, improvement) at all ... the capacity, or ability, to believe ceased upon the extinction of identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul).

RESPONDENT: To your new selfless ‘self’ ...

RICHARD: There is neither a new nor a selfless (no-self) ‘self’ inhabiting this flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: ... [To your new selfless ‘self’], one belief is as good as every other.

RICHARD: You may find the following informative:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... I don’t believe in the God or gods of modern day Christianity. However, if God is used as another name for Truth or the Infinite, then I believe in God, because I believe in Truth.
• [Richard]: ‘How unfortunate it is that you so easily write the words ‘I believe in Truth’. The subject of beliefs and believing is one of my favourite topics as beliefs are the bane of humankind. A person who is free has no beliefs whatsoever, so one who is endeavouring to become free will view them all with deep suspicion. Beliefs have been so instrumental in killing, maiming, torturing and otherwise causing such pain and suffering since the dawn of human history, that one wonders that they are given any credence at all these days. It behoves one to examine each and every belief – especially those that pass for ‘truths’ or ‘The Truth’ – and watch them disappear out of one’s life forever. It is so liberating to be free of beliefs – of believing itself – that I cannot recommend their elimination highly enough.

RESPONDENT: You simply choose to accept that and only that which is given or verifiable at least.

RICHARD: It is not a matter of choice ... a fact is so (else it be not a fact) and just sits there, as it were, making any acceptance/non-acceptance (and any belief/disbelief, trust/distrust, and so on) look silly.

‘Tis a blessed relief to be free of choice.

RESPONDENT: So, it literally becomes ‘impossible’ in this new state to believe in God.

RICHARD: Where there is no believer (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) all gods/ goddesses cease to exist.

RESPONDENT: The overall unification of any two completely opposing truths, or truths having absolutely no relations in reality to each other, namely Nothing and Everything which possess no commonality and which have an infinite disjunction to each other, are accomplished only by the greatest generality imaginable or God, the omnipotent Being of such abstraction as to be rendered limitless and infinite that it is to be the unity of all that exists and ‘non-exists’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? If ‘Everything’ (all time and all space and all form) did not exist in the first place then ‘Nothing’ (that which is timeless and spaceless and formless) could not be conceived of ... thus your two completely opposing truths, far from having absolutely no relations, are indeed (albeit conceptually) related.

To put that another way: if (note ‘if’) the universe did not exist neither would any (conjectured) nothingness.

RESPONDENT: Keeping this in mind, as God is the unification of Nothing and everything, God abstractly manifests Itself as either nothing to some or everything to others.

RICHARD: I notice that you contrasted ‘Nothing’ with ‘Being’ (aka ‘God’) in your previous e-mail ... is ‘Everything’ another way of saying ‘Being’ (according to you)? If so, and as the ‘Everything’ you posit must, of necessity, include your conjectured ‘Nothing’ (else ‘Being’ be not absolutely everything), is this not all much ado about nothing (no pun intended)?

Are you aware of the distinction between panentheism (‘all-in-god’) and pantheism (‘all-is-god’)? For example: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_panen.htm

For obvious reasons it is the analogy in the last two paragraphs of that on-line article which particularly occasions me to ask.

September 08 2004

RICHARD: If ‘Everything’ (all time and all space and all form) did not exist in the first place then ‘Nothing’ (that which is timeless and spaceless and formless) could not be conceived of ... thus your two completely opposing truths, far from having absolutely no relations, are indeed (albeit conceptually) related. To put that another way: if (note ‘if’) the universe did not exist neither would any (conjectured) nothingness.

RESPONDENT: A conclusion follows an assumption based on the evidence presented. The nature of God is ... (snip).

RICHARD: Your ‘assumption’ that nothing – that which is timeless and spaceless and formless – has existence (albeit a conceptual existence) is based upon ‘the evidence presented’ that everything (all time and all space and all form) exists: you then (erroneously) assert that they are two completely opposing truths having absolutely no relations to each other and then form the ‘conclusion’ that a ... um ... a unifier extraordinaire (an omnipotent being/god) is required to accomplish unification.

You then set off on a (convoluted) abstract journey through many and varied opposites – such as true/ false, existent/ non-existent, subjective/ objective, paradox/not-paradox, concept/non-concept, nothing/ everything, determination/ indetermination, content/ non-content, limited/ unlimited, finite/ infinite – all for the purpose of (presumably) being able to declare, at the end of your e-mail, that ‘so it is established that the completely irrelative concept/ ‘non-concept’ of Nothing and Everything bear absolutely no resemblance in content yet have indetermination in absence of each other and determination where present’ ... and to be able to retitle the thread you initially titled ‘Smart Question’ into being ‘The Conclusion Of God’.

Now, if the universe (the evidence presented) did not exist not only would nothing (your assumption) also not have existence neither would any omnipotent being/god (your conclusion) as there would be no necessity for any such unification/any such unifier as you posit ... which necessity is the basis of, and the reason for, your argument anyway (to find the logical proof of god).

Not being a logician I have no recourse but to be sensible (rather than logical) ... here is my question:

• Does everything (the universe) already always exist – as in time being eternal and space being infinite and matter (mass/energy) being perpetual – or was it created by your unifier (your god)?

Bearing in mind that an eternal-infinite-perpetual universe has no opposite, no other, no nothing (not even a conceptual nothing), here is my supplementary question:

• If the universe does not already always exist did your god create it (everything) out of nothing?

If so, and as the assumption that nothing has existence depends upon everything existing in the first place, how could nothing have existence prior to everything existing? For example:

1. Everything exists ... therefore:
2. Nothing has existence.
3. Everything has not always existed ... therefore:
4. Nothing has not always had existence.

In other words, no everything implies no nothing; no everything/ no nothing implies no unifier (no omnipotent being or god); no everything/no nothing/no omnipotent being or god implies no creation; no everything/ no nothing/ no omnipotent being or god/no creation implies that it is all much ado about nothing (no pun intended), eh?

Meanwhile, back at the universe, on a verdant and azure planet floating in infinite space and eternal time as the current form perpetual matter (mass/energy) has arranged itself into, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like, which have gone on since time immemorial, will continue on unabated unless radical change occurs.

May I ask (if only because that is what this Mailing List is set-up and maintained for) what your contribution towards peace on earth is?

September 09 2004

RICHARD: ... as the assumption that nothing has existence depends upon everything existing in the first place, how could nothing have existence prior to everything existing?

RESPONDENT: Because Nothing is nothing and everything everything.

RICHARD: And thus does logic, yet once again, fall upon its (tautological) sword.

RESPONDENT: Duh.

RICHARD: I refer you to the following:

• ‘duh: used to express disdain for something deemed stupid or obvious, especially a self-evident remark (imitative of an utterance attributed to slow-witted people)’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• ‘duh: used derisively to indicate that something just stated is all too obvious or self-evident’. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

As all it took was a sensible question to reduce you to disdain and derision there is no point in continuing this charade masquerading as a genuine discussion.

*

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the universe, on a verdant and azure planet floating in infinite space and eternal time as the current form perpetual matter (mass/energy) has arranged itself into, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like, which have gone on since time immemorial, will continue on unabated unless radical change occurs. May I ask (if only because that is what this Mailing List is set-up and maintained for) what your contribution towards peace on earth is?

RESPONDENT: To have faith in the grace of God will bring us through individually.

RICHARD: As your god’s grace has something like a 2,000 year track-record of, not only not bringing about peace on earth, but having a decidedly capricious quality to its bestowal anyway, it would appear that radical change is not on your agenda.

So be it then ... I have no further questions.

September 13 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) Richard, can you explain for me once more before I leave to never come back on this list afterward, exactly what evidence you have to say that time, matter and space are ‘seamless’ ... 

RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘If all things are relative including time, then does an instantaneous awareness only sense an instantaneous space and time?
• [Richard]: ‘As time is not relative – except in the mathematical models theoretical physicists posit (in lieu of direct experience) – your query has no substance in actuality.
• [Respondent]: ‘In other words, would you see space and time as two unrelated characteristics?
• [Richard]: ‘Time and space (and matter) are seamless.

As nowhere could I find where I have explained to you before (other than my parenthesised ‘in lieu of direct experience’ comment above) what evidence I have, to say that time and space and matter are seamless, I am taking it that you want me to explain, once more, what ‘direct experience’ is.

Accordingly, I looked through my exchanges with you for the occasions where I have used the term ‘direct experience’ and found that I explain it thusly:

• [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by * direct experience* the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age’. [emphasis added].

Now, a PCE occurs when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) goes into abeyance – an actual freedom from the human condition is where identity is extinct – leaving the flesh and blood body being apperceptively conscious ... such awareness (unmediated consciousness) is direct experience.

As an unmediated consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious sans both the thinker and the feeler – is a non-subjective consciousness there is no way it can be seduced into accepting that a mathematical theory based upon a subjective insight (that a person falling towards the earth is entitled to interpret their being in motion as being at rest because, for them, there exists no gravitational field) has any relevance to what is actually the situation.

*

RESPONDENT: (...) Richard, I basically asked you to tell me why Chris Langan and not ‘Joe Eskimo’ or any other member of the human population both atheist and theist would posit for years a one hundred and some-odd page logical underpinning for the existence of God and you answered: ‘human condition’. I took this to mean that Langan just wanted something to do ... (snip)

RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why is there the reasonable pattern of reasonably smart people being atheists and super-brains people being theists these days?
• [Richard]: ‘The same reason as always (the human condition).

If the words ‘why is there the reasonable pattern of ... super-brains people being theists these days’ is your way of asking why one specific person would posit a logical underpinning for the existence of a god in a 100+ page article all I can say is that it is no wonder, then, you took my response to mean whatever it was that you wanted it to mean.

You are out there on your own with this one ... way, way out there on your own.

RESPONDENT: (...) can you elaborate on your seemingly stochastic rebuttal, ‘human condition’?

RICHARD: There is nothing stochastic – ‘of, relating to, or characterised by conjecture; conjectural’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists).

Or, to put that another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving or containing a random variable or variables’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists).

Or, to put that yet another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving chance or probability’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists).

Howsoever I can elaborate on my experiential response: where there is no such ‘being’ extant within a flesh and blood body – either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – it is startlingly apparent that there are no gods/goddesses in actuality (and thus no theism/theists).

Which means that, whether one is a ‘super-brains’ person or not, positing a logical underpinning for the existence of a god/goddess is all much ado about nothing.

As is this e-mail, entitled ‘General Relativity’, of yours (for reasons already explained).

September 14 2004

RICHARD: (...) a PCE occurs when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) goes into abeyance – an actual freedom from the human condition is where identity is extinct – leaving the flesh and blood body being apperceptively conscious ... such awareness (unmediated consciousness) is direct experience.

RESPONDENT: In other words, ‘direct experience’ is when the faculty of spirituality is obliterated for the faculty of physical perception.

RICHARD: If I were to put what I wrote (above) in other words it would be words to the effect that a pure consciousness experience (PCE) happens when the illusory/delusory being/Being goes into suspension/dormancy/latency – an actual freedom from the human condition is where being/Being is extinct – leaving the flesh and blood body free of any and all illusional/delusional religiosity/ spirituality/ mysticality/ metaphysicality ... such a freedom (from any such illusory/delusory experience) is direct experience.

By the way: what I have noticed, throughout your e-mails, is that you are addressing questions to me as you would to a materialist ... for an example I only have to point to the ‘atheism-theism are two sides of the same coin’ comment in the un-referenced quote by an un-named author you provide immediately below (the ‘coin’ being, of course, the human condition).

RESPONDENT: Here is how the spiritual faculty works: [quote] According to the scientific method, absolute certainty cannot exist. This reduces to the statement: ‘The only certainty, is uncertainty’ This appears to be a tautological statement. So the scientific method itself, employs a type of circular reasoning. In fact, there seems to be no escaping certain types of circular logic. It is built into the very structure of our cognitive machinery. The ultimate limits of observation, i.e. the extremely small approaching zero and extremely large at the end of the universe, appear to be forever beyond our reach. It can be acknowledged that quantum phase inhibitors exist in the neural underpinnings of certain sentient programs. A type of built in ego identity fail-safe that prevents total systemic collapse in the neural subroutines ensuring that redundancy is not compromised. So we see that atheism-theism are two sides of the same coin. What is needed is mathematical closure in the cognitive matrix of the ostensible TOE theorizer. Therefore, belief systems must be analysed from a higher level of abstraction, a deeper level of truth. Does a first principle exist to remedy the dilemma of discovering the true approach to the ultimate truths? How can we be sure that logic is the most basic of basic starting points. What is the correct path?’ [endquote]

RICHARD: If, as you say, the above un-referenced quote by an un-named author is ‘how the spiritual faculty works’ then I am well-pleased to not be spiritual ... else I too might be chasing the ever-elusive TOE (‘Theory Of Everything’) that both many theistic mathematical physicists (aka spiritualists) and many atheistic mathematical physicists (aka materialists) pursue.

*

RICHARD: As an unmediated consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious sans both the thinker and the feeler – is a non-subjective consciousness there is no way it can be seduced ...

RESPONDENT: The limits of physical perception correspond to the limits of physical senses. The limits of physical senses correspond to how able they are to process the environment.

RICHARD: Again, you are writing to me as you would to a materialist.

RESPONDENT: By applying the word, ‘seduced’ – ‘to win over; attract’ (dictionary.com) – you are basically implying that your physical body has a ‘mind of its own’, so to speak, completely separate from the one in your brain ...

RICHARD: As the term ‘flesh and blood body’ is inclusive of the flesh and blood brain (just as it is inclusive of, for example, the flesh and blood heart/lungs/liver) your artificial detachment of a brain from the rest of a body is what occasions such absurdities as inferring my words imply that this flesh and blood body has a ‘mind of its own’, so to speak, completely separate from this mind that is this brain in action inside this skull.

RESPONDENT: ... which itself are mediated by your physical faculty standing between your cognitive faculty and the environment.

RICHARD: Not so ... the senses are the brain on stalks, as it were, and only an identity would experience the sensing brain as being separated from the environment by its senses (such as to say that the brain’s ability to sense stands between its ability to cogitate and the environment at large).

Put differently: it is an identity within which has a ‘mind of its own’, so to speak, completely separate from a mind that is a brain in action inside a skull.

RESPONDENT: The processing of an experience by the brain is the processing of an experience by the body – according to your explanation.

RICHARD: No ... that assumption is according to your inference as to what my words imply.

RESPONDENT: You process that 2 + 2 = 4 as much as a fact as you process that you feel pain when you get punched.

RICHARD: Perhaps this might help:

• [example only]: ‘This flesh and blood body processes that 2 + 2 = 4 as much as a fact as it process that it feels pain when it gets punched’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: Such a process is not done by the body but the brain.

RICHARD: As I do not either artificially detach a brain from the rest of a body nor infer that it has a mind in it completely separate from a mind, so to speak, a body has I do not have to go through such convoluted abstractions in order to ask a simple question (such as immediately below).

RESPONDENT: Therefore, would this mean that if your brain were to process the CTMU in the way it does with 2 + 2 = 4, then would it be in direct contradiction to your body?

RICHARD: In a word: no.

Not that it would it process at all as there is no way a non-subjective consciousness can be seduced into accepting that a mathematical theory based upon a subjective insight (that a person falling towards the earth is entitled to interpret their being in motion as being at rest because, for them, there exists no gravitational field) has any relevance to what is actually the situation.

*

RICHARD: ... [there is no way a non-subjective consciousness can be seduced] into accepting that a mathematical theory based upon a subjective insight (that a person falling towards the earth is entitled to interpret their being in motion as being at rest because, for them, there exists no gravitational field) has any relevance to what is actually the situation.

RESPONDENT: Can you tell me ‘what is actually the situation’?

RICHARD: Sure ... time and space and matter, as previously advised, are seamless. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘If all things are relative including time, then does an instantaneous awareness only sense an instantaneous space and time?
• [Richard]: ‘As time is not relative – except in the mathematical models theoretical physicists posit (in lieu of direct experience) – your query has no substance in actuality.
• [Respondent]: ‘In other words, would you see space and time as two unrelated characteristics?
• [Richard]: ‘Time and space (and matter) are seamless.

Had you forgotten already (such that you had to ask)?

*

RESPONDENT: (...) Richard, I basically asked you to tell me why Chris Langan and not ‘Joe Eskimo’ or any other member of the human population both atheist and theist would posit for years a one hundred and some-odd page logical underpinning for the existence of God and you answered: ‘human condition’. I took this to mean that Langan just wanted something to do ... (snip)

RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why is there the reasonable pattern of reasonably smart people being atheists and super-brains people being theists these days?
 • [Richard]: ‘The same reason as always (the human condition).

If the words ‘why is there the reasonable pattern of ... super-brains people being theists these days’ is your way of asking why one specific person would posit a logical underpinning for the existence of a god in a 100+ page article all I can say is that it is no wonder, then, you took my response to mean whatever it was that you wanted it to mean.

RESPONDENT: Ok, I admit I was not clear in asking the question the first time. But can you put aside the past ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? If you had not brought up the (false) past I would not have brought up the (true) past.

RESPONDENT: ... and attend to here and now ...

RICHARD: As you are now so attending thus too, of course, will your co-respondent attend.

RESPONDENT: ... namely: Why would Chris Langan posit a 100+ page logical underpinning on the existence of God?

RICHARD: As I have never conversed with the person you mention my response can only be a typified one ... to wit: the same reason as always (the human condition) which means, specifically, yet another ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), the very genesis of theism/theists, would presumably be the originator/motivator of the writing of the 100+ page article (positing a logical underpinning for the existence of a god/goddess) that you wish to know the why of from me.

And I say ‘presumably’ because no flesh and blood body sans such a being/ presence would even contemplate putting so much ado about nothing into print (let alone publishing it).

*

RESPONDENT: (...) can you elaborate on your seemingly stochastic rebuttal, ‘human condition’?

RICHARD: There is nothing stochastic – ‘of, relating to, or characterised by conjecture; conjectural’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Or, to put that another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving or containing a random variable or variables’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Or, to put that yet another way, there is nothing stochastic – ‘involving chance or probability’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – about my response to your query as it is indeed the human condition, specifically ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), that is the genesis of theism (and, thus, theists). Howsoever I can elaborate on my experiential response: where there is no such ‘being’ extant within a flesh and blood body – either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – it is startlingly apparent that there are no gods/goddesses in actuality (and thus no theism/theists).

RESPONDENT: (But there aren’t any gods/ goddesses in atheism-land all-together anyway).

RICHARD: Once again, you are speaking to me as you would to a materialist.

RESPONDENT: But alas, the ultimate human consciousness (vis: your flesh and blood body experiencing the universe as itself) ...

RICHARD: ‘Tis the other way around (as this flesh and blood body the universe is experiencing itself apperceptively).

RESPONDENT: ... [alas, the ultimate human consciousness] is not the ultimate universal consciousness.

RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) it is indeed not ... so what? What has that to do with me answering your query by reporting that, where there is no such ‘being’ – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – extant within a flesh and blood body (either in a PCE or upon an actual freedom from the human condition) it is startlingly apparent that there are no gods/goddesses in actuality ... and thus no theism/theists such as to bring forth 100+ page articles positing logical underpinnings for the existence of a god/goddess?

Did you not read what I wrote in response to your question about the on-line discussion forum regarding ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) – and whether the ‘Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe’ (CTMU) and a ‘Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language’ (SCSPL) are valid proofs of such a … um … a totally omnipotent entity having created the universe or not?

I re-posted it only 24 days ago (on Saturday 21/08/2004) in response to your unsubstantiated claim I passed judgement ... here it is again (for the third time):

• [Richard]: ‘... an actual freedom from the human condition not only covers ‘all this’ [all the ‘Intelligent Design’ propositions] it lies beyond it all (beyond the state of being, popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, *which is the genesis of such entities*). [emphasis added].

In other words, all gods/ goddesses are nothing other than ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) writ large ... and the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of all and any such gods/goddesses as you or anyone else may posit.

RESPONDENT: A Coyote experiencing the universe as itself could never process that 2 + 2 = 4 no matter how much it frees itself from the ‘Coyote condition’.

RICHARD: As no coyote is positing a logical underpinning for the existence of a god/goddess what on earth has that to do with what is being discussed?

RESPONDENT: Yet, to it, 2 + 2 = not-4 as well as 2 + 2 = 4.

RICHARD: Allow me to replace the word ‘it’ with the name of species which is being referred to:

• [example only]: ‘Yet, to a coyote, 2 + 2 = not-4 as well as 2 + 2 = 4. [end example].

As this immediately follows the sentence wherein you said that a coyote could ‘never’ process that 2 + 2 = 4 then, apart from being irrelevant, your two consecutive sentences are totally at odds with each other.

RESPONDENT: So it becomes apparent that the cognitive faculty predominates awareness of the world.

RICHARD: Maybe it does in your world – here in the actual world apperceptive awareness is predominant – yet even if it does it is not a cogent conclusion to draw (as in your ‘so’ phrasing) as, whatever a coyote is or is not capable of processing, it does not validate what you too are creating much ado about.

May I ask? Are you planning on keeping this up – posting (another person’s) mathematical theories/ logical propositions to a non-mathematician/ non-logician – much longer?

September 23 2004

RICHARD: (...) what I have noticed, throughout your e-mails, is that you are addressing questions to me as you would to a materialist ... for an example I only have to point to the ‘atheism-theism are two sides of the same coin’ comment in the un-referenced quote by an un-named author you provide immediately below (the ‘coin’ being, of course, the human condition).

RESPONDENT: I see the difference between actualism and materialism is tantamount to the difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned human.

RICHARD: You can, of course, intellectually see it whatever way you like ... such seeing, however, does not make it so. For instance: what then is the difference between actualism and spiritualism ... is it, too, just a matter of deconditioning the conditioned?

RESPONDENT: I see that your mind is a property of the universe itself which means the same as your mind is ‘the universe experiencing itself apperceptively’ as a mind.

RICHARD: You can, of course, intellectually see it whatever way you like ... such seeing, however, does not make it so. For instance: as the mind that is the brain in operation in this skull is a function of this brain – and not a function of the universe itself (all time and all space and all form) – it would be just as much an intellectualisation only to say that the function of this heart in operation (a pump) is the same as ‘this pump is the universe experiencing itself apperceptively as a pump’ ... and then concluding that this pump is a property of all time and all space and all form (the universe itself).

RESPONDENT: Now, let us assume that in an actual freedom from the human condition the universe has revealed that there are no gods/goddesses or God in it for a moment.

RICHARD: Why? Nowhere do I say that the universe has (anthropomorphically) ‘revealed’ anything ... let alone that there are no gods/goddesses.

I have of-times reported that the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of all and any gods/goddesses ... here is such an instance (from further below in this very e-mail you are responding to):

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘In other words, all gods/ goddesses are nothing other than ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) writ large ... and the extinction of ‘being’ itself is the extinction of all and any such gods/goddesses as you or anyone else may posit’.

RESPONDENT: ‘The universe containing that and only that which is real’ (this tautologically true statement is made at the beginning of the CTMU) is isomorphic to your mind which makes you more, much, much more than what you claim to be which is not a property of the universe but the universe itself in its entirety.

RICHARD: Whoa-up there ... it was you who made that claim, not me. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I see that your mind is a property of the universe itself ...’.

RESPONDENT: Because ‘your mind contains that and only that which is real’, your mind is not simply the universe experiencing itself as a mind but it is the universe itself in its entirety.

RICHARD: All it took was a hop, a skip, and a jump and ... !Voila! ... ‘I am God’, eh?

RESPONDENT: To claim this is a complete and utter absurdity ...

RICHARD: As it was not me but you who claimed that it is your complete and utter absurdity.

RESPONDENT: ... and the reason being, if we placed you into another possible reality full of gods and goddesses ...

RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘For what amount of money would you exchange an actual freedom for?
• [Richard]: ‘An actual freedom from the human condition is irrevocable [‘unable to be annulled or undone; unalterable, irreversible’ (Oxford Dictionary)] – as such it is priceless – and if (note ‘if’) it were exchangeable it would not be worth anything.

In other words, you cannot place me back into the human condition (back into the reality full of gods and goddesses).

RESPONDENT: ... your mind would no longer be the universe experiencing itself as a mind. Instead, apart from being free from the human condition you are completely clueless about the universe.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Other than being apperceptively aware of infinitude I am already ‘clueless’ about the universe. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that the sun was a giant ball of nuclear fusion until about five years ago.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you, perchance, know what the sun actually is?
• [Richard]: ‘No, virtually the only thing regarding the properties of the universe that is readily apparent here in this actual world is its infinitude ... matters such as what a star/planet/moon/comet is require observation and illation.
What happened was that, whilst browsing the internet in 1998-99 I came across a web-page proposing that the sun was plasma-only (as contrasted to the mainstream science proposition it had a nuclear-fusion interior which generated the surface plasma), and it dawned upon me that I had accepted – as a fact – what I had been taught in high-school last century ... just as earlier generations had accepted as fact the then prevailing wisdom that it was a giant ball of fire (spectral analysis has shown the sun to have no oxygen so it is not that).
Nor is it a god/goddess, of course, but had I been born millennia ago I would (presumably) have accepted that to be fact.
‘Tis quite remarkable just how much is fed-in from an early age.

RESPONDENT: How is it impossible for the unintelligent universe to reveal its nature to you unless you looked for something?

RICHARD: Again ... it is you who is (anthropomorphically) saying the universe reveals such things to me.

*

RICHARD: (...) I am well-pleased to not be spiritual ... else I too might be chasing the ever-elusive TOE (‘Theory Of Everything’) that both many theistic mathematical physicists (aka spiritualists) and many atheistic mathematical physicists (aka materialists) pursue.

RESPONDENT: Nothing is elusive forever in the universe you describe – a classical universe.

RICHARD: Where have I ever referred to this universe as being a ‘classical’ universe?

RESPONDENT: However, if you are completely wrong about the universe and there are Quantum properties, then by all means you would be clueless and hence you should indeed be chasing after the TOE – I suggest you chase after Langan’s CTMU to shed light on the nature of the universe.

RICHARD: What if (note ‘if’) I am not wrong about the universe ... what then of your well-meant but ill-considered advice (predicated solely upon a two-letter word)?

RESPONDENT: Did you know that Langan did not exactly set out on a mission to prove the existence of God?

RICHARD: I do not know anything about the person whose mathematical theories/logical propositions you keep on posting to me.

RESPONDENT: It was in the solution to Russell’s Paradox (a.k.a the set of all sets) ... (snip remainder)

RICHARD: I see that I have provided the following information before (twice):

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘As I am not a mathematician (...) I would suggest you try some other mailing list as what you want is not to be found here.
And:
• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... as the trivial pursuit (to use your phrasing) of an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematical being 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then it is patently obvious that you will not find what you are looking for here.
And:
• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... I am not a mathematician.
And:
• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... there is no point in developing an interest in mathematics as mathematicians have not, are not, and cannot ever, enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent with their mathematics.
In short: an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematician.
And:
• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘What I am saying is very, very simple: as I am not a mathematician (by any definition of the word) it is patently obvious that an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematician.
And:
• [Respondent]: ‘Does the mathematics of probability serve a purpose in your life?
• [Richard]: ‘No (not directly, that is) ... but everyday probability does.
And:
• [Respondent]: ‘Would you care to study quantum physics?
• [Richard]: ‘As quantum theory is based upon a mathematical device (...) I have no interest whatsoever in studying it.
And:
• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... by and large logic is a matter I leave to the logicians.
And:
• [Respondent]: ‘... do we experience existence as a sort of logic?
• [Richard]: ‘It would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails if you would take note that when I say that, by and large, I leave logic to the logicians I actually mean it.
Incidentally, not only do I mean what I say I also say what I mean.
And:
• [Respondent]: ‘Did you make some kind of ultimate deduction of existence that if tested, can explain everything including the unexplainable [aka cosmogonical] aspects of existence?
• [Richard]: ‘I made no deduction – ultimate or otherwise – which can explain the cosmogonical aspects of existence ... I am an actualist, not a logicist (‘a mathematical logician; an adherent or student of logicism [the theory that a set of axioms for mathematics can be deduced from a primitive set of purely logical axioms]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

September 28 2004

RESPONDENT: In the article I posted above [from the CTMU Web] there seems to be a sensible explanation for why an ego-less human being would say ‘there are no gods/goddesses in actuality’ and yet elsewhere the supernatural meaning of ‘psychic’ (why someone I know personally is able to ‘pick-up’ the thoughts from a mind in a body they have never encountered along with (possibly, but not sure) the events of a remote location) exists as much a part of reality (which includes actuality) as you.

RICHARD: Starting from the end of your sentence (and working back to the beginning):

1. I do not exist as a part of reality ... reality is an affective-cognitive veneer an identity pastes over actuality (which creation it calls the outer-world).
2. An identity’s reality does not include actuality ... actuality is nowhere to be found in reality.
3. Your psychic friend cannot pick-up thoughts from this flesh and blood body ... there is no ‘being’ extant to psychically transmit same.
4. Psychic abilities do not exist in actuality ... just like gods/goddesses and egos/souls and emotions/passions they only exist in reality.
5. I am not an ego-less human being ... I am a human being sans identity in toto.
6. The article you posted from the CTMU (‘Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe’) Web had the following to say: [quote] ‘The problem that many Buddhist run into in their interpretation is in thinking that it is actually possible to attain a state where the ego is completely dissolved while still being alive. *This simply is impossible* and is not what Siddhartha meant when he claimed that attachment was the root of suffering and suffering was to be overcome by liberation of the self. In simply understanding the nature of being connected to the global level and not really being a separate being we have understood that the ego is impermanent and thus we should not be attached to it. *We can’t escape it* yet we shouldn’t be attached to something that is transient and only possesses a temporary existence’ [emphasises added] ... yet you say that in that article there seems to be a sensible explanation for why an ‘ego-less’ human being would say ‘there are no gods/goddesses in actuality’.

As there are six (6) errors/mistakes/misunderstandings in your very first sentence there is no point in reading/ replying any further.

September 29 2004

RESPONDENT: I just found this today, it might help you answer those questions on psychics in relation to AF: [snip link to a 1930 book written by a supporter/ promoter of E.R.A (‘Electronic Reactions of Abrams’)]. By the way, I notice you haven’t bothered responding to any of my posts. Is it because they are insignificant?

RICHARD: I am entirely capable of answering questions on psychics in relation to an actual freedom from the human condition ... as Mr. Uptain Sinclair, the author of the book, Ms. Mary Kimbrough, his psychic wife, and Mr Albert Einstein, who wrote the preface to the book, knew naught of what I report/ describe/ explain it is somewhat odd, to say the least, that you would consider a book you just found on the very day you advised of its existence (indicating that you have not read it) might help me in this regard.

As it is not a question of me either being ‘bothered’ or not when it comes to responding to a post – any post at all – I would suggest you refrain from adding such commentitious intransitive verbs to your queries as they have the effect of turning them into leading questions/ loaded questions. Here is an example of a question that can be answered as-is (without preliminary qualifications):

• [example only]: ‘By the way, I notice you haven’t responded to any of my posts. Is it because they are insignificant? [end example].

No, it is not because they are ‘insignificant’ – if a fellow human being chooses to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) writing to me in regard to what I have to report/ describe/ explain they must indeed be significant for them – but, rather, because the mathematical theories/ logical propositions you keep on posting to me are irrelevant to discussions about just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition.

They are, in fact, as non-germane to the purpose of this mailing list as Mr. Uptain Sinclair’s theories about ‘Mental Radios’ are.

November 03 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) As far as I’m concerned, Richard’s ‘belief’ about time having no duration is purely experiential.

RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you say that Richard’s report (an account from the actual world) about time having no duration, being purely experiential, is Richard’s ‘belief’ (albeit in scare quotes)? Why not put it this way (for example):

• [example only]: ‘As far as I’m concerned, Richard’s report about time having no duration is purely experiential’ [end example].

Is it because, being tautologous, it lacks impact?

RESPONDENT: It has absolutely nothing to do with the way time behaves at all.

RICHARD: As you began this e-mail with [quote] ‘If Einstein was ...’ [endquote] it is reasonable to assume that the manner in which Mr. Albert Einstein’s equations dictate the way time behaves is, for you, the way that time does indeed behave.

RESPONDENT: I.e. It’s him, not time!

RICHARD: Ha ... as Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was born out of an insight which he described as being the happiest thought in his life – that a person falling from a roof has the right to interpret their state of motion as being a state of rest as, for them, gravity does not exist (at least not in their immediate surroundings) – there is every reason to say it is him, not time, that his theory is all about.

‘Tis not for nothing that I say the relativity theory would be better named the subjectivity theory.

January 24 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, have you ever wondered what the world would be like if mankind had no identity?

RICHARD: As no identity has any existence in actuality I never have the need to (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world).

RESPONDENT: You say there are no laws in the universe other than physical laws.

RICHARD: All I said, in effect, was that your god’s laws have no existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: Yet so much evidence says otherwise.

RICHARD: There is no evidence whatsoever that your god’s laws have any existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: Is it metaphysically objectionable to consider the equilibrium between ‘reality’ and fiction as perfectly balanced?

RICHARD: As the reality you are referring to has no existence outside of the human psyche you would be much better off asking a metaphysician about such matters.

RESPONDENT: To put it another way, can you prove what is real in the universe and what is not by your senses?

RICHARD: To put it another way, as the universe you are referring to has no existence outside of the human psyche you would be much better off asking a metaphysician about such matters.

RESPONDENT: What is the prime directive that causes Geese to fly south for winter?

RICHARD: The inadequacy of their gait.

RESPONDENT: Why do some of our brains function to allow such a recurrence between past and present making more real to our senses our memories?

RICHARD: As this brain does not function in the manner you describe you would be much better off ... (a) including me out of your all-embracing possessive pronoun ... and (b) asking someone whose brain does function in that manner about such matters.

July 12 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, the method of freedom in actualism seems reliant upon the conscious repetition of what has been granted the acronym, HAIETMOBA.

RICHARD: Whereas what the actualism method is really reliant upon is patently obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (or even, for that matter, to the most one-eyed cynic). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It does take some doing to start off with but, as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes progressively easier to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. One begins by asking, each moment again, ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?

Attentiveness to the cause of diminished enjoyment and appreciation restores felicity and innocuity. The habituation of actualistic awareness and attentiveness requires a persistent initialisation; persistent initialisation segues into *a wordless approach, a non-verbal attitude towards life*. It delivers the goods just here, right now, and not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – virtually on demand – and thus satisfy the ‘scientific method’’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Which is in my understanding, only truly accomplished in mantra-style format requiring powers of concentration.

RICHARD: Whereas real understanding could have been readily gained, for example, from what I re-posted only two weeks before you sent this e-mail:

• [Richard]: ‘It is a question, not a phrase to be memorised and repeated slogan-like (or *as if chanting a mantra* for instance), and it soon becomes a non-verbal attitude to life ... a wordless approach each moment again whereupon one cannot be anything else but [affectively] aware of one’s every instinctual impulse/affective feeling, and thus self-centred thought, as it is happening’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Hence, time more than effort is the main means of achieving this goal.

RICHARD: As both your primary and secondary premises are erroneous your conclusion has (not all that surprisingly) no validity ... sincerity of intent is the key to success.

*

RESPONDENT: Alternatively, the effort in the methods expressed under eastern concepts such as Taoism and Buddhism can be theoretically as effective.

RICHARD: None of the concepts in either Taoism and Buddhism have ever brought about (nor ever will) an actual freedom from the human condition ... peace-on-earth is just not on their agenda.

RESPONDENT: Though it is uncertain how long the effects of those methods can be sustained.

RICHARD: They could be sustained until one turns blue in the face yet they will never, ever, bring about an actual freedom from the human condition ... peace-on-earth is simply not on their agenda.

RESPONDENT: Idealism seems to be the underlying proprietary by which they are explicated.

RICHARD: Whereas what really is the underlying proprietary, by which they are explicated, is solipsistic narcissism.

RESPONDENT: Compromising the verisimilitude of the encroaching self sometimes as much as actualism.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... the self-centric/self-aggrandisement of eastern concepts enhances the verisimilitude of the encroaching self like all get-out.

RESPONDENT: Whereas actualism finds that self and freedom are irreconcilable, idealism does not. Hence, one’s imaginative powers are spared for use in human subjects such as art and psychology. Which, I acknowledge may not have value in the actual world, but in the common, human world.

RICHARD: Possible translation: even though, thanks to idealism, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, have continued/will continue on unabated one can always take refuge in some held-to-be-worthy make-believe sanctuary.

*

RESPONDENT: Idealism may help achieve a way of life that bears some semblance to actualism ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? In what way can idealism – ‘the theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – even begin to help achieve a way of life that bears even the faintest semblance to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive?

RESPONDENT: ... but does so through altruistic focus as opposed to the capitulation of the self.

RICHARD: Just what does the word ‘altruistic’ mean to you (such that you can glibly go on to speak about it being *opposed* to capitulation of self)?

RESPONDENT: A devotion of mentality to something until the point of self-abandonment so to speak.

RICHARD: How on earth can something (putatively) opposed to the capitulation of the self mentally bring about a point of self-abandonment?

RESPONDENT: However, this is all speculative so I cannot say anything on its success with absolute authority.

RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that you have not even tried devoting yourself mentally to something until the point of self-abandonment?

*

RESPONDENT: There are two major differences that I perceive to be the results in the case between actualism and idealism. That is, firstly, that actualism gives rise to a true sense of environmental appreciation as understood by the phrase, ‘happy and harmless’ instead of merely the feeling of appreciation.

RICHARD: As the phrase ‘happy and harmless’, as used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, refers to the absence of malice and sorrow – and thus their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion – then in just what way, according to you, does that give rise to a true sense of environmental appreciation (whatever that means)?

RESPONDENT: Secondly, actualism is an inhibitor to desire and hence a sense of time wasted can result from focussing on subjects that are in no way inclusive to happiness and harmlessness.

RICHARD: Could you be referring to focussing on subjects such as being anywhere but here at this place in space, anywhen than now at this moment in time, as anything but a flesh and blood body, and designating such focus as truly being here and now, perchance?

*

RESPONDENT: I received this idea for idealism after watching the character of Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

RICHARD: If I may ask? How are you going in regards your university studies towards achieving your avowed goal of becoming a logician of note?

Just curious.

July 28 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, if you regard human subjects like art, psychology and Quantum Physics as a waste of time, a claim that may in turn be seen as the ranting of a mad or just plain dumb fellow, then what subjects on earth occupies your mind? And with that, are they limited in the broader human spectrum or just not applicable to social reality?

RICHARD: The problem with asking loaded questions is that they cannot be answered as-is ... for example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You have a background in art, hence have an appreciation for visual aesthetics ... do you draw or paint now?
• [Richard]: ‘I have not drawn or painted much since I started writing – the last time was back in 1987-88 – as of all the arts I prefer literature ... the art of letters.
(...)
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am a musician, and have wondered if pursuing this path would eliminate all desire to play music.
• [Richard]: ‘Yep ... all desire vanishes without a trace.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So if it is not desire that draws you to literature, what motivates you to put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard?
• [Richard]: ‘What motivates me to write is nothing more mysterious than the fact that I like my fellow human being: I am simply passing on my experience and understanding of life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are because the other person tells me that they are suffering ... so I report how suffering ended in myself and describe what life is like in this actual world.
The motivation also stems from the period 1981-1992: all I ever wanted was the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world as I scoured the books during that eleven years to no avail ... I would rather have it that nobody else need go through what I went through. I am well pleased that the third alternative to materialism and spiritualism is now available throughout the world inasmuch as anyone who finds themselves travelling this path will have the assurance that another has successfully traversed the terrain.
In essence this means these words provide a confirmation that the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is universal and an affirmation that the pristine purity a PCE evidences is possible twenty four hours of the day.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The sensory pleasure of producing words or handling a pen, coupled with an aesthetic appreciation for forming pleasing combinations of words?
• [Richard]: ‘The reason why, of all the arts, I prefer literature – the art of letters – is that it is the only means of expression (communication) which leaves no room for the ambiguity all other art-forms have ... plus an actual freedom from the human condition cannot be conveyed in any other form than by words anyway.
As for ‘forming pleasing combinations of words’ ... when I start a sentence I have no means of knowing in advance what will transpire, let alone how it will end. All I need to be aware of is the topic and the subject matter unfolds of its own accord. I do have a reliable and repeatable format and style, which has developed over the years, so it is not an ad hoc or chaotic meandering.
It is all very easy ... it is a delight to be these finger-tips dancing over the keys.
It may be useful for me to explain that what I write is expressive prose – it is not a thesis – as I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself. My writing is not intended to stand literary scrutiny for scholarly style and grammatical form and so on – the academics would have a field-day with it – for it is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is.
Then actuality speaks for itself’. /

Obviously, then, I do not regard art as [quote] ‘a waste of time’ [endquote] ... which means that your comment vis-à-vis the ranting of a mad or just plain dumb fellow has no substance in that instance.

As for your comment regarding psychology ... I only need to point you to the ‘left-click’ disclaimer on the home page of The Actual Freedom Trust web site:

• [Richard]: ‘Such a person [one who is harbouring a neurotic or psychotic condition] is well-advised to see a psychologist or a psychiatrist (...) counsellors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists are the best people for the job of managing their condition’.

Obviously, then, I do not regard psychology as [quote] ‘a waste of time’ [endquote] ... which means that your comment vis-à-vis the ranting of a mad or just plain dumb fellow has no substance in that instance.

In regards to quantum theory ... I draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process.
Perhaps this might go some way towards explaining what I mean:
• ‘... the world of experience and observation is not the world of electrons and nuclei. The world of experience is in terms of visible objects, occupying definite positions at definite instants of time – in a word, the world of classical mechanics. When the atom is pictured as a nucleus surrounded by electrons ... there is no sense in which one can say that, if only a good enough microscope were available, this picture would be revealed as genuine reality. It is not that such a microscope has not been made; it is actually impossible to make one that will reveal this detail. (...) Whether electrons and nuclei have an objective existence in reality is a metaphysical question to which no definite answer can be given’. (Sir A. Brian Pippard. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge; Cavendish Professor, 1971-82: ©1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Once the not-observable-as-objects-in-space-and-time basis of sub-atomic particles is established the mathematical processes involved unfold further mysteries accordingly. Vis.:
• ‘The process of transformation from a classical description to an equation of quantum mechanics, and from the solution of this equation to the probability that a specified experiment will yield a specified observation, is not to be thought of as a temporary expedient pending the development of a better theory. It is better to accept this process as a technique for predicting the observations that are likely to follow from an earlier set of observations. There is, however, no doubt that to postulate their [electrons and nuclei] existence is, in the present state of physics, an inescapable necessity if a consistent theory is to be constructed to describe economically and exactly the enormous variety of observations on the behaviour of matter’. (Sir A. Brian Pippard. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge; Cavendish Professor, 1971-82: ©1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Needless to say, once this postulation is accepted – and as ‘an inescapable necessity’ at that – then there is no prize for guessing what will happen. Vis.:
• ‘The habitual use of the language of particles by physicists induces and reflects the conviction that, even if the particles elude direct observation, they are as real as any everyday object’. (Sir A. Brian Pippard. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge; Cavendish Professor, 1971-82: ©1994-1998 Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Thus the sub-atomic postulates (aka particles) have become ‘as real as any everyday object’ and thus assume the status of being factual via a sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) that would be the envy of many a confidence trickster.
I will repeat what I said earlier for emphasis: in any area of research I have ever looked into I have, more often than not, found that not only are facts rather thin on the ground but that it is mainly the hypothesis/theory which gets most of the attention.
Which is possibly why many of the ‘facts’ later turn out not to be facts at all’.

Obviously, then, I do not regard quantum theory as [quote] ‘a waste of time’ [endquote] ... which means that your comment vis-à-vis the ranting of a mad or just plain dumb fellow has no substance in that instance.

Furthermore, as you have entitled this e-mail ‘Do Actualists Intellectualise?’ it would be handy if you were to designate just what you mean by [quote] ‘occupies your mind’ [endquote] ... for example:

• ‘intellectualise: (1) to furnish a rational structure or meaning for; (2) to avoid psychological insight into (an emotional problem) by performing an intellectual analysis’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• ‘intellectualise: consider something rationally; to analyse, deal with, or explain something exclusively by thinking or reasoning; (psychology) reason away problems; to protect yourself unconsciously from the emotional stress that would come from dealing with fears or problems by reasoning them away’. (Encarta Dictionary).
• ‘intellectualise: to think about or discuss a subject in a detailed and intellectual way, without involving your emotions or feelings’. (Cambridge Dictionary).

If, after taking all the above into account, you still find your queries need an answer then were you to re-present them in a manner in which they could be answered as-is I would be only too happy to respond accordingly.

July 28 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, what do you think about these TV spots of Batman? [snip link to ‘Movie Box’ website].

RICHARD: I have never watched movies about comic-book heroes/heroines and I am not about to do so now.

RESPONDENT: Is Batman better than us?

RICHARD: If you are asking whether a character driven by revenge, after being traumatised when eight years of age by his parent’s death at the hands of a criminal and despite being given loving comfort at the time by a female physician and social worker, to fight crime under the guise of being a force for good is better than normal human beings then the answer is obvious, surely?

Furthermore, a character haunted by the memory of falling into a cavern swarming with bats at age six – such as to have a fear of those nocturnal creatures in adulthood – can hardly be described as being better than non-phobic human beings.

Especially so as the character has had more than sixty-six years (since 1939) to work-through their childhood traumas.

August 13 2005

RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘To conquer fear you must become fear’. [Batman Begins]. Is it possible to exterminate the fear of anything and everything in the normal state?

RICHARD: First of all, what Mr. Christopher Nolan and Mr. David Goyer (the co-writers of the movie) evidently do not comprehend is that you already are fear (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

Second, they are referring to conquering (aka overcoming or vanquishing) fear ... and not to exterminating it.

Lastly, as to exterminate the fear *of* anything and everything is not to eliminate fear itself it would, basically, be an exercise in futility in regards to bringing about some kind of inner peace one might speak (hopefully) of.

RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘It’s not who I am underneath, its what I do that defines me’. [Batman Begins]. There is the psychic web that an actualist claims to be irreconcilable with perfection, since perfection in respect to humanity can only be achieved through peace. In the psychic web it’s not an option to have peace according to an actualist as the distortion of the ‘already existing peace on earth’ is impossible to have. What about the inner peace one might speak of?

RICHARD: As you have linked your query to what Mr. Christopher Nolan and/or Mr. David Goyer wrote (else why quote it) there is no way the inner peace you say one might speak of can come about via what one does ... it is obvious, is it not, that any such internal state can only stem from how [quote] ‘who I am underneath’ [endquote] is as a ‘being’?

Furthermore, who Mr. Christopher Nolan/Mr. David Goyer is, underneath what they do, is none other than who it is who is busily propagating the affective vibrations that are the carrier – the copper wires/fibre-optic cables as it were – of the psychic web, which you say actualists claim to be irreconcilable with perfection, by their very presence (whether consciously or not).

Moreover, their very presence – which is [quote] ‘who I am underneath’ [endquote] and nothing else – is the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at conception as a rough and ready survival package, automatically forming themselves into a ‘being’.

Thus the inner peace you say one might speak of, presumably to come about per favour the extermination of the fear of anything and everything already mentioned further above, would be dependent upon fear itself, then, being somehow reconcilable with the, as-yet-unattended-to, aggression towards (anything and everything), the nurture of (anything and everything), and the desire for (anything and everything) ... an emotional/passional balancing act that would be the envy of the most accomplished juggler.

‘Tis no wonder they would rather convince themselves, and maybe even some gullible viewers as well, that what defines them is what they do (such as writing a blockbuster fantasy about a comic-book character fighting crime by way of compensation for not resolving childhood traumas) instead, eh?

September 16 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, lets say hypothetically a stranger had a gun aimed at your face, what sort of thoughts might occur in your mind?

RICHARD: Having been rigorously trained in the military, until the appropriate reflex responses became second-nature, for multiple variations of such contingencies – plus having gone to war as a youth – it can be said with a high degree of confidence that there would be no thoughts occurring at the moment ... there would only be action.

The whole point of such intensive drilling is that (to use a cliché) there is the quick ... and there is the dead.

October 02 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, the ‘pure consciousness experience’ as you describe it sounds like it bears an uncanny idea to Ian Goddard’s ‘cosmic consciousness experience’. www.iangoddard.net/CCE.htm.

RICHARD: Here is what Mr. Ian Goddard specifically has to say, on that web page, regarding that experience:

• [quote]: ‘Cosmic Consciousness Experience (CCE) ... is an experience wherein the observer’s identity exceeds normal limits. Normally the observer’s experiential field is broken into self, a sense of identity limited to the observer’s body, and not-self, which is outside the observer’s body. During CCE the division of self and not-self is seen as an unreal mental fabrication, the dissolution of which causes self to occupy both the inside, or the body, and the outside. [quote] ‘The yogi endowed with complete enlightenment sees ... the entire universe in his own Self and regards everything as the Self and nothing else. ... I fill all the inside and the outside ... the same in all’. [pages 32, 58, ‘Thus Spake Sri Sankara’; by S. Sankara (circa 788-810); 1969, Sri Ramakrishna Math, Madras India]. (...) A major feature of CCE is the perception of identity with others. During CCE an observer may perceive that his holistic self is equivalent to the holistic self of another and of all others. This may be expressed as ‘I am you’ or ‘We are all one’. [endquote].

The way I describe a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not at all like that (let alone uncannily so).

October 17 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, as you claim, in an actual freedom, it is not merely a perception, but a revelation that atoms and molecules are non-existent entities, better remaining within the realm of mathematics. Therefore, failing to serve any real-life application to the physics of the actual.

RICHARD: Not only do I not claim any such thing you have been down a similar road before (inventing something I clearly never said so as to draw conclusions from your invention as if you were having a meaningful dialogue with me).

For your information: one does not have to be actually free from the human condition to comprehend that atoms and molecules are mathematical models. For example (from an e-mail posted a little under four weeks ago):

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps a personal anecdote may be of assistance: when I was but a lad in high school (at 12-15 years of age), when learning about atomic theory, it was expressly explained that the model then being taught – a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons – was just that (a model) and was not, repeat not, to be taken as really being the case.
And then came, thick and fast, in the ensuing years a bewildering array of sub-atomic postulates with peculiar names and properties wherein they were sometimes matter and sometimes energy – which otherwise causeless state apparently depended upon the human observer – only to be followed by the ‘String Theory’ ... a ‘string’ of energy so tiny that if it were to be compared with the magnitude of the known universe it would be but the size of a tree (if it had form). Predictably, it was being posited as being the smallest ... um ... ‘thingamajig’ beyond which there is no smaller and it, too, was to be the ultimate source of all things (if only it were real)’.

As for your (invalid) conclusion about mathematical models failing to serve any real-life application:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘(...) just so there is no misunderstanding, I am on record more than a few times as having said that I appreciate the benefits brought about by both applied mathematics and practical science’.

And ten months later:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process’.

And (again) a year after that:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘I do understand the value of pure science (theoretical science), as contrasted to applied science (practical science), in the area of research and development – just as I understand the value of pure mathematics as opposed to applied mathematics – as evidenced by the technological revolution and the main point I am emphasising is the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific discovery to be fact, as propagated by the popular press for instance, because theoretical science does not describe the universe ... mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process’.

January 21 2006

RESPONDENT: The only original thing about actualism is creating the adjective ‘actualism’ by adjoining the ending of ‘-ism’ with the word actual.

RICHARD: Ha ... you may find the following to be of interest, then:

• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition [of that word] which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’.

As you will see I did not create that noun – the suffix ‘-ism’ forms a noun (signifying a characteristic quality) and not an adjective – I merely substituted the words ‘the direct experience’ for the words ‘the theory’. Also, as you have titled this e-mail ‘actualism = hedonism’, the following will be informative:

• [Richard]: ‘... what I write is a report, a description, and an explanation, of what life is like in this actual world – the sensate world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – which is the world which becomes apparent when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) become extinct.
In other words, the affective faculty in its entirety (which includes its epiphenomenal psychic facility) has no existence whatsoever ... meaning that it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void.
The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience: [quote]: ‘To feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity. All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array’. [endquote].
Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/ pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being *most definitely not hedonism*, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic’. [emphasis added].

Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 11


RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity