|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 49
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):
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: 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:
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
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):
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):
As there are six (6) errors/mistakes/misunderstandings in your very first sentence there is no point in reading/ replying any further.
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):
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.
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):
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 ‘Tis not for nothing that I say the relativity theory would be better named the subjectivity theory.
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.
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.:
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
The way I describe a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not at all like that (let alone uncannily so).
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):
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:
And (again) a year after that:
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:
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:
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. |
