# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Consciousness RICHARD: ... Thus one is reliably rendered relatively innocent (and virtually happy and harmless) by the benefaction of the perfection and purity of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and therefore one is no longer alone in this monumental endeavour ... one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal. RESPONDENT: Could you please explain the last part a bit more [‘one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal’] as it does sound somewhat metaphysical. RICHARD: Not metaphysical, no. I am talking of the physical infinitude of this physical universe (‘this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe’) thus the energy of infinitude referred to is a physical energy ... specifically the calorific energy of an apperceptive consciousness. I can explain it this way: the apperceptive brain in action in the human skull is a ‘self’-less consciousness (a consciousness not fettered by any identity whatsoever) and as such is an unlimited consciousness automatically conscious of the perfection and purity of the infinitude of the universe as an on-going awareness. For a person in the ‘real world’ such a consciousness exists in another dimension – in the infinite and eternal and perpetual actual world in fact – yet is mostly mistaken by peoples to be a god-like consciousness (a non-calorific energy in some timeless and spaceless and formless dimension). Yet it is nothing more mysterious than the flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. One needs to contact, or have a connection with, this apperceptive awareness so as to no longer be alone in the monumental endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Hence the activation of one’s innate naiveté – the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’ – ensures that such a connection is sustained. This connection I call pure intent. RESPONDENT No. 44: And a second question for not write another email. You are speaking about PCE’s. What is consciousness? RICHARD: It is exactly the same as when you asked me exactly the same question – ‘what is consciousness’ – on another occasion. Viz.: • [Respondent No. 44]: ‘What is consciousness? • [Richard]: ‘Here is how I have explained it before: • [Respondent No. 44]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about consciousness (...)’. • [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 31 August 2003). What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44d, 22 September 2003). What is it about that description you are still having difficulty in comprehending? RESPONDENT No. 44: You are explaining me the manifestation of consciousness. RESPONDENT: This is another problem with the way this system of (so-called) actual freedom is formulated. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition, which is what the words ‘actual freedom’ are short for, is not ‘so-called’ ... it is called that (I ought to know as I coined the phrase). An actual freedom from the human condition is not a ‘system’ ... it is the condition which ensues when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. The above is not ‘another’ problem with the way an actual freedom from the human condition is reported/ described/ explained as you are yet to demonstrate there is any such problem on any other occasion. As the ‘this’ you are referring to – Richard (supposedly) explaining [quote] ‘the manifestation of consciousness’ [endquote] – is what my co-respondent is saying, and not what I am saying, then ‘this’ is not a problem either ... for this is my explanation (copy-pasted from above): • [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, 44c, 31 August 2003). As you will now see there is no problem with how consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT (to No. 44): The expression – pure consciousness experience – is somehow problematic, and this is probably what you are trying to put your finger on. The use of the term PCE is highly obfuscating. RICHARD: The word ‘pure’ is synonymic with ‘unadulterated’, ‘uncontaminated’, ‘unpolluted’, and so on, thus a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT (to No. 44): Richard says he is referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, which is fine, but the term PCE somehow implies that pure consciousness somehow exists on its own side as a constant. RICHARD: If you had read the response I gave to my co-respondent (further below) before writing this you would have seen that I never implied anything of the sort ... that implication is what you make of it. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘As consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – *is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible)* then to suggest that consciousness is something other than that, that which is indeed what it is per se, in itself, just does not make sense. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44g, 8 May 2004). RESPONDENT (to No. 44): I cannot put my finger on exactly how or why it does this, but it conveys such to me, in a subtle way, and I believe it does so for others. RICHARD: As the implication – ‘that pure consciousness somehow exists on its own side as a constant’ – is what you make of it there is no reason to believe that others necessarily make the same inference. RESPONDENT (to No. 44): So Richard is saying by the use of the term, PCE, that the ordinary consciousness of a human being is not pure. RICHARD: Indeed I am. The normal condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (which is what the term ‘consciousness’ is an expression of as the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is a condition of that consciousness being adulterated, contaminated, polluted, and so on, by the presence of an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT (to No. 44): But consciousness itself cannot be pure or impure, as THERE IS consciousness (of the body). but without the body there is not consciousness, so the body is conscious of itself as it is. Put in other words, there is a consciousness of whatever, but it cannot be pure or impure; it is only that the brain and body can work or not work in certain ways. When there is an avoidance of certain details by selectively choosing other details that are less painful to focus upon, a person is not fully conscious. When conditions occur so that for a moment there is no pain and a person experience the world as very alive or wonderland, so clean and pure, or budding with love or whatever, this does not mean the conscious is ‘pure.’ It is too silly. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... but as what you are referring to is what you have to say, and not what I have to say, then what is indeed ‘too silly’ is what you have to say. RESPONDENT (to No. 44): Moreover the frequency of these experiences does NOT mean a person is becoming more liberated, as often this kind of experience is created out of an imbalance. I speak from my own personal experience, as I used to be a mystic to the nth – was this way from the time of young childhood, and have had hundreds if not thousands of such experiences, each one more pure and wonderful and amazing than the next, and in my opinion, these were a result of mental imbalance due to my inner suffering. RICHARD: As a PCE is an experience of being this flesh and blood body only – sans identity in toto – whatever it is that you are reporting/ describing/ explaining there is one thing for sure ... it is not a PCE. * RESPONDENT No. 44: I had asked you what is consciousness per se, in itself. RICHARD: As consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) then to suggest that consciousness is something other than that, that which is indeed what it is per se, in itself, just does not make sense. What is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, then, if not what consciousness is per se, in itself? RESPONDENT (to No. 44): Again, there is the implication from Richard’s use of the term PCE, that consciousness exists on its own side as a constant, though he does not seem to mean this, according to his definition. RICHARD: If you had read the response I gave to my co-respondent (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44g, 7 May 2004) with both eyes open you would have seen that I never implied anything of the sort ... that implication is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: Maybe Richard, you are not completely sure, deep within yourself, and this is where the confusion with the use of words arises from. RICHARD: And just what ‘confusion with the use of words’ would that be? RESPONDENT: Many people believe that consciousness exists independently of themselves as a constant, and this is hard to leave behind. RICHARD: Not when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates it ain’t. RESPONDENT: The way you use language, such as speaking of a feeling being genetically encoded, suggests that you may indeed, on some subliminal level, think in this way. RICHARD: I see ... so just because I point out that affective feelings such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – which emotions/ passions are evident in other animals as well as the human animal – are genetically-encoded I therefore ‘think’ (and not know) that the feeling of ‘being’ or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into exists independently of me as a constant, eh? RESPONDENT: A feelings cannot be genetically encoded anymore than the taste of coffee, though it can be genetically encoded for a certain person to taste coffee in a certain way or to like or not like the taste of cauliflower to have an adrenal rush when a stranger comes at him under certain conditions. RICHARD: I have left your entire sentence intact this time around ... but it is the first six words which are the key to all the to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails on this issue. Because for as long as you continue to maintain that affective feelings, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, are not genetically-encoded then that is the end of the matter. Or, to put that another way, that is the end of your enquiry. RESPONDENT: Richard’s question posing in his reply tells us a little more of the cognitive basis of his naive construal of ‘affective’ or ‘feeling’. He cannot see into feeling deeply enough, through *particular* feelings. Hence, he must ask separately what of the essence of *each* of love, anger, etc. ‘remain[s]’, as though we could speak of some kind of essences of these as we would speak of, say, the fragrant essences of jasmine, orange, or peppermint, as though essence must always contain some residue or distillate of the particular. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my query: as the essence of feeling remains, as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious, do ‘*particular* feelings’ also remain? For example: 1. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of love remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 2. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of anger remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 3. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of compassion remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 4. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of sadness remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 5. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of ecstasy remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 6. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of fear remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? As for my query regarding ‘full consciousness’: all my query is about, at this stage anyway, is whether that term is the same as saying ‘fully conscious’? RESPONDENT: Readers will observe that Richard’s revision simply illustrates again my point already made clear regarding both the basis of his naive notion of feeling and the matter of particularity. RICHARD: I would like to bring your attention to something you wrote several e-mails ago: • [Respondent]: ‘I would much rather carry on a discussion (...) all without seriously pointing out personal issues’. If you could indeed stay with the subject at hand and refrain from ‘seriously pointing out personal issues’ it would certainly be conducive to a mutual communication. RESPONDENT: Nothing else need be added. RICHARD: I would appreciate it if you could see your way clear to change your decision and choose to add something substantial to your response after all. The question I am asking is simple: as the essence of feeling remains, as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious, do ‘*particular* feelings’ also remain? For example: 1. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of love remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 2. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of anger remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 3. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of compassion remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 4. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of sadness remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 5. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of ecstasy remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? 6. Does the ‘*particular* feeling’ of fear remain as a feature of consciousness when one is fully conscious? As for my query regarding ‘full consciousness’: all my query is about, at this stage anyway, is whether that term is the same as saying ‘fully conscious’? RESPONDENT: I love your understanding of feelings – genetically encoded structures of aggression/ nurture whose purpose is the survival of the organism. However, I’m not sure how this can explain the ‘human condition,’ since these structures are a part of the limbic system, often referred to as the reptilian brain. As the term reptilian indicates, the aggression/ nurture impulses do not originate in the human animal. RICHARD: Indeed ... the aggression/ nurture impulses do not originate in the human animal. RESPONDENT: So, if the impulses of the limbic system are the problem, shouldn’t it follow that other creatures, at least from reptiles on ‘up’ should also share in this problem of the ‘human condition’? RICHARD: It depends upon which neuro-biologist one reads – there are various theoretical models around – as to whether they are referring to a two-tiered model or a three-tiered model (still no consensus at this early stage of research) when they write ... or some other hazy configuration. The two-tiered model goes something like this: 1. ‘limbic-system’ (reptilian brain/ paleo-cortex); 2. ‘cortical-system’ (cortex/ neo-cortex). In this model the brain-stem is included in (1) and both animal mammals and human mammals are in (2). The three-tiered model is more or less like this: 1. ‘reptilian brain’ (brain-stem); 2. ‘mammalian brain’ (limbic-system); 3. ‘neo-cortex brain’ (cortical-system). In this model the ‘limbic system’, however, has to span (1) and (2) in order to encompass both lower-order animals and higher-order animals. As I understand it, the primate animals, although 98.6% genetically identical to the human primate, have no pre-frontal cortex (although evidence of cortical activity corresponding to the ‘language area’ in human primates has been found). It is thus human beings alone who have the unique ability to think and reflect ... and are thus aware of their feeling-fed behaviour and the response/ reaction this occasions (although there are some people who are in denial about this). On top of this awareness is the awareness of being conscious ... and the awareness of the inevitability of impending death: one’s mortality. No other animal can do this. The awareness of being conscious, and being conscious of being mortal in concert with the feeling of ‘being’, manifests in the psyche a consciousness of ‘being’ being conscious of being conscious. In other words: ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. Thus the next step is inevitable: consciousness of ‘being’ being conscious of being consciousness. In other words: ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being consciousness. And so on unto an after-life ‘home’ in some Timeless and Spaceless and Formless realm (for the spiritualist) ... or on into a nihilistic existentialism or some dialectical rationalism and so on (for the materialist). Whichever model (two-tier or three-tier) it is the conscious awareness in concert with the feeling of ‘being’ which causes the human condition ... more than a few higher order animals can be observed to be both malicious and sorrowful in their behaviour and activity from time to time (the same-same as infant humans) without necessarily knowing that they are. It is thus reasonable to deduce the non-conscious feeling of ‘being’ in both the higher order animal and the human infant. Whether reptiles and birds have this non-conscious feeling of ‘being’ is a moot point ... close observation (with either the two-tier or the three-tier model in mind) and the absence of any obvious (pronounced) malicious behaviour and/or sorrowful activity suggests not. Yet I have seen a blackbird, for example, playing ‘catch’ with a slowly-dying cricket just as a cat toys with a slowly-dying mouse. One thing I have discovered for sure is that there is no hard-and-fast ‘rule’ that applies conveniently across all species. Also, I make no pretensions whatsoever of being a biologist ... I am a lay-person dabbling in an ad hoc general reading of the subject. It is important to comprehend that I am putting a story together ‘after the event’ so as to throw some light on what happened for me. My experiential sensate-feeling experience (sensation) tells me that it was the brain-stem (reptilian brain) where all the activity took place to free me from the human condition (the human condition includes the animal condition of course). Yet neuro-biologists empirically pin-point the amygdala (in the limbic system) as being the seat of the emotions/ passions. Given that studies on people with damaged or removed amygdala show that they cannot operate and function optimally in life, I personally favour the Reticular Activating System (RAS or RS) in the brain-stem and the Substantia Nigra in particular as being the seat of consciousness (I am very willing to revise and/or discard this hypothesis if it can be demonstrated otherwise) and that there was a flow-on effect through the entire brain ... including the elimination of the amygdala’s passionate/ emotional non-conscious memory (the amygdala functions perfectly now). RESPONDENT: It seems that the feeling capacities of humans become problematic because of humans’ self-reflexive capabilities, the tendency to make ‘meaning’ and ‘self’ out of these biological imperatives, the aggression/ nurture impulses, over and above the base purpose – survival. In other words, ‘lower order’ animals don’t have the same type of problem with their aggression/ nurture impulses that humans do because they don’t have the capacity to think about them, not because they don’t have them. RICHARD: Yes ... it has oft-times been bemoaned by scholars and thinkers that this is the price to be paid for the conscious awareness of ‘being’ (and which causes more than a few to long for some ‘Golden Age’ in a far distant Arcadian Utopia). It is also why the hoary myth about the ‘innocence’ of children persists (Tabula Rasa) ... which is not innocence (free of sin) but simply ignorance (not knowing). I had a discussion on this subject recently with an E-Mail correspondent, which you can access (Richard, List C, No. 2a, #innocence) if you are interested (just the first half of the page). RESPONDENT: Another point is that higher animals such as dogs, cats, obviously primates, seem to express what could be fairly called more refined feelings – more developed than simple survival would dictate, though still stemming from what you call the biological mud. Also, some primates exhibit some of the qualities that you refer to as the ‘human condition’ (nursing malice and sorrow) including the tendency to make war or attack other species for reasons other than pure survival. RICHARD: Yes ... I have found the studies done on primates very, very revealing, though I tend to consider that too much is being made of the bonobo ape (‘flavour of the month’, perhaps), despite their less overtly-aggressive differences vis a vis the chimpanzee ape ... plus their matriarchal social order. Time will tell, of course ... this is all early days in this fascinating study of consciousness in these last fifteen years or so. RESPONDENT: Some primates have been observed picking on, harassing, taunting and, in short, making life miserable for others in their social groups. Bonobo chimps use sex for all kinds of social purposes, including building friendships, and warding off problems with another bonobo. They seemingly do sexual favours in the present to avoid future problems. I wonder if this doesn’t indicate some capacity for subjectivity on the part of other animals (besides human, that is). RICHARD: Ahh ... subjectivity, eh? Thus is introduced that $64,000 dollar question: who am I? The ‘theory of mind’ suggests quite conclusively that no animal (neither higher order nor lower order) has a ‘who am I’ subjectivity. I would say that any apparently compassionate activity (conscious empathy) or behaviour observed in both the human infant and animal, would turn out to be a purely instinctual (nurture) subjective action, upon close examination. RESPONDENT: Perhaps the distinction with humans is that we create an isolated self out of the capacity to be subjective. RICHARD: My experience tells me the ‘isolated self’ is created out of the capacity to be aware of being a subjective thinking and feeling ‘being’. RESPONDENT: We think there is ‘somebody’ who is being subjective. RICHARD: Humans not only ‘think there is ‘somebody’ who is being subjective’ ... humans both think and feel ‘there is ‘somebody’ who is being subjective’. It is the feeling of ‘being’ which is crucial ... the affective feelings are both prior and primary to the creation of the emotional-mental construct known as ‘I’. It is not solely thought, thoughts and thinking that produces such a tenacious and persistent identity ... thought simply does not have that power. RESPONDENT: From there we think there is somebody who is seeing through these eyes, hearing through these ears, etc. Someone inside this body. RICHARD: Yep ... hence all the misery and mayhem that epitomises human beings across the aeons and in all cultures and all age groups and both genders. No one is exempt ... the human condition is both global and historical in its spread. RESPONDENT: What is ‘consciousness’ without thought? RICHARD: Apperception. Which is the mind’s ability to perceive itself. Thus I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is. ‘I’ am condemned to live everlastingly in the land of sorrow and malice, forever lamenting ‘my’ fate. ‘I’ am eternally separate from the benignity of the actual, where the utter absence of any angst and anger at all is infinitely more rewarding than the deepest, the most profound, beauty there is in the real world. RESPONDENT: What exactly is ‘self-less’ awareness, which apparently can exist without thought? RICHARD: A total an utter absence – through extinction – of any ‘I’ or ‘me’ (a psychological or psychic entity) having a parasitical residence within this body results in a self-less awareness. Not ‘I’ being aware ... awareness happening of its own accord. RESPONDENT: What is consciousness for that matter? RICHARD: Being alive and awake, basically, as opposed to being dead or asleep. A neuro-biological process of being aware of being here on this planet now. RESPONDENT: Without precisely defining the terms thought, consciousness, awareness, etc ... such statements as above are incomprehensible. Oh yes, like fine poetry, you can read into it your own favourite meaning. But what exactly does Richard mean to say? RICHARD: One can become happy and harmless by ridding oneself of malice and sorrow. To do so one has to plunge into the source of one’s ‘being’, which is generated by the instinctual passions generated from within the brain-stem ... in the Substantia Nigra (although there is scientific dispute about this as there is about almost all matters scientific). The elimination of ‘being’ itself engenders an astonishing freedom the likes of which have never been before in human history. RESPONDENT: So, you have a lump of tissue in your head, you claim as one of its attributes something you call ‘pure’ consciousness (as opposed to what?). RICHARD: Unmediated consciousness as opposed to mediated consciousness. RESPONDENT: What about it makes it ‘pure’? RICHARD: An utter absence of any alien ontological entities whatsoever. RESPONDENT: This consciousness can apparently perceive (whatever that means), and even do so without something called thought (whatever that means). RICHARD: Yeah, ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: What is the neuro-physiological or neuro-psychological state in which the brain is ‘conscious’ without thought? RICHARD: A marvellous state ... though I call it a condition so as to not confuse it with altered states of consciousness. RESPONDENT: What facts about the brain and mental states of the brain render this plausible? RICHARD: What type of facts are you looking for? A problem-free life kind of fact ... or PET scan, NMR scan and CAT scan type of facts? I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists who have ascertained that I fulfil the criteria for determining depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia. One of the psychiatrists – who has been observing me since 1994 – has proposed that this brain is secreting abnormal amounts of Dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors ... such as what happens when someone takes Ecstasy, Cocaine, Heroin or Amphetamines. A psychologist who has followed the course of my condition for about four years has often been desirous of me undergoing scan-type tests ... but I decline to be a guinea-pig for people who are not going to do anything about their own malice and sorrow regardless of the outcome of the tests. It is more than a matter of idle curiosity or academic scholarship. It is all about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. There is also plenty of personal accounts of PCE’s to examine. KONRAD: Now I have discovered recently, that consciousness itself is the activity of a response of a principle to awareness. I repeat, since it might be difficult to understand this sentence. So what I assert is that consciousness itself is the result of a principle being present. If there is awareness, this principle responds. And this response IS consciousness. So consciousness is a reaction of a principle to an awareness. RICHARD: Why complicate things? why does consciousness have to be ‘a reaction of a principle to an awareness’? In a normal person consciousness is what is happening when one is alive and awake and is epitomised by three faculties ... the sensate, the cerebral and the affective. Unconsciousness is what is happening when alive and in deep sleep, concussed or anaesthetised and is epitomised by oblivion. A principle is an invention – usually by society – to guide people to act in a socially acceptable way. This is because their instinctual passions – the affective faculty – needs to be bought under control. In the abnormal person the affective faculty has disappeared and no principles are required ... hence I know by first-hand on-going experiencing that consciousness is not ‘a reaction of a principle to an awareness’. But you probably will not read this bit because you have a pre-conceived belief in ‘Tabula Rasa’. Hence the rest of what you write is based upon a false premise and will be fatally flawed no matter how convincing your argument appears to be in your own eyes. KONRAD: To give an example that makes the difference between consciousness and awareness clear, if you are sleeping and dreaming, you are aware of your dream. But in the dream-state there is no principle reacting to this awareness. RICHARD: Are you sure that you are not confusing the word ‘principle’ with ‘principal’ ... because principles still operate in the sleeping dream-state. For normal people in the sleeping dream-state, the awake dream-state ‘I’ (the principal) who interprets the extrinsic world – the sensible environment – and guides the body to undertake the chosen course of action according to the demands of the intrinsic world – one’s desires, urges, impulses, beliefs, truths, values, morals, ethics, principles and etcetera – has been replaced by a sleeping dream-state ‘I’ who is largely incompetent due to the pseudo-extrinsic world – the dream-environment – being but pseudo-sensible events drawn by random association from the brain’s affectively-corrupted memory banks. Without a sensible base to operate from, dreams are nonsensical ... but the sleeping dream-state ‘I’ still tries to apply the principles inherited from the awake dream-state ‘I’. KONRAD: Therefore, when you are asleep, you are not conscious. RICHARD: I am sure that this is common knowledge ... and gaining this knowledge did not require logical analysis and deduction. RESPONDENT: It can even be argued that there are no ‘two anythings’. RICHARD: Yes, although material forms, physically distinct through time and in space, do have a life of their own as in being born, living for a period and then dying (if organic) or an existence as in taking shape, existing for a period, and ceasing to have shape (if inorganic), nothing exists as a ‘thing’ in its own right separate from this infinite and eternal universe. RESPONDENT: But at the level of the human consciousness; the thing inside the skull ... RICHARD: Consciousness is not a ‘thing’ (as in an entity, a ‘being’) ... it is an energised neuronal activity (energised by a food-calorific energy) happening inside the skull (and I am not merely nit-picking as this is a vital distinction to be aware of). RESPONDENT: [But at the level of the human consciousness] ... there are (apparently) wide differences. RICHARD: At the level of human consciousness per se there is no fundamental difference ... differences in the content of this consciousness do not signify physiological differences. RICHARD: I discovered that it was a physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience. RESPONDENT: Please, can you extend your meaning about ‘and thus promote a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself)’. Please, what is your approximation, what do you mean by ‘a physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) derived from my personal experience’. Feel free to express as you like, this is to much serious for me, ‘agree or disagree’ will be only my business but I will thanks a lot any personal approach on this point. RICHARD: In my investigations I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). This is a very ancient genetic memory. Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. These passions are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary animal ‘self’ into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and from this core of ‘being’ the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. That this process is aided and abetted by the human beings who were already on this planet when one was born – which is conditioning and programming and is part and parcel of the socialising process – is but the tip of the ice-burg and not the main issue at all. There is much, much more to an investigation into the human condition than ‘the thinker is the thought’, because (to put it in the same lingo) the ‘feeler’ is the feelings ... and the feelings are, as the root of the psyche, ‘being’ itself. The physical solution (extinction of instinctual ‘being’ itself) will not eventuate unless the physically inherited cause (a genetically inherited instinctual animal ‘self’) that created the problem of the human condition is intimately experienced. To proceed from a sound basis, one starts with facts: to be alive (not dead) and awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) and aware and perceiving (and maybe thinking, remembering, reflecting and proposing considered action) is the human mind that every human being is born with and, as such, is similar around the globe and through all generations. Intimate access to the activity of each mind is personal (as opposed to public) but the basic activities of the mind are not individual (‘individual’ as distinguished from others by qualities of its own). This neuronal activity – consciousness itself – is what the human mind is and thus, contrary to popular belief, consciousness is not its content (content as in conditioning) but the very neuronal activity itself. Because, apart from awareness and perception and thought being what consciousness is, there is the affective feelings (emotions and passions and calentures) such as the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire to consider. Are they not basic traits that every human being is born with and consequently also similar? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about malice and sorrow and any of derivatives of malice and sorrow – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – and the compensatory love and compassion and any of the derivatives of love and compassion that arise out of the basic instincts? Are they not latent traits that every human comes into ‘being’ with and thus are also similar because, whatever the emotion or passion or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? What about such affectively-based activity as imagination, intuition, visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination and other psychic effects – are they not embryonic traits that every human being comes into ‘being’ with and thus are similar as well? Or are they the result of conditioning and therefore the ‘contents of consciousness’? Can it at least be clear that the obvious ‘contents of consciousness’ which are the result of conditioning, such as the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, are what imposes a ‘collective mind’ imprint? Yet this imprinted ‘collective mind’ (all the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams) would not be able to have the tenacious hold that it has if the human brain was indeed the ‘Tabular Rasa’ brain that so many peoples believe they are born with. All the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams have such a persistent grip only because of the powerful energy of the genetically inherited instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that stretch back to the dawn of the human species ... which passions have given rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ out of ‘being’ itself who is both savage (‘fear and aggression’) and tender (‘nurture and desire’). Is it not obvious that all the animosity and anguish that has beset humankind throughout millennia comes from that which a lot deeper than ‘the thinker is the thought’ ... all the misery and mayhem stems from an animal energy which is much, much more powerful than thought, thoughts and thinking. RICHARD: We were talking about Immortality – life after death – and the continuation of something, by whatever name, in some metaphysical ‘Timeless and Spaceless’ dimension. RESPONDENT: By something you seem to be talking about an nonspecifically identified non-thing (i.e. it doesn’t exist in space and time). Perhaps you could tell us your definition of consciousness else I have no-way of knowing what you mean. RICHARD: My definition of consciousness is: ‘I am these sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the entity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is’. The ‘‘something’, by whatever name’, referred to in the above exchange is not consciousness, for that is dependent upon a physical body for its existence. The ‘something’ is variously called ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘atman’, ‘skandhas’, ‘Real Self’, ‘Higher Self’, ‘True Self’ and so on. It is a metaphysical entity that is believed to exist beyond space and time and before birth and after death. Some people call it ‘Consciousness’ (with a capital ‘C’ to denote Divinity) thus confusing the issue. Any belief in a ‘something’ independent of this body being alive and breathing is clearly a projection of the ‘I’ ... the psychological entity that has a real – sometimes very real – existence inside the body. But that entity – the self – is not actual. Thus it requires belief ... and as I remarked in another post, the word believe means: ‘Fervently wish to be true’. It has nothing at all to do with facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: I also had a thought. If everybody has at least one PCE in one’s life and if the law of averages holds in these matters, on an average, large part of population should have more than one PCE and a very small population should have much more than the average number of PCE’s. Since you said you have been searching through books for anybody talking about anything like Actual Freedom, what about people experiencing PCE’s? What did they do about their experiences, i.e. PCE’s, if they had them? RICHARD: Mostly peoples interpreted them according to the prevailing norms of their culture, as mostly the PCE devolves into an ASC, anyway. For example (if you really wish to get confused) in a paper called ‘What does Mysticism have to Teach us About Consciousness?’ Mr. Robert Forman says: • ‘PCE’s, encounters with consciousness devoid of intentional content, may be just the least complex encounter with awareness per se that we students of consciousness seek. (...) This experience, which has been called the pure consciousness event, or PCE, has been identified in virtually every tradition. Though PCE’s typically happen to any single individual only occasionally, they are quite regular for some practitioners. The pure consciousness event may be defined as a wakeful but content-less (non-intentional) consciousness. (...) Now, as I understand them, advanced mystical experiences result from the combination of regular PCE’s plus a minimization of the relative intensity of emotions and thoughts. That is, over time one decreases the compulsive or intense cathexis of all of one’s desires. The de-intensifying of emotional attachments means that, over the years, one’s attention is progressively available to sense its own quiet interior character more and more fully, until eventually one is able to effortlessly maintain a subtle cognisance of one’s own awareness simultaneously with thinking about and responding to the world: a reduction in the relative intensity of all of one’s thoughts and desires. (...) What do we mean by mysticism? What is generally known as mysticism is often said to have two strands, which are traditionally distinguished as apophatic and kataphatic mysticism, oriented respectively towards emptying or the imagistically filling. These two are generally described in terms that are without or with sensory language. The psychologist Roland Fischer has distinguished a similar pairing as trophotropic and ergotropic, experiences that phenomenologically involve inactivity or activity. Kataphatic or imagistic mysticism involves hallucinations, visions, auditions or even a sensory-like smell or taste; it thus involves activity and is ergotropic. Apophatic mystical experiences are devoid of such sensory-like content, and are thus trophotropic. When they use non-sensory, non imagistic language, authors like Eckhart, Dogen, al-Hallaj, Bernadette Roberts and Shankara are all thus apophatic mystics. Because visions and other ergotropic experiences are not the simple experiences of consciousness that we require, I will focus my attentions exclusively on the quieter apophatic forms’. (www.imprint.co.uk/Forman.html ). Goodness me ... ‘trophotropic’ and ‘ergotropic’ and ‘kataphatic’ and ‘apophatic’ ... because of the confusion, I merely took the academically accepted phrase (Pure Consciousness Event) and substituted ‘Pure Consciousness Experience’ for it, a couple of years ago, so as to regain the actual purity of the PCE back from those who ascribe ASC properties (mystical purity) to it. Before that I had been using the expression ‘Peak Experience’, as popularised by Mr. Abraham Maslow, for about eleven years. In the beginning I used hippie terminology (from my ‘alternate’ background after the sixties) but PCE (Pure Consciousness Experience) seems most suitable. I also favoured the word ‘experience’ over ‘event’ because Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti makes such a thing about his ASC not being an experience. An actual freedom is very earthy and, living this experience twenty four hours a day is all new in human history ... thus I get to invent names (like ‘Actual Freedom’) and describe qualities and properties, like any explorer ... it is all good fun. You sent me a description some time back that reads to me as if you have enough direct experience to proceed. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘In a PCE there is the direct sensate experience of being here – at this place in infinite space – right now at this moment of eternal time ... there is no affective qualities like ‘Euphoria’ or ‘Bliss’ or ‘Ecstasy’ or ‘Rapture’ leading one to the transcendent ‘Goodness’ (‘Love’ and ‘Compassion’) and to the supramundane ‘Truth’ (‘Beauty’ and ‘Wholeness’) where the awesome ‘Sacred and Holy’ reigns in all its miraculous ‘Ineffability’. In a PCE one is now living – as I do – in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone’. (Richard, Actual Freedom list, No. 5, 29 April 1999). • [Respondent]: To this description of PCE, I would say I have had very much the same experiences. I could hear engines of all the different cars and the buses passing by. I could hear them clearly and distinctly. And my capacity to do that increased from pretty much zero to hundreds. The leaves on the trees were lot more colourful than usual, the bricks on the old hospital building were brighter and distinct from the grout in between them. I was observing all of these things but did not care for a particular item under observation. And many of these things happened pretty much at the same time, actually in a continuous stream one after another. Oh, the clay pots which held the plants were lustrous and so were the moss growth on the outside of those pots. In addition, I could see each of those tiny ‘blades’ on the moss clearly. There were lots of people on the street but I was not looking at them individually but instead collectively. In fact, I did not want to focus at them, I kind of looked towards the horizon but not really. On a normal day, I like to watch all the young nubile women, at their beautiful faces, at their round breasts, but not that day. I just wanted to sort of look towards the horizon. In addition, there was plain wholesome happiness, not the feeling of happiness which I get after a ‘pat on the back’ from a fellow scientist, but simple wholesome happiness without any worries and everything was just great. There was no Euphoria, Bliss, Ecstasy or Rapture. There was no Love, Compassion, Beauty or Wholeness. I do appreciate your description and, just by the by, seek to establish an ever-expanding data-base of such descriptions so that other people can read them and relate to them and thus remember their own PCE’s. May I add your description to the collection? If so, could you expand and/or clarify? That is: will you clearly define – via your personal experience as partly detailed above – the marked difference betwixt a PCE and an ASC? RESPONDENT: Richard, I have taken the liberty of combining all the emails into one document file. That way, anybody who is not concerned with length, can download the document file in M.S. Word, or some other program which uses the document extension. It also saves bandwidth. I am also planning to drastically cut what may be redundant in our discussions, but I offer you, if you’re interested, the first opportunity to do that. RICHARD: Okay ... it has become a trifle long. Anyway, I am already totally content with the outcome of the discussion – all of my queries have been satisfactorily answered – and am quite happy to leave it as it is, if you wish. This was my initial query: <snip> I was curious as to why you would say that a ‘forever unmanifest, non-existent ... non-material consciousness ... energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing’ was ‘actual’, given that the normal or everyday meaning of the word <actual> is ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’. However, all was made clear in the subsequent and detailed discussion, wherein you clearly explained why you have no comprehension whatsoever of the nature of the non-material energy or consciousness, which you posit as being the source of, not only all life, but the physical universe itself ... or why it does. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘You are quite right. I don’t know what it is ... <snip> ... [Respondent]: ‘Nobody really knows ‘how’, and anybody cannot have insight into ‘that energy which is ‘in itself’ no-thing ...’. RESPONDENT: Yes, there is no comprehension ‘of’ non-material consciousness. RICHARD: And with this conclusion do you thus firmly close the door on investigation ... and so all the animosity and anguish keeps rolling on down through the millennia. RESPONDENT: The mind that is not obstructed by selfishness, that is, the mind that does not think it ‘knows’, is already itself that comprehension. RICHARD: Hmm ... I will take this opportunity to provide a quote that may – just may – prise that firmly-shut door open a trifle: • [quote]: ‘You can feel it in the room now. It is happening in this room now because we are touching something very, very serious and it comes pouring in (...) I don’t want to make a mystery: why can’t this happen to everyone? If you and Maria [Ms. Mary Lutyens and Ms. Mary Zimbalist] sat down and said ‘let us enquire’, I’m pretty sure you could find out. Or do it alone. I see something; what I said is true – I can never find out. Water can never find out what water is. That is quite right. If you find out I’ll corroborate it (...) somehow the body is protected to survive. Some element is watching over it. Something is protecting it. It would be speculating to say what. The Maitreya is too concrete, is not simple enough. But I can’t look behind the curtain. I can’t do it. I tried with Pupul [Ms. Pupul Jayakar] and various Indian scholars who pressed me’. (‘Krishnamurti – His Life and Death’; Mary Lutyens p. 160. © Avon Books; New York 1991). The phrase ‘water can never find out what water is’ and ‘I can’t look behind the curtain’ is strikingly similar to your ‘the impossibility of ‘awareness being aware of itself’ and ‘the impossibility of ‘you’ being aware ‘of’ anything at all’ ... obviously some other process is required, non? Perhaps if I were to provide an analogy it may become clearer? You have written: • [Respondent]: ‘A street sign points towards New York. The sign is just a sign. If somebody follows what was pointed to, and is willing to go through whatever is necessary to get to New York, he has done all the work. The sign, as a sign itself, is still useless’. There is another ‘street sign’ which you apparently are overlooking in your haste to get to ‘New York’. It reads: • ‘Turn Around ... You Are Going The Wrong Way’. * RESPONDENT: What is ‘rolling on down’, not through the millennia, but through your writing, is the same old devious tricks you’ve always employed when you want to make some point which cannot be intelligently supported. RICHARD: Except I did no devious tricks. You gave a similar kind of non-material-consciousness-cannot-know-itself type of response when I proposed an insight into the nature of the non-material consciousness (‘it is not possible to have an insight into non-material energy, as insight is what non-material energy already is’). You also gave a similar kind of non-material-consciousness-cannot-know-itself type of response when I talked of an awareness of the nature of the non-material consciousness (‘the statement has been offered repeatedly that ‘awareness examining awareness’ is an impossibility’). And you gave a similar kind of non-material-consciousness-cannot-know-itself type of response when I talked about the nature of the non-material consciousness becoming apparent (‘it is not a question of non-material consciousness becoming apparent to itself as non-material consciousness because that would require non-material consciousness to be divided, which is not possible’) as well. Further to that you are now giving a similar kind of non-material-consciousness-cannot-know-itself type of response when I propose comprehending the nature of the non-material consciousness (i>‘the mind that does not think it ‘knows’, is already itself that comprehension’). Therefore, with your conclusion ‘there is no comprehension ‘of’ non-material consciousness’ (with the emphasis on the ‘of’), not only do I not misrepresent or take your statement out of context ... but you do indeed thus firmly close the door on investigation. And so all the animosity and anguish keeps rolling on down through the millennia. * RESPONDENT: And when you can’t do that successfully above board, you will try to do it indirectly. For example, in a letter you sent to No. 19 yesterday, I noticed that you distorted my phrase, ‘non-material consciousness’, by adding to it, with abandon, any meaning you chose, in order to portray it in the manner that you desired. <snipped> RICHARD: I explicitly said ‘any non-material consciousness’ (thus specifically indicating that it be not your usage of this generic term by doing so) ... and I particularly stated that I was speaking ‘generally’ and not exclusively (there are too many variations on the theme to make an all-inclusive summary). Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘Maybe it would be of assistance if I were to clearly delineate the difference between what any ‘non-material consciousness’ generally has to say and what this flesh and blood consciousness says? Viz.: <snip>. If you wish to take my sentence ‘what any ‘non-material consciousness’ generally has to say ...’ to mean that the examples I gave prove your theory that I have ‘a tendency to distort and misrepresent what’ what you have to say and that I ‘will try to do it indirectly’ then there is nothing I can do but to say that you are either mistaken or have overlooked the word ‘generally’. I always like it to be very clear, whenever I generalise, that I am speaking in broad terms. RESPONDENT: Now, If I’m wrong you may point it out with proof, but I haven’t seen anybody else use the term non-material conscious-ness, and especially recently here, but me. RICHARD: Okay ... it only took the search-engine a few seconds to come up with the following URL’s. If these examples do not satisfy you then I suggest that you do your own research, from now on, before sending such an E-Mail as this one you have sent. Viz.: • [quote]: ‘Science has difficulty in trying to explain consciousness in terms of natural phenomena because ‘they’ are looking in the wrong place. Consciousness is non-local, it can not be found in space and time. Natural science is concerned with events in local space and time, that are coordinates of perception in the realm of extension. Non-material consciousness is closely linked by its inputs and its outputs to a material brain which is linked to the physical universe’. http://members.aol.com/rick3in1/nature/mindcons.htm • [quote]: ‘The freedom of non-material consciousness for Sartre echoes the Cartesian theological tradition regarding mind-body dualism. That is, there is no way to give a satisfactory account of how a non-extended substance can be causally acted on by an extended substance. While Sartre’s construction of consciousness as a sui generis upsurge is the foundation for his theory of freedom and therefore, responsibility (which is his main concern) the non-materiality of Sartrean consciousness also differentiates it from a physical human body. Indeed, consciousness in Sartre’s sense is even differentiated from the ego of Descartes’ Meditations which in Sartre’s (Husserlian) analysis becomes an object of conscious reflection’. www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultZack.htm • [quote]: ‘The Sautrantikas in general also believe in smallest particles and instances of consciousness, but they say that objects cannot be perceived directly via the sense faculties because a connection between that non-material consciousness and the material world in not possible. They assert a substance, an image of which is only perceived by the sense consciousness’. www.diamondway.org/bt/budterms2.htm • [quote]: ‘Similarly in arguments on the subject of the supernatural, religion, god etc. I believe that the much simpler set of assumptions about the nature of the world is one without mysterious supernatural forces, whether god or gods, spirits, magical powers, or whatever. And I believe that a more basic position to begin an exploration of the nature of things similarly would be one without the assumption of mysterious non-material consciousness stuff, one way or other. I know that Chalmers’ dualism, to the extent that is such, isn’t really a substance-dualism’. http://207.138.41.133/message/dennett-dialognet/100 • [quote]: ‘Thus we come to Bishop Berkeley. His claim to fame was the feat of standing Locke on his head. He thought that since ideas, according to Locke, represent universals, and since ideas are not identical to the things they represent, just as words are not, and since (according to Berkeley) we can never make the exact connection as to how – or even if – these ‘perceived’ ideas correspond or relate to the things themselves, that is to the objective reality outside of us, then we can’t know if they (the objects) exist. His famous conclusion was: ‘Being (existence) is perception.’ In other words, objective reality is nothing but our perception of it. Thus he turned empiricism into its opposite, and gave it its present bad reputation. And with the help of Descartes’ idea of the prior certainty of consciousness, which claimed that the only thing we can’t doubt is our own non-material consciousness, while we can doubt material (objective) reality, empiricism came to be thought of as no more objective than rationalism or idealism. Objective verification became, by implication, subjective, that is, ‘only in our mind.’ Subsequently, Hume and Kant made further inroads into this trend (which ultimately becomes a ‘critique of reason’ itself), but we can go no further into them here’. www.monadnock.net/summa/peirce.html • [quote]: ‘I guess what I’m trying to get at is that once you are willing to accept such a phenomenon like remote viewing (like Global Mind Change argues, and Jonathan poses as a ‘what if’) you’ve started to go down the rabbit hole into the realm of high weirdness. If it is possible to project your perception in space (and time ... so much for no facts about the future ...) then what? It would seem to entail a non-material consciousness (a soul?) just for starters, and the rest of the implications are rather immense to imagine’. www.fortunecity.com/victorian/barchester/1341/mindchange.htm A little research saves a lot of unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing of E-Mails. * RESPONDENT: My only interest has been to discuss the topic in as great detail as possible. RICHARD: What detail? You have made it quite clear that the nature of the non-material consciousness cannot be ascertained by anybody ... let alone in detail. RESPONDENT: There is this huge mental block that is simply impenetrable. Why does non-material consciousness need to be ascertained? RICHARD: The nature of the non-material consciousness does not ‘need’ to be ascertained at all – it has been successful in ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully for a least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and perhaps 50,000 years of pre-history) and may very well continue to do so off into an indeterminate future – unless the human beings it is ‘standing out’ as want to live happily and harmlessly. RESPONDENT: I can understand that belief as one of the tenants of your philosophy of actualism. RICHARD: Where is the ‘belief’? It is an historical fact, documented on stone plaques, clay tablets, wood carvings, parchment, paper and latterly in pixels, over a 3,000 to 5,000 year period. As for the perhaps 50,000 of pre-history, my use of ‘perhaps’ indicates that it is not a belief but merely a reasonable hypothesis, based upon myths and legend, and readily discarded in view of any new evidence being forthcoming. RESPONDENT: It is equally understandable how what doesn’t fit your philosophy of actualism would be considered as malicious. RICHARD: No. What is malicious (and sorrowful) is the feelings that peoples have been feeling for a least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and perhaps 50,000 years of pre-history) ... the presence of those feelings in peoples, and the ‘Tried and True’ way of dealing with them, has nothing to do with what you call the ‘philosophy of actualism’. RESPONDENT: That feeling has also occurred historically and presently when belief has encountered either resistance or unacceptance. RICHARD: Well, then ... what has the presence of malicious (and sorrowful) feelings for a least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and perhaps 50,000 years of pre-history) have to do with ‘what doesn’t fit’ into what you call the ‘philosophy of actualism’ (further above). You negate your own argument here. RESPONDENT: What informs your actualism is believed by you to have been derived from the ‘flesh-and-blood-body-awareness’ which you claim is actual, ‘compared’ to the awareness of others which you claim is not. RICHARD: No, what informs me is historical facts, documented on stone plaques, clay tablets, wood carvings, parchment, paper and latterly in pixels, over a 3,000 to 5,000 year period. As for the perhaps 50,000 of pre-history, my use of ‘perhaps’ indicates that it is not a belief but merely a reasonable hypothesis, based upon myths and legend, and readily discarded in view of any new evidence being forthcoming. RESPONDENT: It amounts then, to claims by you and claims by ‘them’ – of history and of today. RICHARD: No, it was you who claimed that the non-material consciousness was ‘standing out’ as this material universe ... I simply point out that it is ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully (on planet earth at last), instead of ‘standing out’ happily and harmlessly, and ask how come. Historical records show that it has been successful in ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully over a 3,000 to 5,000 year period. RESPONDENT: And like them of old and of today, whose awareness, as you say, has not produced harmlessness and happiness in the world, that same harmlessness and happiness, as the product of your ‘flesh-and-blood-body-awareness’, seems also to be ‘remarkably unforthcoming’. RICHARD: As the likes of ‘them of old and of today’ (what I call the ‘Tried and True’) has had at least 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate its efficacy in curing all the ills of humankind – and I only went public in 1997 – just what point is it you are making? And, as a matter of interest ... what point are you making in this entire paragraph? The nature of the non-material consciousness does not ‘need’ to be ascertained at all – it can go on ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully for another 3,000 to 5,000 years (or more) – because it has been successful in ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully for a least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and perhaps 50,000 years of pre-history). It is only human beings who can care enough to have it cease ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully and have it start ‘standing out’ happily and harmlessly instead. But in order to do so the nature of non-material consciousness needs to be ascertained so as to see how come it is ‘standing out’ maliciously and sorrowfully, rather than ‘standing out’ happily and harmlessly, in the first place. This has been my question from the very beginning of this thread. * RESPONDENT: Or, at least the flesh and blood body knows it because, since it has become aware, it also has become aware of what happened before it arose from ordinary, instinctive, blind-nature consciousness, which itself arose from matter, which is beginningless and endless, because self-immolated consciousness says that it is. RICHARD: The matter that is this flesh and blood body is the very matter of this universe – the matter that is this flesh and blood body did not come from ‘outside’ the universe – therefore the matter that is this flesh and blood body is as old as this universe is. RESPONDENT: There seems to be an unintended misrepresentation regarding your substitution of the word ‘outside’ for the term, ‘arising from’, or the term ‘manifestation’. RICHARD: Yet you have already informed me that the source of matter is independent of matter. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘thought... cannot know that which is creative and independent of materiality’. • [Respondent]: ‘... wholly independent of its manifestation’. • [Respondent]: ‘Awareness ... is, in itself , totally independent of all knowledge’. • [Respondent]: ‘... non-material energy ... itself never suffers, as it is, itself, independent of its manifestations. • [Respondent]: ‘Awareness is wholly independent of its manifestation as material energy of any state’. • [Respondent]: ‘... I’ve said all along that the source of materiality is independent of its manifestation as materiality’. If it be not ‘outside’ the universe then where is it? If it is ‘inside’ the universe, how come it ‘itself never suffers’? Is it detached, dissociated and aloof from the very ‘manifestation’ which is ‘arising from’ its (supposedly) non-diseased nature? RESPONDENT: It is obvious to me that the flesh and blood body is the very matter that is the universe; otherwise one could not account for it’s being materially existent. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: That does not render untenable that the material universe, of which the body is an aspect, is a manifestation of energy which is non-material in itself, but which includes materiality as an aspect of its nature as creative energy and which is – notwithstanding the natural divisions that language imposes – one energy. RICHARD: I will put it this way: it is not ‘untenable’ that unicorns exist – or a One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People-Eater for that matter – but I preferred to stick with facts and actuality. SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON CONSCIOUSNESS (Part Two) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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