# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Mr. Rene Guenon CO-RESPONDENT: No. 53, No. 87 & Nos. 60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what an intellectualist wrote at the three URL’s you provided ... (Richard, List B, No. 97b, 8 September 2005b). RESPONDENT: I am not an adherent of the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason. I am not an intellectualist. RICHARD: (...) Just as a matter of interest ... what is a suitable word for a person of this ilk? Viz.: • [Respondent] (quoting Mr. Rene Guenon): ‘Metaphysics is essentially knowledge of the Universal [the ‘Self’] ... a genuinely transcendent knowledge contains no trace of any ‘phenomenalism’ and is depending only on *pure intellectual intuition*, which alone is pure spirituality’. [bracketed insertion and emphasis in original]. (Tuesday 3/05/2005 10:06 AEST). RESPONDENT: Rene Guenon is a metaphysician par excellence. RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘No. 53, No. 87 & Nos. 60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. • [Richard]: ‘As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what a metaphysician wrote at the three URL’s you provided – and given that your e-mail title refers to their [quote] ‘legacy’ [endquote] – then what you are exhorting four co-respondents to do (as in your ‘you would certainly do some people a great service’ phrasing) fast is to inform peoples writing to this mailing list for the first time about metaphysics, and maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence, so as to save them wasting their time on empiricism ... ‘the doctrine or theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience; that concepts and statements have meaning only in relation to sense-experience’. (Oxford Dictionary). • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It’s very easy to get lost on the website. • [Richard]: ‘Possible translation: it is very easy to get sucked into giving empiricism a try’. [end rephrase]. I am pleased that this matter, at least, has been settled to our mutual satisfaction. * RICHARD: ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘No. 53, No. 87 & the Nos.60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. • [Richard]: ‘As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what a metaphysician wrote at the three URL’s you provided – and given that your e-mail title refers to their [quote] ‘legacy’ [endquote] – then what you are exhorting four co-respondents to do (as in your ‘you would certainly do some people a great service’ phrasing) fast is to inform peoples writing to this mailing list for the first time about metaphysics, and maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence, so as to save them wasting their time on empiricism ... ‘the doctrine or theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience; that concepts and statements have meaning only in relation to sense-experience’. (Oxford Dictionary). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 97b, 8 September 2005a). RESPONDENT: I think No. 97 basically wants you to inform people that what this (‘actualism’) is about is ‘superstition of facts’. RICHARD: It does look to be more like something that you would want to inform me about ... be that as it may: when Mr. Henry Thoreau used that term in ‘The Spirit of the Times’ (15 February 1848), nearly forty years before Mr. Rene Guenon was born (1886), he had the following to say: • ‘There is not only a return to the study of nature, but to a natural method in the study. A return to nature from the superstition of facts. The people had been excluded. Science was costly, collegiate, with academies and laboratories; worst of all, there was no relation between its facts and the spirit in man’. [endquote]. I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical. For an unambiguous explication of this: • [Richard]: ‘... as I am an actualist, and not a scientist, my reports/ descriptions/ explanations are experiential, not scientifical, and any reference I may make to matters scientific on occasion are secondary’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 78a, 12 December 2004). RESPONDENT: It is, to quote Rene Guenon, a ‘peculiar delusion, typical of modern ‘experimentalism’, to suppose that a theory can be proved by facts whereas really the same facts can always be equally well explained by a variety of different theories’. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, not theoretical, there is no theory to be proved. RESPONDENT: Your facts might be right ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As there are no such things as ‘your facts’ (or ‘my facts’ or ‘his facts’ or ‘her facts’, and so on) and neither is a fact either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – might it be possible that you are really referring to ‘truths’? RESPONDENT: ... but your theories about what these facts mean, and your conclusions regards the ‘ultimate questions’ still can be utterly wrong. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to specify what those [quote] ‘ultimate questions’ [endquote] are then whatever it is you are wanting to convey might be more comprehensible. * RESPONDENT: I am not an adherent of the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason. I am not an intellectualist. RICHARD: (...) Just as a matter of interest ... what is a suitable word for a person of this ilk? Viz.: • [Respondent] (quoting Mr. Rene Guenon): ‘Metaphysics is essentially knowledge of the Universal [the ‘Self’] ... a genuinely transcendent knowledge contains no trace of any ‘phenomenalism’ and is depending only on *pure intellectual intuition*, which alone is pure spirituality’. [bracketed insertion and emphasis in original]. RESPONDENT: Rene Guenon is a metaphysician par excellence. RICHARD: I will sketch out some scenarios: 1. Suppose a theologian were to say, because a genuinely transcendent knowledge is depending only on pure intellectual intuition, and which alone is pure spirituality, that Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene was a dupe of his own imagination as the mistake to confuse mysticism and spirituality is a very fundamental one ... would that person be a theologian par excellence? 2. Suppose a metaphysician were to say, because a genuinely transcendent knowledge is depending only on pure intellectual intuition, and which alone is pure spirituality, that Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) was a dupe of his own imagination as the mistake to confuse mysticism and spirituality is a very fundamental one ... would that person be a metaphysician par excellence? 3. Suppose a student of metaphysics were to say, because a genuinely transcendent knowledge is depending only on pure intellectual intuition, and which alone is pure spirituality, that Richard had been a dupe of his own imagination as the mistake to confuse mysticism and spirituality is a very fundamental one ... would that person be way, way out of their depth? * RICHARD: ... do you now understand what I mean with ‘in the same way’ in my question [quote] ‘... and are you not an intellectualist in the same way that you are not a spiritualist’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: If somebody who inquires life in general and his life experiences in particular, and thinks about the ‘ultimate questions’, also reads what other people have to say about it, and comes to some preliminary conclusions, always open for new insights and with a ‘work in progress’ attitude, if such a person is a spiritualist and an intellectualist for you, then you can label me just that. [Addendum 22 hours later and after the response immediately below was posted]: No, seriously. That is what I do. RICHARD: Ha ... after having just read that whitewash I would rather label you a dissembler and a dissimulator. RESPONDENT: I don’t know why I should be labelled as a ‘spiritualist’ or an ‘intellectualist’ by doing what I do. I don’t see, for example, the postulation of a ‘noumenon’ as the outcome of an intellectual and/or a spiritual attitude. RICHARD: In regards to an intellectual attitude I will draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent]: ‘I have never done these [initiate tradition] practises. The AF method is the first time that I actually practise anything. Before that I read and tried to gain *an intellectual understanding* about ‘spiritual realisation’ and the different traditions ...’. [bracketed text and emphasis added]. (Sunday 3/04/2005 6:23 AM AEST). And: • [Respondent]: ‘... a year ago (at the same time I started reading the AF webpage) I had the urge to end *my intellectual search* and associate myself to an initiatic tradition’. [emphasis added]. (Sunday 3/04/2005 6:23 AM AEST). And then this: • [Respondent]: ‘I am not realised so I cannot be experientially sure, but *my intellectual understanding* shows me that ...’. (Thursday 21/04/2005 8:25 AM AEST). In regards to a spiritual attitude I will draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent]: ‘I had some so-called spontaneous *‘spiritual experiences’* some 10 years ago but I am not chasing after them. – I don’t want to travel a road without a map and I don’t want to leave the house before I know where I want to go’. [emphasis added]. (Friday 15/04/2005 11:10 PM AEST). And: • [Respondent]: ‘I have been studying Islamic esoteric teachings (mainly Ibn Arabi and Suhravardi), Judaic esoteric teachings (kabbalah), Christian esoteric teachings (Holy Grail, spiritual Alchemy), spiritual symbolism, (...) the works of Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswmay etc. And I know a few people who are ‘knowledgeable’ so to speak but none who would claim to be ‘enlightened’. Besides, I have been studying the dynamics and ideologies of cults (for example bible study with Jehovah’s Witnesses) and sects like Osho, TM, Daism, etc., (...) mysticism, Zen, Taoism, Gnosticism, gnosis etc.’. (Friday 15/04/2005 11:10 PM AEST). And then this: • [Respondent]: ‘I SEE that Richard’s Third Alternative gives a completely new perspective altogether BUT I THINK (actually HOPE) that his experience can be explained and reduced *to fit into a spiritual framework*’. [emphasis added]. (Friday 1/04/2005 7:19 AM AEST). That last one is a real doozie, eh? * RESPONDENT: I copy and paste my answer to No. 74’s comment because I think it applies equally to your observations above: Ok. In this case, everybody except of Richard may well be termed intellectualist. RICHARD: Just so as to inject a modicum of commonsense into all this here is the dictionary definition of that word from my first e-mail: • ‘intellectualist (philosophy): an adherent of intellectualism [the doctrine that knowledge is derived from the action of the intellect or pure reason]’. (Oxford Dictionary). Just for the record ... here is another way of putting it: • ‘intellectualist: one who accepts the doctrine of intellectualism [the doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason]’. (Webster’s 1913 Dictionary). Or even this way: • ‘intellectualism (philosophy): belief that knowledge comes from reasoning; the doctrine that all that can truly be called knowledge is derived from reasoning’. (Encarta Dictionary). And this is why I provided the Oxford Dictionary definition in the first place: • [Respondent] (quoting Mr. Rene Guenon): ‘Metaphysics is essentially knowledge of the Universal [the ‘Self’] ... a genuinely transcendent knowledge contains no trace of any ‘phenomenalism’ and is depending only on *pure intellectual intuition*, which alone is pure spirituality’. [bracketed insertion and emphasis in original]. (Tuesday 3/05/2005 10:06 AEST). Surely you are not suggesting that everybody except me agrees with Mr. Rene Guenon that a genuinely transcendent knowledge – as in containing no trace of any phenomenalism and which alone is pure spirituality – of the Universal (the ‘Self’) is dependent only on pure intellectual intuition? * RESPONDENT: You would have to read Rene Guenon’s writings to understand that ‘pure intellectual intuition’ is not identical with the intellect or with reason. RICHARD: As I have no intention of reading all that Mr. Rene Guenon ever wrote perhaps you could provide some text of his where he explains why, then, he uses the word ‘intellectual’ and does not just say ‘pure intuition’ instead? For example: • [example only]: ‘Metaphysics is essentially knowledge of the Universal [the ‘Self’] ... a genuinely transcendent knowledge contains no trace of any ‘phenomenalism’ and is depending only on *pure intuition*, which alone is pure spirituality’ [end example]. RESPONDENT: Guenon himself attacked intellectualism vehemently. RICHARD: Okay ... you do realise, do you not, that had it not been for the word ‘intellectual’ in that edited quote of Mr. Rene Guenon’s you provided I would never have assumed he was speaking of intellectualism? RESPONDENT: What you call intellectualism is called ‘pseudo-intellectualism’ by Rene Guenon. RICHARD: Ah, maybe there is the clue to it all ... what is true-intellectualism, then, according to Mr. Rene Guenon? RESPONDENT: ‘Pure intellectual intuition’ is closer to contemplation than it is to reasoning. RICHARD: What manner of contemplation – as in does it involve thought (and therefore intellect) – and how much closer (as in how far away from reasoning) is it? 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