# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Relativism/ Subjectivism Re: On the difficulties of communication CLAUDIU: Communication is difficult! Richard, you might be interested in this email to help you find an answer to your question of why I had to fly to meet you in person to understand that which you had already written about many times. First, humorous approach: Wiio’s laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio’s_laws [...snip ‘laws’...]. Now, the more meaningful approaches. They provide a constellation of reasons why it might be difficult - if not impossible - to get one’s point across and make oneself understood. Illusion of transparency: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency. ‘The illusion of transparency is the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do’. [...snip linked & quoted text...]. (#16294, Subject: On the difficulties of communication, Sun, 2 Feb 2014 ) RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, I accessed the above web-wiki ‘Illusion of Transparency’ page you provided a link to and have part-quoted from several links there. The following is the full quote (and I say ‘full’ advisedly as there is nothing else on that page except links to 9 other web-wiki pages) plus the essence of the Wikipedia article linked to from there. Viz.: • [Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky]: ‘The illusion of transparency is the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do. Words are a means of communication, but they don’t in themselves contain meaning. The word apple is just five letters, two syllables. I use it to refer to a concept and its associations in my mind, under the reasonable assumption that it refers to a similar concept and group of associations in your mind; this is the only power words have, great though it may be. Unfortunately, it’s easy to lose track of this fact, think as if your words have meanings inherently encoded in them, leading to a tendency to systematically overestimate the effectiveness of communication. Wikipedia has an article about Illusion of transparency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency’. Viz.: • [Wikipedia]: ‘The illusion of transparency is a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others. Another manifestation of the illusion of transparency (sometimes called the observer’s illusion of transparency) is a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others’ personal mental states. This cognitive bias [i.e., ‘a pattern of deviation in judgment whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion’] is similar to the illusion of asymmetric insight [i.e., ‘a cognitive bias whereby people perceive their knowledge of others to surpass other people’s knowledge of themselves [which] seems to be due to the conviction that observed behaviours are more revealing of others than self, while private thoughts and feelings are more revealing of the self’]’. [square-bracketed insertions from links provided in-text]. I included quotes from the Wikipedia article Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky linked to as it provides a more concise and on-topic account of the subject under discussion (as compared to his excursive – i.e., ‘tending to depart from the main point or cover a wide range of subjects’/ ‘given to making excursions in speech, thought, etc.; wandering; digressive’ – manner of writing in other web-wiki pages of his). (For an instance of ‘excursive’: I clicked his ‘FAQ’ link and then his fifth Q&A there – namely the ‘2.3 Isn’t truth subjective?’ link – and read the entire article plus scanned the 32 online comments and yet was still none-too-sure as to whether the question is answered in the affirmative, the negative or even elsewise). First and foremost: unlike Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky, when I use the word apple it refers to the thus-named physical object itself – i.e., the fruit which grows on an apple-tree (as contrasted, say, with the fruit which grows on an orange-tree) – and *not* to some undisclosed concept (let alone to any such unrevealed mental construct’s unspecified associations which he retains, privately in his mind, nor any such so-called ‘reasonable assumption’ whereby he, self-centrically, assumes other peoples similarly have the word ‘apple’ reference some unquantified ‘concept’ and its unspecified/ withheld ‘associations’). Thus, words do indeed have far more ‘power’ than Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky gives them credit for (as per his ‘this is the only power words have’ assertion) – inasmuch words most certainly have ‘meanings inherently encoded in them’ (to keep with his somewhat strained usage of vocabulary) – and therefore do *not* in themselves lead to any such ‘tendency to systematically overestimate the effectiveness of communication’ on that account. Consequently, Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky’s depiction of ‘the illusion of transparency’ – namely ‘the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do’ as per your part-quote of his – does not answer the question of why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written, about an actual freedom, on many occasions. As for the Wikipedia article he linked to – which appears to written by ‘KJamison7’ (who was back-then ‘currently attending the Missouri University Of Science and Technology for a BS [sic] in Computer Science’) – it can be readily observed to similarly depict this ‘illusion of transparency’ as being [quote] ‘a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others’ [endquote]. (And I say ‘similarly depict’ because, and staying with Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky’s ‘apple’ example for the nonce, there is no need for anyone to even know – let alone ‘overestimate’ (or underestimate, for that matter, nor anywhere in-between) – what anyone’s ‘personal mental state’ is in order to comprehend that the word, as it is regularly used in everyday transactions such as at a greengrocery for instance, refers to the thus-named physical object itself). The remainder of that Wikipedia article – including those linked-to inserts in square brackets – is but a variation on the theme (albeit dressed-up with impressive-sounding nomenclature such as ‘cognitive bias’ and ‘asymmetric insight’) and, most likely, stems from that blight of modern-day communication known as ‘relativism’ (aka ‘post-modernism’) wherein objectivity has all-but-vanished and subjectivity rules the roost, insofar as all knowledge is rendered phenomenological (i.e., nothing has independent existence), to the point that fully-fledged relativists (by whatever name of similar ilk) live in a factless world. Consequently, the Wikipedia article’s depiction of ‘the illusion of transparency’ – namely ‘a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others’/ ‘a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others’ personal mental states’ – does not answer the question of why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written, about an actual freedom, on many occasions. (Besides which, I neither overestimate the degree to which my ‘personal mental state’ (i.e., an actual freedom from the human condition) is known by others – a recalled PCE is nowhere near as efficacious, in this respect, as a currently-occurring PCE – nor my understanding of theirs (as my recall of experiencing life as they do, around 33 years ago now, is an intellectual memory only), either, and thus phrase all of my spoken and written words accordingly). * Generally speaking, the reason why most instances of problematic comprehension of my meticulously conveyed communication (extensive writings with precise meaning given to terminology) occur is a rather simple one and, perhaps, is quite succinctly encapsulated in the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home-page (strategically placed immediately below the ‘Actual Freedom’ logo so as to be up-front and out-in-the-open from the get-go). Viz.: • [quote]: ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’ [endquote]. Reactions to the second of those cardinal words (i.e., ‘new’) is probably best exemplified by the expression ‘cognitive dissonance’ and the hyphenated word which immediately follows (i.e., ‘non-spiritual’) was drolly parsed by me, along with the other words, nearly nine years ago. RESPONDENT: I have a question. I’m sure its probably been dealt with already, but what is the actualist answer to the old riddle: If a twig snaps in a wood where no one is present is there a sound? RICHARD: As this question is only about aural perception the following can also be asked: • cutaneous perception: if there is no one present to feel the snapped twig is there texture to the break? • olfactory perception: if there is no one present to smell the snapped twig is there aroma around the break? • proprioceptive perception: if there is no one present to ambulate around the snapped twig is the break three dimensional? • gustatory perception: if there is no one present to taste the snapped twig is there flavour in the break? • ocular perception: if there is no one present to see the snapped twig is there a break in the first place? • cognitive perception: if there is no one present to be a witness is there a twig at all (or is there a wood for that matter)? Upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite, eh? * RESPONDENT: I thought that the point of the riddle is to show that without sense organs there can be no sensual information arising. RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the point of the riddle is to (supposedly) show that without the observer there is no the observed ... in a word: solipsism. RESPONDENT: If there is no experience of the twig, how can it be proved that the twig exists in actuality? RICHARD: Simple: point out to the solipsist that they are asking somebody who (supposedly) does not exist to prove that something else which (supposedly) does not exist does exist. In other words, the very asking of another (a tacit acknowledgement of their existence) for proof is the very proof ... as is that referral to the something else an implicit acknowledgement of its existence as well. As I said: upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite. RESPONDENT: If the twig was not in the visual field then the only way it could be referred to would be by imagination only. RICHARD: We have been down this path before: • [Respondent]: ‘What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)? • [Richard]: ‘For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds. • [Respondent]: ‘If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing? • [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now. • [Respondent]: ‘How else can you link the word egg to the actual object? • [Richard]: ‘If no actual egg be present ... intellectually. • [Respondent]: ‘What is the exact mental/ physical process involved for one with no identity? • [Richard]: ‘If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory. • [Respondent]: ‘Sorry for being a bit slow here, but when you say intellectual memory what do you mean? • [Richard]: ‘I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present. • [Respondent]: ‘It seems to me there are only three options: 1) The ‘sound’ of the word egg. 2) The ‘visual’ image of the word egg. 3) The ‘visual’ image of an actual egg. I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg? • [Richard]: ‘It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is. • [Respondent]: ‘Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination? • [Richard]: ‘No ... visual memory *is* active imagination. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 56, 27 November 2003). RESPONDENT: Surely the actual world relies on sense organs to exist, otherwise how can it be experienced? RICHARD: The physical world exists irregardless of any sentient being existing ... it is flesh and blood bodies which rely upon sense organs to experience physicality. RESPONDENT: Surely it has no way of experiencing itself other than through sense organs? RICHARD: Not ‘through’ ... as: as this flesh and blood body only one is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: What is left if there is no sense data? RICHARD: Ha ... the hoary ‘brain in a vat’ so beloved of the epistemologists, perchance? RESPONDENT: Please clarify. RICHARD: Sure ... this topic has come up before: • [Richard]: ‘This universe is already here ... and it is always here now. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Well, it can equally well be argued the other way around: that there never was anything, and what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth. • [Richard]: ‘Yet it cannot ‘equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’ (although there are those who try to argue this). There is a simple experiment that will demonstrate the actualness of physicality in a way that a thousand words would not: 1. Place a large spring-clip upon your nose. 2. Place a large piece of sticking plaster over your mouth. 3. Wait five minutes. Now, as you rip the plaster from your mouth and gulp in that oh-so-sweet and patently actual air, I ask you: do you still say ‘it can equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’ ? • Exit: abstract argumentation. • Enter: facts and actuality. Seeing the fact will set you free to live in the actuality which is already here ... and which is always here now. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 23 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... the eternal question still remains: who or what is the entity that gulps the air? • [Richard]: ‘Yet ‘the eternal question’ does not remain at all as it is the flesh and blood body that gulps the air (a non-physical ‘entity’ does not breathe physical air). If ‘the eternal question still remains’ for you it means that you chose for the ‘abstract argumentation’ option (further above) rather than the intimate actuality of the sensate feeling of the air moving into and through the mouth; into and through the trachea ... and thence to an inflating of the lungs and a swelling of the chest. ‘Tis your choice. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘If there is no one who gulps the air (and thus experiences it), is there any air at all? • [Richard]: ‘As there is a flesh and blood body gulping the air this is a pointless conceptual question and the inevitable result of the ‘abstract argumentation’ choice made. If (note ‘if’) there was no body, here in space and time as form, this question would not be happening ... and this conversation would be a non-event. And, as there is a body, here in space and time as form, this question (and this conversation) is happening ... as is the concomitant perception. It is a nonsense question – it may initially look valid logically – but it is nonsense nevertheless. Howsoever, I am sure that you will now be motivated enough to traipse out into the forest and set-up an experiment (next to the tree that does not fall unless you are there to observe it fall), with bell jars, hoses, vacuum pumps, gauges and ancillary paraphernalia and then (whilst watching out for snakes masquerading as ropes whilst traipsing through the forest) come back the next day and make the appropriate measurements of the air in the jars. Either that or look-up ‘self-centred’ in the dictionary. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 25 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I don’t think any conclusive answer to the above question has ever been found, or, could ever be found. • [Richard]: ‘I just did (and I copy-pasted most parts of it from previous e-mails to this Mailing List). • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Hence my comment that argued another way, ‘here and now’ is an illusion. • [Richard]: ‘You cannot argue it rationally, though ... because if you argue that ‘all actuality ... is actualised through a perceiving mind’ (meaning that the actuality of ‘here and now’ cannot be reliably or accurately ascertained by a perceiving mind as objectively existing independent of that perceiving mind) then the definitive statement ‘‘here and now’ is an illusion’ is but a perception ‘actualised’ by that very-same perceiving mind which cannot reliably or accurately ascertain objectivity. You are presenting a doubly-illuded argument, in other words. Furthermore, you then present the argument to a body, which that perceiving mind definitively states is ‘an illusion’ ... presumably for rational feedback. Which feedback (be it affirmative to your argument or negative to your argument) must, of the necessity your argument dictates, be non-objective whichever way it goes ... which is further evidence of the irrational nature of your ‘it can equally well be argued the other way around’ comment. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 25 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Once again, what are space, time, and form sans perception? • [Richard]: ‘May I suggest? Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that space and time and form are still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ or some similar cataleptic trance state and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist when they come out of their exalted state, you will notice that time and space and form was happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that time and space and form keep on keeping on. Or, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that time and space and form existed long before human beings and their perception appeared on the scene. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Time, space, and form, happen to /you/ in all the cases that you mention. Hence, a /you/ is necessary for time, space, and form to happen. • [Richard]: ‘Surely you are not suggesting that before you were born (or at least before humans per se) nothing existed? No planet earth? No satellite moon? No central sun? No ‘Milky Way’ galaxy? No universe? No Time? No Space? No form? Nothing at all? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It is a tribute to the human faculties that manufacture space, time, and form that we are able to ask a question like the one you do. • [Richard]: ‘Goodness me ... and yet it is Richard who is sometimes said to be arrogant (when I describe how superior living in the actual world is to living in the ‘real world’). Is it not obvious that ‘it is a tribute’ to the universe (limitless time and space and form) which ‘manufactures’ the human faculties that such questions are able to be asked? When you look-up ‘self-centred’ in the dictionary ... check out ‘anthropocentric’ as well. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 25 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are trapped in a universe of your own belief. • [Richard]: ‘Since when has seeing the actual – observing the obvious – become a belief? This physical universe exists in its own right and does not require belief from me to bring it into being or sustain its existence. It was here before I was born and will be here after I die. Just how does that constitute it being a product of my – or anyone’s – belief system? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘One belief is that there is something outside this momentary flashing (of sensations) labelled ‘universe’ that continues to exist. • [Richard]: ‘No belief is required ... not being a Krishnamurtiite I have not crippled my native intelligence by having to scorn memory. Memory is a record of a series of yesterdays, that were packed full of ‘momentary flashing (of sensations)’, going all the way back to one’s earliest memory. Before that, one can refer to the reports given by one’s parents (for example) back to one’s birth. Unless one is paranoid – thinking that there is a conspiracy by one’s parents to deceive one – then it is obvious that this universe has been here for all those years. Unless one wishes to be solipsistic and believe that this universe came into being when one was born (complete with 5.8 billion people whose sole aim in life is to convince you that it was here before you were born when it was not) then it is equally obvious that this universe has been here throughout human history. As for before human history ... unless one is anthropocentric (and egocentric people often are) it is obvious that this universe does not require verification from human beings in order to exist. Palaeontology evidences this. Before that? Unless one is a religious cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Creation’) or a scientific cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Big Bang’) then it is obvious that this universe has always been here. As it has always been here ... it always will be here. Observation renders belief redundant. (Richard, List B, No. 22b, 21 August 1998). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that your perception of physical reality is still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist, you will notice that your perception of physical reality keeps happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that your perception of physical reality keeps on keeping on. • [Richard]: ‘You do seem to have missed the point of doing what I suggested. As their perception of physical reality is non-existent in all three instances – yet physical reality keeps on keeping on irregardless – then the same applies to my perception of physical reality in similar circumstances ... ergo: I am not necessary for the planet earth to exist; I am not necessary for the satellite moon to exist; I am not necessary for the central sun to exist; I am not necessary for the ‘Milky Way’ galaxy to exist; I am not necessary for the universe to exist. I am not necessary for time and space and form to exist. (Richard, List B, No. 12j, 30 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘We are initiated at a young age into our culture’s description of reality. • [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... any society, being a grouping of ‘selves’, corroborates, supports and enhances the newest genetically inherited ‘self’s intuitive description (the blind initiating the blind). • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The cultural view is that on-going physical objects ‘exist’. • [Richard]: ‘Well now ... they do ‘get it right’ some of the time, you know. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘That view is perhaps essential to survival and functioning. • [Richard]: ‘Why ‘perhaps’ essential? As the physical-world does exist it is indeed essential. Just stop eating the ‘perhaps’ essential physical food for 5+ months and see what happens; just stop drinking the ‘perhaps’ essential physical water for 5+ days and see what happens; just stop breathing the ‘perhaps’ essential physical air for 5+ minutes and see what happens; just stop the ‘perhaps’ essential physical heart beating for 5+ seconds and see what happens. (Richard, List B, No. 12j, 30 May 2001). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘To see the world or so-called physical reality ... • [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? Just stop waiting for a gap to occur in the stream of ‘so-called physical’ cars, trucks, buses and trams on a highway before crossing and see what happens ... you will intimately experience what ‘so-called physical’ time (and motion), what ‘so-called physical’ space (and distance) and what ‘so-called physical’ form (and function) are in a practical and very demonstrable way. One experience is worth a thousand words. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... [to see the world] as immeasurable energy means that the stranglehold that the cultural view has over our perception has loosened its grip. • [Richard]: ‘Ha ... which culture? Because the eastern cultures, generally speaking, inculcate ‘the cultural view’ that physical reality is ‘immeasurable energy’ (God or Truth by whatever name) from the moment of parturition ... and their ‘cultural view’ is insidiously spreading through the western cultures (inasmuch as it is being force-fed to the newest recruits to the culture with the mother’s milk, as it were). I kid you not ... I live in an area where such is now the norm. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It doesn’t mean that a tree only falls in the forest if we see it fall and all that nonsense. • [Richard]: ‘You may very well be surprised at the number of otherwise intelligent human beings who have either baldly trotted out that psittacism to me over the past twenty-odd years ... or ... • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It means that in absolute energetic terms, there is no tree apart from consciousness. • [Richard]: ‘... or who have adroitly trotted out a sophisticated version of that psittacism to me over the past twenty-odd years. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘That is not to say that a particular brain’s thought process creates the tree. • [Richard]: ‘Let me guess ... it is the universal mind (by whatever name) that creates the tree? (Richard, List B, No. 12j, 30 May 2001). And: • [Richard]: ‘This is how this thread started: [Co-Respondent]: ‘... identity itself is an illusion’. [endquote]. From that simple starting point you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question: Why do you write e-mails to your illusions? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Oh, that is simple: it is all His Leela! I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them. • [Richard]: ‘I am only too happy to re-phrase my question: why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Brahma doesn’t make anything happen. It is neither caused nor causes anything. That which is beyond cause is Brahma. Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘e-mails happen’. • [Richard]: ‘If I may point out? I am not asking how the e-mails happen but why they happen ... why as in what purpose does it serve to communicate with your illusions when you already know they are your illusions? Or, to put that another way, is it because your illusions do not realise they are your illusions that you write to them to tell them that they are your illusions? In other words: have your illusions taken on a life of their own, as it were, and are denying that you are their creator? (Richard, List B, No. 30j, 24 October 2002). There is more ... but maybe this will do for now? * RESPONDENT: Richard, would you agree that without consciousness it is impossible for the experience of me typing these letters to exist. RICHARD: Ha ... without consciousness it is impossible to be typing those letters in the first place. RESPONDENT: If the answer to the above is yes, then without consciousness it is also impossible to verify the existence of the universe. RICHARD: Hmm ... without consciousness it is impossible to conduct any directed activity. RESPONDENT: Questions like ‘will the universe exist when I die’ can only exist when there is consciousness present. RICHARD: Any question can only exist when there is consciousness ‘present’ (more on this usage below). RESPONDENT: Any comments? RICHARD: Yes ... the word ‘consciousness’ refers to a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and connotes being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, and being conscious, not unconscious (comatose). All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Viz.: • ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary). A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.: • ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. ~ (Oxford Dictionary). In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly) immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). Which is another way of saying consciousness is no longer ‘present’ in the body. RESPONDENT: Do these statements mean I am a solipsist? RICHARD: Given that a solipsist maintains that ‘only the self really exists or can be known’ (Oxford Dictionary) surely you can work that out for yourself? Just as a matter of interest: I experienced a period of what I then called ‘extreme subjectivity’ whilst living in the Himalayas in 1984 (I did not know of the term ‘solipsist’ until 1993 when I read an edifying account by Mr. Leo Tolstoy, who went through a period of solipsism, and later wrote at length about his experience) and it is a ghastly state to be in ... those who intellectually entertain the notion, as in a philosophy for example, have obviously never personally experienced the reality of being solipsistic. Put briefly: nothing can be verified (absolutely nothing) as everything (absolutely everything) is ‘my’ creation: to ask another, for instance, whether they independently exist is an exercise in futility as anything they might say is ‘my’ creation also ... or to seek psychiatric help, for another example, is to have one of ‘my’ creations prescribe yet another one of ‘my’ creations. Which is why I tend to be forthright with those who dabble (as in the quotes in my previous e-mail). KONRAD: There is only confusion about a belief in the existence of such an identity. This is why I see that you are the one who is confused, not me. RICHARD: Perhaps a few quotes from these long-time spiritual seekers might enable you to see – by seeing how others are playing with themselves – just what you yourself are doing here. Viz.: 1. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘The notion of an ‘I’ that is here seems to be added by thought and cannot be found with close observation’. 2. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Thought falsely attributes the true existence of a ‘me’. 3. [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘Thought conceives the true existence of separate things, when, in fact, life is basically undivided’.<...> (Richard, List B, No. 22, 23 February 1998). Does all this help somewhat, Konrad, to throw some light upon the subject? In Australia, this kind of behaviour is called ‘being a wanker’. KONRAD: For as long as you think that this is necessary, you have no clear understanding of the real nature of ‘I’. For if you had, you would see that this is ridiculous. For you cannot eliminate something that is not there in the first place. There is only one problem, and that is REALIZING that this ‘I’, this identity IS an illusion. And when this is totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true, and not only understood as a possibility, the process of enlightenment sets in. RICHARD: Perhaps the following exchange might help you to understand how it is for me in regards to what you are now discussing. Viz.: • [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘You say that there used to be an ‘I’ in this body, but somehow it is gone. Yes?’ • [Richard]: ‘Yes, it is gone ... and not just ‘somehow’, but with full intent and knowledge of what to do and what was happening. Consequently, I know how to get rid of this very persistent self which you quite rightly say is an illusion’. • [Spiritual Seeker]: ‘If, in fact, there was some real self in your body, where did it go and how did it end? Real things don’t just disappear’. • [Richard]: ‘How did it end? It was due to my intense conviction that it was imperative that someone evince a final and complete condition that would ‘deliver the goods’ so longed for by humanity for millennia. ‘I’ paid exclusive attention to being alive right here and now only. This type of attention is best known as fascination. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. This potent combination produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking ... and thinking takes place of its own accord. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity. All this is born out of pure intent. Pure intent is derived from the PCE experienced during a peak experience, which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen to be perfect as-it-is. Diligent attentiveness paid to the peak experience gives rise to pure intent. With pure intent running as a ‘golden thread’ through one’s life, contemplation rapidly becomes pure. Pure contemplation is bare awareness ... bare of ‘me’ being aware. Apperception happens of itself. With pure intent operating more or less continuously in ‘my’ day-to-day life, ‘I’ find it harder and harder to maintain credibility. ‘I’ am increasingly seen as the usurper, an alien entity inhabiting this body and taking on an identity of its own. Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness – apperception casts no shadows – ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable. ‘I’ can only live in obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about, creating all sorts of mischief. ‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end, ‘I’ can barely maintain ‘myself’ any longer. The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending. (Richard, List B, No. 22, 28 February 1998). What a marvellous difference this makes to being alive! KONRAD: In fact, this is the reason why EVERYBODY in whom ‘the process’ of enlightenment starts is laughing at the very moment it starts. For exactly at the moment when enlightenment sets in, the ridiculousness of the belief in an existence of such an identity is understood completely, and it is also understood what a ‘jack-ass’ he has been in believing in such an identity in the first place. RICHARD: Yes indeed ... it is a deep belly-laugh. This profound levity continues for the remainder of one’s life. Is it not strange, Konrad, that you do not write about a viable, liveable and delightful alternative to what people are currently living? I do not read your saying anything about how deliciously enjoyable it is to be finally free of the Human Condition; what a pleasure it is to be alive at this moment in time; how life is an adventure in itself by the simple fact of being here; what a felicitous experience it is to be the universe’s experience of itself as a human being; how fabulous it is to be able to fully appreciate the infinitude of this physical universe by being alive ... and so on. In short, what I read sounds like a dull life lived in abstraction. I can only assume that your understanding – as an actual understanding – was short-lived, and that the ‘process’ still has to finish its task ... if only you will let it do so. KONRAD: THIS is what I meant when I said that at the moment of the enlightenment of ‘the process’ it turned out there was nothing at all. For I was searching for such an identity, and then there was awareness of the fact that the searching for this identity itself was the identity searched for. Next to this there was nothing at all. RICHARD: Yes ... I would suggest that you stick with this realisation and go with the ‘process’, whatever it takes, until your awareness becomes an actualisation lived in your daily life. KONRAD: So you see, Richard, why I make such a point of how the body moves? The body NEEDS a picture in order to act purposefully. In this an ‘enlightened’ individual does not differ from everybody else. Only, the ‘enlightened’ individual is able to see that there is only such a picture that makes the body act purposefully. A picture, that can be mistaken for an ‘I’. RICHARD: Hmm ... if you say so, Konrad. However, I am unable to make any pictures whatsoever ... I cannot see anything ‘in my mind’s eye’ for I do not have one. The faculty for imagination disappeared along with ‘I’ as ego and the faculty for intuition disappeared along with ‘me’ as soul. I have no need to create a picture in order to operate and function ... and I can act purposefully with remarkable ease and alacrity. KONRAD: What you also failed to understand is that there is a lot of mathematics in me. RICHARD: Oh, no ... I very quickly came to comprehend that you were deeply enamoured of mathematics right at the beginning of our correspondence! KONRAD: Mathematics moves from definition to definition. Therefore I express my insight in a mathematical way. Like this: Question: What makes a body move? Answer: A picture of some future state. Question: What is the essence of ‘I’? Answer: The ability to control the body. RICHARD: A body moves itself as is necessary according to the circumstances via will ... and the bodily needs are what motivates will. Will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function – not an identity. Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the identity is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of the ego and soul – which are born out of instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence ... and this intelligence is the body’s native intelligence. It is a joy to be me, going about my carefree business with freed-will, in this wonderful physical world. It is only people who, believing themselves to be an identity needing to control and be controlled, that wreak havoc in this otherwise marvellous playground that humans all live on. KONRAD: Now what do you get if you merge those two insights? RICHARD: A ... um ... headache? KONRAD: Answer: An ‘I’ is a picture, or home video of some desirable future state the body is imagined to be in as one of its actors. It is this picture that makes the body move in such a way, that this imagined picture is actualised. Question: Can the body move, act purposefully, if such a picture is not present? Answer: No. RICHARD: Only if you are referring to yourself, Konrad. Speaking personally, I have no compulsion to invent a picture in order to perform and transact in this world of people, things and events ... and I can act purposefully with astonishing effortlessness and extraordinary dispatch. KONRAD: Question: Is there an identity, independently from this home video, that can make the body move, act purposefully? Answer: No. RICHARD: Yet your ‘I’ is persistent (you see the ‘I’-ness of your ‘I’) ... are you pushing this ‘home video’ analogy a bit far, here? KONRAD: Question: Is this realized by others? Answer: No. Almost everybody believes, that there is an identity that is separate from this picture that does the actual desiring. It is the identity that desires that this home video becomes actual. But this identity is a false abstraction. In actuality, there is no difference between the home video and the identity. RICHARD: Oh ... you are talking about desire. Desire is affective ... thus the identity you refer to here is ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’. KONRAD: But you misunderstand me. You read my explanations backwards. You think, that because I define the ‘I’ as a thought that controls the body I am defending this as a necessity. RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ this ... you repeatedly tell me so. Are you going to change your mind again? KONRAD: But it is exactly the opposite. I try to make others aware of the fact that this ‘I’ IS an illusion. And if it is an illusion, it cannot be eliminated. : Oh yes it can ... and it must be eliminated. This illusory ‘I’ must undergo an illusory death. This death, when it happens, is indistinguishable from physical death ... it is that startling in its intensity. This is a far cry from you ‘realising that this ‘I’, this identity, IS an illusion’ that you referred to above. Becoming free from this – at times very real – identity requires far more than the illusory nature of ‘I’ being merely ‘totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true’ that you accurately explained. KONRAD: This is why I consider your ‘actualism’ as bogus. RICHARD: Then ‘bogus’ it must be, Konrad, if you say so ... but what a marvellous counterfeit it is. Every moment again is a joy and a delight ... I never get ... um ... infuriated. I never have to use the ‘good’ emotions to restrain myself from acting on my ‘bad’ emotions with ... um ... principles (I have noticed that principles – ethics and/or morality – are only necessary when there is a wayward ‘I’ creating havoc inside the body). But as you have ‘totally realised’ that there is no ‘I’ ... then none of these symptoms would be occurring in you, now, would they? KONRAD: For, obviously, you still express yourself in terms of the necessity of something that needs to be eliminated. Therefore you obviously do not see that ... oh boy, I am repeating myself. Probably this is due to the fact that there is only a self-reference present on this side of the Internet. RICHARD: This is the funniest thing that you have written so far ... and possibly the most true: an ever-infinite tautological self-referential regression called ‘Konrad’, eh? Now I know that, epistemologically speaking, tautology is the absolute identification of cause and effect and that, logically speaking, a tautology is a compound proposition which is unconditionally true for all the truth-possibilities of its component propositions and by virtue of its logical form. But in everyday use, tautology is but another word for pleonasm – a circumlocution or a reiteration – when all is said and down. Hence my mirth: perhaps it is a good point to leave this particular discussion and move on to your next topic wherein you make more sense than in this one. RESPONDENT: The notion that there is someone to be free or become free, someone to be harmless, or to have an experience beyond enlightenment, to hasten the demise of a ‘me’, or a someone that is born or dies are quite imaginary or illusory or conceptual. RICHARD: Yes ... yet the effects that this illusory ‘me’ are patently obvious. For example, if there is any anger or sadness ‘coming and going’ you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a ‘you’ in there somewhere. RESPONDENT: By virtue of those concepts (thought constructions) there may be an apparently actual body or someone to have attained some special state of mind that has some continuity in time. RICHARD: No, by virtue of apperception there is an actual body free of any ‘I’ or ‘me’. This is evidenced by the total absence of, for example, anger and sadness. RESPONDENT: It is because of the insight into the impermanence of this body, that it can be said that there is no actually existing body. RICHARD: That is not an insight ... that is intellectual masturbation. That there is an actual body is obvious and requires no insight: the eyes see it; the nose smells it; the tongue tastes it; the ears hear it; the skin feels it. RESPONDENT: There is no moment that the body is not changing and not being influenced by causes and conditions outside the body. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: That means there is no actual separate thing here at all. RICHARD: Yes, which is why I say that I am not separate from the universe ... I am made of the very stuff of the universe. Literally, I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots and beans and rice and so on and so on ... which is the very stuff of this universe. We do not come from ‘outside’ of the universe ... we are not placed ‘in’ here for some unknown reason by some inscrutable god. RESPONDENT: Any sense of there being some actual body separate from everything else is purely conceptual. RICHARD: Yes ... though this particular body is physically distinct from that particular body and the environment at large. RESPONDENT: It is by virtue of concepts and images that there is an appearance of some ongoing thing, some continuity labelled a physical body that is born and dies. RICHARD: No, it is by virtue of observation that there is an on-going physical body that is born and dies. RESPONDENT: Even the very sensations that form the basis of the assumption of physical actuality are but impermanent, flashes with no ongoing actuality whatsoever. RICHARD: Yes, the sensations are impermanent. No, physical actuality is not an assumption. No, actuality is indeed on-going. If you cease denying the validity of memory and the verification by other human being’s reports, you will comprehend a whole lot better. RESPONDENT: Since everything is impermanent there is no stable place to stand to view an ongoing actual physical body. RICHARD: No, this moment in time and this place in space is both permanent and stable ... one is always here now. It is simple ... ask yourself this: • Where am I? Here. • What time is it? Now. Wait for five minutes and walk into another room. Ask yourself this: • Where am I? Here. • What time is it? Now. Keep doing this until you comprehend that one can never not be here and it can never not be now. You can never get away from this moment in time and this place in space. This moment is always happening here and this place is always happening now. RESPONDENT: All effort to hasten the demise of an ‘I’ is totally unnecessary and instead affirms it. RICHARD: No, it is essential to hasten the demise of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... peace-on-earth depends upon it (and it does not affirm it ... you will simply cease denying it). RESPONDENT: Seeing there is no truly existing ‘I’ those efforts drop away without any effort at all. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have never applied myself with such diligence both before and since that nine month period prior to the dissolution of ‘I’ as ego. The precise moment of dissolution was effortless, yes, and lasted for maybe three-four seconds. It was the most thrilling ride of a life-time. ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. And then I was here where I am now ... where I have always been. (Except that a Grand ‘Me’ came sweeping in to take up residence for the next eleven years and I could hardly get a word in edgeways). RESPONDENT: Extrapolating and concluding is just thinking. RICHARD: Why the pejorative use of the word ‘just’? Thought is perhaps the most useful tool to ever emerge on this planet. RESPONDENT: Seeing is allowing that thinking to come and go freely along with concepts of a ‘me’ or an actual physical body or a state of mind that has continuity. RICHARD: Do you ever ask why these concepts ‘come and go’ (whether freely or otherwise)? Do you ever ask why anger and sadness ‘comes and goes’ (whether ‘merely watched’ or not)? There is a ‘you’ in there somewhere. RICHARD: Enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we should quibble or question or investigate directly and not depend on so-called stories of enlightenment. RICHARD: Why the use of ‘so-called’ in reference to some of our fellow human beings’ discoveries that they made in their enterprising essays into human consciousness? Are you indeed that cynical? RESPONDENT: It seems that that there is indeed no truly existing ego that could ever die. RICHARD: Never mind what ‘seems’ ... you are hopelessly incorrect in your solution to all the ills of the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: That belief is part of the illusion. RICHARD: Not so ... it is your belief that ‘you’ only have to know that ‘you’ are a mirage – and therefore nothing else has to happen – that is an illusion befooling itself. This is called ‘knowledge’ ... and has led many a spiritual seeker astray. RESPONDENT: We are not speaking of knowing anything. RICHARD: Oh, no ... not that spiritual ‘he who says he knows does not know’ male bovine faecal matter again, surely? RESPONDENT: We are just giving attention to some of the beliefs that you expressed. RICHARD: Wow! Who is this < we > that I am writing to? Are you not one person but Siamese twins? RESPONDENT: The apparent enlightenment of beings could very well be an effort at skilful means for those not able to understand the lack of any inherent ego, self or Self from the first. RICHARD: Oh, I see that you understand it ... but unless there is action – and an action that is not of ‘my’ doing – happening out of this understanding then it is all intellectual masturbation. RESPONDENT: Seeing a mirage as a mirage, there is no choice about action. You can no longer treat the lake as truly existing RICHARD: Well, I saw the ‘lake’, and successfully eliminated it. Consequently I do not have any anger, for example, that ‘merely comes and goes’ . * RICHARD: When another person tells me – or demonstrates to me – that their identity is still intact it is not me making an image about them, surely ... it is so. It is a fact. RESPONDENT: What is this truly existing ego that is fact other than an image or an idea? RICHARD: It is the cause of all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide ... that is what it is. RESPONDENT: You suggested that there some truly existing ‘me’ other than an image. Action based on misconception can cause what is suggested. What is a proof of a real ‘me’? RICHARD: Your anger that ‘comes and goes’ for starters? RESPONDENT: What is its basis? RICHARD: Its basis is the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at birth. RESPONDENT: Again, those are the fruit of misconception and cannot be a basis of some truly existing ‘me’. RICHARD: When you watch footage of World War Two (or any other war) do you fondly imagine that all that bloodshed is caused by a fear and aggression that results from a ‘misconception’ that there is some ‘truly existing ‘me’ other than a mirage’ ? RESPONDENT: I would suggest observing the mind in action instead of movies. RICHARD: Why would I follow your advice? This ‘observing the mind in action’ has not stopped the seeming anger in the apparent body called No. 22. now has it? RESPONDENT: Action based on the belief in there being some true centre or self does not necessarily mean there is such a thing. RICHARD: Not so ... in fact any action based on the belief that there is no ‘true centre or self’ to self-immolate will perpetuate all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: Listen again to your logic. The widespread suffering that you point to is not caused by a belief in the lack of a ‘me’. There is no such common belief. The root is the common belief in some true division, self, centre or independent ‘me’. A lake mirage is not dispelled by adding a belief in no lake. It is merely seeing that what was thought to be true, isn’t. RICHARD: As anger still ‘comes and goes’ in the body called No. 22 then you are living proof that the ‘lake mirage’ is not dispelled by ‘merely seeing that what was thought to be true isn’t’ as you so quaintly insist (above). RESPONDENT: Again, the apparent anger coming and going, is not a proof of a truly existing ‘me’. It is only anger coming and going. That anger may be based on an assumption of a truly existing ‘me’, but that still does not mean there is some truly existing ‘me’ that is angry. RICHARD: You say ‘maybe based on the assumption’ ... is it or is it not? Can you ever make a committed statement without hedging it about with all kind of conditions? * RICHARD: Why object when another informs you of this fact being an actuality in his life and tell him that ‘the thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’ ? What is achieved by making such an inaccurate observation? RESPONDENT: Because harbouring such a belief in someone who has attained versus someone who has not attained is based on the belief in some truly existing separation. RICHARD: I am sure that this philosophy of yours gives you no end of satisfaction ... but I know from past discussions with you that you say that anger, for example, still occurs. What you say is ‘anger comes and goes’ ... therefore it behoves you to get of your backside and look to see why this is still happening in you despite your intellectual understanding that the ‘self’ is an illusion. Of course, it is your life that you are living and provided that you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live as wisely or as foolishly as you choose. RESPONDENT: The imputed appearance of such a one does not mean there is actually a separate person that can have qualities or achieve. RICHARD: There is indeed an actual flesh and blood body ... unless you believe that Eastern mystical twaddle about this world of people, things and events being an illusion. Therefore, if by ‘person’ you mean ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (or any other description) then there is certainly psychological separation. This causes sorrow. Combine this with malice and then we have all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide. If you personally do not wish to participate in peace-on-earth, then that is your business ... yet realise, the next time you complain about all the violence you see on TV, that you are as ‘guilty’ as the next person. * RICHARD: When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. The extinction of identity – both an ego death and a soul death – is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. RESPONDENT: This does not make any sense. How does something that supposedly truly exists cause its own demise? RICHARD: Simply by the earnest and sincere desire to do something constructive about all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide ... instead of indulging in intellectual masturbation. It is called being altruistic. RESPONDENT: This does not explain how a ‘me’ can put an end to a ‘me’. RICHARD: No ... I did not consider it necessary to go into detail of how to do it because you do not see that this action is necessary. * RICHARD: Any ‘me’ – any psychological or psychic identity – is an emotional-mental construct. This flesh and blood body is not such a construct ... this is actual. RESPONDENT: Actual in what sense? RICHARD: Actual in the sense that anybody can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it and even taste it. Are you for real in this question? Are you on the same planet ... this one I am on is called ‘Planet Earth’? RESPONDENT: This body seem quite impermanent and quite dependent on many factors outside of it for its existence. RICHARD: It is indeed impermanent ... you are but a missed heart-beat or two away from physical death each moment again. It is possible to actually experience what all these ‘many factors’ are. I describe this on-going experiencing as ‘I am this very material universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being’. RESPONDENT: How can you make any kind of actual division between this body and the sun or the air in order to define its actual existence? RICHARD: I do not just sit around defining things away ... I live what I write about. In this particular flesh and blood body called Richard, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolated some years ago. That was when the already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent for the twenty four hours of every day ... each moment again. It is yours for the choosing. * RESPONDENT: I have only brought attention to the divisions that you have expressed as someone who has attained, someone who lives this way or that, some real separate body, some ‘me’ that is born or dies, or some one that has qualities. Those presently occurring concepts are an expression of life that are being questioned. Viewing from this peace-on-earth state of mind, what part of a body actually exists if at every moment every aspect of that body is impermanent? What, other than a label (body), has any continuity that can be a basis of any thing being actual? RICHARD: May I suggest a practical example instead of more words? • Hold your conceptual hands in front of the seeming computer monitor with your apparent palms facing toward you and at the height of your impermanent eyes. Okay? • Now, with all of your imputed strength, bring your supposedly truly existing hands rapidly toward your un-real face until there is a loud, satisfying thump! If your non-existent nose starts so-called bleeding you will know that you have used sufficient supposed strength to ensure the success of this demonstration. • Is it the label ‘face’ that is stinging painfully ... or the actual face? Does this ‘mirage’ ego feel foolish for being so stupid all this while? RESPONDENT: Stinging is just stinging. It does not mean there is some real face that is stinging or some actual body that is stinging. I would suggest that the apparent suffering of this apparent body lacks any true independent existence. The face of one moment is not the same as the face of another. There is no ongoing thing behind the label face. The body of one moment is not the same as the body of another. There is no ongoing thing behind the label body. In this way there is no truly actual face or body that has any ongoing independent existence. RICHARD: Was there much blood? * RESPONDENT: Seeing a mirage as a mirage, there is no choice about action. You can no longer treat the lake as truly existing. RICHARD: Well, I saw the ‘lake’ , and successfully eliminated it. Consequently I do not have any anger, for example, that ‘merely comes and goes’. RESPONDENT: If the lake is what is thought to be a ‘me’, how does the lake end the lake? That is what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that a lake (mirage), which has no actual existence is causing a lake (mirage), which has no actual existence, to end. If I depend on this lake (mirage) for a source of water, suffering may arise, since I attribute some true existence to that which has no actual existence. Likewise, action based on the assumption of a truly existing ‘me’, may foster suffering. This suffering is not caused by some real ‘me’ that must die, but by not seeing that the lake is merely a mirage. Seeing that the label ‘me’ does not have a basis of any real independent thing, anger and suffering drop away without having to end a ‘me’. In this way, it seems quite impossible for a someone (like Richard) to eliminate a ‘me’. The one eliminating and that which is eliminated never had any true existence. That is why I asked how does a ‘me’ end the ‘me’. RICHARD: Yes I know that this is how you think ... that is why I do not consider it necessary to go into detail of how to do it because you do not see that this action is necessary. * RESPONDENT: Observing something that comes and goes is just something that comes and goes. It does not mean there is some ongoing truly existing ‘me’ that is a cause of anger. RICHARD: What causes the seeming anger in this appearance of a body called No. 22 then? RESPONDENT: Speaking from memory, it is merely the habitual misconception of there being some actual separation, some truly independent thing. RICHARD: And when was the last imputed time this seeming anger came and went in the not truly existing body called No. 22? In other words, when did this apparently existing ‘me’ in the not truly independent body called No. 22 habitually misconceive that there was some ‘actual separation’ and some ‘truly independent thing’? Secondly, how often does this ‘habitual misconception’ occur in any imputed year for this not truly-existing body called No. 22? You see ... I want to know how reliable this is as a solution to all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide. For example: in the middle of hand-to-hand combat, with an enemy, a spouse, a child and so on, how likely is it that a person might all of a sudden remember and say something like: ‘Golly gosh, here I go again ... I am habitually misconceiving that there is some actual separation again and I am once more imputing that there is a ‘me’ in a truly existing thing and this dratted seeming anger has come again making me try to actually bash one of my fellow human beings into a bloody pulp in a seeming rage?’ Do you then take some time out – run up the white flag for a bit – and sit down cross-legged meditating until this ‘habitual misconceiving’ ceases and the seeming anger then goes ... as easily as it came? And then how do you persuade the not-truly existing other – whose seeming anger has been aroused by your seeming anger and is now manifesting actual violence all over your apparent body in retaliation for your forgetfulness – to do like-wise ... given that you ‘habitually misconceive’ from time-to-time. Also, this memory that you are plainly speaking from (you did not say ‘seeming’ memory) ... do I take it that it is actual then? RESPONDENT: It is the same habitual misconception that imputes a someone that can eliminate a ‘me’ or a ‘me’ that can be eliminated or that can attain freedom from a ‘me’. RICHARD: Not so, I live on a different planet to you ... it is called ‘Planet Earth’. People here call a spade a spade ... it is a lot more simple that way. * RICHARD: When was the last imputed time this seeming anger came and went in the not truly existing body called No. 22? In other words, when did this apparently existing ‘me’ in the not truly independent body called No. 22 habitually misconceive that there was some ‘actual separation’ and some ‘truly independent thing’ ? RESPONDENT: I don’t remember exactly. Some days I notice mental reactions based on the assumption of something being truly existing, although perhaps not anger. Many things that used to occur do not. RICHARD: Aye ... but is there a total freedom from all the things that cause the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? * RICHARD: Secondly, how often does this ‘habitual misconception’ occur in any imputed year for this not truly-existing body called No. 22? You see ... I want to know how reliable this is as a solution to all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide. RESPONDENT: Why would someone who claims to have eliminated a ‘me’, ask about the reliability of a means to end war? RICHARD: Because you have been consistently telling me that I have got it wrong inasmuch as a ‘me’ that does not actually exist cannot die (which I say enables the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent) ... and you convey that your method is more efficacious. So I am curious as to why you consider that an anger that ‘comes and goes’ will ensure peace ... that is why. RESPONDENT: If you are willing to question the notion of eliminating a ‘me’, then I would suggest that there is no truly existing ‘I’ to habitually do anything. RICHARD: The not truly existing ‘me’ was indeed willing – eighteen years ago – to die so that the already always existing peace-on-earth could become apparent. It worked ... now there is no anger that ‘comes and goes’. Now, you have been seeing – and suggesting – that there is no ‘truly existing ‘me’’ for some time now ... and yet anger still ‘comes and goes’. RESPONDENT: The habit is in conceiving of there being such an ‘I’. To understand suffering it seems more important to give attention to what is thought to be suffering as it occurs than to speculate about imaginary reactions to imaginary situations. RICHARD: War is not ‘imaginary’ ... there are 27 wars occurring as you read this. Murder is not ‘imaginary’ ... someone, somewhere is being murdered as you read this. Torture is not ‘imaginary’ ... just ask ‘Amnesty International’. Domestic violence is not ‘imaginary’ ... someone, somewhere is being beaten up as you read this. Child abuse is not ‘imaginary’ ... somewhere some child is being brutalised. Sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is not ‘imaginary’ ... all over the world such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers. And you propose that by merely seeing that there is no ‘truly existing ‘me’’ that all this will somehow end even when anger has not ended in you ... you the proponent of this solution? * RICHARD: Also, this memory that you are plainly speaking from (you did not say ‘seeming’ memory) ... do I take it that it is actual then? RESPONDENT: The memory has no independent existence, but arises in dependence on many causes and conditions. RICHARD: Ahh ... so it was a ‘seeming memory’ after all, then. Just a typo, eh? RESPONDENT: ANGER update ... I noticed anger arise this morning amidst a stop and go, hour and a half grid-locked commute to work. RICHARD: As anger can arise in such an everyday occurrence as a traffic jam ... how efficacious is ‘seeing that there is no truly existing ‘me’’ going to be in those ‘imaginary situations’ that you do not wish to speculate about? And so all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide will go on forever and a day. * RESPONDENT: ANGER update ... I noticed anger arise this morning amidst a stop and go, hour and a half grid-locked commute to work. RICHARD: As anger can arise in such an everyday occurrence as a traffic jam ... how efficacious is ‘seeing that there is no truly existing ‘me’’ going to be in those ‘imaginary situations’ that you do not wish to speculate about? And so all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide will go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: We share an interest in ending war etc. What I mentioned is not a method to do that. RICHARD: Oh? How do you propose then, that all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide that blight this fair earth of ours come to an end? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: It is merely pointing to life. Once the lack of inherent existence of a ‘me’ or anything is seen, there is no wondering about methods to end war. RICHARD: Do you mean that you have given up finding a solution? Therefore, all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide will go on forever and a day? Is this not fatalism? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: The misconceptions or beliefs concerning some truly existing ‘me’ or things get exposed and drop naturally. RICHARD: Yet they arise again and again and drop again and again ... is there an end to all this arising and dropping? Is this why you said (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Since there is no ongoing ‘me’, there is also no ongoing entity free of anger. RICHARD: Maybe not ‘on-going’ ... yet there is an intermittently arising ‘me’ that necessitates a consistent ‘seeing through’ and an intermittently arising anger that necessitates a consistent dropping. Do you advocate that this is a sensible way to live? Would you like to see 6.0 billion people adopt this approach? I am asking because you did say (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. What will stop all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide then? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Each moment is new. RICHARD: Aye ... and in each new moment someone is being murdered somewhere. In each new moment a person is being tortured somewhere. In each new moment someone, somewhere is being beaten up in a domestic violence situation. In each new moment somewhere some child is being brutalised in yet another incidence of the endemic child abuse. In each new moment, all over the world sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is going on in uncountable numbers. World-wide there are 27 wars occurring as you read this ... and you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Seeing there is no truly existing ‘me’ of one moment does not mean that the habitual tendency to project inherent existence disappears. RICHARD: So ... I guess that this is why you are saying that this is not a very efficacious method to ensure peace-on-earth? Okay then, what is your proposal? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: The habitual tendency to think there is some truly existing separate ‘me’ not only can inspire anger, but also the notion that there is an ongoing entity who has eliminated a ‘me’, who is free of anger, who can apply a method to eliminate anger and that there is a ‘me’ to be eliminated. RICHARD: So, what you are saying is that this method of yours is actually useless as in regards to bringing this entire process to an end, eh? Therefore, what other options do you propose? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Moment after moment, letting go and letting go. This seeing/ letting go is in relation to presently arising phenomenon and not images of the suffering of others. RICHARD: Hmm ... what does the ‘images of the suffering of others’ do to you, then? The reason that I ask is that you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Living from a state of mind prior to the arising of anger, anger can come and go without having to act on it. RICHARD: Can you guarantee – one hundred percent – that a person will be able to ‘go without having to act on it’? Is this why you said (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. RESPONDENT: As the identity with the anger and the projected inherently existing ‘me’ that it is based on, is repeatedly exposed and dropped. The tendency withers away on its own. RICHARD: Does it ‘wither away on its own’ until it is no more? How many years has this ‘withering away’ been happening for you? Is there an end to this process? Will it take as long for each person if adopted on a world-wide scale as it is taking for you? Then what happens after all this? Is there some plan you have to bring to an end all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide? Because you did say (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. The reason that I ask is that you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’ SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON RELATIVISM (Part Three) 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