Commonly Raised Objections ## No Proof that Time and Space Actually Exist GARDOL: It started when I purchased the two ‘Actual Freedom Journals’ and received a thank you email from Vineeto. This started a brief interchange with her that I recap at the start. ‘Hi Vineeto, thank you very much for writing back to me. (...) I have already reached the stage usually referred to as ‘enlightenment’. (...); My Gob [Ground of Being] is an Absolute or Ultimate Ground of Being. It includes everything. Space and time come from Gob. While Richard insists that space and time are actual, he cannot prove that space and time have any existence outside of the mind of the perceivers. RICHARD: On the contrary, it is remarkably easy to demonstrate ... simply find somebody who has a relative or a friend in a coma – the mind of a comatose person is a non-perceiving mind – and go and visit them: it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) are still happening regardless of their non-perception of it all. Or go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’, or some similar cataleptic trance state, and although they will asseverate that space and time (and matter) do not exist, when they come out of their exalted state, it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) were happening all the while. Or be with somebody on their death-bed and afterwards it will be noticed that space and time (and matter) keep on keeping on. As their perception of space and time (and matter) is non-existent in all three instances – yet space and time (and matter) keeps on keeping on regardless – then the same applies to one’s own perception of space and time (and matter) in similar circumstances ... ergo: one is not necessary for the planet earth to exist; one is not necessary for the satellite moon to exist; one is not necessary for the central sun to exist; one is not necessary for the galaxy to exist; one is not necessary for the universe to exist. Put concisely: one is not necessary for space and time (and matter) to exist. Even more to the point, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that space and time (and matter) existed long before human beings and their perceiving minds appeared on the scene. As the ancient rocks and fossils existed prior to human beings, and their perceptive minds, it shows that human beings are not needed for the planet earth to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the satellite moon to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the central sun to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the galaxy to exist; it shows that human beings are not needed for the universe to exist. Put succinctly: human beings are not necessary for space and time (and matter) to exist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Update (eleven months later): In the wanted-my-questions-addressed section of his comeback, on the 18th of January 2009, Gardol focuses solely upon the ‘the mind of a comatose person is a non-perceiving mind’ example, ignores the remainder of the above multi-point demonstration, and dismissively opines that Richard thinks observing such a person proves something. Viz.: • [Gardol]: ‘I wanted Richard to address my questions, which he did, and (... snip ...) he thinks observing a comatose person proves something about the existence of time and space’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/4196). And that is all there is to it, folks, that depreciatory half-line is the sum total of what transpired upon finally, finally getting his questions addressed – after repeated and insistent importuning – for this is the sentence which immediately follows: • [Gardol]: ‘I have never talked with anyone personally who could not understand the point I made in my rant and my follow up emails to this list (which he took quotes from)’. (ibid.). Richard understands perfectly well the point Gardol made (in both his rant and his follow-up emails) – plus, having been that Ground Of Being (which Gardol refers to as ‘Gob’) night and day for eleven years, his understanding is experiential – yet that intimate understanding does not negate the fact that palaeontology indubitably shows that space and time and matter existed long before human beings, and their perceiving minds, appeared on the scene. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GARDOL: From my own perspective as an enlightened person I can agree that space actually exists. But space exists only in relation to the mind of the observer. Outside of the mind or minds of the perceivers, space does not exist, ‘actually’ or otherwise. Space exists because a mind or minds exist to perceive it. You cannot prove that space or the universe exists a priori. When Richard tries to prove the ‘Actual’ existence of form, he resorts to ontological arguments ... RICHARD: He does not resort to anything – a search for the word palaeontology, on his portion of the web site, will demonstrate just why not – let alone to [quote] ‘ontological arguments’ [endquote]. Incidentally, here is what that term generally refers to: • ‘ontological argument: for the objective existence of God from the idea or essence of God’. (Oxford Dictionary). • ‘ontological argument: argument to prove existence of God; an argument made by St. Anselm and others to prove the existence of God by pointing to God’s essence as a perfect, necessary being’. (Encarta Dictionary). • ‘ontological argument: an argument for the existence of God based upon the meaning of the term God’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). • ‘ontological argument: a type of argument proposed by a number of philosophers, including St. Anselm and Descartes, which maintains that the existence of God can be deduced from an analysis of the concept of God’. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ontological_argument). That is because this is what the word ontological represents: • ‘ontological: of or pertaining to ontology; metaphysical’. (Oxford Dictionary). As it almost goes without saying that Richard has no interest whatsoever in matters metaphysical then, presumably, Gardol is meaning an ‘a priori’ argument (as in inductive reasoning/ reasoning independent of experience) ... as distinct from an ‘a posteriori’ argument (as in deductive reasoning/ reasoning dependent on experience). If so, he is barking up the wrong tree as Richard repeatedly reports that it is experience – direct experience (apperceptive awareness) in fact – which informs of the actual existence of form (aka matter). GARDOL: ... for example: [Richard]: All time and space and form are physical as opposed to the Timeless and Spaceless and Formless being metaphysical. That is, time and space and form are material inasmuch as material means physical (corporeal), or substance (existing), or concrete (tangible), or objective (perceptible), or substantial (palpable) ... in a word: actual. Therefore the words material and form are interchangeable words given that I am mainly directing my discussions in relation to the claims of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality wherein time and space and form have no inherent existence. The properties of time and space are that they are material (actually existing) and the property of form is that it is material (matter) in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). [endquote]. Here he blithely ignores the fact that all the words he uses to describe the ‘actual’ (such as physical, tangible, concrete and corporeal) have no foundation outside of the mind of the perceivers. RICHARD: First and foremost, that quote is not an example of the proof of the actual existence of form (aka matter), as is patently obvious, because he is clearly answering a question about whether space is a form of matter. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘What is space? If the universe is material is space a form of matter? • [Richard]: ‘All time and space and form are physical as opposed to the Timeless and Spaceless and Formless being metaphysical ...’. Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 23 May 2000 Second, it is thus irrelevant whether or not the words he uses to describe the physical (as opposed to metaphysical) have foundation outside of the mind of the perceivers. Third, Gardol’s reliance upon pejorative tags – such as ‘he blithely ignores’ (above) and ‘he resorts to’ and ‘tries to prove’ (further above) and ‘he believes’ (below) – to suggestively carry his baseless argument again demonstrates his proclivity for style over substance. Here is a useful word: • ‘chicanery: the use of subterfuge and trickery in debate or action; deception; quibbling, sophistry; a dishonest artifice of law; a trick’. (Oxford Dictionary). GARDOL: He believes these word describe ‘actual’ properties of existence. RICHARD: This is what [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] really looks like in action: • [Gardol]: ‘... space exists only in relation to the mind of the observer. Outside of the mind or minds of the perceivers, space does not exist ...’. [endquote]. As palaeontology shows that space (and time and matter) existed long before human beings, and their perceiving minds, appeared on the scene it can be nothing other than a belief that space exists only in relation to the mind of the observer/ that outside of the mind or minds of the perceivers space does not exist. GARDOL: He has no proof ... RICHARD: He does indeed have proof – experiential proof – that those words do describe actual properties of the universe ... and it is unmediated (apperceptive) proof, too. GARDOL: ... but he repeatedly states it as fact. RICHARD: What he does repeatedly report is that it is direct experience (unmediated awareness) which informs of the actual properties of the universe. Indeed, the word actualism was deliberately chosen as being an eminently suitable name as its ascribed meaning aptly describes that very fact. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’. Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18, 14 August 2001 Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity