# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Mind RESPONDENT: Now, I am just interested in human brain-mind state, human conflict, my own state, and no in ‘scientific world’, something too much trivial. RICHARD: But the point is that it is ‘pseudo-science’ that is ‘too much trivial’ – not science per se – and worse: it amounts to misinformation. Are you sure that all this you wrote above is not a way to dismiss any fact that stands in the way of the truth being perpetuated? In case you have missed it, with your blanket dismissal of science through your ‘cruel nonsense’ justification, the careful scientific observation and careful documentation of the spread, from monkey to monkey, of a particular feeding behaviour within a group of macaques (rhesus monkeys) on Koshima Islet, does not support the ‘pseudo-science’ truth about mysterious transmission ... the claim that monkeys on other islands had their consciousness raised to the level of the potato-washing monkeys has no basis in fact. And to continue to promote this truth, after gaining access to the fact, is to deliberately spread disinformation. RESPONDENT: I tell you all above because for focusing in three points which I feel No. 25 and me are very interested, if it’s possible to talk about them in any way: 1. Human mind, seems to be individual or collective? 2. Human conscience, seems to be individual or collective? 3. Human sorrow, seems to be individual or collective? RICHARD: In actuality the human mind is individual and there is no ‘collective mind’ or ‘universal mind’ or ‘universal consciousness’ and so on; in actuality there is no innate ‘individual human conscience’ nor any ‘collective human conscience’; in actuality there is no individual ‘human sorrow’ nor any ‘collective sorrow’ or ‘universal sorrow’ or ‘universal compassion’ and so on. RESPONDENT: Richard, really I am not looking at all for holes on your comments, but just interested on listening how do you see those three questions, if is there any comment you see important for sharing with anyone who is waiting just for listening what you say, doesn’t matter if you comment on facts or ideas. Reading your post aroused those three questions in my mind for point to you, that’s all. If you have a bit of time, I would thank yours comments. RICHARD: There are currently 6.0 billion human minds (a human mind is a human brain in action in a human skull) on this planet. All human brains are basically of the same physiological structure and have enough, more or less similar, traits in common when in operation to reasonably deduce that, giving due allowance for gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, as well as personal idiosyncrasies, there is essentially no fundamental difference between each and every person’s mind ... yet this similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. It is the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self that stretches back to the dawn of the human species. The situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies is called the ‘Human Condition’ ... a well-established philosophical term that refers the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. Therefore, there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Cultural contingency controls – morals and ethics and so on – seek to contain the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality and so on fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained at the point of a gun anywhere in the world ... thus it is all too easy to posit both an ‘individual conscience’ and a ‘collective conscience’. Yet the knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the feeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inculcated from birth onward through reward and punishment. One’s identity is largely made up of beliefs ... beliefs and feelings. In fact, a belief is an emotion-backed thought. The vast majority of the beliefs that one carries are not invented by oneself; they were imbibed with the mother’s milk, as it were, and added to thereupon up to the present day. They are inherited beliefs, put into the child with love and fear – reward and punishment – and added to as an adult out of awe and dread in respect to some spurious ‘after-life’ ... the carrot and the stick. It behoves one to examine each and every belief – especially those that pass for ‘truths’ – and watch them disappear out of one’s life forever. It is no wonder human beings are such a desperate lot. Beliefs and feelings are the bane of humankind ... they have been so instrumental in killing, maiming, torturing and otherwise causing such pain and suffering since the dawn of human history, that one wonders that they are given any credence at all these days. It is so liberating to be free of beliefs – of believing itself – and feelings that I recommend their elimination, through dissolution of the rudimentary animal self that all sentient beings are born with, with the utmost dispatch. It is scientifically demonstrable that everyone has the same genetically-inherited blue-print ... human beings are all born with the same basic instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions and calentures. For example, malice and sorrow is malice and sorrow wherever it lives. There is no difference between English malice and sorrow and American malice and sorrow and Indian malice and sorrow and so on. Or any of the cultivated derivatives – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – whatever the emotion or passion or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Add into the picture such affectively-based activity as imagination, visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination and other psychic effects – then whilst people nurse malice and sorrow to their bosoms there is indeed an illusion of ‘collective sorrow’ with it compensatory ‘universal compassion’. But, step out of the Human Condition – as this flesh and body only being apperceptively aware – leaving the instinct-derived ‘self’ behind in the Land of Lament where it belongs, and immediately, the picture changes ... where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’, none of the above characteristics apply. Where there are no basic instincts; where there are no emotions or passions or calentures; where there is no cerebral energisation; where there is no psychic manifestations, there is no identity whatsoever. With all these genetically inherited traits null and void, there is now a freed human mind ... an autonomous human individual. No more ‘monkey business’. * RICHARD: It seems to me that your focus, in this and your previous two posts, is as follows (and please correct it where you deem necessary): 1. You are not claiming anything. 2. You are in an ego-stream hell. 3. Why do you not change? 4. The ego-stream exists prior to the physical brain being born. 5. If you do not change, the ego-stream will exist after the physical brain dies. 6. You are the stream of thought arising in the physical brain (and not an entity). 7. Therefore you (not being an entity) cannot change. 8. You realise that you (the stream of thought) are what you observe (the stream of thought). 9. This realisation is the end of you (the stream of thought) fighting with yourself (the stream of thought). 10. This ending is also the ending of the ego-stream that would have existed after the physical brain dies. Therefore, you asked me for my input on three questions: 1. Human mind, seems to be individual or collective? 2. Human conscience, seems to be individual or collective? 3. Human sorrow, seems to be individual or collective? My response was as follows (but numbered with your question this time): • [Respondent]: ‘1. Human mind, seems to be individual or collective?’ • [Richard]: ‘In actuality the human mind is individual and there is no ‘collective mind’ or ‘universal mind’ or ‘universal consciousness’ and so on: All human brains are basically of the same physiological structure and have enough, more or less similar, traits in common when in operation to reasonably deduce that, giving due allowance for gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams, as well as personal idiosyncrasies, there is essentially no fundamental difference between each and every person’s mind ... yet this similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. It is the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self that stretches back to the dawn of the human species’. (Richard, List B, No. 45, 6 November 1999). Thus what I wrote about was that in actuality (please note ‘in actuality’) there is no collective mind ... as opposed to the imprint (please note ‘the imprint’) of a collective mind that is created by the gender, racial and era beliefs, truths, morals, ethics, principles, values, ideals, theories, customs, traditions, superstitions and all the other schemes and dreams that create the ‘collective mind’ imprint that is built upon the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self that stretches back to the dawn of the human species. • [Respondent]: ‘2. Human conscience, seems to be individual or collective? • [Richard]: ‘In actuality there is no innate ‘individual human conscience’ nor any ‘collective human conscience: The situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies is called the ‘Human Condition’ ... a well-established philosophical term that refers the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. Therefore, there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Cultural contingency controls – morals and ethics and so on – seek to contain the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality and so on fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained at the point of a gun anywhere in the world ... thus it is all too easy to posit both an ‘individual conscience’ and a ‘collective conscience’ . Yet the knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the feeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inculcated from birth onward through reward and punishment. One’s identity is largely made up of beliefs ... beliefs and feelings. In fact, a belief is an emotion-backed thought. The vast majority of the beliefs that one carries are not invented by oneself; they were imbibed with the mother’s milk, as it were, and added to thereupon up to the present day. They are inherited beliefs, put into the child with love and fear – reward and punishment – and added to as an adult out of awe and dread in respect to some spurious ‘after-life’ ... the carrot and the stick’. (Richard, List B, No. 45, 6 November 1999). Thus what I wrote about was that it is all too easy to posit both an ‘individual conscience’ and a ‘collective conscience’ despite the fact that the knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and the feeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are inculcated from birth onward through reward and punishment. • [Respondent]: ‘3. Human sorrow, seems to be individual or collective? • [Richard]: ‘In actuality there is no individual ‘human sorrow’ nor any ‘collective sorrow’ or ‘universal sorrow’ or ‘universal compassion’ and so on: It is scientifically demonstrable that everyone has the same genetically-inherited blue-print ... human beings are all born with the same basic instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions and calentures. For example, malice and sorrow is malice and sorrow wherever it lives. There is no difference between English malice and sorrow and American malice and sorrow and Indian malice and sorrow and so on or any of the cultivated derivatives of malice and sorrow – as a broad generalisation, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself – whatever the emotion or passion or calenture may be, they all have a global incidence. Add into the picture such affectively-based activity as imagination, visualisation, conceptualisation, believing, trusting, hoping, having faith and so forth – giving rise to epiphenomenon like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination and other psychic effects – then whilst people nurse malice and sorrow to their bosoms there is indeed an illusion of ‘collective sorrow’ with it compensatory ‘universal compassion’’. [endquote]. (Richard, List B, No. 45, 6 November 1999). Thus what I wrote about was that whilst people nurse malice and sorrow to their bosoms there is indeed an illusion of ‘collective sorrow’ with it compensatory ‘universal compassion’. * RICHARD: It is very simple to know that a human mind is indeed a human brain in action in a human skull: physical death. Firstly I start with myself: as I am a human being I have fifty two years of intimate experience of a human mind being a human brain in action inside a human skull (observation). Secondly, I verify this personal experience as being global through monitoring other human beings so as to ascertain for myself that the same, or similar, activity occurs as the human brain inside their human skull (duplication). Thirdly, I objectively validate this species-confirmed personal experience by keeping up-to-date with as many of the scientifically reproducible brain-mapping studies such as MRI scans and so on and so on as possible – and there is a wealth of information on this rapidly growing new science – which demonstrates the facticity of my personal experience (confirmation). Which means: as all the energised neuronal activity (energised by a food calorific energy) of the brain (which activity is the human mind) ceases at the physical death of the body – as is ascertained both via personal observation (subjectively) and by a myriad of scientifically documented instrumental tests (objectively) – it is patently obvious that the human mind is the human brain in action inside the human skull. By inserting ‘[just]’ into your question are you suggesting that the human mind is (a) more than the human brain in action (b) something other than the human brain in action? RESPONDENT: Is intelligence individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as intimate access to each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) and in that the faculty for intelligence is born with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet and faculty for intelligence will die with each and every one of the 6.0 billion cases of intelligence on this planet. As I have already remarked: similarity does not constitute a ‘collective mind’. RESPONDENT: When something is focused there is a bit of silence-attention in brain-mind and from this silence insight arises, when brain is stillest and thought stopped insight comes. From where comes this insight? RICHARD: An insight is a function of the human brain in action in the human skull ... it is a rapid penetration into the character, nature, disposition or quality of a situation or circumstances; a sudden apprehension of the solution to a problem or difficulty; an immediate cerebral view or disclosure; it is when one mentally ‘gets’ something one has not properly understood before; it is a cognitive ‘seeing’ of something important to comprehension that comes with the understanding that the insight reveals what theoretical or abstract or conceptual thinking was unable to arrive at by the use of – sometimes laborious – sequential thought. An insight into the human condition is direct seeing, unmediated by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ ... and when the moment of insight is over, then the fun begins. Because one must start from where one is at and move towards what the insight disclosed. However, one has had the insight, and the insight galvanises one into matter-of-fact thought instead of merely conceptual thought. Thinking is still linear, of course, but one now has the advantage of being able to see the obvious. Seeing the obvious relieves one from believing, trusting, hoping and having faith. There is now a confidence, born out of the certainty of the insight, that enables one to actualise the insight in one’s daily life ... and this actualisation means that one’s life is changed, irrevocably (this is a potential sticking point, incidentally, for people want to be free without having to change ... but that is another topic). It is this confidence that effects actual change, for there is an impelling movement of actualisation – being pulled from ahead – which is what comes from the choiceless action that ensues with being activated from the insight. This is qualitatively different from a propelling movement – being pushed from behind – which is what comes from the disciplined action that eventuates with being motivated by the certitude of conceptual thought. There is always a smidgen or two of doubt in conceptual thought, you see. RESPONDENT: Is it individual? RICHARD: It is individual inasmuch as each insight is in the private domain, as it were (as contrasted to the public domain) yet the capacity exists in each and every person. However, I see that you are obviously of the view that both insight and intelligence are not individual, which view you wrote about a few weeks ago: • [Respondent]: ‘The fact is that mind is just huge confused and cannot enquire at all. Mind need a tool for exploring and K’s insight are that tool. • [Respondent]: ‘An immense Intelligent was ‘working’ through K’s mind, and insights-teaching are the outcome. • [Respondent]: ‘If we fall in opposite, reacting against ‘learning from K’s insights’, really we are losing a wonderful tool. I am very interested as to what your own discoveries are in this matter. RESPONDENT: c) Is there a ground from where any human mind arises? RICHARD: If by ‘ground’ you mean the soil beneath one’s feet ... yes (in that the human mind is the human brain in action in a human skull and this body comes out of the ground in the form of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever and the water that this body drinks). If by ‘ground’ you mean the metaphysical ‘ground’ that Mr. Paul Tillich referred to as the ‘ground of being’ then ... no. RESPONDENT: Is this ground collective? A whole? RICHARD: If by ‘ground’ you mean what the metaphysical ‘ground of being’ was misconstrued upon then ... yes, the genetic ‘ground of being’ is ‘collective’ and ‘a whole’, inasmuch as all sentient beings have the same genetically inherited rudimentary animal ‘being’ – characterised by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire – that stretches back to the dawn of the human species. Everything that ‘I’ am and all who ‘me’ is, is this ‘being’ ... and ‘being’ is what blind nature genetically encodes in all sentient beings at conception in the DNA ... ‘being’ is encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova and is – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... the origins of ‘being’ are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘Being’ is so anciently old that ‘being’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘being’ thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. If by ‘ground’ you mean the soil beneath one’s feet then, as the soil beneath one’s feet is the planet earth and as the planet earth is the same-same stuff as this very material and infinite and eternal universe is, then the human mind arises from everything everywhere and everywhen ... which is much, much more than merely the ‘collective human mind’ known by some people as the holistic ‘whole’ (who describe it as being ‘more than the sum of its parts’) and which is bandied about by more than a few peoples as being a profound truth. * RESPONDENT: Also, it seems that you consider ‘mind’ and ‘being (soul or second ‘I’)’ as different, which are these differences? RICHARD: The mind is the human brain in action inside the human skull (cognition is a neuronal activity) whereas the ‘being’ is the instinctual passions in action in the ‘lizard brain’ at the top of the brain-stem (at the base of the skull). RESPONDENT: The universe itself does not distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical. RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality this is hardly surprising. RESPONDENT: The universe contains physical things, and some of these physical things (eg. human bodies) give rise to metaphysical entities (eg. minds, souls, ‘selves’). RICHARD: There is nothing metaphysical about minds ... a mind is a human brain in action in a human skull. As for ‘souls’ and ‘selves’: each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) for rough and ready survival reasons ... which passions automatically form themselves, in a process somewhat analogous to an eddy or a vortex forming itself *as* swirling water or air, into an amorphous feeling being, an inchoate intuitive presence, popularly known as a ‘self’ or a ‘soul’ (or ‘spirit’) in the human animal, within the flesh and blood body. More than a few human beings, taking themselves to truly be this eddying ‘being’, this vortical ‘presence’, rather than the flesh and blood body they actually are, imaginatively/ intuitively manifest/ realise all manner of destinies for that affective phantasm (the eddy or vortex, as it were, which is the instinctual passions in motion) in all manner of metaphysical dimensions inhabited by all manner of affective deities ... a deeply-felt divine and/or sacred being/ presence of some description which/ who is the timeless and spaceless and formless source or origin of the universe and/or universes. Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal those blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation). No other animal can do this. RESPONDENT: Hence, the universe generates metaphysical beings who are capable of creating metaphysical simulations of themselves and the universe. RICHARD: It is the amorphous feeling being, the inchoate intuitive presence, who generates metaphysical beings/ metaphysical simulations and not the universe per se ... ‘I’ as ego is born out of ‘me’ as soul (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) or, to put that another way, ‘the feeler’ gives rise to ‘the thinker’ and, as ‘being’ itself has a vested interest in ‘self’-preservation, it readily sacrifices ‘the thinker’ upon the altar of survival-at-all-costs and transmogrifies into being the loving and compassionate ‘Being’ who (supposedly) is, or who (supposedly) creates/ created, the universe for some enigmatic purpose that only such a ‘Presence’ can know. RESPONDENT: This is what the actual universe does. Is the universe doing something wrong? RICHARD: As the universe is not doing what you conclude it is doing – as in your ‘hence’ – your follow-up question is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Richard, I use the words ‘mind’ and ‘psyche’ interchangeably, but I see you do not. Could you please clarify the difference between them, as you see it? RICHARD: Put simply: the mind is physical (material) and the psyche is metaphysical (non-material). To explain: the word ‘mind’ (Middle English ‘minde’/ ‘münde’), from the Gothic ‘gamunds’ (via Old English ‘gemynd’ which corresponds to Old High German ‘gimunt’) and meaning ‘memory’, basically refers to the human brain in action, in the human skull, remembering, reflecting, and so on (giving heed to, perceiving, noticing, contemplating, being careful about), and which ceases to operate at physical death ... whereas the word ‘psyche’, a Latin word from the Greek ‘psukhe’ meaning ‘breath’, ‘life’, ‘soul’ (relating to ‘psukhein’ meaning ‘breathe’, ‘blow’), is associated with breath and breathing and thus to life and living (as in ‘taking your first breath’) as opposed to death and dying (as in ‘taking your last breath’). Such a focus on breath and breathing has corollaries in other cultures (‘chi’ in China, pronounced ‘ki’ in Japan) and is also known as ‘vitalism’ (popular in Europe in the early twentieth century) or ‘vital élan’ ... also the Indian word ‘prana’ (meaning ‘vital air’, from the root ‘pran’ meaning ‘to breathe’), refers to what is known as the vital energy or vital force or life principle. For many early peoples what animated the body was breath (air, vital air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on) because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul, their very ‘being’, had left their body *as* their last breath. In the animistic religions of the Bronze Age, and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air (aka in the ‘ether’), and it is no coincidence that the ‘etheric body’ is considered the ‘vital body’ or ‘essential body’ (the Sanskrit ‘akasha’ means the same as the Greek ‘ether’ ... hence ‘akashic’ and ‘etheric’ refer to a similar psychic phenomenon). Speaking of psychic phenomenon, and just as a matter of related interest, someone once asked for an explanation of my usage of the word ‘psychic’: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am writing vis à vis one and only one word you use and I do not understand its usage by you. From your site (snip quote). Would you mind explaining, Richard, your usage of the word ‘psychic’ in this context, thank you. • [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example). Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or being itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive, prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory. It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil. Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12c, 7 September 2000). RESPONDENT: There is nothing new in the idea of using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening. If effort at self-mastery makes sense to you right now, so be it. The nondualistic approach is difficult to penetrate. RICHARD: I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because, first of all, I have explained to you that ‘to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming’ and that the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct and, secondly, ‘mindfulness’ is a Buddhist term that I never use and it involves a total withdrawal of self from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ which is another term I never use and, thirdly, I speak of ‘self-immolation’ and not ‘self mastery’. I have never, ever said anything whatsoever that could possibly persuade you to make such inaccurate and unsubstantiated comments about what Richard is on about ... leaving me no option but to consider you ignorant (as in ignoring what I write) or ignorant (as in stupid). RESPONDENT: To ask and stay aware of what I am experiencing now is mindfulness. RICHARD: The word ‘mindfulness’ is an English word that means ‘taking heed or care; being conscious or aware; paying attention to, being heedful of, being watchful of, being regardful of, being cognizant of, being aware of, being conscious of, taking into account, being alert to, being alive to, being sensible of, being careful of, being wary of, being chary of’ and may be used, more or less, the same as ‘watchfulness’, ‘heedfulness’, ‘regardfulness’, ‘attentiveness’, and to a lesser extent ‘carefulness’, ‘sensibleness’, ‘wariness’. However, the word ‘mindfulness’ has taken-on the Buddhist meaning of the word for most seekers (the same as the word ‘meditation’ which used to mean ‘think over; ponder’), and no longer has the every-day meaning as per the dictionary. The Buddhist connotations come from the Pali ‘Bhavana’ (the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’). ‘Bhavana’ comes from the root ‘Bhu’, which means ‘to grow’ or ‘to become’. There fore, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ is derived from two roots: ‘Passana’, which means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ and ‘Vi’ (which is a prefix with the complex set of connotations) basically means ‘in a special way’ but there also is the connotation of both ‘into’ and ‘through’. The whole meaning of the word ‘Vipassana’, then, is looking into something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing. This process leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Put it all together and ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this special mode of perception: ‘mindfulness’. Which is why I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because ‘mindfulness’ is clearly a Buddhist term and involves a total withdrawal from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ (which is another term I never use), apart from which, to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming ... the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. And how to bring about extinction? By asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. Given that this is one’s only moment of being alive, if one is not experiencing the peace-on-earth that is already always here now, then one is wasting this moment of being alive by settling for second-best ... it means that the long evolutionary process that produced this flesh and blood human being has come to naught. But, here is another moment, another opportunity, to actually be here now – where one’s destiny is – and how is one experiencing this moment? More often than not one is experiencing this moment through a feeling – standing back and feeling it out like putting a toe into the water – instead of jumping-in boots and all. Thus one can find out what brought about this feeling that is preventing me from being here now and through this ‘hands-on’ examination have it vanish ... and the reward is immediate and direct. This actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... which is a further withdrawal from this actual world. * RESPONDENT No. 25: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/ flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious. (Richard, List B, No. 25e, 15 June 2000). RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind. RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here. RESPONDENT : Free mind and shining mind are the same. RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT : It shines like the sun, without help from ‘me’. RICHARD: Au contraire, the ‘shining mind’ is none other than ‘me’ ... transmogrified as ‘Me’ (‘I Am That’). RESPONDENT: It is the arising mind that thinks in terms of time, i.e. before and after ‘the event’. RICHARD: And it is the ‘shining mind’ that thinks in terms of the timeless ... for the free mind there is only this event. RESPONDENT: If there is only this event, why ask about an ‘effective’ means to get to it? RICHARD: Hmm ... one says ‘enable that to happen’ and the other translates that into ‘to get to it’. Are you not the same one that advised another just recently to ‘stay with ‘what is’’ and that any ‘movement away is a false split’ because ‘seeking (grasping)’ is ‘fragmenting’? If so, it is no wonder you are asking ‘why ask’, eh? * RESPONDENT: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind. RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here. RESPONDENT: Free mind and shining mind are the same. RICHARD: Only in your (borrowed) dreams and schemes. RESPONDENT: It is so and has been found to be so by many others. RICHARD: May I ask? Have you nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion? For there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the earth is flat ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when cosmonauts and astronauts took photographs from their orbiting modules !Hey Presto! it had miraculously transformed itself into a globular form. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the sun revolves around the earth ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when the space-craft ‘Voyager’ had its cameras pointed back to planet earth on its long journey out through the solar system !Kazam! the earth had miraculously swapped roles with the sun and was busily orbiting it rather than the reverse. And there was an era when someone said ‘it is so that the moon is a goddess ... and has been found to be so by many others’. Yet when astronauts landed there !Abra-Cad-Abra! it had miraculously transformed itself into a rock. I am reminded of that scene in Mr Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the assembled monkeys chorus: ‘It is so because we all say that it is so’. RESPONDENT: Do you exhibit interest in hearing other points of view by throwing up a wall of clever verbosity? RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in seeing ‘it is so and has been found to be so by many others’ as being a point of view worth hearing. And if this latest reply of yours (‘throwing up a wall of clever verbosity’) is another example of the degree of acumen that a ‘shining mind’ is capable of then it amply demonstrates my next point (below). * RESPONDENT: It is your claim to a special status that is suspect. RICHARD: On the contrary ... it is your claim to the efficacy of the ‘Tried and True’ in regards bringing about peace on earth which is suss. All of the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages have convincingly demonstrated, over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, the abject failure of the capacity of ‘Love and Truth’ to eradicate suffering off the face of the earth. Why perpetuate the ‘Tried and Failed’ just because many others say it is so despite the evidence to the contrary? RESPONDENT: It is self-thought that acts in terms of winning or failing. RICHARD: What a weird way to look at what I wrote ... if something has not worked after nigh on 5,000 years it has simply failed to do the job (failed as in unsuccessful, ineffectual, unproductive in eliminating suffering from the face of the earth). What has this simple observation got to do with some competitive ‘winning or failing’ scenario that you have cooked up in your ‘shining mind’? RESPONDENT: In love there is no striving, no conflict. RICHARD: Are you so convinced of this? Even though the evidence of history since the invention of stenography, tape-recorders, video cameras and a world-wide increasing expertise in journalistic reporting so amply demonstrates otherwise? RESPONDENT: It is a quality of mind that knows no separation and hence no fear. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the root cause of fear is separation from ‘the otherness’ ... are you? If so, that is a bizarre proposal. RESPONDENT: You do not realize this and that accounts for your scorn. RICHARD: Do you really classify a long-needed examination and assessment of the quality of love as being nothing but ‘scorn’ caused by a failure to ‘realise’ that ‘in love there is no striving, no conflict’? If something just does not work ... is one not allowed to do a critique? Or to put it another way: If the ‘shining mind’ is so squeaky-clean then why can it not breeze through any scrutiny? RESPONDENT: Since I meditate and sometimes experience actually what my reality is, be it for a brief moment, I am inclined to disregard those experiences altogether, for they are not beyond any enlightenment. RICHARD: No, indeed not, for meditation can produce only versions of reality – not actuality – and as everyday reality is a grim and glum business, one strives to attain to a loving and compassionate Greater Reality in order to ameliorate one’s situation. It is all due to the intuitive faculties – powered by passionate thought – that activates those psychic adumbrations so beloved of the metaphysical fraternity. The mind can be a fertile breeding-ground for hallucinations, for emotional and passionate thought begets the esoteric world, the suprasensory domain of apparitions and shadows. The mind, held hostage by humanity’s ‘wisdom’, is indeed a productive spawning-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies and phantasms so loved and revered – and feared – by humankind. One can easily become bewitched by the bizarre beings that populate the Supernatural Realms; one becomes beguiled and enchanted by intuition’s covenant with clairvoyant states of extrasensory perception. The closest approximation to the actual that ‘I’ can attain via prescient means can only ever be visionary states produced from utopian ideals that manifest themselves as hallucinatory chimeras. And it all has to do with the persistence of identity. * RESPONDENT: Oh, the mind is so clever. RICHARD: The mind is the most marvellous tool possible ... it can get you out of the mess that is the Human Condition with remarkable alacrity. It is the metaphysical people who poo-poo the mind so much ... they want you to ‘get into your heart’. RICHARD: Apperceptive awareness is not an awareness that ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ because the ‘universal mind’ is the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large. Apperception is when one steps out of ‘humanity’ ... not when one ‘steps out of the stream’. RESPONDENT: No. The mind of humanity is one of the ‘things’ within the universal container or mind. RICHARD: Ahh ... this, then, is the difference betwixt ‘apperceptive awareness’ and ‘choiceless awareness’. Apperceptive awareness is when the ‘universal container or mind’ disappears along with the ‘mind of humanity’ ... whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ is when the ‘mind of humanity’ is realised to be the ‘universal container or mind’ made manifest. In other words: ‘Be still and know that I am God’. RESPONDENT: This is not very clear yet. Because the universal mind is not the end of the line. It is only the ‘subtle matter’ from what any existence or not, is ‘made’. It is the ultimate tool. The ultimate ground is ‘beyond it’. RICHARD: Ahh ... this ‘ultimate ground’ would be the same-same as what some call ‘the ground of being’? Or, as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti would say: ‘Not the god of the churches, the mosques, the synagogues – but that which is sacred, holy’. RESPONDENT: If the mind of humanity disappears, human beings disappear. RICHARD: The flesh and blood human disappear? Or the ‘human’ that ‘I’ feel and think that ‘I’ am inside this flesh and blood body disappears? RESPONDENT: If the universal mind disappears ... only god knows what would remain. RICHARD: Do you mean ‘god knows’ literally or as an expression (as in ‘nobody knows’)? RESPONDENT: But, maybe you could clear this ... I find it interesting. Words must be perfectly defined at this point ... and onwards. But let’s see. Mind of humanity is a fragment of the universal mind, made manifest as humanity. RICHARD: By ‘mind of humanity’ I was referring to the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large ... the psychological and psychic ‘mind’ inhabiting the flesh and blood brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’) like a parasite. When ‘I’ disappear (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) the ‘mind of humanity’ disappears, in one flesh and blood body, and there is an actual freedom from the human condition. The already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent and one is walking around in the literal paradise that this verdant planet is ... simply hanging in the infinitude of this very material and perfect universe. The ‘mind of humanity’ and the ‘universal mind’ and the ‘ground of being’ are a product of ‘my’ mind ... not the other way around. RESPONDENT: This is the way I see it. For example: there might be other minds manifested, which would manifest other beings, eventually non-humans, but this last part may be taken as speculation. If you say that the mind of mankind disappears ... I don’t understand. RICHARD: The ‘mind of humanity’ is simply ‘my’ mind collectively ... ‘I am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is me’. When ‘I’ self-immolate, ‘humanity’ disappears out of this flesh and blood body. There may very well be carbon-based life forms elsewhere, but until space exploration is such that that is discovered ... this planet earth is the only known place where the universe is experiencing itself as an intelligent flesh and blood human being. There is no ‘natural intelligence’ running this universe. * RICHARD: A pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is with people as-they-are happens when the mind becomes aware of itself ... such awareness is called apperceptive awareness. 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 – which is to be the senses as a naked awareness – is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... which is one’s only moment of being alive. (Oxford Dictionary: apperception: the mind’s perception of itself). RESPONDENT: Richard, you seem to be positing a ‘mind’. RICHARD: No, I do not subscribe to the theory that ‘mind’ is something other than ‘brain’. The mind is the brain in operation: being sentient as in alive (not dead) and awake (not asleep) and conscious (not unconscious) and being aware and perceiving ... and also maybe thinking, remembering, reflecting and proposing. This neuronal activity – consciousness – is what ‘mind’ is. So when I read the Oxford Dictionary definition (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) I read ‘the conscious brain’s perception of itself’ and thus ‘the conscious brain being aware of being conscious’ or ‘consciousness being aware of being conscious’. RESPONDENT: Would not this imply in a separate ‘mind’ being aware of itself ... RICHARD: In what way ‘separate’? The human mind is the human brain in action in a human skull. As a human skull is part and parcel of a flesh and blood body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events, and as it is patently obvious that this human mind that is the human brain in action in the human skull is the carrots and the beans and the cheese (or whatever food) eaten and the air breathed and the water drunk, then there can never be ‘a separate ‘mind’’ (as in separate from this body) ... or, for that matter, any separation whatsoever betwixt this body and anything or anyone else. Just because each consciousness is the private domain, as it were, (as opposed to the public domain) and that this body is discrete (physically distinct) to that body, it does not imply separation (unless an ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul identity is in residence asserting property rights). A hill or mountain is the very earth it seems to sit upon, for example. Everything and everyone is the very self-same stuff that this physical world – and this material universe – is ... hence no separation whatsoever. RESPONDENT: ... and a content in this mind? RICHARD: If by ‘a content’ in the human mind that is the human brain in action in the human skull you mean, not only all that one has learnt through experience and talking with others and reading and/or watching media (memory), but also the direct apprehension of this that is actually happening right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time, then the ‘content’ of ‘this mind’ can in no way be separate from this flesh and blood body. Contrary to popular belief, the content of consciousness causes no problems to one that is apperceptively aware (a flesh and blood body sans a ‘thinker’ and a ‘feeler’). It is this ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul that is problem ... not thought and memory. Amnesiacs have a dickens of a job operating and functioning satisfactorily. RESPONDENT: So, according to the apperceptive-brain model, all we perceive comes to us through the senses. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: So what you call ‘space’ is in fact something that the brain processed through electrical impulses and interpreted it as ‘space’. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: The same with ‘materiality’. Trough the sense inputs the brain is able to interpret that data, and in a indirect way, call it as ‘material’. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: The sense organs themselves are interpretations of the brain in a very analogous manner – sense inputs, electrical impulses. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: This leads us to say, according to this model, that the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Correct me if I am wrong ... so far. RICHARD: You have misunderstood inasmuch as you are coming from the point of view that there is a ‘someone’, an identity (a psychological and/or psychic entity) inside the flesh and blood body to do the perceiving of what you say ‘comes to us through the senses’ ... and from this basic premise make all your following deductions. But where the identity, the psychological ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) and psychic ‘feeler’ (‘me’ as soul) is not extant then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these very sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain (or as you say ‘all we perceive comes to us through the senses’). Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is (the actual world) by ‘my’ very presence. Unable as ‘I’ am to be the direct experiencing of actuality as-it-happens ‘I’ can only conclude ‘that the ‘real’ nature of things are unavailable to the brain, because it only deals with the senses’. Whereas I am the direct sensate experiencing of what is happening right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time. Which is the experiencing of infinitude. * RESPONDENT: What you say, the way you say it, seems true. I agree basically with what you are expounding here. But I sense that something is not quite ‘right’. Sorry for saying this ... maybe I am not being fair. It’s just that somehow you seem to deny the ‘transcendentality’, the intangibility, that which is not touched by thought, by the senses. You say ‘what a happening it is!’ so I remain here wondering ... maybe you changed your view, maybe you are able to share the unknowable. After all, this what is happening is indeed beyond anything thought could touch ... it is beyond anything any concept could brush, grasp. Something is beyond the flesh and blood – the flesh and blood brain – which is after all just another sense object. And, somehow, I feel that the ‘mind’ as you define it – a function of the brain – does not encompass that, this other ‘mind’, from what the brain is just a partial ‘external’ manifestation. RICHARD: I am somewhat nonplussed at the way you are proceeding here ... may I remind you of your first post to me that started this exchange? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Richard, you seem to be positing a ‘mind’ ... would not this imply in a separate ‘mind’ being aware of itself ‘and’ a content in this mind?’ [endquote]. Yet it is you who is ‘positing a ‘mind’’ ... and an ‘other ‘mind’’ into the bargain from which all the flesh and blood human brains in all the flesh and blood human skulls are a ‘manifestation’ of. RESPONDENT: Yes, I am and I was aware of the presumed contradiction. RICHARD: There is nothing ‘presumed’ about it ... it is indeed a contradiction. And mysticism is packed full of contradictions ... its raison d’être (‘transcendence of duality’) and resultant ineffability is supposedly verified by its very contradictiousness. RESPONDENT: I just avoided explanations and clarifications about those meanings in order to abbreviate the post’s length. RICHARD: Please ... take no notice of those dilettantes who cast aspersions on ‘wordiness’ or ‘lengthy posts’ or any other ‘short is beautiful’ dimwitacisms. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself produced millions upon millions of words – hour-long discourses by the bucket-load, year after year, all carefully recorded and meticulously transcribed – and latter-day Krishnamurtiites haughtily dictate that all the ills of humankind should be resolved with a few pithy one-liners à la Mr. Bob Hope. RESPONDENT: But let’s see ... the expression ‘mind’ is used in several different manners, with different connotations. Mind may be – as you say – the brain’s function. That would be the most obvious meaning, it would be the effect of the material movement of the material brain, the dynamics of the brain. Now ... with a bit of meditative introspection into the nature of the brain, and the consequent perception, understanding, that all we see, all we perceive as humans – including the brain – is the ‘nature’ of the human ‘field’, the human ‘dimension’, we touch a ‘mind’ that is more encompassing then the ‘flesh and blood’ brain’s functions. For example, a person may act in the astral plane, and look at his own body, sleeping and snoring in bed. The flesh and blood brain is left with the body. RICHARD: I would not deny that many, many peoples have had both spontaneous and self-induced ‘out of body experiences’ (OBE’s) and ‘near death experiences’ (NDE’s) as their reports have been painstakingly detailed and closely examined by many people ... the epiphenomenon of an emergent consciousness is a fascinating study that I followed closely for years. One obvious point stands out clearly: • They are all dependent upon a flesh and blood body that is not actually dead for their occurrence. OBE’s and NDE’s have been initiated by religionists, spiritualists and mystics over the centuries via meditative trances, sleep deprivation, fasting, self-flagellation (or any other stoic submission to a multitude of self-inflicted pain), mindless chanting of mantras (or any other form of self-hypnosis), tantric sexual ecstasy (the etymological root of ‘ecstasy’ is ‘put out of place’ as in ‘beside oneself’) and so on through every conceivable means in every culture in all eras. Today, the same effect can be initiated in ultra high-speed jet-fighter pilot’s brains when banking too swiftly (or in centrifugal force flight simulators), causing the brain to be drained of sustenance, and thus the OBE or NDE occurs as a result of the brain shutting down as the pilot goes ‘unconscious’ to observers. Surgeons have known of the emergent consciousness effect for some time ... a less commonly used anaesthesia these days is the dissociative drug ‘ketamine’ because of its OBE and NDE side-effect. Thus there has recently been the ability to make conclusive studies in controlled circumstances that shows the mechanisms involved at what may be loosely called the mind-brain interface ... OBE’s and NDE’s are due to what occurs in the brain receptors (the drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate OBE’s and NDE’s (and which can cause low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar and so on) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate which over-activate the NMDA receptors in the process (and which can even kill brain cells in an event known as ‘excitotoxicity). The glutamate flood triggers an array of ketamine-like brain chemicals which bind to NMDA receptors, leading to an altered state of consciousness like that produced by ketamine. There is a wealth of information on the subject ... if you are at all interested I would suggest www.lycaeum.org/drugs/Cyclohexamines/Ketamine/ as being a useful starting point. Viz.: • [quote]: ‘Ketamine is a short-acting, hallucinogenic, dissociative anaesthetic related to phencyclidine (PCP). Both drugs are arylcyclohexylamines – they are not opioids and are not related to LSD. In contrast to PCP, ketamine is relatively safe, an uncontrolled drug in most countries, and remains in use as an anaesthetic for children (White et al., 1982). Anaesthetists attempt to prevent patients from having NDE’s (emergence phenomena) by the co-administration of benzodiazepines and other sedative substances which produce ‘true’ unconsciousness rather than dissociation (Reich and Silvay, 1989). Ketamine produces an altered state of consciousness which is very different from that of the ‘psychedelic’ drugs such as LSD (Grinspoon and Bakalar, 1981). It can reproduce all features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into light, the conviction that one is dead, ‘telepathic communion with God’, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences and mystical states. If given intravenously, it has a short action with an abrupt end. (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1981, p34) wrote of: ‘... becoming a disembodied mind or soul, dying and going to another world’. Childhood events may also be re-lived. The loss of contact with ordinary reality and the sense of participation in another reality are more pronounced and less easily resisted than is usually the case with LSD. The dissociative experiences often seem so genuine that users are not sure that they have not actually left their bodies. A psychologist with experience of LSD described ketamine as ‘experiments in voluntary death’ (Leary, 1983, p375). (Sputz 1989, p65) noted: ‘one infrequent ketamine user reported a classic near-death experience ... ‘I was convinced I was dead. I was floating above my body. I reviewed all of the events of my life and saw a lot of areas where I could have done better’’. The psychiatrist Stanislav Grof stated: ‘If you have a full-blown experience of ketamine, you can never believe there is death or that death can possibly influence who you are’ (Stevens, 1989, p481-482). ‘Ketamine allows some patients to reason that ... the strange, unexpected intensity and unfamiliar dimension of their experience means they must have died’. (Collier, 1981, p552)’. [endquote]. (Dr. Karl L. R. Jansen, Psychiatrist. 63 Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ. United Kingdom. K@BTInternet.COM) Thus the transcendental non-temporal and non-spatial and non-material entirely other ‘otherness’ (as is indicated by your ‘other ‘mind’ and ‘without another’ description), that is self-existent in its own right (so beloved by mystics and others), is dependent upon the very material human brain-mind they scorn and the ‘materiality’ that they spurn. RESPONDENT: So in this respect we seem to separate in our understanding ... but then, when you say that ‘this’ is the direct experiencing of what is happening – we meet again – there is not any mind after all. So what can I say? Something beyond understanding ... and without another ... is happening. It is absolutely real, actual, present, totally transcendental, totally incomprehensible and unknowable. To say that it is sacred may sound too ‘biblical’... but it is indeed ... inexpressible. RICHARD: Where you say ‘totally transcendental’ and ‘the ‘transcendentality’’ (qualified with ‘the intangibility’ and ‘totally incomprehensible and unknowable’) you are conveying ‘transcendental’ in its ‘beyond the range or grasp of human experience, reason, belief, etc.’ meaning (Oxford Dictionary) and, in view of your use of ‘sacred’, in its ‘of, pertaining to, or belonging to, the divine as opposed to the natural world’ meaning (Oxford Dictionary). Now on a forum like this, the words ‘sacred’ or ‘divine’ do not mean the god of the temples, churches, synagogues, mosques, holy place, shrine, sanctuary or any place of worship whatsoever ... and this ‘non-biblical’ usage becomes more evident as you say ‘not touched by thought, by the senses’ and ‘beyond the flesh and blood brain’ and ‘beyond anything thought could touch’ and ‘beyond understanding ... and without another’ which indicates a non-temporal and non-spatial and non-material entirely other ‘otherness’ that is self-existent in its own right (Webster’s Dictionary: otherness: ‘the quality or state of being other or different; Oxford Dictionary: other: ‘existing distinct from that or those already specified or implied’) as is also evidenced by your use of ‘other’ in ‘this other ‘mind’, from what the brain is just a partial ‘external’ manifestation’ sentence. Then you go on to say that ‘this other ‘mind’’ is evident in my sentence (‘the direct experiencing of what is happening’) which, you say, is when ‘there is not any mind after all’ (presumably meaning the human mind which, on a forum like this, generally means ‘ego-mind’ as in thought and thinking). RESPONDENT: No, no. There is not any separate parameter that some could call a ‘mind’, subtly conveying the idea of a separate observer, or a separate ‘processing entity, or centre’ that receives outside inputs. But beware!! Be attentive to the fact that I am not denying the existence of a ‘human dimension’, a ‘human world’, that some people call ‘human mind as a whole’. In this last sense, mind means ‘field’. But there is that perspective, that dimension, where these ‘minds’ – meaning human mind/ field and eventually other mind/ fields – are understood for what they are: different worlds in this non-divided universe. So the human field/ world is one particular interpretation of the universe. RICHARD: You have gone way, way past the meaning of the word <mind> here ... you are talking of a ‘perspective’ or a ‘dimension’ or a ‘field’ which the mind seemingly distinguishes, ostensibly recognises, presumably has access to, allegedly is touched by, or in any other way assumes that it perceives, to the extent that it then lovingly imagines that this ‘other’ is what it (the human mind which is the brain in action) is ‘just a partial ‘external’ manifestation’ of. To then identify and empower this phantasm, that an imaginative/ intuitive human mind ‘perceives’ (miscalled), to the extent of saying that this (miscalled) ‘perception’ is the source of the mind that (miscalled) ‘perceives’, is an astonishing reversal of that perceiver’s (miscalled) ‘perception’. Some mystics even go so far as to then disallow, not only the flesh and blood brain-mind that (miscalled) ‘perceived’ the ‘otherness’ in the first place, but dismisses the entire world and the universe to boot ... as being a ‘dream’ or ‘an illusion’ or ‘Maya’ or ‘Samsara’ and so on (which is sort of like ‘biting the hand that feeds you’). At least you do not deny materiality ... yet you deny the human mind (‘there is not any mind after all’) which is the material human brain in action that produces this ‘something beyond understanding ... and without another’, which, you say in a context that implies that the human mind is not producing it, ‘is happening’. Whereas it is this infinite and eternal universe that is happening ... its material infinitude is what is apperceived when the ‘perceiver’, complete with its dissociative and inversely self-aggrandising predisposition (transcendence through sublimation), is no longer extant. The emergent consciousness (be it known as ‘Self’ and/or ‘Non-Self’) is a result of the ‘survival at all costs’ genetic imperative that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at conception. It is the fear of death as oblivion, extinction, the end of ‘being’, that produces first the dread then the awe necessary to trigger the flood of glutamate that precipitates the ultimate escape hatch ... then beatified gratitude does the rest. RESPONDENT: The base of actualism is apperception. Read everybody please very carefully this JK speech. Richard says can the mind be aware of itself. He took definitely this concept from JK and change the word, by calling it apperception to look more sophisticated and so he can always hide behind this word. JK was very familiar with this concept thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self. Please read carefully. Is nothing new for JK what Richard is saying. RICHARD: I have never said that apperception is ‘thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self’ ... that is what you make of it. Here is but one instance of how I describe what I mean by apperception: • [Richard]: ‘... apperception occurs when identity, by whatever name, is temporarily absent – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or permanently extinguished – as in an actual freedom from the human condition – and is best explained as consciousness being aware of being conscious (rather than the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Viz.: • ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford Dictionary). Put simply: apperception is direct perception (perception unmediated by any identity whatsoever) which is the same thing as saying direct sensation – be it ocular sensation, cutaneous sensation, gustatory sensation, olfactory sensation, aural sensation or even proprioceptive sensation – because in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, only the sensate world exists in all its splendour and brilliance. *Thought may or may not be operating* as required by the circumstances. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 34, 11 July 2002). RESPONDENT: Are you contradicting now your own words? [Richard]: ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’. [endquote]. You have defined mind as brain in operation, that means thought. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? The mind, the human brain in action in the human skull, is more than just thought. For example: ‘mind: 1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. 2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behaviour. 3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality. 4. The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge’. (The American Heritage® Dictionary). RESPONDENT: So the mind’s perception of itself = the thought’s perception of itself. Are you playing with words now? RICHARD: No, it would appear that you are. RESPONDENT: Be straight. RICHARD: Where have I ever not been straight? RESPONDENT: The mind cannot see itself. RICHARD: I fully agree that the mind that is busily ‘being still and knowing that it is god’ cannot see itself. Yet if that self-same mind would become genuinely concerned about the plight of humanity – and be a mind that actually cares about one’s fellow human being – then such a considerate mind would observe that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity that has realised that it is god for purely self-serving post-mortem reasons. Then there would be action ... and such action is not of ‘my’ doing. Voila! The already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent upon ‘my’ demise. RESPONDENT: The mind cannot see itself. RICHARD: I must give you full marks for persistence ... maybe your mind cannot see itself but to proclaim that this experience is an absolute truth is egocentrism writ large. RESPONDENT: But sometimes the mind sets itself as the one that knows and is separate from all that is. RICHARD: Why? If, as you say, the surrendered mind is ‘all that is’ (as in ‘be still and know that I am god’ isness) then why on earth would such all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful being ‘sometimes set itself as the one that knows and is separate from all that is’ in the first place? RESPONDENT: This dance continues until surrender can no longer be avoided. RICHARD: Yet, given that ‘I am god’ in the first place – and for some bizarre reason I ‘set myself as being separate’ from myself (thus causing untold misery and mayhem on this planet) – then when I can no longer avoid surrender and I do thus surrender I surrender to ... to ... to myself? Is this not narcissism? RESPONDENT: The mind is useful but only part of all that is. RICHARD: Which part? Is it ... um ... a rebellious part (like in that Christian nonsense about a perfectly created angel in heaven rebelling against its creator god and falling to gross earth as a satanic force)? RESPONDENT: I don’t know about your body, but this body is always spontaneous, but what does it mean, to say that it is benevolent or carefree? The mind is benevolent, and what is flesh and blood about the mind? RICHARD: If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish. But if by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘Consciousness’ (with a capital ‘C’) to denote an ‘Immortal Intelligence’ that is ‘Timeless and Spaceless’, ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Beginningless and Endless’ then no, it is not flesh and blood. It is a delusion born out of an illusion ... and not at all substantial. When this flesh and blood body is rid of the psychological and psychic entities that live a parasitical existence in their unwitting host, one is able to appreciate that what I am (‘what’ not ‘who’) is this body. Then I am automatically benevolent and carefree ... and happy and harmless, for one has eradicated malice and sorrow with the demise of the ego and the soul. * RICHARD: Are you suggesting that the ‘something more’ might lie in the external world? Can that not be seen at a glance? Then one puts all that to one side immediately. RESPONDENT: I am saying that there is a mind-mind relationship (involves the intrinsic), and a mind-world relationship (involves the extrinsic). And thought operates in both. And therefore if we are investigating whether thought has a common structure, we need to look also at the mind-world. The mind-world is unfortunately not obvious to many people, for as you can see on this list there is the view that it doe not even exist. RICHARD: I am in full agreement with your introduction of the phrase ‘mind-world’ relationship (which involves the extrinsic) into this discussion, for by this I understand you to mean ‘mind-environment’. I do, however, have difficulty with ‘mind-mind’ as being the appropriate phrase for what involves the intrinsic. What would be the satisfactory word instead of the second < mind >? Mr. Sigmund Freud, of course, postulated ‘The Id’ a being the source of the intrinsic ... Mr. Carl Jung favoured ‘The Collective Unconscious’ as to be the origin of the intrinsic. Either of these could be an appropriate starting point, because, as I said in an earlier post, when intrinsic processes dominate, and are virtually free of environmental concerns, a person thinks expressively: they imagine, fantasise, dream, hallucinate, or have delusions, for example. This would fit in with the unconscious world of the Id’s psychic content related to the primitive instincts of the body, notably sex and aggression, fears, desires and so on. The Id, devoid of organisation, knowing neither rationality nor reason, has the ability to harbour acutely conflicting or mutually contradictory impulses side by side. The Id (Latin for ‘it’, by the way) is oblivious of the external world and unaware of the passage of time. The expressive characteristics of the intrinsic would also fit in with the collective unconscious world common to humankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain (according to Mr. Carl Jung). The collective unconscious contains archetypes, or universal primordial images and ideas ... it is the world of the bizarre and haunting and fantastic myths and legends that are contained in the human psyche ... coupled with access to the mystical and miraculous dimensions of one’s imaginative faculties. There may be other areas ... I offer these two a starting point. We could then blur the two expressions and use the phrase ‘mind-unconscious’ to indicate the thought that involves the intrinsic as contrasted to the thought that involves the extrinsic. (The extrinsic being when one’s thinking is activated by external stimuli, where one tends to think rationally; where one appraises, conceptualises, ruminates and solves problems in a reasoned, directed, disciplined way.) * RICHARD: Maybe this post will go some way toward agreeing on what the optimum line to pursue is. I plunk for reflection, any day, as being the means to straddle the eternal divide. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we can then simplify things by using the mind-mind and mind-world, and we can take reflectivity to be mind >(mind-mind). And we can leave open the question of whether by mind we mean thought, perception or feeling, or any mix thereof. Can we also agree that consciousness be taken as that state where there is direct apprehension of contents. And subconscious as when these contents are not directly apprehended, though they can be apprehended. I leave it to you to continue with the designation of intuition, apperception, and awareness. That should be sufficient vocabulary to continue our investigation . RICHARD: Now here I am encountering some difficulty. To understand what you are getting at, I have to substitute my language thus: ‘Perhaps we can then simplify things by using the mind-unconscious and the mind-environment, and we can take reflectivity to be ... to be what? I do not comprehend your ‘mind >(mind-mind)’ phrase. Could you expand, please. What does your use of the symbol > indicate? You say to leave open as to whether ‘mind’ means thought, perception or feeling. For me, ‘mind’ indicates the brain being aware. That is, one is alive and awake and conscious. In being conscious, there are thoughts, perceptions and feelings happening. Is not being reflective to be conscious? That is, thinking is neither rational nor non-rational. You come to this where you say consciousness is a direct apprehension of contents ... the contents being thought (rational and expressive), perception and feeling. This, to me, is reflective thought. As I said, it straddles the eternal divide between logic and intuition. (I am taking it that you are in agreement that, as a basic starting point, we have established that ‘male logic’ is as useless as ‘female intuition’?) Therefore, reflective thought is awareness ... conscious of being conscious. Apperception is another ball-game entirely and has nothing to do with any of the above. I take the Oxford Dictionary definition as an established ‘given’: ‘apperception is the mind’s perception of itself’. This means that there is not an ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious, but it is an un-mediated awareness of itself. Thinking may or may not occur ... and apperception happens regardless. Thought does not have to stop for apperception to happen ... it is that the ‘thinker’ disappears. As for feelings in apperception; not only does the ‘feeler’ disappear, but so too do feelings themselves. Apperception is the direct – unmediated – apprehension of actuality ... the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT No. 12: Extinguish the arising mind, but don’t extinguish the shining mind. RICHARD: Both the ‘arising mind’ and the ‘shining mind’ are not extant ... the free mind is already here. RESPONDENT No. 12: It is the arising mind that thinks in terms of time, i.e. before and after ‘the event’. RICHARD: And it is the ‘shining mind’ that thinks in terms of the timeless ... for the free mind there is only this event. (Richard, List B, No. 12g, 15 June 2000). RESPONDENT: What is the ‘free’ mind of which you speak? RICHARD: The free mind is the neuronal activity of a human brain in a human skull sans both the ‘arising mind’ (‘I’ as ego) and the ‘shining mind’ (‘me’ as soul). The free mind, which is already always just here right now, becomes apparent when ‘I’/ ‘me’ altruistically self-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RESPONDENT: What does a ‘free’ mind do once it is freed? RICHARD: The free mind is the doing and the experiencing of the happening of this business called being alive here on this earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body now ... and it is all happening currently as only this moment is occurring wherein the doing of the event is happening of its own accord. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: Richard, from recent correspondence with you its been pointed out that I’ve misused the word apperception. Here is a dialog between me and another which raises some questions that I have no ready answer to. [M]: ‘The non-duality of which I speak has nothing whatsoever to do with Pure Consciousness without content’. [Respondent]: ‘I’ve never ever heard Richard say anything about consciousness without content so I’m guessing you may have misunderstood something here’. [M]: ‘Richard seems to be rather clear about this point: [Richard]: ‘The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness’. [endquote]. To be ‘aware of consciousness’ is for consciousness to be aware of itself. This is the same as his statement: ‘mind becomes aware of itself’. This is not really an important issue for me, but as you seem to follow his teaching in a rather dedicated way, it may be worth your effort to find out for yourself if this is possible. The question is: What is nature of that which becomes aware of the other. I.e. Mind of mind, awareness of consciousness? Which comes first and are either or both possible? As a sideline remark, I have a little saying by Hakuin stuck to my computer screen. It somehow always makes sense when my eye catches it: [quote] ‘One can no more look at his mind with his mind, than see the pupils of his eyes with his eyes’ [endquote]. It could be quite relevant to Richard’s remark about mind becoming aware of itself. As I said I have never managed that trick’. [endquote]. It’s funny that I never really questioned the ‘mind being aware of mind’ thing much. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you are conscious that you are aware you are not aware. • [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Consciousness is always a process of the past. • [Richard]: ‘The word ‘consciousness’ refers to the condition of being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ... and as it is impossible to be alive, awake, and sensible in the past (only this moment is actual) you are way out there on your own with that observation’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 51, 7 October 2003). There is nothing mystical about a mind perceiving itself – it is simply a matter of a living brain, sans identity in toto, being conscious of being conscious/ being aware of being aware – that there need be any question whatsoever about what the nature is of that which is aware of being aware/ that which is conscious of being conscious ... unless, of course, one is unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity (the genetically-inherited instinctual passions in action). RESPONDENT: Identity is ‘the state or fact of remaining the same one, as under varying aspects or conditions’, ‘the condition of being oneself or itself, and not another’ (Macquarie, 2nd ed.). Are you claiming that there is nothing that remains the same (in you) as (your) sense and reflective experience changes? RICHARD: Indeed, I am stating that unequivocally ... there is no subjective psychological ‘entity’ existing in this flesh and blood body to either remain the same or change. There are many words to describe ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ ... shall I just present them here for clarity? I do not have the Macquarie Dictionary but I presume it is somewhat similar as I have the Webster’s Merriam Dictionary to check the Oxford Dictionary against. I also use the Britannica Encyclopaedia as being a generally recognised and acceptable academic standard. Viz.: • Identity: ‘The condition or fact of a person or thing being that specified unique person or thing, especially as a continuous unchanging property throughout existence; individuality, personality’. • Personality: ‘The quality or fact of being a person as distinct from a thing or animal; the quality which makes a being a person’. • Person: ‘The self or being of an individual’. • Individual: ‘Existing as a separate indivisible identity; one’s individual person, self. • Individuality: ‘An individual thing or personality’. • Self: ‘True or intrinsic identity; personal identity, ego; a person as the object of introspection or reflexive action’. • Ego: ‘Oneself, the conscious thinking subject. That part of the mind which has a sense of individuality and is most conscious of self’. • Soul: ‘The principle of thought and action in a person, regarded as an entity distinct from the body; a person’s spiritual as opposed to corporeal nature regarded as immortal and as being capable of redemption or damnation in a future state. The disembodied spirit of a dead person, regarded as invested with some degree of personality and form. The seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. Intellectual or spiritual power; high development of the mental faculties. Also, deep feeling, sensitivity, zest, spirit. The vital, sensitive, or rational principle in plants, animals, or human beings. A person, an individual’. • Entity: ‘Existence, being, as opposed to non-existence; the existence of a thing as opposed to its qualities or relations. Essence, essential nature’. • Identity Crisis: ‘A period of emotional disturbance in which a person has difficulty in determining his or her identity and role in relation to society’. (All definitions from Oxford Dictionary). And it is so good to be rid of that lot! RESPONDENT: Surely there are patterns associated with your reflectivity. You tend to reflect on things in a certain way, and I have a different tendency. Does not that tendency define your identity? Or do you have no such tendency? RICHARD: I certainly have that tendency ... and I revel in it. These are attributes, traits, quirks, idiosyncrasies, features, peculiarities, flavours, mannerisms, gestures and so on. They are not the ‘thing-in-itself’. RESPONDENT: My ability to understand your claim seems to hinge on my understanding of the word apperception. You claim that the word apperception means ‘seeing the world of people, things and events without the filter of identity’. You wrote about this previously: [Richard]: ‘The word ‘apperception’ (awareness or consciousness of something) means: (1) ‘The mind’s perception of itself’. Apperceptive awareness – as distinct from perceptive awareness – is drawn from meaning (1) which indicates the brain being aware of itself being conscious ... instead of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. That is, awareness happening of its own accord without a ‘thinker’. Mostly peoples are of the borrowed opinion – a belief – that thought itself must stop for an unmediated awareness to occur. This is because they blame only thought for creating the ‘thinker’ – which is ‘I’ as ego – as per standard Eastern Spiritual Philosophy. Of course, when there is no identity in there messing up the works, there are many periods throughout the day wherein thought does not operate at all ... but there is apperception whether there is thinking or not’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, 13 January 1999). I do not see how you got from the first dictionary meaning ‘The mind’s perception of itself’. to ‘without the filter of identity’. RICHARD: Fair enough ... for starters I do not subscribe to the theory that ‘mind’ is something other than ‘brain’. The mind is the brain in operation: being conscious as in awake (not asleep) and perceiving and thinking and being aware. This neuronal activity – consciousness – is what ‘mind’ is. So when I read the Oxford Dictionary definition I read ‘the brain’s perception of itself’ or ‘consciousness being aware of being conscious’ ... which is all very impersonal. Secondly, no one else – that I have been able to ascertain through eighteen years of scouring books and talking with people – has been living what I live for twenty four hours a day. Therefore, I can only presume that whoever wrote that definition for apperception had knowledge of pure consciousness experiences, for it is a very apt description, but no on-going experiencing as such that it has resulted in vast bodies of writing. This is all very new in human experience. RESPONDENT: I presume there is purely ‘rational’ consideration as a fellow human being, then? RICHARD: You presume incorrectly ... just copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: fellowship regard site:www.actualfreedom.com.au Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... in the meanwhile you may find the following to be of related interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think you have feelings. What made you put your so called discovery on the web? • [Richard]: ‘You have asked a similar question before: [Respondent]: ‘You speak about peace on earth, is this not a feeling toward humanity? [Richard]: ‘No, it is actually caring about my fellow human beings and not merely feeling that one cares’. [endquote]. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why you want as you say to help your human fellows? • [Richard]: ‘Because of fellowship regard ... like species recognises like species throughout the animal kingdom. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘What motivated you for that? • [Richard]: ‘Have you never heard of what is sometimes called ‘Theory Of Mind’? The ‘theory of mind’ is a term which basically denotes that human communal interaction, as contrasted to animals’ communal interaction, depends primarily upon one’s knowledge about other people’s consciousness (the recognition of a mind in other people similar to one’s own). There is more to it than just this, though: normal adult humans have a ‘theory of mind’ in that they understand that (a) other humans have wants, ideas and intentions that may differ from one’s own; (b) that desires and ideals are different from plans and actions; (c) that concepts may or may not correspond with what is actually occurring in the world. To put it simply, for an example, because one has a ‘theory of mind’ one understands that one can simultaneously (1) know that Santa Claus does not exist and (2) know that for a child the child knows that Santa Claus exists and (3) know that the child’s ‘knowing’ is actually believing. Experiments have been done in order to determine when the ‘theory of mind’ develops in children (which research is important to take personally because all adults were children before they were adults); typically, by age four to four and a half, children can basically (a) distinguish between physical and mental objects (an orange is different from the thought of an orange), (b) reason about ideas, (c) ascribe false knowing (beliefs) in others, (d) engage in pretence (deceive and cheat). Interestingly enough, it is this last point (deceit) which most of all signals the ‘theory of mind’ as having become established. Primatologists have determined that while monkeys do not have a ‘theory of mind’, chimpanzees may very well have a rudimentary ‘theory of mind’ in that they can deliberately deceive other chimpanzees (pretence) by hiding food so as to be able eat it all on their own. The term ‘theory of mind’ was coined by Mr. David Premack and Mr. Guy Woodruff (1978) in a paper investigating a chimpanzee’s ability to predict the behaviour of another by means of mental state attribution. In short, they sought to show that their chimp, Sarah, inferred the ‘intentions’ and ‘motivations’ of a man to predict his actions. Primatologists and other investigators of animal behaviour use a variety of substitutes for the term ‘theory of mind’ including ‘metarepresentation’, ‘metacognition’, ‘mind reading’, ‘mental state attribution’ and ‘pan- or pongo-morphism’. To comprehend the importance of ‘theory of mind’, one only has to consider the task the ‘artificial intelligence’ theorists face in building a computerised model that would communicate like a human: they have to consider what kind of thoughts such a machine would have to be capable of to interact meaningfully with humans and how these kinds of thoughts could be modelled ... let alone inputting feelings. Incidentally, it is considered that autism (and/or Asperger’s Syndrome) is best characterised as ‘mind-blindness’; in other words, autistic individuals generally lack a ‘theory of mind’. (Richard, List B, No. 44e, 1 October 2003a). 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