# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Beauty RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 8 January 2002). RESPONDENT: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent? RICHARD: First and foremost: there was absolutely no precedent – the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did not have the millions of words now available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to refer to – and, whilst it is true that ‘his’ best work was produced when ‘he’ was absent (and thus beauty played no part at all), when ‘he’ came out of abeyance and reviewed that art ‘he’, of course, automatically imbued it with beauty ... as did the viewers who bought ‘his’ work (reinforcement). Second, when a pure consciousness experience (PCE) occurs the contrast with what was immediately prior (everyday normality) is so startling, plus there is so much going on (the !Wow! effect), that it never struck ‘him’ afterwards, when ‘he’ came out of abeyance, that there was no beauty in actuality. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct and thus, by being latent, can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of. Last, but not least, as the main focus during ‘his’ eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment lay in questioning love and compassion, pacifism and appeasement, timelessness, spacelessness and formlessness, immortality and ‘being’ itself, it simply never occurred to ‘him’ to question beauty ... ‘he’ (unknowingly) took the pristine purity of the actual, which beauty is but a pathetic imitation of, to be beauty itself. * RESPONDENT: Thank you for your reply. This is extremely interesting to me. RICHARD: What I find interesting is that I made a living as a practising artist, as well as being a duly qualified art-teacher in the fine arts, for a period in my working life – which is, primarily, to be a purveyor of beauty (a beauty-pusher as it were) – yet beauty itself was never questioned ... even though more than a few enlightened/ awakened ones clearly state that it is through beauty that truth (often capitalised as ‘Truth’) is to be found. RESPONDENT: On reflection it is not surprising that an identity would imbue the products of a PCE (e.g., a painting) with qualities it did not possess in actuality. The memory of a PCE can itself be imbued with such qualities, which could account for why it is usually interpreted and described in mystical or religious terms after the event. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: For one example, have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s ‘The Doors Of Perception’ and ‘Heaven And Hell?’ RICHARD: Apart from brief excerpts where other author’s have quoted from those writings ... no. RESPONDENT: These are very different works but the author clearly regarded them as companion pieces. In his first mescaline experience described in TDOP there were some psychic adumbrations but the experience was characterised by an intensely intimate sensate experience of everyday objects – flowers, books, chairs, cars, garments – stripped of their everyday reality. I think at least some of that experience must have been a PCE. By the time he wrote ‘Heaven and Hell’ he had already begun to interpret the experience of the astonishing aliveness and vibrancy of the physical world as a lesser/ worldly form of ‘visionary’ experience ... which just so happened to be what he had wanted and expected from mescaline. It seems that the PCE cannot be properly contained in memory. When the identity returns, ‘I’ interpret and describe the experience from hindsight using the best available cultural analogues. ‘I’ even have a strong ulterior motive for doing so. But when the experience is permanent the shortcomings of those cultural analogues (mystical/ religious/ visionary interpretations) become more obvious I suppose RICHARD: Yes, blatantly obvious, in fact (particularly their outright absurdity). RESPONDENT: Apart from the loss of beauty, were there other things that surprised you when it all came to an end for ‘you’? RICHARD: No, that was the only thing which was unexpected. RESPONDENT: Even after all those PCE’s, were you still surprised that ALL feeling disappeared when you ‘self’-immolated? RICHARD: No ... although the experience itself, of being irrevocably sans the entire affective faculty, was initially quite astounding. RESPONDENT: Or would it be more accurate to say that you were surprised to discover how much of human experience was attributable to feeling instead of fact? RICHARD: Ah yes ... the sheer extent, the all-pervasiveness, of feeling over fact was, at first, rather astonishing. RESPONDENT: One other question (but this is only idle curiosity now). When a PCE occurs in the midst of painting, why would the painter not immediately lose interest in trying to create a lifeless 2D facsimile of the infinite splendour surrounding him on all sides, as you eventually did? RICHARD: I can only speak for myself, of course, and there were several reasons ... of which being in the situation of having to feed, clothe and house five other people than myself is at the top of the list (I mainly made a living working in ceramics ... in particular hand-thrown pottery). Also, it was a way, or a means, by which a PCE could be fairly reliably brought about. Plus the work of art takes on a life of its own, in the process of representation, and it is simply fascinating to be the experiencing of that happening (just as it is in writing). Speaking of which: I did not lose interest in art as such ... it was more a case of switching from the fine arts to the literary arts. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘You have a background in art, hence have an appreciation for visual aesthetics ... do you draw or paint now? • [Richard]: ‘I have not drawn or painted much since I started writing – the last time was back in 1987-88 – as of all the arts I prefer literature ... the art of letters’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 28, 15 March 2003). RESPONDENT: 4) I find the layout of your site is inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to the eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny). RICHARD: Here is what various dictionaries have to say about those two words: [snip dictionary definitions]. RESPONDENT: Not that I mind particularly, and it is a tiny superficial qualm, and it’s also ‘just how it seems to me’. But it does seem that way to me. What do you think? RICHARD: I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you. RESPONDENT: You said, repeating me, ‘I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you’. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was not repeating you. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘... unpleasing to the eye ...’. • [Richard]: ‘... unpleasing to your eye ...’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not superficial. RICHARD: Obviously not (else why take the time to type out more of the same and use even more bandwidth to send it). * RESPONDENT: Could I be right? RICHARD: Yes, you could be right. RESPONDENT: Wrong? RICHARD: Yes, you could be wrong. RESPONDENT: You concede that I could be right in finding the site cheesy and corny ... RICHARD: You are way out there on your own in drawing that conclusion from my even-handed response ... here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘concede’: • ‘concede: to acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper; admit [‘admit’ implies reluctance in acknowledging one’s acts or another point of view]; to concede is to intellectually accept something, often against one’s will [example] ‘the lawyer refused to concede that the two cases had similarities’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). RESPONDENT: ... but could it actually BE cheesy and corny? RICHARD: Again here is what various dictionaries have to say about those two words: • ‘cheesy: inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty’. • ‘corny: rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental; trite’. (Oxford Dictionary). • ‘cheesy: of poor quality; shoddy’. • ‘corny: trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). • ‘cheesy: shabby [inferior in quality], cheap [of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities]’. • ‘corny: mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). • ‘cheesy: clearly of cheap quality or in bad style’. • ‘corny: lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting’. (Cambridge Dictionary). • ‘cheesy: tacky; cheap and tawdry’. • ‘corny: unsophisticated and trite’. (Encarta Dictionary). • ‘cheesy: of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality’. • ‘corny: dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous’. (WordNet 2.0). Thus what you are now asking is, in effect, could The Actual Freedom Trust web site actually be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/ of poor quality; shoddy/ shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/ clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/ tacky; cheap and tawdry/ of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality and rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/ trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/ mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/ lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/ dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous. RESPONDENT: I asked you ‘Does it matter one tiny bit?’ And you replied, ‘obviously it does (else why take the time to type it out and the bandwidth to send it)’. And indeed you are right. It does matter to me. Is this a symptom of my lack of actualness? RICHARD: No ... going solely by what you go on to say (further below) it would appear to be symptomatic of your penchant for determining whether a person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste (aesthetics). RESPONDENT: Do YOU find it cheesy? RICHARD: I do not find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/ of poor quality; shoddy/ shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/ clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/ tacky; cheap and tawdry/ of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality. And, just for the record, neither do I find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/ trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/ mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/ lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/ dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous. RESPONDENT: Related to this, I’ve recently discovered a few pages on your site that are accompanied by the most appalling music. RICHARD: A possible clue as to why may be found in what you have to say much further below: • [Respondent]: ‘... lots of letters are slowly appearing on my computer screen and the woman to my right is extremely attractive but a bit aloof, and should I try and chat her up (won’t work, always fail in such situations), looking forward to having a cigarette when I step outside *the shop I’m in*’. [emphasis added]. In short: the quality of the playback of the midi-files you are referring depends upon the quality of a computer’s sound card and speakers ... even so some peoples have an aversion to electronic tones anyway (no matter how technically superior the quality of a sound system is). RESPONDENT: Wish you were here, by Pink Floyd and other middle-of-the-road seventies rock classics. RICHARD: You are now (‘middle-of-the-road’) talking about taste ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: I quite like the songs themselves, not ecstatically but a fair amount, but I find the versions of them here, aside from the jarringly crude recording, are, although not without interest, cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes). RICHARD: As I am not a midi-file recordist I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether they have all been recorded in the manner you assert they have been or not ... if you could point me to where those midi-file versions can be found, which meet your criteria of recording excellence, it would be most appreciated. Needless is it to add that if you cannot then what you assert here is purely rhetorical (designed for cheap effect)? RESPONDENT: Either this is because a) my taste is irrelevant ... RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: b) my taste is wrong ... RICHARD: Given that what is appealing to one person, aesthetically speaking, is as equally appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing that line of reasoning. RESPONDENT: c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason ... RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits: • [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is poor music to my taste (and what is a poor layout to my taste) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [end example]. Now try the obverse: • [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is excellent music to my taste (and what is an excellent layout to my taste) for some divinely inscrutable reason’. [end example]. And here is a third alternative: • [example only]: ‘you have chosen particular music (and a specific layout) for an entirely prosaic reason’. [end example]. RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: I am very willing to accept any of these options are true because they have all been true in the past. RICHARD: Surely you do not go about determining whether each and every person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste in graphic design and electronic tones? If so, since when has your taste in same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: Please give me the most direct answer you can. RICHARD: CLICK HERE * RESPONDENT: ... I’ve recently discovered a few pages on your site that are accompanied by the most appalling music. RICHARD: A possible clue as to why may be found in what you have to say much further below: • [Respondent]: ‘... lots of letters are slowly appearing on my computer screen and the woman to my right is extremely attractive but a bit aloof, and should I try and chat her up (won’t work, always fail in such situations), looking forward to having a cigarette when I step outside *the shop I’m in*’. [emphasis added]. In short: the quality of the playback of the midi-files you are referring to depends upon the quality of a computer’s sound card and speakers ... even so some peoples have an aversion to electronic tones anyway (no matter how technically superior the quality of a sound system is). RESPONDENT: Wish you were here, by Pink Floyd and other middle-of-the-road seventies rock classics. RICHARD: You are now (‘middle-of-the-road’) talking about taste ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: I quite like the songs themselves, not ecstatically but a fair amount, but I find the versions of them here, aside from the jarringly crude recording, are, although not without interest, cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes). RICHARD: As I am not a midi-file recordist I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether they have all been recorded in the manner you assert they have been or not ... if you could point me to where those midi-file versions can be found, which meet your criteria of recording excellence, it would be most appreciated. Needless is it to add that if you cannot then what you assert here is purely rhetorical (designed for cheap effect)? RESPONDENT: Either this is because a) my taste is irrelevant ... RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Further to my confusion about your refutation of ‘taste is irrelevant’ I find that you say this; [quote] ‘Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity’. [endquote]. RICHARD: You can only be referring to the following exchange: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I can never be the judge of another’s behaviour. It’s questionable whether I should even judge my own. Isn’t that what traps us? • [Richard]: ‘Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally: Condone rape and child abuse? Approve of rape and child abuse? Have no opinion about rape and child abuse? Disapprove of rape and child abuse? Proscribe rape and child abuse? Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I’m not sure of your use of language here. • [Richard]: ‘I was responding to your statement that you ‘can never be the judge of another’s behaviour’. When a person rapes someone, or when a person abuses a child, that activity is called ‘behaviour’. As it is not your behaviour in the scenario I sketch then from your point of view that person’s behaviour (raping and abusing) is called ‘another’s behaviour’. What I am asking you this: • Do you personally condone that person’s behaviour? (Condone: overlook, disregard, ignore, close the eyes to, excuse, forgive, pardon). Or: • Do you personally approve of that person’s behaviour? (Approve: endorse, support, agree, commend, back up, grant, consent). Or: • Do you personally have no opinion about that person’s behaviour? (Opinion: view, estimation, judgment, attitude, belief, outlook). Or: • Do you personally disapprove of that person’s behaviour? (Disapprove: object to, frown on, censure, dislike, criticize, condemn, reject). Or: • Do you personally proscribe that person’s behaviour? (Proscribe: ban, bar, forbid, exclude, make illegal, veto, rule out). Put simply: if you are 100% genuine where you say that you ‘can never be the judge of another’s behaviour’ then you are relying upon other people (police, magistrates, jurors and so on) to do your ‘dirty work’ for you so that you will be (somewhat) safe from criminals or banditry in general. And if these police, magistrates, jurors and so on adopted your principle of never judging another’s behaviour as well as you then the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would soon rule the world. Perhaps, in hindsight, it was but an unliveable ideal? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I also doubt that the person who is unhurt (innocent) needs rules to proscribe ‘rape and child abuse’. • [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... good. This is what I was asking (further above): is it possible to live without the need for ‘principles’; without the need to ‘obey these principles’; without the need to ‘accept them’ (so that one may obey them)? For is this not what ‘innocence’ means? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The rules that society has invented to control human behaviour may be as much an expression of how low we have sunk as a necessity to regulate human conduct. • [Richard]: ‘Okay ... so rules (moral and/or ethical principles) are indeed human rules that human society has invented to control human behaviour ...’. (Richard, List B, No. 42, 14 November 2000). RESPONDENT: When I meet someone and get an impression of them from their actions and choices (their taste), am I not appraising the situation and circumstance in order to make a good decision about personal (and possibly communal) salubrity? RICHARD: I will first point out that the actions (aka behaviour) in the scenario I sketch in the above exchange are rape and child abuse whereas the actions under question by you in this exchange are the embedment by me of particular midi-files (electronic tones) in web pages and the construction of specific web page layouts ... and then ask you if you are aware of the phrase ‘chalk and cheese’? Next I will point out that nowhere in the above exchange was the topic of taste (aka aesthetics) canvassed ... and then ask you if you are aware of the term ‘red-herring’? Lastly I will point out that what I say (in the quote you provide) is ‘making a decision’ ... whereas you say ‘make a good decision’. As the situation and circumstance you have appraised as being (a) appalling (b) middle-of-the-road (c) jarringly crude recordings which are (d) cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) in order to make that [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] decision about my personal and, possibly, communal salubrity is the quality of the play-back of midi-files (electronic tones) on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality – as compared to, presumably (as you have not pointed out where those midi-file versions can be found which meet your criteria of recording excellence), the play-back of the original instrumental melody (musical notes) on a high-fidelity sound system – it must be somewhat difficult, surely, to maintain a straight face whilst asking me whether you are not appraising that situation and circumstance in order to make the aforementioned good decision ... let alone going on to ask if such a judgement be intelligent? RESPONDENT: Thus although taste varies from person to person, there is still intelligent judgement, which is a form of taste. No? RICHARD: I will first point out that what I say (in what you call my refutation) is ‘objective judgement’ ... whereas you say ‘intelligent judgement’. Here is what you have to say might look like were it to be in accord with what I actually said: • [example only]: ‘... although taste varies from person to person, there is still objective judgement, which is a form of taste. No? [end example]. No. * RESPONDENT: b) my taste is wrong ... RICHARD: Given that what is appealing to one person, aesthetically speaking, is as equally appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing that line of reasoning. RESPONDENT: c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason ... RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits: [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is poor music to my taste (and what is a poor layout to my taste) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [end example]. Now try the obverse: [example only]: ‘you have chosen what is excellent music to my taste (and what is an excellent layout to my taste) for some divinely inscrutable reason’. [end example]. And here is a third alternative: [example only]: ‘you have chosen particular music (and a specific layout) for an entirely prosaic reason’. [end example]. RESPONDENT: ... My dictionary defines ‘prosaic’ as ‘commonplace and unromantic’. Okay, fair enough. But why then is it so hard to read? (...) And it is hard to read because very loud electronic music is playing over the top of it. RICHARD: If I may point out? The loudness of the play-back of the midi-files (electronic tones) you are referring to on a computer anywhere – and not only on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality – is dependant solely upon what level the computer’s volume control slider is set to ... which control, being at the computer operator’s discretion, is not in my hands. RESPONDENT: Aside from what I make of the music, it’s very presence is rather distracting isn’t it? RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) someone – anyone – who finds the presence of sound – any sound – distracts them from reading something – anything – then they surely would have long ago either (a) slid the volume control down to zero ... or (b) clicked the ‘mute’ button. * RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: I am very willing to accept any of these options are true because they have all been true in the past. RICHARD: Surely you do not go about determining whether each and every person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste in graphic design and electronic tones? If so, since when has your taste in same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: I tried to explain that I am not certain that you are fraudulent (I gave it as one of four options – RICHARD: Here are your other three options: • [Respondent]: ‘Either this [that a few pages on your site are accompanied by *the* most appalling cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) jarringly crudely recorded versions of middle-of-the-road songs I quite like themselves] is because a) my taste is irrelevant, b) my taste is wrong c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [emphasis added]. As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/ determiner indicates and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning and (c) as that particular music (and a specific layout) was chosen for an entirely prosaic reason then the only option left standing is option (d) ... to wit: • [Respondent]: ‘my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... [I gave it as one of four options –] and given my pleasure at the actual written content – which I might not have adequately expressed – an option no more important than the others ... RICHARD: As the others – (a), (b) and (c) – are demonstrably options without substance your follow-up comments add nothing to a sensible discussion. Furthermore, as you have elsewhere fleshed out just how much your particular taste plays a big part in your life it is disingenuous, to say the least, to now claim that you tried to explain you are not certain whether I am fundamentally fraudulent because of my choice of particular electronic tones (and a specific layout). Just by the way ... are you aware of the difference betwixt electronic tones and instrumental notes? RESPONDENT: ... and that I am not certain of my tastes. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with being certain of your tastes ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: Perhaps I don’t really feel that, or I didn’t express myself accurately enough. RICHARD: Oh, you express yourself quite accurately ... are you familiar with the word ‘fastidious’? Viz.: • ‘fastidious: scrupulous or overscrupulous in matters of taste, cleanliness, propriety, etc.; squeamish [excessively fastidious or scrupulous in questions of propriety, honesty, etc.]’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Either way I am sure that I don’t understand what taste is or why it seems so pleasurable (a well-made salad dressing; not too this, not too that ...) and informative (the subtle manifest tip of the ice-burg of psyche), yet superficial (my taste is always changing) and deceptive (I still make extremely poor taste judgements; poor to who? To me a bit later). Where does taste come from? RICHARD: From perception (sentience) itself ... the word ‘aesthetics’ is derived from the Greek ‘aisthētikos’, from ‘aisthēta’ (meaning ‘things perceptible by the senses’), which comes from ‘aisthesthai’ (meaning ‘perceive’). Aesthetics are, fundamentally, based upon the human body and its relationship with the environment at large: this flesh and blood body, for instance, is of the male gender; has a heterosexual orientation; is of Caucasian stock; and is 6’ 2" high and weighs 12.5 stone ... change any of those bodily characteristics and aesthetic appreciation alters accordingly. Further to that point, the quality, quantity and disposition of photosensitive receptors called rods (about 130 million cells which detect size, shape, brightness and movement) and cones (about 7 million cells which detect fine detail and colour) in the retinas varies from body to body and affects visual appreciation ... colour blindness being the most obvious instance. Similarly for auditory appreciation the range of frequency (hertz), or pitch, and intensity of tone (decibels), or loudness, can vary from person-to-person ... the phrase ‘tone-deaf’ bespeaks of the most extreme example. Also gastronomic appreciation (flavour) depends not only upon the quality, quantity and disposition of the taste buds (papillae) on the tongue, palate and throat/ larynx but upon the olfactory and tactile receptors as well – flavour is actually a combination of texture, temperature, taste and smell (the coolness of peppermint, the ‘bite’ of mustard or pepper, the warmth of cloves, and the astringency of spinach are all tactile, or touch, sensations of the lips, tongue and mouth in general) – and a surprisingly large number of people have some degree of ‘taste-blindness’. Consequently, just as I do not even attempt to adjudge anybody according to my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation which this flesh and blood body enjoys), when someone seeks to impose their tastes on me – which also includes instinctual drives and, most likely, unexamined cultural aesthetics/ fashionable vogues as well – it all slides off me like water off a duck’s back. * RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement [about the midi-files on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site] taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that. RICHARD: Good ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: And yet it also seems like it’s my taste operating when I form an objective judgement. I didn’t mean to equate poor website layout (such as it might be) with rape, its just that I don’t understand what the difference between forming an opinion about the former and about the latter. I mean lets say I meet a rapist, but don’t know it. Are there clues to his sexual deviancy in his other choices? Is it possible to know someone through these choices? The way someone speaks, dresses, organises their house, that kind of thing. Are they not instructive? RICHARD: I was not asking my co-respondent, in that exchange you quoted from, to form an opinion about whether someone they meet be a rapist (or a child abuser) or not ... I was clearly talking about the behaviour (aka the actions) of raping and child abusing. Here is the relevant section again: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I can never be the judge of another’s behaviour. It’s questionable whether I should even judge my own. Isn’t that what traps us? • [Richard]: ‘Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally: Condone rape and child abuse? Approve of rape and child abuse? Have no opinion about rape and child abuse? Disapprove of rape and child abuse? Proscribe rape and child abuse? Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I’m not sure of your use of language here. • [Richard]: ‘I was responding to your statement that you ‘can never be the judge of another’s behaviour’. When a person rapes someone, or when a person abuses a child, that activity is called ‘behaviour’. As it is not your behaviour in the scenario I sketch then from your point of view that person’s behaviour (raping and abusing) is called ‘another’s behaviour’. (Richard, List B, No. 42, 14 November 2000). Do you not see I clearly say that *when* a person rapes someone, or *when* a person abuses a child, that activity is called behaviour? RESPONDENT: What exactly is the difference between ‘objective judgement’ and ‘taste’? RICHARD: To give an obvious example (so as to keep it simple): in a court of law the presence of the alleged rapist’s semen is considered conclusive enough evidence to make an objective judgement whereas assessing their mode of speech, their manner of dressing, their domestic setup, and that kind of thing, is not even considered circumstantial evidence. Yet that is all beside the point being made, in that exchange you quoted from, as it was about judging another’s behaviour (aka actions) – as in being judgemental about a rapist or child abuser (condoning/ approving/ being opinionless/ disapproving/ proscribing and so forth) – and not about whether they are a rapist/ a child abuser or not. Now, the equivalent would be to take the web pages on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to a court of law so as to have them assessed on the basis of the evidence presented as to whether they are (for example) cheesy and corny or not ... and then, and only then, could you judge my behaviour (my actions) in the manner of the exchange you quoted from. Incidentally, it is a well-known adage that taste cannot be legislated against (although there are those who try). RESPONDENT: I see that, as you say, taste is down to my physical abilities and sense organs and so on, but doesn’t that merely dispose me to types of data rather than quality of data? RICHARD: By what aesthetic standard can you objectively judge quality ... and since when has same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: I mean I might not like beetroot (for example), but don’t see someone’s taste in beetroot as poor taste. RICHARD: And some people like midi-files (electronic tones) and other people do not ... how does that make the former’s taste [quote] ‘cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes)’ [endquote] as an objective judgement? RESPONDENT: On the other hand I don’t like pointy shoes, tonnes of make-up and tiny leather handbags, but there I see someone’s taste in such thing as a sign that they are an uptight nightmare. RICHARD: You have mentioned this before: • [Respondent]: ‘You are quite right, I do have a tendency to judge whether people are fraudulent from their taste. I find, for example, that people who wear awful pointy or flashy shoes tend to be uptight (...) And girls who dress nicely do tend to be nicer than girls who dress horribly – don’t they? I mean, would you be interested in a girl who wore a lurid overly tight utterly unflattering dress, extremely extremely pointy shoes, tonnes and tonnes of make-up and a hair-do like a lobotomised chimpanzee? Doesn’t your body say ‘poor taste, extremely fucked-up. Avoid.’? (Thursday 16/06/2005 3:52 AM AEST). I have never been interested in a female because of her appearance, her clothing, her accessories, her cosmetics, her hairstyle – even when, by the way, a normal male – as it is how she is as a person, as a fellow human being, which interests me. RESPONDENT: Am I insane in this? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... it is but the biological imperative (attraction/ aversion) taken to such an attenuated degree of feeling repulsion/ repugnance/ revulsion (disgust) that it might very well be described as fastidiousness. Popular prudence has it not to judge a book by its cover ... such reasoning is easily swept aside in an instant, however, when the (reproductive) survival urges, impulses and drives surge into action. RESPONDENT: I really am prepared to admit that I am. I mean people I’ve met with impeccable taste have also been terrible in their way. RICHARD: Impeccable according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: Just more agreeable (interesting, fun) to me. RICHARD: As a generalisation, peoples with particular proclivities quite often seek the company of those with similar proclivities. RESPONDENT: Taste is for me a shifting frustration and often a weight around my neck. An example of the former is your music, which now I find I quite like. I don’t find it jarringly middle-of-the-road and appalling anymore. An example of the latter is that I regret having sent a letter to a friend where I made poor taste judgements. RICHARD: Aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, is something to be enjoyed for what it is ... and not something to be conclusively judged as either poor or impeccable (and so on). In the years I successfully made a living as a practising artist I never took any notice of the critics’ opinions ... indeed, if I had I would never had made a living out of it as my artistic output came about despite both the institutionalised training I received during three years fulltime study at art college and the two years fulltime application of same immediately following graduation (wherein I had to teach art part-time of an evening to supplement my then-meagre income). It was only when ‘I’ got out of the way and the painting painted itself, so to speak, or the drawing drew itself/ the sculpture sculpted itself/ the pottery formed itself (and so on) that craft – all the painstakingly acquired skills – became art. I clearly remember the opening night of my first one-man exhibition (in a major city of this country I reside in): it virtually sold-out on that first night and, of course, being the star of the show ‘I’ was the recipient of the judgements of those assembled who chose to voice their opinion ... yet what they did not realise, as only ‘I’ knew how that artistic output came about, was that their opinion was of no value to ‘me’ whatsoever either one way or the other. The opinion of another identity did not mean a thing either. * RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: Well, yes. I suppose that was my main concern, a (probably futile) attempt to judge you through my taste ‘organs’. And yet I found the other three options plausible, even if you didn’t. RICHARD: Here are your other three options: • [Respondent]: ‘Either this [that a few pages on your site are accompanied by *the* most appalling cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) jarringly crudely recorded versions of middle-of-the-road songs I quite like themselves] is because a) my taste is irrelevant, b) my taste is wrong c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason’. [emphasis added]. As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/ determiner indicates ... and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning ... and (c) as that particular music (and a specific layout) was chosen for an entirely prosaic reason in just what way did you find them plausible? * RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: Well, perhaps I am wrong? RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged then how on earth can you be either wrong or right? RESPONDENT: Perhaps my taste is just a huge red-herring? RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged your taste is indeed a huge red-herring. RESPONDENT: Perhaps your words are intelligent but your taste in music is not? RICHARD: Not intelligent according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: Many times I have failed to understand someone at first, this might be such a time. I ask for clarification. RICHARD: As aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged is it any wonder you have many times failed to understand someone at first? * RICHARD: As the others – (a), (b) and (c) – are demonstrably options without substance ... RESPONDENT: Yes, to you they are. Now I think I can rule out (c), but I still can’t rule out (a) or (b) as I still cannot see the difference between judging someone in one way (‘objective judgement’) and judging them in another (‘taste’). RICHARD: Here are your other two options: • [Respondent]: ‘Either this [that a few pages on your site are accompanied by *the* most appalling cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary) jarringly crudely recorded versions of middle-of-the-road songs I quite like themselves] is because a) my taste is irrelevant, b) my taste is wrong’. [emphasis added]. As (a) your taste is indeed irrelevant in terms of forming that objective judgement which your usage of that (now highlighted) definite article/ determiner indicates ... and (b) as what is aesthetically appealing to one person is as equally aesthetically appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere pursuing that line of reasoning in just what way can you still not rule them out? RESPONDENT: I am no longer interested in the music and webpage layout (the former I now find to be tasteful, the latter I still find in poor taste) but in these questions generally. RICHARD: It makes no difference whether you find the former and the latter to be either tasteful/ distasteful or distasteful/ tasteful (or even tasteful/ tasteful or distasteful/ distasteful) ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. * RICHARD: ... as you have elsewhere fleshed out just how much your particular taste plays a big part in your life it is disingenuous, to say the least, to now claim that you tried to explain you are not certain whether I am fundamentally fraudulent because of my choice of particular electronic tones (and a specific layout). RESPONDENT: Yes, I did try to judge you by your choice of tones and layout, but I was far from certain that you are fundamentally fraudulent because of the fact I did not approve of those choices. RICHARD: Okay ... do watch out for the obverse (that your approval of another’s aesthetic choices conclusively demonstrates they are not fundamentally fraudulent). RESPONDENT: Taste does play a big part of my life, but I am questioning that. RICHARD: Please bear in mind that none of the above is to decry taste per se ... just that in terms of forming an objective judgement taste is irrelevant. * RICHARD: Just by the way ... are you aware of the difference betwixt electronic tones and instrumental notes? RESPONDENT: Er, electronic tones come from electronics and instrumental notes from instruments? RICHARD: Obviously ... but my question was about the difference in sound – resonance, timbre, and so on – as to compare the quality of the play-back of midi-files (electronic tones) on a computer in a shop with what is (usually) a sound card and speakers of technically inferior quality with, presumably (as you have not pointed out where those midi-file versions can be found which meet your criteria of recording excellence), the play-back of the original instrumental melody (musical notes) on a high-fidelity sound system, and to then find the former [quote] ‘cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes)’ [endquote] is an exercise in futility. * RESPONDENT: ... I am not certain of my tastes. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with being certain of your tastes ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: What point does someone’s poor aesthetic choices cross over into objectively poor? RICHARD: The problem with a loaded question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas this can: • [example only]: ‘What point does someone’s aesthetic choices cross over into objectively poor? [end example]. Someone’s aesthetic choices never cross over into objectively poor ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person to person, cannot ever be objective. RESPONDENT: For example if someone at work dresses badly, perhaps that is subjective? RICHARD: Dresses badly according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: If they wear lots of make-up, again subjective? RICHARD: Wear lots of makeup according to what standard (and set by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: But if they don’t wash and start to offend my nose – does that then become objective judgement? RICHARD: You have now strayed into matters of personal hygiene ... which are matters relating to social protocols, etiquette and decorum, and not aesthetics. RESPONDENT: What about if they start shitting in my filing cabinet? Is that now objectively poor judgement? RICHARD: You have now strayed into matters of communal sanitation ... which are matters relating to communicable diseases, infection and contagion, and not aesthetics. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps I don’t really feel that [that you are fraudulent], or I didn’t express myself accurately enough. RICHARD: Oh, you express yourself quite accurately ... are you familiar with the word ‘fastidious’? Viz.: ‘fastidious: scrupulous or overscrupulous in matters of taste, cleanliness, propriety, etc.; squeamish [excessively fastidious or scrupulous in questions of propriety, honesty, etc.]’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Yes, I am familiar with that word. Let’s say I am fastidious then. How do I get out of it? RICHARD: By realising that, as aesthetic appreciation varies from person to person it cannot ever be objective, by being scrupulous/ overscrupulous in matters of taste you are going nowhere ... and fast? RESPONDENT: See below for my difficulties in understanding the PCE direct perception thing. RICHARD: I will address your difficulties in understanding pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) and direct perception later in another e-mail. * RICHARD: (...) just as I do not even attempt to adjudge anybody according to my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation which this flesh and blood body enjoys), when someone seeks to impose their tastes on me – which also includes instinctual drives and, most likely, unexamined cultural aesthetics/ fashionable vogues as well – it all slides off me like water off a duck’s back. RESPONDENT: Fair enough. I do see the insanity of judging people by my personal proclivities – it has certainly caused me a lot of frustration and pain in the past. I’ve probably been relying on taste, rather than actual fact, too much in my life. But again, is there NO room for understanding someone through their aesthetic choices? RICHARD: If by ‘understanding’ you are referring to what you previously designated as determining whether they be [quote] ‘fundamentally flawed’ [endquote] then ... no; if by ‘understanding’ you mean ascertaining why (for instance) a particular female uses [quote] ‘tonnes and tonnes of make-up’ [endquote] then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Please explain. RICHARD: You already have yourself ... here: • [Respondent]: ‘I might not like beetroot (for example), but don’t see someone’s taste in beetroot as poor taste’. [endquote]. Stripped of all the cultural aesthetics/ fashionable vogues, and the underlying instinctual drives, aesthetic choices in general are nothing more complicated than that (aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, is neither objectively poor nor objectively impeccable). In other words, it is all a matter of personal taste. RESPONDENT: I remember in the terrifying state prior to enlightenment being influenced by many various ‘artists’, by their works and ‘spirits’, including Van Gogh’s ‘Sun Flower’, Turner’s paintings of Light, ‘La Gioconda’ (especially her smile) by Leonardo da Vinci, Lao Tse, Pink Floyd’s music & lyrics, etc. After That I myself became involved in some artistic expressions. Is Art mainly an expression of the refined affective faculty combined/or not with the other faculties? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Do you still paint? RICHARD: No. * RESPONDENT: Richard, there are some questions I would like to ask you. Are there other ways for conveying a description of an actual freedom from the Human Condition apart from words? Let’s say in an artistic manner, like paintings, sculpture, film, dance or whatever. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: You say that Ugliness as well as Beauty disappeared out of your life. But if you were to travel to India and live for a few days on a ‘suburban’ huts-made street in Bombay, would that not be an ugly experience for your senses? RICHARD: As both ugliness and beautifulness are affective experiences, and not sensate experiences, it is not possible for sense organs to experience anything as being either ugly or beautiful. RESPONDENT: Ugliness was not the best chosen word for what I intended to convey. These sense organs can experience something as being ‘hideous’ or is it only a memory from your past travels to India and not an actuality? RICHARD: You are presumably referring to this: • [Richard]: ‘I have been to India to see for myself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living ... and *it is hideous*. If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing ... but it is practically and demonstrably deleterious to both individual and communal well-being. That is why one only needs to look at where this devotional spiritual living has been practiced for thousands of years to see how badly it has failed to live up to its implied promise of peace and harmony and prosperity for all. Thus both the spiritual and the secular methods of producing peace on earth have each failed miserably ... it is high time for a third alternative to hove into view; something new that has never been lived before in human history. Why repeat the mistakes of the past when the results of doing so are plain to view in all cultures? [emphasis added]. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 8, 24 May 2000). It would have been better to have written it as ‘it was hideous’ as that is more how it was experienced at the time ... perhaps it would be more helpful to say it is grotesque (as in its ‘ludicrous from incongruity; fantastically absurd, bizarre’ meaning). RESPONDENT: For as far as I can ascertain there are pleasant and unpleasant sensations for one’s body (as in a bad smell, chill, very loud sounds, air & water pollution, filthy environment). RICHARD: There is physical pleasure and pain (bodily pain is essential else one could be sitting on a hot-plate, for example, and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising) ... it is the affective pleasure and pain which has no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: How would you experience now the lifestyle of India? RICHARD: The lifestyle of the Indian culture is more or less the same as the lifestyle of any culture ... only, perhaps, more obviously weird. RESPONDENT: Okay, it’s not ugly or beautiful, but then how is it in actuality? RICHARD: As you initially asked about the sensate experience of a ‘huts-made street in Bombay’ then essentially every thing on the Indian subcontinent is pristine – pure and perfect – as it is anywhere. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... do you have the discriminative ability still intact, the ability to see something as being of greater value then some other similar object/ person (a value scale of some sort)? • [Richard]: ‘Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1 on the same scale ... howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff of both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate sense, everything is perfect here in this actual world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25c, 15 September 2003). RESPONDENT: I’ve never been to India and I don’t intend to but I’ve heard reports from those who went ... and they were shocked by the appalling poverty, misery, pollution and hardships endured by the majority of people there. And these reports came from people who are citizens of a ‘second world’ or developing country and are used to much lower standards of living compared to the West. RICHARD: Obviously I cannot speak for everyone – and ‘poverty, misery, pollution and hardships’ are not peculiar to India – yet I would not be going too far out on a limb to hazard a guess that at least some of the shock of the Indian culture reported by many peoples visiting there lies in the propaganda about it being a great spiritual culture ... for it is indeed shocking to view first-hand the results of what they claim are ‘tens of thousands of years’ of devotional spiritual living. RESPONDENT: I ask this as the central point of spirituality is ‘acceptance’ and separation. To be more precise, acceptance in the sense of dissociation: whatever happens ‘I’ cannot be affected by and if I am affected then it is not the real ‘me’ who suffers/ enjoys. So, whatever happens with the world around doesn’t matter to ‘me’, it cannot have a real impact, ‘I’ can only ‘at best’ use it as a ‘shock’ for my spiritual development but I’m not interested in improving or developing my earthly life ... and on the other hand I must not try to change the circumstances as they are given to ‘me’ by God. No wonder these are unliveable teachings. What I want to point out is that actualism is not ‘practice-able’ for a vast majority of people, especially in third world countries, where even the basic body requirements are not met. And even if these requirements are met, the lifestyle of that particular place makes it almost impossible for someone to actually start and do something about their condition. RICHARD: Hmm ... actualism is ‘practice-able’ by anyone, anywhere, anytime, no matter the situation and circumstances (as expressed in the ‘living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are’ phrase you quoted in your previous e-mail). RESPONDENT: I had suspected that the appreciation of something like sharp mustard was a ‘learned’ behaviour, hence conditioned, but it’s merely a complex material for which the appreciation develops over time, as one’s experiential base broadens. RICHARD: You seem to be now talking more of an acquired taste – and acquired taste can be culturally influenced of course – which need not be any more complex than diversifying ... coming to appreciate variety. RESPONDENT: ‘Culturally influenced’ is different from culturally conditioned? RICHARD: Yes ... for example: • ‘influence: an action exerted, imperceptibly or by indirect means, by one person or thing on another so as to cause changes in conduct, development, conditions, etc’. • ‘condition: teach, accustom (a person, animal, etc.) to adopt certain habits, attitudes, etc.; establish a conditioned reflex or response in. (©Oxford Dictionary). • ‘influence: causing something without any direct or apparent effort; a cognitive factor that tends to have an effect on what you do; the effect of one thing (or person) on another; • ‘condition: establish a conditioned response; train by instruction and practice; esp. to teach self-control (‘parents must discipline their children’; ‘is this dog trained?’); discipline, train, check. (©WordNet 1.7). • ‘influence: a power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort (‘the influence of television on modern life’); power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position’. • ‘condition: to cause an organism to respond in a specific manner to a conditioned stimulus in the absence of an unconditioned stimulus. (©The American Heritage® Dictionary). • ‘influence: the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command; the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways’. • ‘condition: to adapt, modify, or mould so as to conform to an environing culture; to modify so that an act or response previously associated with one stimulus becomes associated with another’. (©Merriam-Webster Dictionary). • ‘influence: to cause (someone) to change their behaviour or the way they think about something, or to cause (something) to be changed; the power to have an effect on people or things, or someone or something having such power. • ‘condition: to train or influence a person or animal mentally so that they do or expect a particular thing without thinking about it; a conditioned reflex/ response’. (©Cambridge Dictionary). Most, if not all, artists acknowledge the influences on their art ... for instance the Post-Impressionists were influenced by Oriental aesthetics – mainly in regards to the flattening of perspective – and my work was in turn influenced by them. Another instance was, when working in ceramics, being taken with the artistic expression of one Japanese master-artist in particular who, having traced Japanese pottery back to its origins on the Korean peninsular, developed a blend of ancient and modern and thus my artistic appreciation was again doubly influenced – and the aesthetic appreciation of the people who bought my work was similarly affected – yet there is no way it could be said that this acquired aesthetics (a learned taste) was culturally conditioned. As you had portrayed ‘learned’ behaviour as being conditioned behaviour in your ‘‘learned’ behaviour, hence conditioned’ phrasing (further above) – and as the term ‘an acquired taste’ is more or less interchangeable with ‘learned to appreciate’ and/or ‘learnt to like’ in popular parlance – it was necessary to acknowledge that learned appreciation can be acquired by inspiration (being spontaneously stimulated), as distinct from a learned appreciation instilled by inculcation (being deliberately taught), before commenting that an acquired taste need not be any more complex than coming to an appreciation of variegation or diversification. RESPONDENT: As in the conditioning that we strive to eliminate? RICHARD: Where one becomes aware of a culturally conditioned behaviour (an instilled/ inculcated behaviour) the cultural conditioning (the programming) drops away of its own accord ... no striving is required. It vanishes so completely one wonders what all the fuss was about. RESPONDENT: Or is this a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water? RICHARD: There are no ashes here for a phoenix to arise from ... an actual freedom from the human condition is the genuine article. * RESPONDENT: I am a musician, and have wondered if pursuing this path would eliminate all desire to play music. RICHARD: Yep ... all desire vanishes without a trace. RESPONDENT: So if it is not desire that draws you to literature, what motivates you to put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard? RICHARD: What motivates me to write is nothing more mysterious than the fact that I like my fellow human being: I am simply passing on my experience and understanding of life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are because the other person tells me that they are suffering ... so I report how suffering ended in myself and describe what life is like in this actual world. The motivation also stems from the period 1981-1992: all I ever wanted was the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world as I scoured the books during that eleven years to no avail ... I would rather have it that nobody else need go through what I went through. I am well pleased that the third alternative to materialism and spiritualism is now available throughout the world inasmuch as anyone who finds themselves travelling this path will have the assurance that another has successfully traversed the terrain. In essence this means these words provide a confirmation that the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is universal and an affirmation that the pristine purity a PCE evidences is possible twenty four hours of the day. RESPONDENT: The sensory pleasure of producing words or handling a pen, coupled with an aesthetic appreciation for forming pleasing combinations of words? RICHARD: The reason why, of all the arts, I prefer literature – the art of letters – is that it is the only means of expression (communication) which leaves no room for the ambiguity all other art-forms have ... plus an actual freedom from the human condition cannot be conveyed in any other form than by words anyway. As for ‘forming pleasing combinations of words’ ... when I start a sentence I have no means of knowing in advance what will transpire, let alone how it will end. All I need to be aware of is the topic and the subject matter unfolds of its own accord. I do have a reliable and repeatable format and style, which has developed over the years, so it is not an ad hoc or chaotic meandering. It is all very easy ... it is a delight to be these finger-tips dancing over the keys. It may be useful for me to explain that what I write is expressive prose – it is not a thesis – as I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself. My writing is not intended to stand literary scrutiny for scholarly style and grammatical form and so on – the academics would have a field-day with it – for it is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet is. Then actuality speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: I’ve been reading your web page and mail group for about 8 months. When I was 18 I had an experience on LSD that seems to match your descriptions of PCE’s and also ASC’s. That day I swung from one to the other. After that day I could never stop desiring to return to that space of unspeakable peace and miraculousness (PCE as I understand it) or messianic immortality (ASC as I understand it). RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... here is an example, from a self-healing personal growth book published only recently, which maybe shows how a pure consciousness experience (PCE) can readily turn into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when feelings enter the picture: • ‘I must have been six or seven, and I remembered lying in the grass in front of my house. My mind had become completely immersed in my own private world of grass and dirt and bugs. I examined each blade of grass, noticing the tiny striated segments, and could even see the various cells in each blade. The dirt was emanating a warm humid, earthy smell. The grass was fragrant, and I became ‘riveted’ in my little kingdom. My mind, utterly focussed, came to a complete standstill, and in that moment of absolute stillness it seemed as if time itself stood still. I found myself immersed in a bath of peace. The grass seemed to shimmer with an intense beauty. Everything scintillated and was bursting with life. It seemed as if only a moment had gone by when I heard my mother’s voice calling me in to dinner. As I got up I realised at least an hour must have slipped away as I had somehow ‘dropped into the gap’. My soul had quietly revealed itself to my innocent child-self’. (pages 48-49, ‘The Journey’, ©Brandon Bays 1999; published by Thorsons; ISBN 0 7225 3839 1). The intense feeling of beauty, in such instances, is what reveals truth (or god/ goddess): beauty is the affective substitute for the purity of the perfection of this actual world ... just as love is the affective surrogate for actual intimacy. RICHARD: ... the ‘observer’ being referred to is the feeler, not the thinker ... for example (also from the same e-mail): ‘It is essential to appreciate beauty. The beauty of the sky, the beauty of the sun upon the hill, the beauty of a smile, a face, a gesture, the beauty of the moonlight on the water, of the fading clouds, the song of the bird, it is essential to look at it, *to feel it*, to be with it, this is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth. (...) So it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for *the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love*’. [emphases added]. (‘Fifth Public Talk at Poona’ by J. Krishnamurti; 21 September 1958). (Richard, List B, No. 42c, 30 December 2002). RESPONDENT: Such a beautifully moving text. But so long as the focus is on using it to place K into some theoretical box, then what is expressed, cannot be heard. RICHARD: So long as the focus is on Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti being placed into some theoretical box, then what the quote was actually used to express cannot be heard. As becomes immediately apparent. * RICHARD: Put simply: it is an affective state of ‘being’ ... an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation. RESPONDENT: What you take to be the simple intent, is nowhere presented in the text. RICHARD: What part of the word ‘truth’ is it that you do not understand? Viz.: • [quote]: ‘... this is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth’. If this does not speak to you of the simple intent to discover that, recognise that, realise that by feeling that, I would be interested to hear what does. RESPONDENT: What K meant by ‘feeling of beauty’ is left undefined. RICHARD: As the feeling of beauty is a feeling it is something to feel – not define – and as the feeler is the feeling it remains forever indefinable. For as long as its presence remains, that is. * RESPONDENT: Why then did you describe this feeling as an ‘oceanic feeling of oneness with creation’? RICHARD: Because there is no such presence here in this actual world ... there is no inner and outer in actuality. RESPONDENT: I asked why did you describe it the way that you did. RICHARD: I beg to differ: you asked ‘why then did you ...’ (and not ‘why did you ...’ as you now say) and, as I cannot know your intent when you write, I can only go by the words received and answer accordingly. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand how your answer relates to my question. RICHARD: I had said that as the feeling of beauty is a feeling it is something to feel – not define – and as the feeler is the feeling it remains forever indefinable: when you asked ‘why then did you ...’ I had to presume you had overlooked the caveat (‘for as long as its presence remains that is’) so I explained that there is no such presence here in this actual world. There is no inner and outer in actuality. * RESPONDENT: Its meaning cannot be squeezed for more juice without adulterating it with your own flavouring. RICHARD: As the feeling of beauty is not being squeezed for meaning in the first place any speculation about more meaning is just that ... speculation. RESPONDENT: Such adulterations markedly change its flavour. RICHARD: It might help comprehension of whatever it is you are wanting to convey if you could provide some details about these adulterated flavours you squeezed out of the meaning of the feeling of beauty. RESPONDENT: Again, I am referring to the expression ‘oceanic feeling of oneness with creation’. RICHARD: Are you saying that when you feel/ felt an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation it feels/ felt like an adulterated flavour which is/was being squeezed out of the meaning of the feeling of beauty? RESPONDENT: No, that is not what I am saying. I was referring to the semantic suitability of ‘oceanic feeling of oneness ...’ as a substitute for ‘feeling of beauty’. These two expressions have for me very different senses. RICHARD: I see ... you are talking about a semantic flavour, then, and not the affective flavour of the feeling itself? RESPONDENT: Again, I don’t know where K referred to this expression of ‘oceanic feelings’. I think that K would have said that in oneness there is nothing being experienced, there is no sense of feeling it, that there is total absence. RICHARD: Whereas what he did say was that the very first requirement for a person who would seek truth – the very first requirement mind you – is to feel the beauty of the outside and thus be with it ... which feeling is the feeling of love. In other words, if he had meant for there to be ‘no sense of feeling it’ he would have said so (just as he had said ‘do not think’ in another instance in regards to the outside being the inside) ... yet he did not. On the contrary, he stressed the essentiality of feeling it. RESPONDENT: There are sections of the Notebooks where he talks about that, I could type in a section if that would be some help here. What does it mean to feel an oceanic feeling of oneness with creation? RICHARD: The meaning is in the feeling itself ... and the feeling is that the affective state of ‘being’ itself is all there is. RESPONDENT: I can recall a lot of different meanings given to this expression by various authors. Mystics, Scientists, Freudians, Reichians, Artists, there are various ways it is used. What do you mean by this expression? RICHARD: What I mean by this expression is that the affective state of ‘being’ itself is an immense, vast, limitless feeling of being one. * RICHARD: If so, maybe what is/was missing is/was the feeling of love Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of in the quoted text: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘... the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’. RESPONDENT: Yes, but what does this equation mean? RICHARD: Do you want a semantically suitable answer or the deeply felt answer? RESPONDENT: Is the feeling of love what is usually meant by feeling love? RICHARD: The closest feeling, to what is usually meant by feeling love, would be the feeling of having fallen in love – of being in love – which is qualitatively different from feeling love. RESPONDENT: There is a powerful emotional connection between beauty and love, as for example with erotic objects. RICHARD: Again, you will find that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti places emphasis on passion, not emotion. RESPONDENT: And Neoplatonists placed at the core of the Platonic equation of beauty, truth, and goodness, an all embracing eternal love. That may be the source of your expression of ‘oceanic feelings of oneness’. The equation is quite stirring and carries with it a lot of baggage. But it is questionable whether K meant any of this, though we may be reading this into what he said. RICHARD: As it is you who is saying this which you write here then the word ‘we’ is not applicable. 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