# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Infinitude RESPONDENT: (9) Can you tell me how far the space around us extends. Can that space end somewhere? If so what is beyond that? RICHARD: Space is infinite, so it extends indefinitely. As it is infinite, it can not end somewhere. As it does not end, there is nothing beyond the universe. It is ‘I’ who, being a fiction, desires Immortality to perpetuate ‘my’ real existence for all of Eternity – thus secretly despising this body and this physical life – and it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges ... which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular. Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once. RESPONDENT: An auspicious month then, as the moment is always :) Just yesterday, 2 things occurred while on a flight trip : – 1. While entering the security check-in gates, I was frisked by a rather rude group of security staff and I realized that my bad feelings were coming because of seeing them in a position of power and ‘me’ being helpless and at their mercy. I wondered how to turn around this and I realized that such events are going to happen ad-infinitum and it kind of hit home a bit deeper that there is just no long term solution to be found in the ‘human’ world of feelings – the seeing of this landed into a short EE. I still haven’t got the guts to abandon humanity yet and I can see how it is a sort of a ‘virtual’ cord that is linking ‘me’ to the ‘human’ world. 2. While in the flight I happened to remember Richard’s ‘looking between the stars instead of looking at the stars and realizing infinity’ (paraphrasing here) and I wondered how could there be infinity when the line joining the stars is finite until I happened to look behind that line and away (along the line of sight itself) and whoa it sucked for me a second or two into an infinite like abyss – but again the logical mind comes back to say ‘nah dont commit to infinity’.. but in all was a fun exercise ! back to having fun in the only moment :) RICHARD: G’day No. 32, In regards to the first of the two things which happened to you while on a flight trip: the realisation that your fellow human beings, when in an everyday position of power and control, will (on occasion) pull a power-trip on their fellow human beings – per favour blind nature’s rough and ready software survival package – can be of an on-going benefit (as well as that immediate long-term benefit, which you have already reported, of it hitting home to you more deeply how there is just no long term solution to be found in the human condition) but only provided your on-the-spot realisation manifests as an actualisation, of that valuable insight, in your moment-to-moment living. An anecdote might best illustrate what I mean: many years ago my then-companion Devika would oft-times say to me that I should stand up for myself and not let peoples (such as you describe) push me around ... indeed, it was one of the reasons she created a psychic force-field in her psyche (which is, of course, the human psyche) so as to protect what she saw, experientially, back then as innocence personified. (She was wont to exclaim, on occasion, how ‘Richard brings something marvellous – something absolutely wonderful – into the world and yet everyone deposits ordure on it’ ... albeit not expressed quite so politely as that). What she did not realise – except during a PCE of course – is that innocence itself (the genuine article and not the so-called innocence of children) requires no affective vibe/ psychic current protection whatsoever and, therefore, in vain would I explain to her that, in everyday situations such as you report (where the whole point of the exercise is to walk out the door with the goodies which those in a position of power and control can either dispense or withhold), I had no interest whatsoever in futilely striving to win a puny ego-battle with some officious power-tripper but, instead, walk away with the said goodies each time. Regarding the second of the two things which happened to you on that flight trip: there have been more than a few peoples ask me (but as a ‘gotcha’ question, of course, in their minds) what sensory organ it is whereby the infinite nature of this physical universe’s space can be detected – whereupon I usually answer that it is simply a matter of apperceptive awareness (inasmuch it is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself, who automatically creates a boundary to ‘my’ awareness by virtue of being the centre of ‘my’ consciousness) – and it makes for a pleasant change to read what you have to say upon having gazed deeply into that velvety darkness betwixt the stars and thereby experienced for yourself ‘an infinite like abyss’ for a second or two. (Incidentally, that ‘abyss’ description comes from an experience of that nature being a momentary loss of ‘self’ – or even partial loss more likely – as any such abyss-experience stems primarily from a (temporarily) non-egoic glimpsing of death-of-ego, rather than ‘self’-immolation/ ‘self’-extinction in ‘my’ entirety, as it is a feature of pre-awakenment/ pre-enlightenment experiences as well). Please note that I am not suggesting for a moment that the human eye – be it partially/ fully ‘self’-less or not – is powerful enough in its reach, or receptive enough in its absorption, to be viewing infinite space in a measuring sense (such as estimating the distance to a mountain peak, say, ten miles or so away) as infinity simply cannot be measured. The human eye is, rather, looking into infinity (when gazing deeply into that velvety darkness betwixt the stars) in the sense that there is no limit to its seeing ability other than its own physical capacity due to having evolved on a planet a short distance away, in astronomical terms, from its central star (aka the sun). There is an interesting twist to all this inasmuch, back in 1998 (on July 12 (Richard, List B, No. 17, 12 July 1998) & 13 (Richard, List B, No.17, 13 July 1998) and August 01 (Richard, List B, No. 17, 1 August 1998) & 06 (Richard, List B, No. 17, 6 August 1998 & 24 (Richard, List B, No. 17, 24 August 1998) I was asked online – albeit as a ‘gotcha’ question – to solve the ‘Olbers’ Paradox’. Given it was a ‘gotcha’ question (plus being asked by a self-professed intellectual) I responded with an intellectual – and therefore unsatisfying – answer at that time. By way of explanation I have presented it thisaway: in 1610 Mr. Johannes Kepler advanced an argument against the universe being infinite and eternal, and thus containing an infinite number of stars (a hypothetical problem nowadays popularly known as the ‘Olbers’ Paradox’ after the German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers who also discussed it in 1823), by proposing that if the universe is indeed infinite and eternal and uniformly populated with luminous stars then every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star ... which implies that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright with no dark spaces between the stars. (This hypothesis erroneously assumes, of course, that because the night sky does not *appear* to be bright to the naked eye, with no dark spaces between the stars, then it is so in fact). In order to comprehend why it was presented as an argument against the universe being infinite and eternal it must be borne in mind that in both 1610 and 1823 the known universe was a one-galaxy universe (the ‘Milky Way’ galaxy) and it was not until 1929 that astronomers discovered there were other galaxies ... many other galaxies, in fact (the last time I looked it up the then-current estimate was 125 billion and rising). As recently as October 2001 astronomers, using the Hubble Deep Field telescope, looked 12 billion light years away from planet earth (one light year is approximately six trillion miles) into a speck-size area of the southern sky, an area so tiny to the naked eye that it would be obscured by a grain of sand held at arm’s length, and spied 620 galaxies (and one galaxy alone can contain trillions of stars). If the naked eye was optically receptive enough, or powerful enough in its reach (or whatever the right word is to describe what it is not) there would be nowhere it could look that its every line of sight would not eventually terminate at the surface of a star ... and the night sky would no longer appear to be dark. Hence it could be said that the universe is indeed a brilliant universe (in more ways than one) or, to put that another way, there is only light after all! Or, as Vineeto expressed it recently (in Oct 2010), in an apperceptive context, ‘the universe [is] ablaze with light from infinity to infinity’. Regards, Richard. RICK: Richard, could you list as many characteristics as possible that you would ascribe to the universe, please. Such as benign, infinite, wonderful, marvellous, eternal, a veritable perpetuus mobilis etc. As many as possible would be neat to look see. I’m just curious to read what the universe is and therefore what it isn’t from a pure consciousness experiencer. RICHARD: The fundamental characteristic, or nature, of the universe is its infinitude – specifically having the properties of being spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perdurable – or, to put that another way, its absoluteness ... as such it is a veritable perpetuus mobilis (as in being self-existent/ non-dependent and/or self-reliant/ non-contingent and/or self-sufficient/ unconditional and/or self-generating/ unsupported). Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate). And this is truly wonderful to behold. Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine. And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs. Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous, and so on) ... and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’. (Oxford Dictionary). And that, to say the least, is quite amazing. RICHARD: I am none too sure what it is to be ‘fully understood’ by you but it certainly is not what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: These are the points I am presuming have been fully understood by you (please don’t say there is no one there to understand them, or if you prefer, are a description of actual freedom): • [Respondent]: ‘1) There are no permanent things (including I/Me, identity, self, states etc). • [Richard] Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, 54, 22 October 2003). • [Respondent]: ‘2) Consequently there is no basis for suffering to arise. I am happy and harmless. [endquotes]. Please point out where I have gone wrong in my understanding of what actual freedom is. RICHARD: The first part of your very first sentence – ‘there are no permanent things’ – is at odds with your ‘yes I have noticed this [that it is never not this moment]’ observation and your ‘I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist’ understanding. Not only is this universe – all time, all space, all matter (mass/ energy) – a permanent (synonyms: lasting, everlasting, never-ending, unending, endless, ceaseless, continuous, interminable, incessant, perpetual, perdurable, imperishable, indestructible, enduring, undying, eternal) thing, being infinite in extent, duration, and amount (aka infinitude) it is the biggest thing of all. Things don’t come bigger than infinitude. * RESPONDENT: ... I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist. Where else is there to be except in the universe? RICHARD: As a flesh and blood body ... nowhere else (nowhere else but here in space and now in time); as an identity ... anywhere else (anywhere else other than here in space and now in time). RESPONDENT: SO are you saying if the thought arises (I am god, enlightened or any other false belief) that you are somehow ejected out of infinitude? RICHARD: Nope ... I am saying the identity within, being but an illusion/ delusion, can never be here in space and now in time. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘There is no intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality ... what is flawed is attempting to find/ locate that phantasm, that ghost in the machine, when all that needs to be done is to altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. As there is no such ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) or ‘presence’ in actuality there is nothing to lose ... except ‘who’ you instinctively know, feel, and thus think, you are. And therein lies the rub: ‘I’/ ‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/ ‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 56, 22 October 2003). In short: as an identity, one is forever locked-out of paradise (this actual world of sensate delight); as a flesh and blood body, one is never out of paradise. RESPONDENT: I hope not, otherwise infinitude would not be infinite. RICHARD: The only ‘infinitude’ there is, for an identity, is a metaphysical infinitude (a timeless and spaceless and formless ‘being’ or ‘presence’). RESPONDENT: I would say that regardless of the thoughts, feelings, beliefs present, it is impossible to not be in the universe. RICHARD: Ha ... it is impossible for an identity (being but an illusion/ delusion) to ever be in actuality. RESPONDENT: But where else is there to be, for you are always here, even if you say I am something/ somewhere else. RICHARD: An identity is never here – let alone ‘always here’ – as to be here is to be at this place in space (now at this moment in time). * RESPONDENT: ... please point out where I have gone wrong in my understanding of what actual freedom is. RICHARD: The first part of your very first sentence – ‘there are no permanent things’ – is at odds with your ‘yes I have noticed this [that it is never not this moment]’ observation and your ‘I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist’ understanding. Not only is this universe – all time, all space, all matter (mass/ energy) – a permanent (synonyms: lasting, everlasting, never-ending, unending, endless, ceaseless, continuous, interminable, incessant, perpetual, perdurable, imperishable, indestructible, enduring, undying, eternal) thing, being infinite in extent, duration, and amount (aka infinitude) it is the biggest thing of all. Things don’t come bigger than infinitude. RESPONDENT: Ok, fair enough, I can agree with that statement if the universe is seen as a ‘whole’ for want of a better word (maybe you would prefer infinitude). RICHARD: As time and space and matter are seamless infinitude can never be divided. RESPONDENT: However, if its divided up into discrete parts (which is what the human mind does) then none of those parts can be said to be permanent. RICHARD: If you wish to abstractly divide up that which cannot be divided up in actuality, and then bemoan the lack of permanency (not to mention the lack of actuality), then that is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: That was the point I was making. I think that you jumped to conclusions as to what I was saying. RICHARD: Quite frankly I am none too sure what it is you are saying ... I do get the impression, however, that you are arguing with yourself. RESPONDENT: Describing infinitude as a ‘thing’ is in a sense, a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: Not at all. The word ‘thing’ is a generic word and can refer to any object/ entity whether geological/ biological or manufactured/ fabricated ... whatever has a discrete, independent existence (whether it be material or immaterial as in concrete or abstract/ physical or metaphysical) and is not a relation or a function, and so on, is a thing. It is a very wide-ranging word. RESPONDENT: Richard, an uncluttered space in which to clarify some key issues: What is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: Apperception (unmediated perception) ... as a flesh and blood body only one is this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively: as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is wonderful. RESPONDENT: With regard to attaining ‘actual freedom from the human condition’, does it matter whether the universe is infinite and eternal? RICHARD: It is infinitude which makes such a freedom possible ... only that which has no opposite is peerless (hence perfect). RESPONDENT: If time, space and matter had begun with a ‘Big Bang’, would PCE’s still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the peerless perfection of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) would not exist. RESPONDENT: Would ‘actual freedom’ from the human condition still be possible? RICHARD: No ... the pristine purity of this actual world would not exist. RESPONDENT: Ok, you experience the universe as infinite, beginningless and endless. RICHARD: To be precise: this flesh and blood body, being sans identity in toto, has the direct experience of infinitude when awake, not asleep, when sensible, not insensible (comatose) whether thought is operating or not. RESPONDENT: Given that eyesight is limited, range of hearing is limited, sense of smell has a shorter range, taste even less, and tactile sensation is confined to the very boundaries of the body, which sense organ in this flesh and blood body is capable of apperceptively perceiving infinity? Which sense organ is apperceptively able to determine what happened or didn’t happen in the distant past? Which sense organ is apperceptively able to determine what will or will not happen in the distant future? Which sense organ reveals the shape or shapelessness of the universe? RICHARD: You asked ‘what is your basis for claiming that the universe is infinite and eternal’ and I answered as asked: the basis for my claim that the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perpetual is the apperceptive awareness (unmediated perception) of infinitude. Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if the infinitude directly experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not the infinitude of the universe then what is it the infinitude of ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense)? In other words if it be not a physical infinitude then it falls into the realm of being a metaphysical infinitude. RESPONDENT: When a PCE occurred to a Stone Age man, would he have been apperceptively aware that if he could actually walk and sail in a straight line for long enough he would arrive back at his starting point? RICHARD: Only if such a person knew the earth/ water they were walking/ sailing on was a globe ... apperception is not omniscience. RESPONDENT: If so, how? RICHARD: Knowledge. RESPONDENT: If not, why not? RICHARD: Given that ‘stone age’ means before human beings figured it out that they were living on a globe it would be because of a lack of knowledge ... and as knowledge is passed on to succeeding generations I did not have to figure that one out for myself. ‘Tis great not having to rediscover the wheel. * RESPONDENT: Richard, would it be a fair summary of your position to say that ... Finiteness and temporality are mental constructs. RICHARD: No ... an identity, by its very presence, creates a centre to consciousness – which can be graphically likened to a dot in the centre of a circle – and thus its consciousness is circumscribed, limited, bounded, by the very core of its own ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself). In a pure consciousness experience (PCE), with identity temporarily in abeyance, and upon an actual freedom from the human condition, with identity extinct, consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – has no boundaries and there is the direct experience of infinitude. It is an existential matter, in other words, not an intellectual matter (as in a mental construct) ... generally speaking the cognitive faculty cops all the blame whilst the affective faculty gets off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Only when they drop away can we see the misconceptions they produce. RICHARD: Only when identity drops away can infinitude be directly experienced ... then it is patently obvious that ‘being’ itself imposed the restrictions (and thus, by its very presence, the misconceptions of the intellect). RESPONDENT: It’s not necessary (or possible) to physically prove that space and time are infinite because the notions of finiteness and temporality are artefacts of the mind that simply disappear, temporarily in a PCE, or permanently in an actual freedom from the human condition. RICHARD: The notions just do not arise in a PCE, or where one is actually free from the human condition, because the mind is free from the restrictions ‘being’ imposes by its very presence ... it never occurs to me to think about such matters (except in discussions such as these). Quite frankly the notions are ludicrous. RESPONDENT: Is this coming closer to an understanding of your position? RICHARD: There is no need to take a ‘position’ here in the actual world ... the direct experience of infinitude informs, each moment again, that space is boundless, time is unlimited, and matter (mass/ energy) is perdurable. Put simply: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: I recently watched a documentary on TV about Hubble telescope and it was reported that the furthest images Hubble took were from a distance of 12 billion light years from Earth and these photos were of already fully formed galaxies. These images puzzled scientists as they expected very young star formations in that area. RICHARD: Yes, the increasing reach of modern astronomy is making the ‘Big Bang’ theory look even sillier than it already did when it was first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre (at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma). In astronomical terms the universe is immense beyond human (earthly) comparison: the better the telescope the larger the known universe is ... the Next Generation Space Telescope (expected to be launched in 2009 when the Hubble Space Telescope ends its useful life) will collect light in the infrared band rather than the optical band and which may, by pushing the present boundaries past the range of current human visibility, drive the final nail into the coffin of that biblically-motivated ex-nihilo/ ad-nihil (creation/ destruction) science-fiction fantasy known as the ‘Big Bang’/ ‘Big Crunch’ theory which passes for wisdom in the vaulted halls of academia. RESPONDENT: The human mind cannot accept infinity as a fact I guess. RICHARD: Oh, this human mind could, back at age eight or nine when I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my then father, one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe – a brick wall/ wire fence/ whatever – and if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one be looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day ... along with actually knowing the eternity of time and the perpetuity of matter (mass/ energy) which I collectively refer to with the word ‘infinitude’ from the Oxford Dictionary ‘infinite extent, amount, duration, etc.; a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ meaning. RESPONDENT: And if it were to accept it as a fact, what would that imply for a human being? RICHARD: Well, for this human being it implied that the timeless and spaceless and formless infinitude, which was subjectively experienced night and day for eleven years, was a delusory infinitude ... an affective/ psychic hallucination. RESPONDENT: Would it make any difference? RICHARD: It made a difference for this human being – it being one of the numerous things which went towards enabling an actual freedom from the human condition – and thus, by extension, any other human being desirous of the same. The history of science shows that fact always wins out over fantasy ... eventually. RICHARD: ... the point I am making by providing this particular link (just as I did with the Mr. Tom Van Flandern link) is that, being but a lay-person in all these matters, what I see is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/ invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory. RESPONDENT: And of course the crucial question is that how is [discussing amongst themselves the validity/ invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory] going to make a contribution to world piece \?/ peace on earth? RICHARD: No, the crucial question is why a person, seeking to disallow the direct experience of infinitude – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – by telling me that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual (such as in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in a previous post) because of this theory or that theory or any other theory, would even try flying that kite when it is patently obvious that mathematics do not describe the universe and that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. For just one example: • ‘Poincaré put forward important ideas on mathematical models of the real world. If one set of axioms is preferred over another to model a physical situation then, Poincaré claimed, this was nothing more than a convention. Conditions such as simplicity, easy of use, and usefulness in future research, help to determine which will be the convention, while it is meaningless to ask which is correct. The question of whether physical space is Euclidean is not a meaningful one to ask. The distinction, he argues, between mathematical theories and physical situations is that mathematics is a construction of the human mind, whereas nature is independent of the human mind. Here lies that problem; fitting a mathematical model to reality is to forcing a construct of the human mind onto nature which is ultimately independent of mind’. (www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/World.html#s54). RESPONDENT: There are a some questions I have regarding cosmology as defended by AF – maybe these can help clarify some current discussions – namely the current cosmology and unknowable phenomena discussions. RICHARD: And for the sake of the clarification you speak of here are what the words cosmology and cosmogony mean to me: • ‘cosmogony [Gk ‘kosmogonia’ creation of the world]: a theory or account of the origin of the universe; the branch of science that deals with the origin of the universe; the creation of the universe; cosmogonic, cosmogonical; cosmogonist: (a) a person who holds that the world had a beginning in time; (b) a person who studies cosmogony or propounds a cosmogony. • ‘cosmology [Fr. ‘cosmologie’ or mod. L ‘cosmologia’]: the science of the evolution and structure of the universe; a theory or postulated account of this; the branch of philosophy or metaphysics which deals with the universe as a whole; cosmologist: a person who studies cosmology or propounds a cosmology’. (Oxford Dictionary). I profess no intimate or direct knowledge of the structure (the nuts and bolts) of the universe ... that which is what is properly called cosmology. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘What I am most interested in, Richard, is bring forth some rather unusual questions about the nature of what is ‘Actual’. Questions about the energies which constitute matter ‘as we know it’ (through the senses), and the various speeds and properties of substance that the senses are unable to register. These may not interest you but it will help me understand (I’m choosing my words carefully here just how finely tuned is this third alternative focus ... • [Richard]: ‘If you mean questions such as the make-up of atoms and the speed of sound waves, radio waves, light waves and so on, then I would make it clear that I am not a physicist ... nor a mathematician. Consequently I do not pretend to know all the detailed analysis of the constitution of physical matter/ energy gathered and/or proposed so far by human beings ... which means that this lay-person viewpoint enables me to not fall for the all-too-obvious errors of omission (and errors of commission) that dogs the mathematically-driven physicist’s world-view’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 10, 12 June 2000). With only a few scattered digressions all I have ever spoken of – and repeatedly at that – in regards the nature of the universe is its infinitude ... and I use the word ‘infinitude’ in its ‘a boundless expanse; an unlimited time’ (Oxford Dictionary) sense. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘As time is eternal – just as space is infinite and matter is perpetual – to be here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe (I am using the word ‘infinitude’ in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ or ‘I am the experience of infinitude’. The infinite character of physical space, coupled with the eternal character of time and the perpetual character of matter, produces a here and now infinitude that can be understood experientially by one who is apperceptive. To grasp the character of infinitude with certainty, the reasoning mind must forsake its favoured process of intellectual understanding through logical and/or intuitive imagination and enter into the realm of a pure consciousness experience (apperception). In a PCE – which is where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant – the essential characteristics of infinitude are transparently obvious, lucidly self-evident, clearly apparent and open to view’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 5, 8 January 1999b). More than a little of what modern day theoretical physics proposes is, more properly, called cosmogony ... the ‘Big Bang’ theory for example. RESPONDENT: 1) Precisely, how is the universe known to be infinite/ eternal? RICHARD: Put simply: if the infinitude directly experienced in a pure consciousness experience is not the infinitude of the universe then what is it the infinitude of ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense)? In other words if it be not a physical infinitude then it falls into the realm of being a metaphysical infinitude. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that whether this is known purely through ‘common sense’ reasoning without a PCE or whether it takes a PCE to become obvious is unclear. RICHARD: You may find the following link informative in this regard: (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 23 May 2000). Just in case you do not access that page I would draw attention to the following excerpts: • [Richard]: ‘... modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that are 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. (...) ‘I primarily base the infinity, eternity and perpetuity (collectively known as infinitude) of the universe on my direct experience of the actual, of course, but that is of little use to another person who is not living in this actual world or not currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Therefore, one initially needs to approach the question rationally – through inductive and/or deductive reasoning – so as to dispel the oh-so-persistent feeling of finiteness, temporariness and transitoriness which the psychological and psychic entity manifests over the actual (the centre in consciousness creates the boundary in awareness) thus producing everyday reality’s spatial, temporal and material finiteness. (...) ‘... as a normal person I could not directly experience the actuality of the infinitude ... at age eight or nine I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my father one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe ... a brick wall/ wire fence/ whatever ... if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day. (...) ‘... at 33 years of age I had a four hour PCE wherein the direct experience of infinitude provided the actual knowing I had desired from childhood ... and I wanted this actuality twenty four hours of the day. Consequently – after an eleven year interlude in an altered state of consciousness wherein God aka Truth arrogated the universe’s infinitude – I entered into the actual world at age 45 and have directly known ever since, each moment again, infinitude as an actuality. It is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates the impression of ‘finite’, ‘duration’ and ‘transience’ ... and then challenges others to prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite, timed and depletable universe; it is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates this impression with ‘my’ instinct-driven feelings which cripple an otherwise intelligent mind ... ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can only think in terms of duality. To think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and logic is limited inasmuch as it cannot encompass infinitude (infinitude has no duality). ‘Therefore, it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. For those people who attempt to disallow this actual knowing on the grounds of subjectivity I can only say that their knowing is not only subjective as well but a self-centred subjectivity into the bargain. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable form ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why’. (...) (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 23 May 2000). I, for one, have not heard about, or read of, any satisfactory ‘where, when, how, from what, and why’ answer and I would be most surprised to ever come across one as what cosmogony does is shift the issue of infinitude into the realm of creation/ discreation fantasies ... such as believing in a ‘Creation’ ex nihilo/ ‘Destruction’ ad nihil, if one is a religious cosmogonist, or believing in a ‘Big Bang’ ex nihilo/ ‘Big Crunch’ ad nihil, if one is a scientific cosmogonist, for example. In other words (‘ex nihilo’ is Latin for ‘out of nothing’ and ‘ad nihil’ is Latin for ‘to nothing’) the issue of infinitude has been shifted onto a non-temporal (timeless) and non-spatial (spaceless) and non-material (formless) and therefore non-existent, and thus metaphysical, nothing or nothingness ... which posited nothingness, or non-existing void, is further proposed as being both the source, or origin, of all things physical (all time, all space, all form) and the eventual destiny for all its (supposed) manifestations. In short: it bespeaks of credulity stretched to the max. RESPONDENT: 2) Can I know merely by using common sense (without a PCE) that the universe is infinite/ eternal – despite the currently prevailing scientific theories? If so – how could I know it? RICHARD: I personally plunk for what Mr. Zeno proposed in the fifth century BCE (as already mentioned above) who asked if one were to travel to the edge of the universe and throw a spear what would one be throwing a spear into? RESPONDENT: 3) Could I have a PCE and it still not be completely evident that the universe is infinite/ eternal? RICHARD: It could indeed be not completely evident ... yes. I have the distinct advantage of the on-going experiencing of infinitude and can easily know for sure each moment again when asked ... as I sit here now typing these words I am this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such it is stunningly aware of its infinitude. And this is truly wondrous. RESPONDENT: Do I have to somehow turn my attention to that fact in a PCE – or is it always a datum of experience in the PCE? RICHARD: What can happen is that the direct experience of infinitude in a PCE can be translated as being the infinitude of something metaphysical ... a god (using the word ‘god’ in the ‘ground of being’ sense) in other words. Then the PCE can devolve into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) with all that is implied and the ramifications thereof. RESPONDENT: 4) It would also be interesting for Richard/ Peter/ Vineeto or whoever is inclined to discredit the purported evidence in existence for the big bang. It has been said that the big bang is creationist cosmology – which for some is true – yet it is hardly ONLY creationist cosmology – take people like Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking for example. Mr Hawking has defended a finite universe with nothing outside or before it (nothing for a Creator to do) – so there appear to be some who propose there is an outside to the big bang and others who say it is self-contained. Obviously, whoever proposes there is something outside the universe must do so on non-scientific grounds. I don’t intend to argue the case for the big-bang – but how would AF explain the red-shift, for example? Or the current interpretations of the cosmic background radiation, etc? I’m aware of Halton Arp’s counter proposals, but the question, it seems to me is where the evidence actually leads. Just because the person who came up with the big bang theory was a theist doesn’t discredit the theory if there is no god. If there are independent reasons (evidence) for thinking it is true, is it not important for those independent reasons to be examined? Does a finite universe necessarily lead to a something outside of it? It seems there are many scientists who don’t think so. RICHARD: There are many, many refutations of both the ‘Big Bang’ theory and the ‘Red Shift’ theory available both in print and on the internet (mostly on the internet as publishers, generally speaking, will not publish anything which departs from the party line) ... which one would you like to read/ hear about? Speaking personally the only refutation I am interested in is the direct experience of infinitude itself. RESPONDENT: 5) Lastly, if I were setting out to discover whether the universe is infinite/ eternal or finite – just how would I do it? What observations would I make? What reasoning would I use? Precisely, how would I investigate the issue if I don’t already know the fact? RICHARD: Again I would recommend accessing the above link (where I go into some detail about this which you ask). RESPONDENT: Is there a way to avoid being an agnostic on the issue – since if I’m investigating – then I’m open to finding out the fact of the matter? Does being agnostic necessarily mean being open to belief? Can’t I be agnostic and be open to finding out a fact? Or do I just have to get rid of current scientific theory to find that I already know the answer? RICHARD: The question of agnosticism applies to all subjects, of course, not only the subject of the infinitude of the universe (which has tended to split the current, and previous, discussions on this mailing list into two separate issues). For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble) until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/ truth/ idea/ philosophy/ whatever’). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. I now know. RESPONDENT: What is time? RICHARD: Time cannot be described in isolation as time and space and form are seamless in that they do not and cannot operate as separate or disparate units. Time and space and form are material inasmuch that they are actually existing and form can be material in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). Therefore time can be portrayed as the measure of the movement of form in space and the periodicity of its rearrangement; space is an arena in which form can exist, move and rearrange itself endlessly; form is matter (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) occupying space (which is infinite) and taking time (which is eternal) to reconfigure itself (which is perpetual). The properties of eternal time and infinite space designate a vast and utter stillness and the properties of perpetual form designate liveliness; a scintillating, sparkling vitality. In a word: infinitude. When one directly ascertains (apperceptive awareness) the properties of infinitude (infinite and eternal and perpetual) the qualities of the property of infinitude become apparent (infinitude has no opposite): pristine and consummate and impeccable. These non-dual qualities are the source of the values of infinitude (benevolent and benign and blithe). RESPONDENT No. 27: Maybe you can use this post as another attempt to flog a dead horse. RICHARD: No thank you ... because you have closed the door on the possibility of perfection and peace-on-earth when you write: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’. (Richard, List B, No. 27, 28 March 1998). RESPONDENT: What do we do with that state of perfection that No. 27 is alleged to ignore? RICHARD: Enjoy it, of course. Delight in being here doing this business called being alive. Luxuriate in the pleasure of doing it now. Drink in the nectar of being here at this moment in time and this place in space and breathe the ambrosial air of peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: Is this goal that you are aiming for is likely to be of any use? If so, how? RICHARD: The goal is that you will become happy and harmless. The goal is that you will be free of sorrow and malice. The goal is that you will become blithesome and benign. The goal is that you will be free of fear and aggression. The goal is that you will become carefree and considerate. The goal is that you will be free from nurture and desire. The goal is that you will become gay and benevolent. The goal is that you will be free from anguish and animosity. The goal is that, by being free of the Human Condition you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body. And you ask: ‘Is this any use’? I would say yes, most definitely it is useful. It means the end of all the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides. Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden. RESPONDENT: What would you do with it if you are as perfect as you wished to be and the rest of the universe continues to be neither perfect nor imperfect? RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect. The infinitude of this physical universe, being all that there is, has no opposite ... and that which has no beginning or end is perfect. RESPONDENT: How would you exist? RICHARD: That is just it ... there is no egoistic ‘I’ here. Nor an affective ‘me’. Psychological death and psychic extinction are the only doorways to an actual freedom. RESPONDENT: If ‘peace-on-earth’ has never been achieved, what does then give you this understanding that with your perfection ‘peace’ will begin to unfold? RICHARD: Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth. Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that another wishful thinking? Another concept like ‘perfection’? Another goal? RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body ... then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair ... and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket. Desire it like you have never desired anything before. RESPONDENT: Are you perfect? If not, how would you ever know what perfection is, what perfection can or cannot do, what it is good for ? RICHARD: Perfection can be found via the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which happens during a peak experience ... which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen and understood to be already always perfect as-it-is. Perfection can thus be known by anyone with apperceptive awareness ... which is this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons. Apperception has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope. The freedom of enlightenment is not an actual freedom ... it is a solution found within the human condition, for there is still an identity; be it as a self or a being or a presence or a spirit. Speaking personally, I am none of these ... I am this body being apperceptively aware. An actual freedom means freedom from the human condition. This what I experience twenty four hours a day is the same as is experienced in a PCE. This is the perfection and the purity of the infinitude of this physical universe personified. I am the universe – this material universe – experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. This is the on-going experience that is ambrosial. RESPONDENT: If you are perfect, why do we still lack this state of ‘peace-on-earth’? RICHARD: Because – I presume – people lack the gumption to proceed poste-haste to their destiny. ‘I’ saw perfect purity and peace-on-earth and ‘I’ went for it boots and all ... the requisite intestinal fortitude came to ‘me’ along the way. RESPONDENT: What are you waiting for? RICHARD: Once again, speaking personally, I am not waiting for anything. Everything I could wish for – and more – is already always here. What are you waiting for? * RESPONDENT: You say: ‘The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect’. If so, what is your problem? Don’t you trust existence? RICHARD: No. ‘Existence’ (a nom de guerre for God) is notoriously untrustworthy. I can rely totally on this universe, however, because it is physical ... whereas ‘Existence’ is metaphysical. RESPONDENT: How could that which is always perfect can ever become imperfect? And if it is really perfect as an ensemble with all in it, you too are already perfect. You cannot be imperfect and the universe would continue in its merry way in its state of perfection, can it? Either the existence is ever ‘perfect’ or it is not. The existence didn’t knock on your door and told you that it was imperfect – but you, the observer, put this label on the existence based on what you see. You are so disturbed by the existence that you think you could change its state by ‘doing’ something about it. Could it be that this sense of mitigation that you carry on your shoulder may be the root cause for what you observe? You really don’t believe the existence to be ever perfect because you are always attempting to mend it. So out of this conflict arise murder, mayhem, rapes, indifference, the chaos all around you and you become more riled up, become more intense for perfection which no one ever denied you. Instead of trusting the existence to take care of it, you are taking charge to mitigate it and thereby causing more chaos. RICHARD: Wow, what a mouthful ... look, what happened was that ‘I’ disappeared and I found myself here in this already existing peace-on-earth. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be, above. You are trying to understand the ‘riddle of life’ whilst remaining in existence as a ‘being’. It is only when ‘I’ become extinct that the actual becomes apparent ... permanently. It can be glimpsed in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Instead of formulating theories, just go for it. You can make up a story about it afterwards. KONRAD: How about the infinite always being a finite concept, because it consists in every case of the pointing to a border, and a negation? (Look at your own proof of the infinity of the universe.) RICHARD: That does not fall into the category of something new ... I was asked on another Mailing List last year to prove the infinitude of the universe without resorting to that ancient Greek one of going to the border and throwing a spear into ... into what? You are asking a logical question and insisting on a logical answer. As all logic is based upon opposites, it is a ‘problem’ that logic cannot solve. What it goes to serve is to show that logic is limited. The universe, being unlimited in both space and time, has no opposite. Thus the mind cannot conceptualise infinitude. It has to be lived to be known. One lives it by being here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only. This is a direct experience of the actuality of infinity and eternity and beats that specious immortality so beloved by the metaphysicians hands down ... for the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. ‘I’ can never know infinitude. KONRAD: How about Olbers paradox? These two things just for starters. RICHARD: Also not new. In fact, this ‘paradox’, which was discussed in 1823 by the German astronomer Mr. Heinrich Olbers and its discovery widely attributed to him, can be traced back to Mr. Johannes Kepler. Mr. Johannes Kepler, in 1610, advanced it as an argument against the notion of a limitless universe containing an infinite number of stars. The ‘paradox’ relates to the hypothetical problem of why the sky is dark at night. If the universe is endless and uniformly populated with luminous stars then, the proponents of this theory say, every line of sight must eventually terminate at the surface of a star. Hence this argument implies that, contrary to observation, the night sky should everywhere be bright, with no dark spaces between the stars. Various resolutions have been proposed at different times. If the assumptions are accepted, then the simplest resolution is that the average luminous lifetime of stars is far too short for light to have yet reached the Earth from very distant stars. * RICHARD: The universe, being unlimited in both space and time, has no opposite. Thus the mind cannot conceptualise infinitude. It has to be lived to be known. One lives it by being here at this place in space and this moment in time as this flesh and blood body only. This is a direct experience of the actuality of infinity and eternity and beats that specious immortality so beloved by the metaphysicians hands down ... for the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. ‘I’ can never know infinitude. KONRAD: Well, don’t you think I did a pretty good job in my example of the infinite set of natural and even numbers? RICHARD: Being honest with you ... no. It was a valiant – but ultimately futile – attempt to contain the physical universe in an abstract equation. * RICHARD: Infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be. RESPONDENT: In what manner does it [Actual Freedom] lie beyond enlightenment? RICHARD: In order to become enlightened, the ‘I’ as ego dies. In order to become actually free, the other half of the identity – ‘me’ as soul – must similarly die. Then I am here now, as this flesh and blood body, experiencing this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space apperceptively for all the waking hours of the day. In other words: I am the experience of infinitude. (Infinitude is the quality or attribute of being infinite and eternal and having no limit and means the same as ‘boundlessness’ ... is an infinite extent, amount and duration ... as in an immeasurable expanse and an unlimited time). The infinite character of physical space, coupled with the eternal character of time, produces a here and now infinitude that can be understood experientially by one who is apperceptive. To grasp the character of infinitude with certainty, the reasoning mind must forsake its favoured process of intellectual understanding through logical and/or intuitive imagination and enter into the realm of a pure consciousness experience (apperception). In a PCE – which is where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant – the essential characteristics of infinitude are transparently obvious, lucidly self-evident, clearly apparent and open to view. It is understood experientially that this physical universe is infinite and eternal. It has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. I will say it again this way: By being here now as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in here and there – for the relative is the absolute. I am always here and it is already now. And nary a god or demon to be seen anywhere at all. RESPONDENT: So there is an ultimately precious infinitude of the universe that is when ‘I’ cease to exist. What are the qualities of the infinitude of the universe? Creativity? Timelessness? Bliss? Intelligence? Boundlessness? RICHARD: The qualities of the infinitude of the universe? 1. Creativity : No ... the universe is already always here endlessly rearranging itself. This universe is capable of an infinite complexity of form. Have you seen those Hubble Telescope photographs of the Horse Nebula? 2. Timelessness : No ... time is actual and can never stop. Subjectively, time can appear to stop, stand still, go backwards ... do all kinds of things. Yet all this while the clock keeps ticking and the sun still moves through the sky. Time is eternal ... eternal as physically without beginning and without end. Now I know that the word ‘timeless’ can mean eternal, but it is a metaphysical use of the word because it implies time stopping or vanishing. In that context, the mystics use it in conjunction with ‘spaceless’ ... ‘I am Timeless and Spaceless; Unborn and Undying; Birthless and Deathless’ ... and so on. As this physical body has a limited life-span, they can only be referring to a psychic entity receiving its post-mortem reward of immortality. There is no ‘timelessness’ here, in actuality. Living here, at this moment in time, there is only this moment that is actual. As it is already always this moment, to the unaware it appears to be ‘timeless’. It is not. This moment is hanging in time like this planet is hanging in space. Just as the universe’s space is infinite, so too is this universe’s time eternal. There is no beginning or end to the infinitude of this universe’s space and time, therefore there is no middle, no centre. Thus, one is always here and it is already now. And here and now is nowhere in particular. 3. Bliss : No ... bliss is an affective state of being that is born of the instincts blind nature gratuitously endows us with at birth. Bliss and ecstasy and euphoria are all self-enhancing, self-endorsing, self-preserving passions. 4. Intelligence : No ... the universe is not intelligent. That is anthropomorphism ... intelligence resides only in human beings. 5. Boundlessness : Yes ... without beginning or end. Which means, of course, no centre. Thus infinitude does not just mean endless space and endless time. It means that the planet earth is situated nowhere in particular in space ... which means we are anywhere at all. Similarly, this moment is situated nowhere in particular in time and we are also ‘anywhen’ at all. This means that infinitude is everywhere and anywhere all at once. Thus, any place and any time is whatever one arbitrarily chooses to make it be. An actual freedom is an enormous freedom. * RESPONDENT: Infinite space points to formlessness ... RICHARD: Maybe to you it ‘points to formlessness’ but when I use the words ‘infinite space’ I am quite clearly describing the very physical space of this very physical universe. The infinitude that this very physical universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. RESPONDENT: ... but not an infinite space out there with ‘me’ (form) in here. RICHARD: Yet ‘me’ is a subjective entity (a psychological and/or psychic ‘being’) and not an objective entity (form) called a flesh and blood human being. RESPONDENT: If as you assert the me ends leaving only the already always existing infinite space ... RICHARD: Not only infinite (physical) space but eternal (physical) time and innumerable (physical) forms as well ... the actual infinitude of this very material universe, in fact. And this actuality is enormous ... staggeringly stupendous. So staggering that it makes the humility (pride standing on its head) so praised by mystics seem trite in comparison. There is no comparison, actually. RESPONDENT: ... is there yet the experience of being just the limited space and form of a human body? RICHARD: No, I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human ... apperceptive awareness, in other words. As such I delight in being this specific form existing for a specific time at a specific place ... as me this universe can know itself intelligently. RESPONDENT: If anyone has a positive logical argument absolutely proving the infinite nature of things, that is, an argument which does not rely on disproving the possibility of a finite universe in order to posit an infinite one, please post it. RICHARD: Simple. As you have so aptly demonstrated the limitations of the highly revered abstract logic when it comes to dealing with absolutes may I suggest you deal only in facts and actuality and not in illative comprehensions ... which are but a product of the mind’s imaginative faculties. The brain is quite capable of seeing for itself without imagination; in fact without the ‘I’ – that sense of self which is but a psychological entity that gives birth to vivid fancy and fantasies – it does the job a whole lot better. Rid yourself of the ‘I’ that is currently inhabiting your body as a centre around which everything revolves – which manufactures edges into the bargain – and you will apprehend for yourself that this physical universe has no boundaries either in space or time (or ‘spacetime’ if you wish to believe in the current theories that are held by the physics community to be true). It is ‘I’ that creates the impression of ‘finiteness’ ... and then challenges others to prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite universe; it is ‘I’ who creates this impression in ‘my’ mind ... ‘I’ can only think in terms of duality. To think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and logic is limited inasmuch as it cannot encompass infinitude. Therefore, it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning or an ending to demonstrate the veracity of their belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. With no ‘I’ to mess things up you will understand apperceptively that physically, and thus factually, this actual universe has no ‘inside’ as there is no ‘outside’. Therefore there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infinity, somewhere as a place is no ‘where’ (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurement possible with infinite space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to compare against. Living on planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to the localised distance between here and there. It is this measurement that is relative, not the universe. ‘Here’ is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity. So is it too with time. As there is no beginning and end to time, there is no middle. ‘Now’ as a fixed point has no ‘when’ (nowhen) in particular (it is whenever we humans agree to make it). There is no measurement possible in eternity, for there is no reference point (before a beginning) to compare against. Living on the planet earth in localised daylight and darkness, humans measure time in comparison to the period between now and then. It is this measurement that is relative, not time. Just as ‘here’ is anywhere in infinity, so too is ‘now’ anywhen in eternity. Thus, just as we humans living on this planet are moving from nowhere to anywhere in infinite space, so too are we coming from nowhen and proceeding to anywhen in time. As it is any measurement that is relative, not the substance of space and time, consequently, when the psychological and/or psychic entity called the self, disappears as a measurer (a reference point), measurement ceases to be a reality and the actual becomes apparent. Then, and only then, is one being alive here as an actuality in space and living now as an actuality in time. None of us are coming from somewhere or going anywhere for we are always here and it is already now. We are never not here and it is never not now. Where else could we be but here? When we move from ‘here’ to ‘there’, as we are moving we are always here ... and when we arrive ‘there’, we are here. Similarly when else could it be but now? As we wait for ‘then’ to become ‘now’, while we are waiting it is always now ... and when ‘then’ arrives, it is now. Being alive is ambrosial, to say the least. RESPONDENT: In regard to the term universe in your glossary: ‘The universe, all existing matter, space, and other phenomena regarded collectively and especially as constituting a systematic or ordered whole’. RICHARD: In the glossary on the Actual Freedom Web Page, each article is headed with a selected dictionary definition as an established starting point – this sentence you have quoted is word for word from the Oxford Dictionary – and the text following it, written by Peter, expands upon the standard meaning insofar as it relates to actualism. RESPONDENT: 1) In your previous writings you state that the universe is both infinite and eternal. On what do you base that? 2) In one of your definitions of universe (sorry I can’t find the exact source) you include time as another component of the universe. If the universe has no beginning or end, how does the time element fit in? Is it the objects that are ‘timed’, you mention an endless recombining or recycling or reworking of matter? The universe seems to produce increasingly complex and conscious entities, at least on our planet. What accounts for this seeming evolution? 3) What is space? If the universe is material is space a form of matter? RICHARD: First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and form ... one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit the universe’s ultimate properties. For those who propose a caused universe: no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo. For those who propose a temporary universe: no one has travelled to when that limited time began. For those who propose a finite universe: no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe. Similarly, if one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time ... one would never ‘prove’ anything. Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomerations of galaxies that are 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe – 12 to 14 billion years – simply look sillier than it already did. Obviously then, the entire question revolves around sensible subjective experience ... and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable – the judicious – approach from the word go. I tend to define ‘the universe’ (actuality) as time and space and form mainly because the mystics define ‘The Unknowable’ (Reality) as Timeless and Spaceless and Formless. I say unambiguously and definitively that time is actual, that space is actual, and that form is actual; the mystics state that time is a dream, an illusion or only apparently so, that space is a dream, an illusion or only apparently so, and that form is a dream, an illusion or only apparently so. I say unambiguously and definitively that the Timeless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination, that the Spaceless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination, and that the Formless is an illusion, a delusion, or an hallucination; the mystics state that the Timeless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God, that the Spaceless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God, and the Formless is the only Reality, the Truth, or God. Thus actualism is diametrically opposite or 180 degrees in the other direction to mysticism. Actualism: • Time: time is eternal – as in beginningless and endless time – which means only now is actual. • Space: space is infinite – as in limitless and boundless space – which means only here is actual. • Form: form is perpetual – as in continuously rearranging itself – which means only this is actual. Mysticism: • Timeless: time-less equals no time – as in time does not exist – which means time’s eternity is not actual. • Spaceless: space-less equals no space – as in space does not exist – which means space’s infinity is not actual. • Formless: form-less equals no form – as in form does not exist – which means form’s perpetuity is not actual. 1. The third question first: All time and space and form are physical as opposed to the Timeless and Spaceless and Formless being metaphysical. That is, time and space and form are material inasmuch as material means physical (corporeal), or substance (existing), or concrete (tangible), or objective (perceptible), or substantial (palpable) ... in a word: actual. Therefore the words material and form are interchangeable words given that I am mainly directing my discussions in relation to the claims of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality wherein time and space and form have no inherent existence. The properties of time and space are that they are material (actually existing) and the property of form is that it is material (matter) in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). Which means that time is the measure of the movement of form through space and the periodicity of its rearrangement; space is an arena in which form can exist, move and rearrange itself endlessly; form is matter (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) occupying space and taking time to reconfigure itself perpetually. The properties of time and space designate a vast and utter stillness and the properties of form specify liveliness; a scintillating, sparkling vitality. Needless to say, time and space and form are seamless in that they do not and cannot operate as separate or disparate units. 2. In regard to the first question: I primarily base the infinity, eternity and perpetuity (collectively known as infinitude) of the universe on my direct experience of the actual, of course, but that is of little use to another person who is not living in this actual world or not currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Therefore, one initially needs to approach the question rationally – through inductive and/or deductive reasoning – so as to dispel the oh-so-persistent feeling of finiteness, temporariness and transitoriness which the psychological and psychic entity manifests over the actual (the centre in consciousness creates the boundary in awareness) thus producing everyday reality’s spatial, temporal and material finiteness. Intellectual rationale: • Space: as a normal person I could not directly experience the actuality of the infinitude ... at age eight or nine I was first made aware of the infinity of space by my father one night whilst gazing at the stars: I could not grasp the concept but could comprehend the existence of infinity when he gave me his version of the Ancient Greek ‘throwing a spear into what’ question regarding the supposed boundary to space (he asked me what lay at the end of the universe ... a brick wall/ wire fence/ whatever ... if one leans on the brick wall and looks over what would one looking at or into). The actual knowing of this infinity (as opposed to intellectually knowing) lodged itself there and then in me as a demand to be met one day. • Time: I first became aware of the issue of the eternity of time at about age six or seven via a brief and abortive essay into ‘Sunday School’ Christianity (the nonsensical notion their god started time by creating the universe ex nihilo) which did nothing but shift the question of time’s beginnings onto a timeless deity’s caprice. By age thirteen or fourteen, in high school physics, the notion of the universe arising out of a nothingness (the ‘Big Bang’ theory) that existed before time began did nothing but shift the question of time’s beginnings into a timelessness without properties. Both the spiritualist and materialist ‘answers’ begged of an agnosticism (not knowable) elevated to a high art form of disingenuousness. Time, perforce, had to be eternal. • Form: the notion of ‘perpetuus mobilis’ (a perpetual motion machine) around about the same time intrigued me enough to turn to astronomical science ... telescopic observation provided the clue in regards to matter and energy being interchangeable and evident in the transformation of nebulae generating stars and stars exploding/ imploding into energy as whirling clouds of gas and dust which in turn coalesced into nebulae and so on. The universe was the ultimate ‘perpetual motion machine’! Experiential disorientation: • This intellectual knowing provided the basis for experiments in experiential knowing: in my formal study of art at college in my twenties and with the daily practise of art thereafter as a living I experientially became aware of the human tendency toward ... um ... ‘frontal-ness’ (the face, the eyes, the nostrils, the mouth, faces forwards) which defines the typical human viewpoint and determines the classic world-view (forward/ backward; up/ down; left/ right; in/ out; top/ bottom; front/ back). By physically lying on one’s back one is no longer looking ‘up’ into space but ‘out’ into space ... all the while intellectually knowing that people on the opposite point on the globe are looking ‘down’ into space whilst standing and ‘out’ into space whilst laying. Thus ‘out’ into space becomes as nonsensical as ‘up’ or ‘down’ ... and this disorientating of the habitual mindset can be extended to other physical experiments: paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space as this form. This experiential attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur. Apperceptive awareness: • Apperception can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive just here right now as this form. This moment is one’s only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever one is, one is always here ... even if one starts walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ one is always here ... and when one arrives ‘there’, it too is here. All the while and wherever one is it always is this form and one always is this form. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here and it is already now ... and one already is this form experiencing this that always is. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now, and one is always this form already throughout whatever ... then one has arrived before one starts. 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. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... and one is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being; as such the universe is aware of its own infinitude. One is living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this universe actually is. And at 33 years of age I had a four hour PCE wherein the direct experience of infinitude provided the actual knowing I had desired from childhood ... and I wanted this actuality twenty four hours of the day. Consequently – after an eleven year interlude in an altered state of consciousness wherein God aka Truth arrogated the universe’s infinitude – I entered into the actual world at age 45 and have directly known ever since, each moment again, infinitude as an actually. It is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates the impression of ‘finite’, ‘duration’ and ‘transience’ ... and then challenges others to prove them wrong. There is no such thing as a physically finite, timed and depletable universe; it is ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ who creates this impression with ‘my’ instinct-driven feelings which cripple an otherwise intelligent mind ... ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ can only think in terms of duality. To think logically is to think in terms of opposites ... and logic is limited inasmuch as it cannot encompass infinitude (infinitude has no duality). When a person says that all of time, all of space and all of form are relative, then any absolute posited must needs be not only ‘no time’, ‘no space’ and ‘no form’ (the unknown negative of the known positive) but also include or enclose all of time, all of space and all of form ‘within it’, so to speak, in order to be the ‘Absolute’ (thus more than a mere negative). Therefore, starting from the known, through some sleight of hand (sleight of mind) the unknown assumes greater importance and, for some people at least, the known is diminished to the point of being seen as an illusion (a spurning not unlike the ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ exercise). Is it that if one can somehow comprehend how a negative can come to both include and surpass the positive that spawns it (perhaps with the logical copula breathlessly gripping the steering wheel) then one is a pundit! When it comes to comprehending infinitude, logic falls flat on its face ... as infinitude has no opposite there is no comparison to enable logic’s seductive ways. Thus, logically, the known is relegated to being the negative (by categorising it as ‘relative’) and the unknown is boosted to being the positive (by categorising it as ‘absolute’) in a process of narcissistic self-aggrandisement (identifying as being the ‘Absolute’). It is the instinctual desire for immortality that fuels punditry. Therefore, it is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their belief. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. For those people who attempt to disallow this actual knowing on the grounds of subjectivity I can only say that their knowing is not only subjective as well but a self-centred subjectivity into the bargain. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable form ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain how they can posit a timeless and empty nothingness ... because one cannot conceive of a ‘nothing’ unless one acknowledges the actuality of a ‘something’ first to contrast it against (and they say that the ‘something’ – time and space and form – are a dream, an illusion or only apparently so). 3. The second question: the universe per se, being infinite, eternal and perpetual is not evolving (infinitude, having no opposite, is perfect). But this particular aspect called the solar system (which is but a current phase in a cycle of perpetual cycles) is evolving carbon-based life-forms. As matter perpetually arranges and rearranges itself (through all eternity and throughout infinity) there are innumerable cycles with countless variety of existence. This current configuration of matter known as planet earth is the first and last time that this particular arrangement will happen (nothing is ever the same twice). Whatever has happened prior to this solar system and this planet becoming habitable to carbon-based life-forms known as human beings, being no longer existent, is simply extinct. Oblivion. When this solar system’s specific composition ends then everything experienced and known to human beings so far will be obliterated as before. Needless to say, the passage of time (past, present, future) is a localised phenomenon: only this moment in eternal time actually exists ... just as only this configuration in perpetuity actually exists here at this place in infinite space. Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate and when the relative is the absolute. This moment takes no interval at all to be here: as this form this happening is already always occurring now. Thus it is as if nothing has occurred – nor will occur – for not only is the future not here, but the past does not exist either. If there is no beginning and no end there is no middle: there are things happening, but nothing may well have happened or will happen ... in actuality. Only this moment and this place and this form actually exists right here just now. To summarise: • Space: given space’s boundlessness, this actual universe has no ‘inside’ as there is no ‘outside’ to infinity. Therefore there is no centre (no middle) and thus, with infinity, somewhere as a place is no ‘where’ (nowhere) in particular. There is no measurement possible with infinite space, for there is no reference point (an edge) to compare against. Living on planet earth, humans measure space in comparison to the localised distance between here and there. It is this measurement that is relative, not the universe. ‘Here’ is, as a fact, anywhere in infinity. • Time: as with space so too is it with time. Given time’s limitlessness (there is no beginning and end to time) there is no middle. ‘Now’ as a fixed point has no ‘when’ (nowhen) in particular (it is whenever we humans agree to make it). There is no measurement possible in eternity, for there is no reference point (before a beginning) to compare against. Living on the planet earth in localised daylight and darkness, humans measure time in comparison to the period between now and then. It is this measurement that is relative, not time. Just as ‘here’ is anywhere in infinity, so too is ‘now’ anywhen in eternity. • Form: given form’s perpetuity (as imperishable matter), none of us are coming from somewhere or going someplace for we are already here as this form and it is always now as this form. Just as we are never not here and it is never not now it is never not this form . Where else could we be but right here, just now exactly as this form is? When we move from ‘here’ to ‘there’ to ‘that’ ... as we are moving we are always here – now – as this; and when we arrive ‘there’ we are here – now – as this. Similarly when else could form be? As we wait for ‘then’ to become ‘now’ and ‘that’ to become ‘this’ ... while we are waiting it is always now – as this – and when ‘then’ arrives – with ‘that’ – it is now as this. Thus, just as we humans living on this planet are moving from nowhere to anywhere in infinite space as this form, so too are we coming from nowhen and proceeding to anywhen in time as this form. As it is any measurement that is relative and not the substance of space and time and form, consequently, when ‘I’ and/or ‘me’, the psychological and/or psychic entity called the ‘self’ or the ontological and/or autological ‘Self’, disappears as a measurer (a reference point), measurement ceases to be a reality and the actual becomes apparent. Then, and only then, is one being alive here as an actuality at this place in infinite space and living now as an actuality at this moment in eternal time as an actuality as this particular arrangement of the perpetuity of form. Then one directly ascertains the properties of infinitude: infinite and eternal and perpetual ... and the qualities of infinitude (derived from the properties): pristine and consummate and impeccable ... and the values of infinitude (derived from the qualities): benevolent and benign and blithe. Being alive is ambrosial, to say the least. 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