Please note that Vineeto’s correspondence below was written by the feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ while ‘she’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom.
Selected Correspondence Vineeto Science Actualism Homepage RESPONDENT: With the benefit of hindsight we now know that a scientific disaster took place when Sir Isaac Newton’s model of the universe was discarded and replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Einstein said on his 70th birthday: ‘Now you think I am looking at my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But there is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm. I am not sure if I was on the right track after all.’ VINEETO: Einstein was perfectly right to wonder if he was ‘on the right track’ because after nearly a century his theories are still only theories, still remain conceptual in nature and have not been established as facts. He was more of a mystic than an empirical scientist, and his theories were more statements of his religious quest than sound science – [Albert Einstein]: ‘There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable; life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only Being.’ (Albert Einstein). RESPONDENT: The famous physicist David Bohm who invented the holographic theory of the universe (look also Bell’s theorem) said that what I know is that the 95% of the phenomena are invisible. Quantum mechanics is also speaking about parallel universes. We are still primitive scientifically. VINEETO: Any theory remains a hypothesis unless it is proved to be an empirically verifiable fact. Should a theory not be proved to be an empirically verifiable fact it passes into the category of being a belief. Many theoretical scientists use mathematical equations to both formulate, and substantiate, their theories which is why a great many of such theories bear no relationship at all to the physical world. Many of these theories are not only metaphysical in nature but they ape the currently fashionable Eastern spiritual beliefs and philosophies – a case of spiritual belief masquerading as meta-physical scientific theory. The idea that ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible’ is the very stuff of imagination and belief, not only non-demonstrable but also nonsensical. Quantum mechanics not only speaks about ‘parallel universes’, something physically impossible in an eternal and infinite universe, it also suggests a relationship between the observer and the observed, an anthropocentric spiritual concept that is well known in Eastern mysticism. As physics professor Victor Stenger says about quantum theory – [quote]: The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-super-luminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics, with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. (... ...) The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world’. (‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/QuantumConsciousness.pdf). For you to propose that ‘we are still primitive scientifically’ whilst championing beliefs and concepts first concocted in times when it was universally believed that the earth was flat, the sky was a world populated by Gods and underground was a hellish realm of fire does strike as a somewhat moot point. Western society is in danger of returning to the dark ages due to the growing influence of Ancient Wisdom that regards a state of ‘not-knowing’ more highly than empirical knowledge. VINEETO: The sensate experience of the infinitude of the universe only happens when ‘I’ step out of the way and thus remove the boundaries and limitations of ‘self’-induced narrow-mindedness. When this happens, all ideas, beliefs and theories that propose a creation event, an expansion or contraction and a doomsday ending of the physical universe are seen as what they are – beliefs and theories. Being here now as this flesh and blood body only – without any identity whatsoever – enables the infinitude of the universe to be apparent and this infinitude is wondrous, unparalleled, without an edge, without a centre, having no outside to it, having had no beginning nor will it have an ending. As long as your contemplations are based on the currently-fashionable scientific theories of an expanding universe – with a Big Bang beginning, replete with all sorts of unseen, unseeable and unmeasurable phenomena and a Diabolical End – then you will remain locked into a ‘self’-centred view and you cut yourself off from experiencing directly and sensately the splendour and magnificence of the peerless and perfect physical universe. Let me sum up what you have presented as ‘scientific facts’ so far – [Respondent]: ‘if I look at a bird for example, I don’t see the actual bird’ and ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’ (Respondent, For Richard 1.6.2003). ‘colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds … They do not exist, as such, outside our brain’. (Respondent, For Richard 4.6.2003). ‘what I know is that the 95%of the phenomena are invisible’. (Respondent, No. 52 re: Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003). ‘The scientific proof of God’. (Respondent, The End of Actual Freedom?, 22.6.2003). These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see. If you aspire to become free from the emotional and instinctual bondage created by the psychological and psychic entity it is necessary to rigorously and sincerely question the way ‘you’ perceive the world. That means questioning your spiritual awareness and your spiritual beliefs and in that process of questioning it is vital to include the spiritual belief that ‘we must always be in the state of not-knowing’, as you said to No. 21 the other day. RESPONDENT: I should like to ask you, what do you mean by scientific fact? VINEETO: Sure. Scientific – Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of science; based on, regulated by, or engaged in the application of science, … valid according to the objective principles of scientific method. Oxford Dictionary Fact – A thing known for certain to have occurred or to be true; a datum of experience. What has really happened or is the case; truth; reality: in fact rather than theory, the fact of the matter is; something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience. Oxford Dictionary That makes a scientific fact ‘a thing known for certain to have occurred’ ‘according to the objective principles of scientific method’. RESPONDENT: Is gravity for you a scientific fact? Is a leaf falling because of the gravity, or just for unknown reasons? VINEETO: Facts are not a matter of personal opinion. A fact is a ‘datum of experience’, human experience. To make a fact a matter of personal agreement or disagreement would be silly. As far as I know it is universally accepted that a force known as gravity acts on all objects on this planet. Are you proposing evidence to the contrary? RESPONDENT: Is the earth for you round or flat? VINEETO: The nature of the earth is a well-known fact for most humans on the planet. If the nature of the earth is in question for you I suggest that you verify the fact for yourself. The photographs taken by orbiting astronauts or by those standing on the moon are sufficient evidence for me. RESPONDENT: Probably you say it is round, because Richard called Jesus a flat earth godman. VINEETO: I don’t rely on Richard’s writing to determine if I am living on a disk or a globe, do you? RESPONDENT: That means that you as Richard and me and others we know now that the earth is round. VINEETO: It was you who introduced the question if the earth was ‘round or flat’. Given that you hold the concept that ‘the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour’, it might be for you that the earth is not a sphere, the brain is giving the shape. RESPONDENT: That means you are accepting scientific facts. VINEETO: As I said, it is silly to have a personal opinion about facts – a fact is ‘a datum of experience’ and manifestly clear. However, a discerning eye and ear is needed in order to ascertain what is fact and what is merely theory, postulation, concept, commonly agreed, belief, assumption, speculation, imagination, myth, wisdom, real or true. The so-called scientific facts quoted above, which you presented recently to the list, are all examples of theory, postulation, concept, assumption and plain imagination. RESPONDENT: Is the roundness of the earth proved by AF? VINEETO: That this planet is spherical is patently clear – evidence can be observed here – (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030714.html). RESPONDENT: Why then you want to prove the infinity of the universe through AF? VINEETO: I simply stated the fact that the physical universe we flesh and blood bodies actually live in is infinite and eternal. It was you who questioned the infinitude of the physical universe by introducing God into the conversation – [Respondent]: why if god exist must be outside the universe? (Re No. 52 Re Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003). by suggesting parallel universes, something which is impossible in an infinite universe – [Respondent]: ‘Quantum mechanics is also speaking about parallel universes’ (Re No. 52 Re Spiritual Beliefs, 21.6.2003). and by presenting a spurious postulation as to why the universe can’t be infinite – [Respondent]: In the universe, we can only observe finite distances, so we can conclude that the universe is finite. To say that it is infinite makes no sense. (Cosmology 2, 28.6.2003). I do not ‘want to prove the infinity of the universe’ – it is a fact that is patently clear to anyone who undertakes a down-to-earth contemplation about the physical nature of the universe, i.e. unhampered by spiritual belief and affective feelings. RESPONDENT: Do you know any scientific proof that the universe is finite or infinite? VINEETO: It is up to the people who propose that the universe is finite, has an edge to it and has something beyond that edge to come up with empirical proof for their concepts, theories, formulas and speculations. Until that happens the theories that the universe is finite in size will remain theories. (...) * RESPONDENT: If let’s say we did not know yet that earth is round, should you be able to say that in fact is round and prove it through this flesh and blood body? So science has its validity. VINEETO: Are you disputing the fact that the earth is spherical in shape despite the empirical evidence that this is so or are merely indulging in a philosophical / theoretical argument? An actualist is always attentive to the difference between empirical science and theoretical science. When one makes the distinction between applied empirical science and theoretical mystical science then it becomes clear that the earth being round is proven by the first category of science whereas the ‘scientific facts’ introduced by you as quoted above belong to the second category of science … in other words they are beliefs. RESPONDENT: You also said [Vineeto]: ‘These ‘scientific facts’ are all examples of spiritual belief, the belief that proposes that the physical world is merely a by-product of ‘my’ consciousness, the belief that ‘I’ am the creator of all that ‘I’ see. [endquote]. I never said that for the simple reason that I don’t know what consciousness is. I said that the brain is co-creator of what we see hear etc. I will insist on that because I see it like one axiom, not theory, but axiom. It is a fact also now with the new science, neuroscience. VINEETO: As far as I can ascertain, you have not used the word ‘co-creator’ before, what you have said is – [Respondent]: ‘We are the universe creating its own self and experiencing its self.’ (For Richard, 4.6.2003). If you prefer to live your life thinking that you are the ‘co-creator’ of all you see and consider this to be an unchangeable unquestionable axiom, then that is your personal choice. Personally I found that it makes no sense to discuss the content of others’ beliefs unless they themselves are interested in questioning and investigating their own beliefs in order to become free from the grip of ancient superstition. RESPONDENT: I am really puzzled why I can not convey it. VINEETO: You are conveying your views very clearly. What you fail to understand is that you are trying to convince actualists that there ‘really truly is something else’ other than the actuality that human beings sensately experience. In short, you are busy flogging your beliefs to those who are upfront that beliefs are the bane of humankind. RESPONDENT: Lets begin again. What I see out there, is a soup of energy. VINEETO: If I may interject. What one sees with one’s eyes is not ‘a soup of energy’, but forms, colours and movement of physical objects. To call the specific qualities of the matter of the physical universe ‘a soup of energy’ is an affective interpretation. This is readily evidenced by the fact that the ‘energy’ experienced varies according to a person’s particular belief system – some feel Jesus, some feel Love, some feel Existence, some feel Mother, some feel Consciousness, some feel Intelligence, some feel the Devil, and so on. RESPONDENT: Now I perceive whatever through my senses. This thing to be perceived needs my senses. Without my senses it exists but in one unknown way (mode existence) not the way I perceive it. VINEETO: If I may interject again. If you are talking about a ‘soup of energy’ then this energy does not need your physical senses in order for you to perceive it. Many people feel this ‘energy’ sitting in a quiet place with their eyes closed – in fact it is well known that the best way to feel this ‘energy’ is to deliberately practice sensory and sensual deprivation. If you are talking about a ‘whatever’ it is best to take a specific down-to-earth ‘thing’ as an example. Take for instance this symbol (#) – it maintains its qualities, its colour, form and size, no matter who reads it on his or her computer screen. Anybody on this mailing list will see the same symbol, just as they will read any letter of the alphabet in the same order I typed them. Your eyes, your brain on stalks, only recognize the already-existing qualities of the particular symbol (#) or the mutually agreed meanings of a particular string of letters. If your brain gave each symbol or letter its own particular unique-to-you quality it would be impossible for a conversation like this to happen. RESPONDENT: This thing is sending light (photons) we are speaking for the sight now, but the same is applied in all senses to my retina. This products certain electromagnetic effects and through the optical nerve etc products certain activities in a small area of the brain about 1cm2, which is in the dark in the skull. If I see something green then the light wave sent from the green object has a certain wave length, but until it hits the brain part is colourless. If another light length hits the brain then the brain products a different colour. May be a dog will see another colour for the same object because is different interpreted from his brain. That’s all. VINEETO: You had a lengthy conversation with Richard on this topic. Continual repetition of your belief in an ‘unknown way (mode existence)’ of actual physical objects will not turn this belief into a fact. RESPONDENT: We will never know what is out there, lets call it underlying reality. VINEETO: The identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body superimposes an affective ‘underlying reality’ over the actual universe. This ‘underlying reality’ created by the identity inhabiting the flesh and blood can be observed, questioned and investigated and the identity thus weakened – this is the process of actualism. To defend the ‘underlying reality’ as unchangeable is to resign to being trapped within the human condition of malice and sorrow for the rest of one’s life. RESPONDENT: Is like the TV unless we have the receiver nothing can take place. The TV signals that exist now in my room are silent and colourless. Lets say the TV receiver is the brain. VINEETO: This is a good example. [quote]: A television’s audiovisual signal begins with the conversion of an image and accompanying sound into an electronic code by a television camera. The resulting electronic signals are usually recorded on tape, and for transmission, or broadcasting, they are impressed on high-frequency radio waves that act as carriers. After transmission by a broadcasting antenna, the carrier waves are picked up by a receiving antenna, which carries them to the television receiver. Encyclopaedia Britannica The high-frequency radio waves acting as carriers for the transmitted images and sounds exist independently of the TV screen that displays image and sound. Both the transmitter and the high-frequency waves exist as an actuality and the signals and images are being simultaneously converted into identical images on many, many TVs regardless of whether your own TV is switched on and is converting the signal into an image. This fact is contrary to your philosophy of ‘unless we have the receiver nothing can take place’ – a completely ‘self’ centred viewpoint. ‘Lets say the TV receiver is the brain’ – even without your brain ‘creating’, the universe is continuously taking place. VINEETO: As for ‘the Popperian view that some things cannot be known with 100% certainty’ – Karl Popper’s proposition was that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing, which in itself is absolute claim that according to his philosophy can never be known exhaustively. Apart from this logical impasse, his theories have, by and large, been refuted and discarded by more than a few people years ago and for a down-to-earth non-philosopher it is obvious that some things can definitely be known for sure – for instance the fact that everyone will die one day. To distinguish fiction from fact I found the simple scientific principle useful, which demands that legitimate theories must be falsifiable. You might be familiar with the old debating trick where one side is asked to disprove the existence of something that doesn’t exist: ‘Prove to me there isn’t a green-eyed monster under this table. It is an invisible, odourless monster, and you can’t tangibly sense it – it has no mass. But it’s THERE! Now prove to me it isn’t there!’ To pose non-falsifiable hypotheses is the hallmark of a pseudo science. The claim of the existence of God or an afterlife is equally pseudo science because it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. Have you noticed that it is impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist? By God’s very nature He/She/It is beyond and above sensual perception. And life after death cannot be proven wrong because dead people don’t talk … and yet their ‘souls’ are reported to make people’s hair stand on end. RESPONDENT: Addendum: I want it to be perfectly clear that I do not consider the workings of Vineeto’s mind to be similar to a ‘Christian fundamentalist.’ Rather, one particular statement of hers (i.e. being 100% certain of no God/no after life) seems to me to be similar to some from of dogmaticism – and Christian dogmaticism is one that I’m deeply familiar with personally. Aside from Richard’s writing, Peter and Vineeto’s explication of becoming free from the human condition, is second to none (that is to me of course). I know all too well how list members can twist statements to fit there all too apparent agenda. Ultimately, one’s exploration of actualism involves rigorous self-honesty, integrity, and finding out for oneself. There is no excommunication in actualism for honest disagreement on our way to freedom. Perhaps, in freedom, all major disagreements will dissolve. VINEETO: Yes, they do dissolve because, contrary to the affective/psychic world, which is intuitive and therefore an affective experience that is unique to everyone, the actual world is the same for everyone – it is actual and can be sensately and sensibly experienced as an actuality by everyone once the ‘self’ steps out of the way. VINEETO: A current myth, for instance, is the ‘big bang’ theory that most physicists nowadays accept as ‘Truth’ and it is interesting to watch how they tie themselves in ever complicated knots in trying to reconcile this myth with the empirical laws of physics as they apply in the actual physical universe. It is fascinating to see the ever-widening gulf between belief and fact, so much so that physicists are now studying things that have no material existence outside of their own fertile imaginations and the virtual calculations of their computer programs. There simply was no ‘big bang’, the universe has always been here and it will always be here – eternal and infinite, peerless in its perfection. RESPONDENT: This ties into an area that I’ve occasionally considered delving in to, but it’s of secondary importance to this process. But, we’re here, so let’s give it a whirl. Note that this discussion refers only to the physical universe; there is no intimation of spirituality/magic/gods/etc. Your implication is that these scientists have an investment in self-fulfilling prophecy/myth. While that is likely true in many cases, it is also presumptuous on any of our parts that we know the absolute extent and content of the physical universe. We really only know what information we’ve gathered to date and can be proven empirically to some degree of confidence. From these data points, we may extrapolate other theories, some of which are provable and some more elusive. It’s likely though that there are a vast number of other data points that are far beyond our ability to even conceive, based on what we know right now. As a crude example, a nineteenth century coal miner (let alone Cro-Magnon man) couldn’t possibly conceive of the internet (‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’, Arthur C. Clarke) VINEETO: I have always found it useful, based on my many years of experience with spiritual practices, to be particularly precise about words that can also mean something spiritual, i.e. non-material, and the word ‘magic’ in two of its three meanings listed in the Oxford Dictionary means something additional to or other than factuality – Magic – 1 The supposed art of influencing the course of events and of producing extraordinary physical phenomena by the occult control of nature or of spirits; sorcery, witchcraft. Also, the practice of this art. A magical procedure or rite; a magical object, a charm. 2 fig. An inexplicable and remarkable influence producing surprising results. Also, an enchanting quality; exceptional skill or talent. 3 The art of producing (by sleight of hand, optical illusion, etc.) apparently inexplicable phenomena; conjuring. Phrases: black magic : magic involving the supposed invocation of evil spirits, harmful or malevolent magic. Like magic : without any apparent explanation; with incredible rapidity. Natural magic : magic involving no invocation of spirits. White magic : magic involving the supposed invocation of good spirits, beneficent or harmless magic. Oxford Dictionary Technology, however advanced, is by its very nature pragmatic and factual, i.e. it is based on cause and effect, it can be observed, experienced and reproduced by any number of people and it works. In short, it is neither trick nor supernatural and as such is easily distinguishable from magic as defined in definitions 1 & 2 above. Most people make no distinction between magic as in ‘inexplicable’ and ‘surprising results’ and magic as in ‘invocation’ of either ‘good’ or ‘evil spirits’ and this lack of intellectual vigour helps explain why non-Newtonian Western theoretical physicists are now eagerly shaking hands with Eastern mystics and vice versa. Here are some blatant examples – [quote]: Modern physics has discovered one of the greatest things ever discovered, and that is: matter is energy. That is the greatest contribution of Albert Einstein to humanity: e is equal to mc2, matter is energy. Matter only appears … otherwise there is no such thing as matter, nothing is solid. Even the solid rock is a pulsating energy, even the solid rock is as much energy as the roaring ocean. The waves that are arising in the solid rock cannot be seen because they are very subtle, but the rock is waving, pulsating, breathing; it is alive. Friedrich Nietzsche has declared that God is dead. God is not dead – on the contrary, what has happened is that matter is dead. Matter has been found not to exist at all. This insight into matter brings modern physics very close to mysticism, very close. For the first time the scientist and the mystic are coming very close, almost holding hands. Eddington, one of the greatest scientist of this age, has said, ‘We used to think that matter is a thing; now it is no more so. Matter is more like a thought than like a thing.’ Existence is energy. Science has discovered that the observed is energy, the object is energy. Down the ages, at least for five thousand years, it has been known that the other polarity – the subject, the observer, consciousness – is energy. (Rajneesh, The Way of the Buddha, Vol. 4, Ch 6). And another quote – [quote]: David Foster, the cybernetic scientist, says: ‘Nothing whatsoever is known about the following rather basic phenomena: mass, electricity, magnetism, space-time, etc, etc. Existence remains a mystery, it is not available to knowledge … essentially it is unknowable.’ I call this unknowable element God. What is matter? Physics says there is no matter as such. What we know as matter is made of waves or quanta. The quantum is a mysterious phenomenon. It is a point and a line simultaneously! Absurd. Illogical. Bizarre. And if you ask what sort of waves are these, the answer is: ‘waves of probability’. Not even waves of anything! The modern understanding of science is mystery and magic. If we think deeply into anything, we are bound to stumble upon God because God is the depth of existence. If you go deep into the rock, you will come upon God. If you go deep into yourself you will come upon God. God is the depth. If we think hard enough in any single direction we always arrive at the unthinkable. If we ask enough questions along a given line of inquiry, we come in the end to an unanswerable question. (Rajneesh, the First Principle, Ch 6). These examples might appear to be Rajneesh’s personal interpretation of modern physics but unfortunately that is not the case. Scientists themselves are as much inflicted with religious/ spiritual beliefs as everyone else – they are after all instinctually and socially programmed human beings first and scientists second. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, observed about scientists – ‘I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.’ Victor Stenger, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, has pointed out the spiritual trend of theoretical physics in his book ‘The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology’ – [quote]: You would think that no two activities could be so disparate as physics and mysticism. Yet today we find modern physics being used to legitimize the ancient belief that human consciousness is at the controls of a universe in which all events in space and time are part of one inseparable reality. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, the revolutionary theory developed early in the century to account for the anomalous behaviour of light and atoms, have been misconstrued to imply that only thoughts are real and that the physical universe is simply the imaginary product of cosmic mind. Although mysticism is said to exist in the writings of many of the early century’s prominent physicists, the current fad of mystical physics began with the publication in 1975 of Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics. There Capra asserts that quantum theory has confirmed the traditional teaching of Eastern mystics that human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected whole. He sums up his view by quoting Lama Anagarika Govinda: ‘To the enlightened man ... whose consciousness embraces the universe, to him the universe becomes his ‘body’, while the physical body becomes a manifestation of the Universal Mind, his inner vision an expression of the highest reality, and his speech an expression of eternal truth and mantric power.’ (Lama Anagarika Govinda Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism). Capra’s book was an inspiration for the New Age movement, and ‘quantum’ quickly became a buzz-word for buttressing a trendy ‘scientific’ spirituality. (Victor Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum). The belief that ‘human consciousness and the universe form an interconnected whole’ is otherwise known as anthropocentrism or simply ‘self’-centredness. Peter has done an extensive exposé of the collection of theories, speculation, imagination and fantasies that run under the name of modern theoretical physics. You might find it valuable information about the metaphysical nature of modern theories in both the macroscopic and microscopic fields of physics. RESPONDENT: By extrapolation, there must be many, many things we don’t know at this point. I think that this likely serves to explain much of the ‘inexplicable’, UFOs, haunted houses, ..., all that we label as spirits, gods, devils. So, how do you say with such sureness, ‘There simply was no ‘big bang’’? Why is it inconceivable that the universe has an end and/or beginning? Bear in mind that the concepts of beginning/ending, and time in general get rather distorted at this physical scale... eternal and infinite may not mean the same thing to the universe as they do to us mere mortals. I do remember trying to get my brain around these subjects in my college physics courses... fascinating stuff but it can give one a headache! VINEETO: As an engineer you have some practical experience that the empirical laws of physics apply to all matter. For instance the law of gravity applies equally to a moon or a planet as well as to a stone or feather on earth. The same goes for the way chemicals react with each other – for instance Helium has the same chemical qualities on the sun as it has on earth. The physical universe, as vast as it is, has thus far proved to have remarkably consistent physical properties and qualities. As I understand it, the calculations that put men on the moon and sent a spacecraft to each of our solar system’s planets were all based on Newtonian laws of physics and not on Einstein-influenced theories about space and time. For most people it is readily conceivable ‘that the universe has an end and/or beginning’, which is made evident by the popular acceptance of the big bang theory. Humans prefer either to believe in a mystical God who created the universe or believe in some highly illogical and physically implausible event when this vast universe all started out of nothing. [quote]: The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer’s view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. Scientists have yet to determine what prevailed before Planck time. Encyclopaedia Britannica The last sentence I found particularly telling. Just think about it in a straightforward manner – if there was to be a Big Bang and the universe came suddenly into existence from some kind of super-condensed unknown material, then one needs to assume all kinds of strange circumstances outside of the empirical laws of physics in order to arrive at the current state of countless suns and galaxies. One needs theories about super-phenomena, doughnut-shaped universes, warp-space, black holes, anti-matter and so on in order to somehow explain the sudden development from nothing to something. And yet many questions remain unanswered. For instance: what was there before the Big Bang? What was outside of the super-condensed universe? What is the universe expanding into? What is beyond the edge of the expanding universe? What happened before Planck time, the time before time began? None of those hypothetical questions needs to be answered if you acknowledge that only that which can be sensately observed and empirically measured exists as an actuality. Then theory and imagination, postulation and hypothesis collapse and one can realize that the physical universe has always been here, an endless and eternally changing magical array of gas and matter in infinite space. And the most magical of all – on one known planet, life developed to a stage of present day human intelligence and increasingly I can experience this perfect peerless universe in utter wonder and amazement. RESPONDENT: Again, this topic is really of academic interest only, and I’m not sure that it’s worth spending a lot of energy on. Personally, I am trying to focus a bit more on the experiential side of the coin lately, rather than the analytical. VINEETO: For me, contemplating about the infinite and eternal universe was fundamental to experientially understanding the very core of what actualism is about. The longer I thought about the very physicality of this body and everybody and everything in the universe the more I began to grasp the nature of the actual world, the understanding and experience of which is obscured by human ‘self’-centredness, anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism. Contemplating that the universe has neither a middle nor an edge and neither a beginning nor an end brought on a pure consciousness experience on several occasions. Once I began to understand that the theories about a beginning as well as an edge to the universe are meta-physical theories driven by mystical beliefs, I began to grasp that the theoretical physicists are searching for God. The no-thing and no-time before the Big Bang implies that there is or was something other than this physical universe from which the universe emerged, something meta-physical, something imaginary. And with this realization it became impossible for me to believe in something outside of this physical universe and it suddenly became very obvious that the universe has never been created, it has never begun – it has always been here. * More information on eternity and infinity can be found in Richard’s correspondence on the topic of ‘the universe’. RESPONDENT: The underlying quality of my consciousness was very much like it was in the psilocybin experience I described earlier (walking through an invisible membrane into a bubble of perfection), except that there was more cognitive activity. That cognitive activity is extremely difficult to convey, but I emphasise that it did not eclipse or obscure the brilliance and clarity of the actual world, or make me feel I was a ‘spirit’, or that the world was illusory. Rather it complemented the actual world (as experienced by the senses) by exposing what seemed to be an innate pattern-matching / symbol-generating faculty in the psyche, which created a sense of underlying mathematical order and perfection pervading both mind and world. The real difference between this ASC and a PCE, as far as I can tell after a bit of reflection, is that this ASC is characterised by what you might call ‘scientific mysticism’, but not the ‘mythological mysticism’ of religious experience. (Having said that, though, there was no suggestion of ‘other words’ or ‘parallel universes’ or ‘alternative realities’, either. It was a different way of experiencing this universe, right here and right now.) To convey this more clearly, I’ll probably have to post some sketches of a much more extreme version of this pattern-matching / symbol-generating madness, which I experienced about 10 years ago on LSD (because this experience is very clearly an echo of that). I don’t have time to do right now ... but probably will later, because I suspect this is going to be a recurring theme with me. VINEETO: When I read your deliberations about the experience, two things come to mind. Firstly it is clear that you have no doubt that this ‘interesting experience’, as you called it, was an ASC and not a ‘self’-less PCE, so the difference is very obvious to you. Secondly, the perfection of the actual world is an innate quality to the infinitude of the physical universe, it is pure and magical but certainly not mathematically ordered as pure mathematicians would have it. Mathematics – the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc., studied in its own right (more fully pure mathematics), or as applied to various branches of physics and other sciences. [Emphasis added]. Oxford Dictionary Many pure mathematicians apparently believe that mathematics is the governing principle upon which the universe was created and many even proclaim that God must have been a mathematician, or that pure mathematics is Truth. There seems no limit to anthropocentricity – it manifests itself in all sorts of weird and wonderful, and not so wonderful, forms. In a PCE I am both apperceptively and sensuously aware of what is actually happening and the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is a journey of incrementally removing and abandoning all of one’s affective and imaginative programming that stands in the way of this experience of pure awareness. Whereas in an ASC ‘I’ interpret what is actually happening according to what ‘I’ feel and imagine as being good and right and perfect and as such the path to a permanent Altered State of Consciousness necessitates the embellishing of one’s emotional and imaginative programming, not the elimination of it. You alluded to this when you said that in your ASC your ‘cognitive activity’ ‘complemented the actual world’ and ‘created a sense of underlying mathematical order and perfection’, which can only mean that a psychic entity needed to be present in order to do the complementing and creating. In an ASC, as the name suggests, the psyche is altered, as in expanded, aggrandized, embellished, infused, refined and particularly flavoured according to the image or concept ‘I’ have of the perfect world. Once I had intellectually understood and personally experienced the world of difference between a PCE and an ASC, I rapidly lost interest in any detailed examination of the contents or contexts of ASCs – I simply saw them as being like wake dreams, outbursts of an excited, as in stimulated, electrified and/or feverish, psyche. P.S. If you haven’t already discovered this – there is a topic in the library called ‘Affective Experiences vs. Pure Experiences’ and Richard’s correspondence on imagination might also be of interest to you. KONRAD: I did not know that there was so much investigation going on, from the 70’s on, myself. But science IS catching up. Some of the things Richard says, like his statement of the animal Self is validated. But his description of emotions, and its role within human nature, is flatly refuted. VINEETO: Which only proves that science has not caught up yet. KONRAD: I know now that there are no less than four forms of intelligences possible in us, one of which usually is dominant. VINEETO: My first question is, how do you ascertain that those ‘four forms of intelligence’ and your ‘view on total capacity of Man’ is more than a theory and not yet another of your many varying ideological concepts? There are hundreds of concepts about ‘Man’ floating around in spiritual and scientific circles and they all have more to do with imagination than with tangible verifiable facts. The exact functioning of the human brain is still in its early stages of mapping and any concept so far can only be guestimation and speculation, unless it is based solely on the empirical facts known to date. KONRAD: It is based on my recent study of the Information theory of Shannon. This vision has already proved its worth in many, many fields. VINEETO: Claude Shannon’s innovation, as described in his ‘Mathematical Theory of Communication’ (1949), was to discover that ‘information’ could be treated as a quantifiable value in communications. His theory assumes that the ‘basic case’ where the units of communication (for example, words or phrases) are independent of each other. I fail to see how that relates to ‘four forms of intelligences’ and moreover, how his theory turns your theory into a fact. KONRAD: Any theory, from anybody, is of the ‘varying ideological concept’ kind. For a full explanation of this, see Popper’s brilliant book, Conjectures and Refutations. VINEETO: Carl Popper was a philosopher, not an empirical scientist. When he proposed his concept of ‘truthlikeness’, he was not concerned with ascertaining facts but was rather interested in what is the least false. ‘You may be right and I may be wrong, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth’, he said (‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’, Golden Jubilee Edition, London 1995). For him, truth was the best compromise between people’s differing opinions, not a tangible, verifiable piece of information. And Hans-Joachim Niemann describes Mr. Popper’s ‘critical rationalism’ as ‘not limited to criticism’ but concerned with ‘the discovery and development of new problems’ – indeed an apt portrayal for a philosophy indulging in Grübelsucht. (http://home.t-online.de/home/Hans-Joachim.Niemann/Popper/popper02_e.htm) I also wonder why you re-instated Carl Popper again as a ‘brilliant’ writer after you ostensibly turned your back on him in your conversation with Richard some 4 years ago. Are you now again convinced that Carl Popper is not wrong after all? Viz: Konrad: My background is science of the Popper kind. His basic assertion is, that we can never be certain about anything positive. Richard: Well, he is wrong. Konrad: Agreed. * Konrad: No amount of positive evidence can prove a general statement. However, we CAN be certain of something negative, for only ONE counterexample is enough to disprove the generality of a general statement. Richard: Yes it can ... one thing you can be certain of is that you are going to die. People are dying everywhere. There is not one single person alive today that is born more than 150 years ago. Ergo: every person’s inevitable death is an absolute and positive statement. So it looks as if I have just given you something positive that you will never be able to give a ‘counterexample’ to, eh? For who do you know that is 60,000 plus years old? Konrad: I was talking about the Popperian school of thinking. I did not say that I back it up. So here I agree with you. I agree that I was not clear enough in my dismissal of it. So this misunderstanding is my responsibility. No discussion. You are simply right here. (Richard, Conversations with Konrad, Page Three, 9 September 1998). KONRAD: And for an introduction to this kind of thinking, see David Deutsch brilliant book: ‘The Fabric of Reality’. Consider, both men are outstanding geniuses. Popper has solved the ‘induction problem’ of Science. (How, exactly, do we move from the particular to the general? He has shown that this question has been wrongly put. He showed what the question should have been, and then he solved it. In this way, he has given, single-handedly, a complete epistemology of Science. (Giving it its basis.) David Deutsch is the father of the model of the Universal Quantum Computer. His achievement is comparable to that of Alan Turing, who has made the first model of the Universal Computer.) VINEETO: What you consider a ‘brilliant book: ‘The Fabric of Reality’ from David Deutsch is under-titled ‘The Science of Parallel Universes – And Its Implications’ and introduced as pure science fiction – [quote]: ‘He outlines a new view of the multiverse (the total of all the parallel universes). He argues that quantum computation, a discipline in which he is a pioneering thinker, has the potential for building computers that draw on their counterparts in parallel universes; this could make artificial intelligence a reality, despite Roger Penrose’s objections (which Deutsch deals with in some detail). Likewise, time travel into both the future and the past should be possible, though not in quite the form envisioned by science fiction writers; the trips would almost certainly be one-way, and they would likely take the travellers into different universes from the one they began in.’ (http://www.2think.org/hii/tfor.shtml). Given that you consider both the philosopher Mr. Popper and the fantasist Mr. Deutsch as geniuses and regard their works as serious science, it becomes all too clear why your concepts of reality as the ‘four forms of intelligences’ never match what is in fact happening. You may be fond of theories ‘of the ‘varying ideological concept’ kind’, following Carl Popper’s ever shifting ‘truthlikeness’ and David Deutsch’s fantastical ‘Fabric of Reality’ – as an actualist, I am only concerned with tangible verifiable facts, empirical science and observable, repeatable experience. And neither ‘truthlikeness’ nor ‘a new view of the multiverse’ is a fact. (...) * KONRAD: It is a form of intelligence that does not only exist in our body, but is present in existence itself. It is based on the 92 elements. VINEETO: If this functioning were intelligent, then every grain of sand, blade of grass, every worm, every mouse and every pig needs to be called intelligent. Your assigning intelligence to ‘existence itself’, however, is a well-known belief in spiritual circles where the word intelligence – or ‘Intelligence’ – is synonymous for God. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti considered himself the living embodiment of that ‘supreme intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘that which is sacred, holy’). Surely you are not trying to tell me that our corporal immune system is the work of God? KONRAD: Again, I refer to the Information theory of Shannon, and to Cybernetics. VINEETO: Shannon’s ‘Information Theory’ is the mathematical foundation for all digital communications systems. ‘Cybernetics’ is ‘the science of systems of control and communications in living organisms and machines’. Oxford Dictionary. Intelligence is not only the faculty of the brain thinking with all its understanding (intellect) but the comprehension of itself in the world of people, things and events ... and the quickness or superiority (sagacity) of such comprehension is the measure of intelligence. Therefore neither machines nor animals other than humans are capable of intelligence. By redefining intelligence as mere ‘cybernetics’ you have overlooked the essential ingredient for intelligence – to be able to reflect upon itself, to be aware of one’s sensual perception, one’s thoughts and feelings and to be aware of awareness itself. KONRAD: Mathematics is superior to any language, because it is both more accurate and precise. It is the successor of language in this matter. In fact, the difference between somebody well – trained in mathematics and somebody who isn’t is much larger than the difference between an ordinary man, with no knowledge of mathematics and a mouse. VINEETO: If you consider yourself to be superior because you studied mathematics, then that is your business. I found that I can use my intelligence and common sense to determine what is sensible and what is silly and the mathematics I learnt in school are good enough for what I need in life. Despite your training in mathematics you are still using words to convey your thoughts. For instance you still say ‘can I have an apple’ when you buy a piece of fruit and not ‘xy³ - ¼ ./. 0 x 3,14’. Therefore to consider mathematics as a ‘successor of language’ is utter nonsense. * KONRAD: I talk from this deeper insight from mathematics. So none of this ‘dictionary stuff’ is able to reach me. VINEETO: That ‘none of this ‘dictionary stuff’ is able to reach’ you explains why you are not able to respond to the facts I am presenting. For instance I fail to understand how ‘this deeper insight from mathematics’ would help you understand better what Richard is experiencing, because Richard is certainly not talking in mathematical formulas. Viz: (Vineeto, General Correspondence, Konrad-b, 10.3.2002). So far you have not responded to anything in content where I pointed out that your concept about actualism and Richard’s discovery is wrong. You merely retreat to the ivory tower of ‘this deeper insight from mathematics’. KONRAD: The only thing you demonstrate is your complete lack of development of the higher faculty of reason. VINEETO: You seem to request that I translate our conversation into a mathematical formula, because it is supposedly a ‘higher faculty of reason’, an assessment of mathematics that is entirely your invention. Viz – Mathematics – the sciences or disciplines of the quadrivium collectively; later, these and optics, architecture, navigation, etc. Now (treated as sing.), the abstract deductive science of space, number, quantity, and arrangement, including geometry, arithmetic, algebra, etc., studied in its own right (more fully pure mathematics), or as applied to various branches of physics and other sciences (more fully applied mathematics). Oxford Dictionary Nowhere is mentioned that mathematics is equivalent to reason or a ‘higher faculty’ thereof. (...) * KONRAD: Vineeto, Just one more thing. You say that David Deutsch is a fantasists. What gives you the right to judge him so harshly? He at least has made a momentous discovery. He has generalized the discovery of Alan Turing of the Universal Computer to quantum computers. That is an achievement that gives him the right to be taken seriously by anyone. VINEETO: Someone who writes a book titled ‘The Fabric of Reality, The Science of Parallel Universes – And Its Implications’ is clearly a fantasist because this universe is not only infinite, it is also the only universe there is. His idea ‘for building computers that draw on their counterparts in parallel universes’ is science-fiction, no matter how seriously you personally want to take his words. KONRAD: Study mathematics, and then physics. Then try to understand what the problems actually and factually are. And then come back. Then you see, that maybe David Deutsch idea of ‘parallel universes’ is wrong, or right after all. But up till now you have not shown to be qualified to even understand why the very idea of ‘parallel universes’ makes sense to him. VINEETO: I need to study neither mathematics nor physics to recognize that David Deutsch is a fantasist. He may be a mathematical fantasist but he still creates a fantasy world with parallel universes, he imagines computers in those parallel universes and imagines communication between those ‘counterparts in parallel universes’. To translate this fantasy into mathematical formula does not make it factual, only more obscure and absurd. KONRAD: He is not stupid, you know. He is a genius. If this is your idea of a genius, you better take Richard out of your genius basket. Viz: [Konrad]: ‘What I really think of Richard is that he is a genius.’ (Konrad to Vineeto, 10.3.2002). (...) KONRAD: The same applies to Popper, for Popper has solved the induction problem of Science. VINEETO: The Oxford dictionary explains induction as – The process of inferring or verifying a general law or principle from the observation of particular instances; an instance of this; a conclusion thus reached. b The citing or enumerating of a number of separate facts etc. esp. in order to prove a general statement. c Math. The process of proving the truth of a theorem by showing that if it is true of any one case in a series then it is true of the next case, and that it is true in a particular case. Oxford Dictionary What may be true for mathematics – ‘proving the truth by showing that if it is true of any one case in a series then it is true of the next case’ – this does not apply to daily life. The trouble with philosophers is that they want to replace the experience of actuality with a concept of ‘what is always true’ – and thus they always miss the point of experiencing life as it is happening right here right now. For Popper there are no facts, only ‘truthlikeness’. That’s why you have to question the facts I presented, translating them into ‘my truth’ that contradict ‘your truth’. Popperism wants to find a bit of truth in everyone’s worldview regardless of what is factual. I prefer to go by what is factual.> KONRAD: As long as you do not understand the abstract world wherein David Deutsch, or Richard Feynman, or Alan Turing, or any other of those geniuses live, (demonstrating this by quoting the Oxford dictionary) I have neither need nor desire to study ‘the abstract world’ given that the results of thinking in abstract concepts or mathematical formulas remove one only further from what is actual, factual, tangible, sensuous and sensible. In order to experience the actual world one needs in fact to remove all of one’s concepts, beliefs, ideals, fantasies, imaginations and truths that only serve to distort a clear perception of what is actual. KONRAD: I do not take you seriously. So far you have taken me ‘seriously’ enough to not only answer my posts but to reply in an emotional fashion. Given that you have compared me to a mouse two times in this letter, you have, by your own definition, admitted to ‘the most intense emotion’. Viz – [Konrad]: To assume otherwise is to put yourself so far above the other, that the only way to describe it is as pure arrogance. And that, my friend, is the most intense emotion that is the base of every war. (Konrad to Vineeto 21.3.2002). No wonder that under these circumstances you choose to only take those ‘geniuses’ seriously who ‘live’ in ‘the abstract world’. Men in ivory towers are known to keep to their own kind. KONRAD: First answer the following question. Is it correct to state, that a differential equation with a time derivative, is an embodiment of the principle of causality? Can we say, therefore, that Newton’s genius consist of making the principle of causality precise? Or is his discovery more limited? If you can determine whether this statement is true or false, you just have made the first step in the abstract world. Only then you qualify only a little bit to be taken seriously. VINEETO: I pass, Konrad. Our conversation started with you saying that – [Konrad]: I have never ceased to think about Richard’s position and that of mine. How they differ, and what the corresponding points are. Step by step I learned what was the matter. To which I replied – [Vineeto]: Good to hear from you. As for your description of how you now understand actualism in general and ‘Richard’s position’ in particular, I will make the facts about actualism clear ‘step by step’. Now, in order to discuss your understanding of actualism in general and ‘Richard’s position’ in particular you want me to determine if Newton’s ‘principle of causality’ is true or false? The way you stated your conditions you have made it very clear that you do not want to discuss what you ‘think about Richard’s position and that of mine’ because ‘Richard’s position’ has nothing to do with any ‘differential equation with a time derivative’. ‘Richard’s position’ is the discovery of the purity and perfection of the actual world that becomes apparent when one’s ‘self’ is temporarily absent or permanently extinct. ‘Richard’s position’ is that the complete extinction of ‘self’, both ego and soul, is indeed possible despite the millennia-old belief that it is only possible after death. ‘Richard’s position’ lies 180 degrees opposite to all spiritual belief and ancient wisdom. I for one decided to explore ‘Richard’s position’ practically by applying the method of actualism – and I have done so with great success. Actualism is, in fact, the best thing since sliced bread so to speak. But I do understand that it is not everyone’s cup of tea to be a pioneer in something so radical and entirely new to human history. VINEETO: I agree fully with your understanding that it is very good to question all the beliefs one has. It is the first and most important step to experience the actual world, which is only hidden behind all the concepts, emotions and beliefs we have heaped on top of it. For instance, the moon was for Gurdjieff not just the moon, but the place where all souls would go. How could he see the moon as the big piece of rock that it factually is? RESPONDENT: It’s only possible to say something within the context of some teaching, e.g. science. Science is limited by the sensitivity of the instruments to do research with. The rockiness of the moon is therefore only factual within limits. Gurdjieff said that man has no soul and that suffering feeds the moon. This may very well have been factual for him even though it isn’t for me. VINEETO: First, science is not a teaching – at least not until Einstein came and based physics on his (maybe never provable) hypothesis’. ‘Science is any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica Second, I could say, because science hasn’t invented the green-cheese-microscope, it doesn’t mean, the moon is not made of green cheese. How do you want to prove that theory wrong? According to science everything unproven is a hypothesis. So the idea that suffering feeds the moon is either a hypothesis or a belief, not a fact. And so is the belief in a soul – until we have invented the soul-weighing- or the soul-colouring-machine. And third, if it is not factual for you, why defend Gurdjieff’s theory? How can a fact in Gurdjieff’s time be a non-fact today?
Vineeto’s Selected Correspondence | Library – Topics Index
Actualism Homepage Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity