Please note that Peter’s correspondence below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.
Selected Correspondence Peter Spiritual Scientists PETER to No 3: Good to hear from you again. I was sitting back the other day wondering what you were making of LeDoux’ research and the schematic we did of the brain’s circuitry. I do like what the practical scientists are discovering about the brain’s functioning and the role of instincts on human emotions and behaviour. Of course, there will be a limit as to what they will risk saying about their research as both ethical reputations and funding will be at risk, but the ‘tide’ will turn one day. Even the Popes had to eventually give up insisting that the sun went around the earth – ‘because the Book says so’. It did take about four centuries – I seem to recall that the Vatican only recently tidied up the paperwork on the issue. The other point is that the findings will not only be ignored and misinterpreted by both lay and professional people, they will be deliberately twisted and perverted in order to maintain the enormous vested interests of the Ancient Wisdom Business. It will be fascinating to watch the twists and turns, the ethical and moral arguments that ensue. Already we have seen the banning of genetic ‘meddling’ which could have eliminated inherited diseases and abnormalities because ‘we can’t play God’. So the suggestion that we deliberately set out to eliminate all feelings, self and our survival instincts is not going to be popular consumption for a goodly while. It is so radical, so confrontational, so 180 degrees in the opposite direction, that it will take intrepid pioneers and adventurers to be the first ones to journey out from the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: From the little I read and the talk several years ago, I got the impression that he might have done a good job in researching on physics and biology of mind and trying to answer the question how mind works. PETER: From what I read and from his own words that I pasted he is re-interpreting the research in physics and biology into a philosophical- mathematical theory of consciousness that is metaphysical in nature. We tend to think of metaphysics as the domain of the mystics and shamans but modern cosmology, quantum physics, mathematics and the like are mostly concerned with metaphysics. metaphysical –– 1 a Of, belonging to, or of the nature of metaphysics; such as is recognized by metaphysics. b Excessively subtle or abstract. c Not empirically verifiable. 2 Immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible; supernatural. Oxford Dictionary You will remember, Sir Roger said – ‘The position that I have been strongly arguing for is that this ideal notion of human mathematical understanding is something beyond computation’... R Penrose, Psyche Magazine By ‘beyond computation’ he means unable to be computed, calculated, reckoned, worked out, demonstrated, or made sense of. Or to use Mr. Oxford’s words – not empirically verifiable. RESPONDENT: For my taste, explaining of physics and biology of mind is an important task in itself even if its importance may pale in comparison to the task of achieving Actual Freedom. PETER: Yes indeed. The modern scientific empirical discoveries of neuro-biology and genetics, with regard to the human brain and how it functions, have revealed two very fascinating aspects – That the brain is programmable in the same way a computer is programmable. The program is formed by physical connections or pathways between neurons, and this program is mostly formed after birth. These pathways (synapse) are also capable of being changed at any time. The old connection simply ‘dies’ for lack of use and a new one is formed. That the human brain is also pre-programmed, via a genetic code, with a set of base or instinctual operating functions, located in the primitive brain system which causes automatic thoughtless passionate reactions, primarily those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, to be transmitted via chemical messages to various parts of the body including the neo-cortex. Physiological alterations that could eliminate this crude programming, as a biological adaptation to changed circumstances, are well documented within the animal species. The first discovery accords with the practical experience of being able to radically change one’s social identity – the program instilled since birth that consists of the morals, ethics, values and psittacisms that make up our social identity. It stands to reason that a psychological identity that is malleable to radical change is also susceptible to total elimination. The second discovery accords with the practical possibility of eliminating one’s very ‘being’ – the emotive source of the instinctual survival passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This blind and senseless survival program is now well and truly redundant for many human beings and can now be safely deleted, for the human species has not only survived … it is now beginning to flourish. Introduction to Actual Freedom, Actual Freedom 1 RESPONDENT: On the other hand, achieving Actual Freedom being as important (since I can’t think of a better word right now, I will go with important) as it is, does not answer, I think, the questions about mechanisms involved in ‘one is this very actual universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being.’ Or does it? Or does it become a moot question to ask? PETER: What the practical, down-to-earth scientists are indicating is that the mechanism involved in achieving an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition is all of this very actual, earthly, physical universe, is located in the human brain and capable of being tampered with. What actualists are busy pursuing is an active ‘self’-immolation to the point of a mutation or a physical disconnection from the instinctual primitive brain areas. These are all factually scientifically substantiated activities – nothing esoteric or other-worldly – no intervention of a mythical Higher Force or Greater Intelligence required. But what an extraordinary set-up, what a magical evolutionary device. This physical universe is indeed actual as in not merely passive, and evolutionary change is the most startling evidence of this fact. That consciousness and intelligence evolve from physical matter, and are ever evolving – albeit in 40,000 years or so jumps. And for a conscious, sensate, reflective human being, what an incredible voyage and adventure to be involved in! The cutting edge ... As No 3 would say ‘Thank goodness not Godness for that’. When the human flesh and blood body is free of the psychological and psychic entity then ‘one is this very actual universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being.’ And what an extraordinary adventure. PETER to Alan: A few other little tit-bits gleaned recently. I was fascinated to discover that when Albert Einstein sat down in 1905 to nut out his theories about space, time and gravity, he did so thinking, like everyone else at the time, that the physical universe consisted solely of the Milky Way – the stars visible in the sky. In fact, it was only in 1927 that Hubble began to discover other galaxies than the one this planet is in. Thus, exactly as Mr. Buddha was a flat-earth mythical Guru, Mr. Einstein was a one-galaxy scientific Guru. Yet humanity still insists on giving credence to their views of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being in 1999. At least Einstein was a flesh and blood human being, which is more than can be said for Mr. Buddha who exists only in the historical ‘black-hole’ of myth and legend. Another fascinating fact to consider is that it was only in 1670 that Reiner de Graaf, a Dutch physician, discovered the follicles of the ovary in which the individual human egg cells are formed. This was the first factual evidence that human reproduction was the result of a fertilized egg in the female. One wonders what the theories and myths abounded before this discovery – that a ‘spirit’ entered the body of the female seems the most likely from the tales of Ancient Wisdom. And nil understanding that sex had anything to do with reproduction! No idea at all of the functioning of the human body, let alone instinctual programming and its pivotal role in human behaviour. Even after Graaf’s time, many people argued that inside the sperm was a miniature human being, ready and waiting to grow to eventually emerge into the world. Why humans insist on turning back 3,000 years or more to times of ignorance and superstition, and then stubbornly declare that some profound Wisdom is to be found, continually leaves me dumbfounded. * PETER to Alan: Just another little curio I found recently. I think I mentioned that I had done a bit of a scoot around the Net to see what was current in brain research. I got sidetracked into what the psychologists were making of this research and the results were fascinating to say the least. The current crop of psychologists have concocted academic studies with such titles as evolutionary psychology and behavioural biology but what they really study, and how they study it, is most revealing. They indulge in an extremely careful ethical tippy-toeing around the most salient aspects of human behaviour and are in outright denial of the mayhem and angst that results from human beings being hobbled by animal instinctual passions. I’ll just post a brief section from a university psychology department research program which will give you a bit of a flavour of acade-mania in action – [quote]: University of Liverpool Research Programme: The broad aim is the study of the behavioural biology of humans and other mammals within the framework of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Our objective is to understand both the evolutionary function of reproductive and social behaviour and the proximate mechanisms that underpin them. There are three main programmes: Behavioural Ecology of Primates and other Mammals Field Work in Asia, Africa and South America Mathematical Modelling of the Behaviour of Living and Extinct Populations Behavioural Ecology of Humans Mating and Parenting Strategies in Contemporary and Historical Populations The Structure and Function of Networks in Human Groups Cognitive Psychology and Brain Mechanisms Comparative Studies of Brain Size, Composition and Function in Primates Cognitive Adaptations in the Human Mind Modelling Cultural Evolutionary Processes Recent PhD Projects Behavioural ecology of oribi in South-Africa The evolution of reconciliation within the primate order Impact of tourists on chimpanzees in Uganda Communication and group behaviour in captive mouse lemurs Maternal time budgets of baboons in Kenya Reconciliation in Japanese macaques Evolution and function of language Theory of mind in chimpanzees Coalitions, alliances, and social networks in captive spider monkeys Plant animal interactions in a neo-tropical forest ungulate community Behavioural ecology of the black spider monkey in Bolivia Systems models of early hominid behavioural ecology Current PhD Projects Management of conflict in Barbary macaques Grandmaternal investment strategies in humans Behavioural ecology and conservation of gibbons in China Social and behavioural development in juvenile baboons in South-Africa Personality in chimpanzees Fertility & resource availability according to socio-economic group Social cognition and conflict resolution in chimpanzees The ecological basis of baboon time budgets in South-Africa The behavioural ecology of gelada baboons in Ethiopia Seasonal time budgets of baboons in Tanzania Mating strategies of male feral goats on the Isle of Rum Foraging ecology of feral goats on the Isle of Rum The communication network of gelada baboons [endquote]. I think my favourites are ‘baboon time budgets’ and the ‘theory of mind in chimpanzees’. No wonder it’s the ‘theory’ of mind in chimpanzees because it would be impossible to gain any factual evidence beyond a few grunts and squeals from his study subjects. Does the human researcher have to present a written thesis or can he just grunt what he has learnt from the chimps directly to his assessors? After reading this list I had to double back to see that it wasn’t the zoology department that I had stumbled across. The current fashionation is to study, glamourize and glorify the instinctual passion of nurture in operation in other mammals and one can see this in operation in much of society. Even tigers, wolves and poisonous snakes are seen as warm-hearted beings who are misunderstood. I guess if they make animals out to be as ‘good’ as humans, then we can all ‘accept’ that the Human Condition is ‘as good as it gets’. The fervently good even grant ‘rights’ to animals and then proceed to fight for these rights, but the good always love fighting for causes. The other advantage of granting ‘rights’ to animals is that one can then get angry, sad and depressed when these ‘rights’ are abused, like when some bad people hunt and kill animals for food or profit. If this isn’t enough of an emotive outlet, one can then become worried about ‘endangered species’ which offers endless opportunities to indulge in fear and despair, malice and anger, sorrow and sadness. I do mean endless, given that scientists estimate that there are between 2 and 4.5 million animal and plant species on the planet, all of which are seemingly endangered or whose ‘rights’ could be abused by ‘evil’ humans. Evolutionary psychology, behavioural biology or behavioural ecology – call it what you will – is but the same old ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ game, except this time it is the good instincts vs. the bad instincts and not the good spirits vs. the bad spirits. But then again, given that these scientist and academics believe God (or Existence) gave us the good instincts to counter the bad ones ... it’s really just that same ♪♫ ‘old time religion, that old time religion, it’s good enough for me’ ♪♫ RESPONDENT to No 32: (…) ‘Ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man’s’ Aldous Huxley – Ape and Essence. http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/apenesnc.html PETER: With reference to the link you provided, I don’t know whether or not you noticed but Professor Chuck Holiday’s main page also contained links he referred to as ‘Links for your Amusement’ – http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~hollidac/misclinks.html. One of these links is the ‘Bad Science Page’ which I came across several years ago. At the time I found it informative in understanding how and why so much bad science is taught in schools and as a consequence why people find it so hard to divest themselves of it at a latter stage in their life. You may well also find the ‘Pathetic Fallacy’ link and the ‘Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide’ link on the ‘Bad Science Page’ informative if you are wont to investigate the vast conglomerate of bad science and impassioned beliefs that underpins the supposed doomsday-ism and imagined salvation-ism of Environmentalism. It is my experience that abandoning spiritual beliefs is a piece of cake compared to daring to investigate the real-world beliefs that cause all human beings to see this paradisiacal planet through a glass darkly. RESPONDENT: Coincidentally, I picked this up at Electric Universe... [Albert Einstein]: ‘To be sure, nature distributes her gifts unevenly among her children. But there are plenty of the well-endowed, thank God, and I am firmly convinced that most of them live quiet, unobtrusive lives.’ – Albert Einstein PETER: His firm conviction seems to have a familiar ring to it. Spiritualists are often convinced that there are Enlightened Beings who live quite unobtrusive lives, a conviction particularly held by those humble practitioners who fail to make it to the top of the spiritual heap. As for Einstein, you may find this quote to be relevant to the subject at hand – [Albert Einstein]: ‘Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest feeling a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something, a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.’ From ‘My Credo’, a speech by Albert Einstein to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, Autumn 1932. * PETER: I then delved into reading up on philosophy, psychology, sociology and science in general in order to see what they were busy investigating and what solutions they were offering. I was astounded to discover that all of human knowledge and investigation is predicated upon, and therefore straightjacketed by, the conviction that it is impossible to change human nature. As I read on, the reason for this became more and more obvious – the core spiritual/religious belief that earthly life is essentially suffering so pervades all of human thinking that it is inconceivable that this ain’t necessarily so. RESPONDENT: Odd you should mention ‘impossible to change human nature’. My SO very recently stated this (again) unequivocally, whereas I firmly hold the opposite POV. It’s a bone of contention ... while I’m busy making real change, with real results, she’s trying to figure out ways to treat symptoms, most absurdly my symptoms that don’t even exist any more. Besides, there’s plenty of evidence that behaviour and thought processes can be changed for the worse, so there’s no reason they can’t be changed for the better. It just takes more time and work, that’s all. PETER: Yep. And yet, to date in actualism’s brief history, t’would appear that the major hurdle to changing human nature is the human propensity to desperately cling on to the teat of ancient beliefs. * PETER: As part of my investigation I also delved into theoretical physics and cosmology in order to ascertain whether any evidence had emerged that contradicted Richard’s experience that the physical universe is eternal and infinite. That it had no beginning, can only be actually experienced in this moment of time and has no end, that it has no centre, no ‘holes’ or edges to it other than imaginary ones – and therefore there is no ‘outside’ to it. Reading a few books and scouting around a bit was enough for me to ascertain that, while all sorts of fanciful theories and spurious evidence abounds in theoretical physics and speculative cosmology, no empirical evidence has been found to contradict what Richard says and what everyone has directly experienced in a PCE sometime in their life – that the universe is infinite and eternal and hence peerless both in its perfection and purity. RESPONDENT: To relevance to actualism: If in fact the universe is electric, or if in fact it is filled with rubber duckies ... how is it relevant to actualism? PETER: If you want to contemplate on life, the universe and what it is to be a human being, and your contemplations are based on the currently-fashionable pseudo-scientific theories of an expanding universe – replete with a Big Bang beginning, full of or even empty of, all sorts of unseen, unseeable and unmeasurable phenomena and which will suffer some Diabolical End – then you will remain in the grip of spiritual belief. When I first began to dig into these scientific theories I was amazed how unscientific they were, and I say this as a layman with only a basic knowledge of mechanics and engineering. The reason I posted the links about an alternative explanation to the empirical observations of the universe was that the explanations make far more sense to me than those currently held to be the truth. An obituary of Hannes Alfvén, the founder of plasma physics, reinforces my own layman understanding – [Eric G. Lerner]: ‘But Alfvén’s most significant contribution to science is his daring reformulation of cosmology, his critique of the Big Bang, and his posing of an alternative, the plasma universe-an evolving universe without beginning or end. To Alfvén, the most critical difference between his approach and that of the Big Bang cosmologists was one of method. ‘When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical and the empirical scientific approach,’ he explained. ‘In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world, what perfect principle must have been used.’ This, he said, is the method of conventional cosmology today: to begin from a mathematical theory, to deduce from that theory how the universe must have begun, and to work forward from the beginning to the present-day cosmos. The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw. The other method is the one Alfvén himself employed. ‘I have always believed that astrophysics should be the extrapolation of laboratory physics, that we must begin from the present universe and work our way backward to progressively more remote and uncertain epochs.’ This method begins with observation – observation in the laboratory, from space probes, observation of the universe at large, and derives theories from that observation rather than beginning from theory and pure mathematics. According to Alfvén, the evolution of the universe in the past must be explicable in terms of the processes occurring in the universe today; events occurring in the depths of space can be explained in terms of phenomena we study in the laboratory on earth. Such an approach rules out such concepts as an origin of the universe out of nothingness, a beginning to time, or a Big Bang. Since nowhere do we see something emerge from nothing, we have no reason to think this occurred in the distant past. Instead, plasma cosmology assumes that, because we now see an evolving, changing universe, the universe has always existed and always evolved, and will exist and evolve for an infinite time to come.’ Copyright © 1991, 1995 Eric J. Lerner. http://www.marxist.com/science/inmemory.html The other aspect I found of interest in my early explorations into mainstream cosmological theories of the 20th century was that many of the proponents of the theories were heavily influenced by the Eastern religious beliefs and philosophies that were particularly fashionable in European intellectual circles at the time. What really set the alarm bells ringing – my scepticism if you like – was when I discovered that the man who formulated the Big Bang creation theory was Abbé Georges LeMaître, a central figure in the Vatican’s Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma. RESPONDENT: From an experiential point of view, it ‘can only be actually experienced in this moment of time’ is certainly true, but that does nothing to describe the universe’s physical evolution over time. PETER: Whilst there is ample empirical evidence in the fossil record of this planet to support the theory that vegetate matter emerged from the mineral matter of this planet due to a unique combination of physical conditions – and that it then further evolved into animate matter, conscious animate matter and apperceptive animate matter over time – it is a leap of pure imagination to propose that the universe itself has evolved over time. The physical universe is ever changing but it is not evolving, because implicit in the word evolution as it is commonly used is that the process of evolution has a beginning point. The universe, being eternal and infinite, had no beginning point, no creation event. Further, the physical universe is not evolving towards perfection – it is already perfect, as can clearly be experienced in a pure consciousness experience. RESPONDENT: While that experience implicitly involves my flesh-and-blood, hence can only be happening in this moment, I know also that the flesh-and-blood is subject to physical laws and will eventually become dust. Why would similar laws not apply to the universe too? PETER: The universe, being eternal, can have no ending, no doomsday event. To propose that because flesh and blood human beings are mortal – ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust’ – it therefore follows that the universe is mortal – ‘will eventually become dust’ – is an anthropocentric viewpoint. Thus far in human history, all of humanity’s wisdoms and truths have been founded upon an anthropocentric viewpoint, be it that of the spiritualists’ much-vaunted search for immortality for the human spirit – the ‘Unborn’ state – or the scientists’ futile search for metaphysical spirit-like creationist forces. RESPONDENT: I ask this in all sincerity, and I’m not arguing the physical nature of the universe, nor its perfection and purity, just how it is pertinent to the matter at hand. PETER: Anyone who holds to an anthropocentric view of the universe and holds on to spiritual and/or creationist theories about the nature of the universe will, by the very nature of these ‘self’-centred and ‘self’-perpetuating views and beliefs, remain locked out from the pure consciousness experience of the perfection and purity of the infinite and eternal universe. It is as pertinent as that. * PETER: In hindsight, these investigations I conducted not only confirmed the facticity of what Richard was saying but also confirmed the fallacy of my own beliefs and none more so than my understanding of the universe. Contemplating the physical nature of the universe – as distinct from investigating and contemplating the nature of ‘my’ psyche – can not only triggered memories of past PCEs, but this type of ‘me’-out-of-the-way contemplation when combined with a softly-focussed wonderment of the sensual nature of the universe provide a potentiality that can evoke the onset of a PCE. RESPONDENT: Speaking of which ... I’ve recently gone through a painful time in my primary relationship, and in the process peeled back a lot more layers of the onion. It has been very educational, and also offered more proof of the efficacy of the AF method. I have little remaining scepticism. It has dawned on me that HAIETMOBA is running most of the time, almost sub-consciously, and I detect and probe ever more subtle emotions and responses of all types. I also realized that the percentage of my day where I feel excellent is continually increasing. Most amazing. Now, however, I think it’s time to put some energy into inducing some real PCEs to reinforce the results to date. I’m using all the techniques I’ve gleaned from the site to that end. PETER: One of the techniques you may have come across is the questioning of dearly held beliefs. Everybody has some core beliefs that serve to prop up their identity and these will vary slightly according to gender, culture, age, vocational training, and so on. Anyone who becomes interested in being happy and harmless will, sooner or later, come smack up against one of these beliefs. Sooner or later one of these beliefs will appear, rather like a boulder, on the path to being happy and harmless. And from observation of others who have been interested in actualism, it is clear that unless this belief is abandoned, willingly and deliberately, then that person will remain essentially unchanged by the process of actualism. Whilst I do acknowledge that abandoning one’s pet beliefs can be daunting – one’s very identity as a (… fill in the blank space) is at stake – the resulting palpable sense of freedom can oft evoke a pure consciousness experience of the perfection and purity of the infinite and eternal universe. This is what happened to me and I know this is what happened to Vineeto. And the curious thing is that during the process of actualism, I knew what I had to do next, I knew what belief stood in the way of my becoming more happy and more harmless – simply because the issue would not go away. This is, after all, what this discussion is really about – the nuts and bolts of abandoning belief and superstition in favour of actuality and sensibility. * PETER: Talking about contemplating the physical nature of the universe brings me to the point of my letter, which is to post a couple of links I thought you might be interested in. I don’t want to comment specifically on the subject matter of the links, as I would not want to pre-empt you from drawing your own conclusions as to whether the explanations offered make more sense than do the currently-fashionable theories and long-held beliefs about the physical nature of the universe – so I’ll leave it at that. http://www.holoscience.com/eu/eu.htm and http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ RESPONDENT: Of course, back to the original subject. As I said above, I need to do more reading to see how the math hangs together, but the argument is persuasive and interesting. PETER: As I read it, it was scientists’ reliance on mathematics that lead to the abandonment of common sense in the first place. RESPONDENT: I was put off at the initial screen for Holoscience as it said: [quote]: ‘The Electric Universe introduces a far richer science that has no rigid disciplinary boundaries. Instead it encompasses all human experience, arts and endeavour. Holistically, it embraces evidence from ancient civilisations as well as the latest space probes. The result is an astounding concordance between modern plasma physics and the ancient testimony of battling planets.’ [endquote]. My suspicions are aroused whenever I come across the word holistic, it’s typically used to capture a mish mosh of metaphysical gobbledygook. So, I thought, is this another Capra-esque affair? PETER: Indeed there is a good deal in the links I provided that make no sense to me – the supposed evolution of the universe being one. But I do find the explanation of the nature of the universe to be far more scientifically plausible than the creationist theories of a Big Bang and a Wimpy End, not to mention the Other Invisible Universes fantasies. What this group of scientists is saying is that what has thus far been empirically observed in the universe can be attributed to the combination of physical matter and the physical energies and forces associated with that matter. RESPONDENT: However, it quickly got back to real science. They go one to make some persuasive arguments about the plasma nature of the universe, and a very different take on the electrical, magnetic, gravitational, and nuclear characteristics. A couple of items that really piqued my interest: [quote]: ‘And if anyone believes that Newton’s laws guarantee a stable planetary system – think again! Any gravitational system with more than two orbiting bodies is unstable.’ [endquote]. I had puzzled that myself in the past – because gravity is attractive only, it seemed to me that any gravity based system (i.e. orbits) were eventually going to degrade. An electostatic system however, because of its bipolar nature, would theoretically be stable until perturbed by an outside force. PETER: As I have said I am a layman in these matters. Having said that, it seems to put me at an advantage because I am obliged to rely on common sense – something that is impossible for those who are driven by passion and blinkered by belief. RESPONDENT: And, [quote]: ‘What we measure as the speed of light is then a delayed response of bulk electric charge to an oscillating near-instantaneous electrostatic force.’ [endquote]. The implication here is that two bodies related across a distance by an electrostatic force would have essentially instantaneous communications. There’s an old modern physics conundrum: if you filled a tube with incompressible balls, all touching, and hit the end one with a hammer, the ball at the far end would move instantly, not constrained by the speed of light, or any other speed limit for that matter. PETER: I’ll pass on this one. The conundrums of theoretical physics do seem to bear a remarkable resemblance to Zen koans – Schroeder’s Cat comes to mind. RESPONDENT: As to pertinence to AF (no further comment needed): [quote]: ‘It has been well documented that modern institutions of science operate in such a way as to enforce conformity and prevent research and publication of revolutionary ideas. J. R. Saul argues that medieval scholasticism was re-established during the 20th century. If so, the new ‘Enlightenment’ will have to come, as before, from outside academia.’ [endquote]. PETER: Or some aspects of scientific research have to once again break free from the shackles of religious dogma, spiritual belief and metaphysical mysticism and get more down-to-earth again. RESPONDENT: OK, all great so far, but we get to the point that I was attempting to make some odd months ago. [quote]: ‘Sansbury’s electrical model of matter leads to a simple explanation of gravity that allows space to be three-dimensional and Euclidean – which is the way we perceive it.’ [endquote]. I’m all for simpler explanations, but I think it’s a bit scientifically naive to assume that just because something is the ‘way we perceive it’, it must be the whole truth. PETER: In my experience I found it useful to make a distinction between the many disciplines of science. The distinction I make is between what could be called the empirical sciences or applied sciences – engineering, mechanics, chemistry, geology, biology and so on – and the sciences that incorporate a good deal of theory or philosophical speculation – quantum physics, cosmology, climatology and so on. Simply by making this distinction it became clear that it is empirical science – the empirical understanding of physical matter and the physical forces and energies associated with physical matter – that has wrought the incredible progress in human safety, comfort, leisure and pleasure. It also became clear that the sciences that are driven by theory and conjecture – speculating on the nature of matter and then devising scenarios, forces and energies to suit their theories – produce little that is of practical use to anyone. RESPONDENT: The Holoscience people discount the notion of higher dimensions, but I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that ... maybe we are seeing all that there is. Maybe it is adequate, and complete. I’ll have to mull this over some more and rein in my skeptical bent a tad. PETER: Human beings have an obsession with ‘the notion of higher dimensions’ – the belief that the world is subject to the influence of good forces and evil forces is prevalent in every tribe and every culture on the planet. This belief is somewhat understandable considering that it emerged in the days when it was universally believed that the world was three layered – a flat earthy plane full of dangerous animals and dangerous humans, a mystifying heavenly realm above and a mysterious underworld below. Eventually it was empirically observed that the earth was not flat but was spherical and subsequent explorations over centuries proved that this was in fact so. Nowadays photos of earth taken from spacecrafts have subsequently convinced all but the wacky that the earth is not flat. The next belief to be demolished by empirical observation was the notion that the earth was the centre of the solar system – an empirical observation only made possible by the invention of a mechanical enhancement of our ‘sensory apparatus’ – the telescope. As telescopes got bigger and better, the belief that our galaxy was all there was to the universe – a conviction held in Einstein’s time – was replaced by the discovery that there are in fact countless other galaxies in the universe. The subsequent invention of radio telescopes and the like has meant that we are now able to observe and measure spectrums of the electromagnetic energy of the universe that lay outside the range human eyes can detect. And yet, despite this long history of scientific discoveries about the extraordinary magic that is the physical universe, the eons-old search for some sort of ‘higher dimension’ or metaphysical energy – the famed spirit-energy of mythology – still persists. The same long trek from belief and superstition to actuality and wonder can be seen in the discoveries about the creation of animate life. The process of animal reproduction was unknown to early humans and all sorts of beliefs and superstitions flourished in ignorance. Now, thousands of years later, the science of observation and investigation – mightily boosted by the invention of the inverted telescope, the microscope – has revealed the facts to be far more wondrous than the puerile myths dependant upon the belief in supernatural spirit forces. I could go on tripping through other fields of scientific discovery and endeavour, but you probably have got the gist of what I am saying – human beings will never be free from the fear and hope inherent in superstition if they insist on believing in higher dimensions, supernatural forces, metaphysical realms, divine beings, good and evil spirits and so on – or persist in hoping that one day science will provide the empirical evidence that spiritual belief so tellingly lacks. RESPONDENT: I also need to read some more on the premise about close planetary encounters in recent history ... that does sound a bit wild at first. PETER: Unless someone discovers some substantive empirical evidence to back up a theory, I am also sceptical of many of the suppositions that are presented along with the theory of a plasma universe or an electric universe. But I see these as add-ons to the central thrust of what is presented – an alternative evidence-based explanation for the thus-far empirically observed matter of the universe as opposed to the fashionable creationist explanations of Einsteinian Cosmology. Well, that’s been good fun. Nice to chat about these matters. PETER: When I first began to dig into these scientific theories I was amazed how unscientific they were, and I say this as a layman with only a basic knowledge of mechanics and engineering. The reason I posted the links about an alternative explanation to the empirical observations of the universe was that the explanations make far more sense to me than those currently held to be the truth. RESPONDENT: Granted that the present Big Bang theory has many holes, and that the electric universe contingent makes some compelling arguments. This is the scientific method at work: conjecture (aka guess at) a scenario hitherto opaque, conduct experiments to test the scenario, and assess the scenario given the acquired data. Some of these are easy (right angle theorem), some more complex (fundamental nature of the universe). The Big Bang theorem is still a theorem as it has not yet passed the test of the scientific method. Nor has the electric universe theorem. A key element of this process (particularly the first step) is common sense, as you use the term. PETER: You may have missed the fact from the last post that the man who formulated the Big Bang creation theory was Abbé Georges LeMaître, a central figure in the Vatican’s Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma. In other words, the very first step in the process of the formulation of the Big Bang theory, was LeMaître’s religious belief that God created the world out of nothing, that the universe had a beginning – a creation event. The ‘scientific method’ employed in this case was to take a transparently creationist religious belief, create mathematical formula to support the belief, assess any empirical observations solely in the light of the belief and, when holes appear in theory, persist by adding complications to the theory. After nearly a century of theories built upon LeMaître’s initial theory, some scientists have even come out claiming that they see the Mind of God at work in the universe. The Vatican must be mightily pleased with the current score line in cosmology – Vatican 1/ Empirical science 0. You might have noticed Richard’s recent post where he posted documentary evidence that the Tibetan Buddhist Dalai Lama is deliberately meddling in, and influencing, what could be termed the human behavioural sciences in precisely the same way that the Catholic Pope meddled in, and influenced, theoretical cosmology. It’s a good ploy on the part of the churches because the distinction between science and religion – between fact and fantasy – remains so blurred in most people’s minds that it is impossible for common sense to even begin to get a toehold, let alone a leg in. RESPONDENT: So far, note that this process is a-personal, and a not-too-bad approach to satisfying curiosity. PETER: Scientists, being human beings, can do nothing in an a-personal manner, but if the process they follow produces verifiable down-to-earth results with leads to things that work, or criteria that can be applied to produce results that work in similar situations, it can reliably be said that the theory then becomes fact. As for curiosity, if it isn’t a down-to-earth curiosity, then curiosity very quickly turns into a flight of fantasy – naught but impassioned imagination. A bit from my journal is relevant – [Peter]: ... ‘We know that death is an inevitable fact. This is the fact of the situation, but we have avoided this fact largely by making ‘Why are we here?’ and ‘What happens after death?’ into great religious, philosophical and scientific questions. Indeed, for many humans the pursuit of the answer to these meaningless questions is deemed to be the very meaning of life. The search for what happens after life becomes the point of life and the Search is endless. One is forever on the Path. One never arrives. That always seemed some sort of perversity to me. All that the religious and spiritual meanings of life have offered us is that they point to life after death – that’s where it is really at! ‘When you die, then you can really live!’’ Peter’s Journal Death RESPONDENT: When scientist’s egos get involved and they become defensive of ‘their’ theories, the waters are muddied and extricating real truth becomes much more difficult. PETER: Contrary to spiritual belief, t’is not the obstinacy of the ego that is the bane of humanity, t’is the tenacity of the soul. You may have observed that many scientists are very wary of treading on the toes of spiritualists lest they be seen as ‘soul’-less. (...) * RESPONDENT: Of course, back to the original subject. As I said above, I need to do more reading to see how the math hangs together, but the argument is persuasive and interesting. PETER: As I read it, it was scientists’ reliance on mathematics that lead to the abandonment of common sense in the first place. RESPONDENT: In my experience, mathematics has been subject to much more rigor than the ‘wilder’ branches, such as cosmology. Maybe science has abandoned common sense, but mathematics is (by and large) quite concrete, and forms the underpinnings for most other branches. I suspect that what is really happening is that in formulating pet theories, scientists ‘pick and choose’ bits of mathematics that appear to support their arguments, while disregarding the bits that contradict them. While mathematics may be concrete, the spin that ego-driven scientists put on it can distort the truth. PETER: Again a distinction needs to be made between applied mathematics and pure or abstract mathematics. Applied mathematics is an essential tool utilized by many practical scientists and professions including those of engineering and architecture. When mathematics is divested of down-to-earth applications all sorts of fantasies can result, including the search for mathematical ‘Elegance’ and ‘Truth’. I would refer you to the following link, which makes this point far more concisely than I am capable of doing – http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp You might also find further reading on this site useful in your research as it essential that you make your own sense of such matters and not just believe what I, or others, are saying. (...) * PETER: In my experience I found it useful to make a distinction between the many disciplines of science. The distinction I make is between what could be called the empirical sciences or applied sciences – engineering, mechanics, chemistry, geology, biology and so on – and the sciences that incorporate a good deal of theory or philosophical speculation – quantum physics, cosmology, climatology and so on. Simply by making this distinction it became clear that it is empirical science – the empirical understanding of physical matter and the physical forces and energies associated with physical matter – that has wrought the incredible progress in human safety, comfort, leisure and pleasure. It also became clear that the sciences that are driven by theory and conjecture – speculating on the nature of matter and then devising scenarios, forces and energies to suit their theories – produce little that is of practical use to anyone. RESPONDENT: You’re right in that the applied sciences have produced much good (and bad too), … PETER: I take it from your conditional agreement that you are somewhat sceptical or agnostic about the incredible progress in human safety, comfort leisure and pleasure that has been produced by the practical application of the scientific method of enquiry. I only say this because human beings do give themselves a very hard time, so much so that they denigrate the amazing technological advances that human intelligence and ingenuity has produced. As I said above, self-judgement, self-denigration, self-condemnation, self-deprivation and self-flagellation are but hangovers of spiritual belief. RESPONDENT: … but many of these advances only came about because the seed was planted while ‘speculating on the nature of matter and then devising scenarios, forces and energies to suit their theories’. PETER: Oops. T’was a bit sloppy of me. The obvious point of departure where the theoretical scientists abandon the rigours of scientific method is when their speculations on the nature of matter and their devised scenarios, forces and energies are promulgated as being truths or fact. RESPONDENT: Once again, this is fine as the first step in the scientific method. PETER: Whereas the first step in the Big Bang theory was not scientific at all, it was based on spiritual/ religious belief. RESPONDENT: Many or most of these failed and we never heard of them, and other practical discoveries happened purely by accident. PETER: Au contraire. We have heard of little else but Einsteinian-based cosmology for over 60 years now and this version of creationist belief is but the latest manifestation of a persistent and pernicious mystical tradition in science that goes back through alchemy, astrology, shamanism and the like to the dim dark past when the wise man or wise woman of the tribe was both witch doctor and God man or witch and God woman. As you yourself said, ‘all religion and spirituality is rotten to the core’ so it stands to reason that when religion and spirituality infect science then that science can hardly smell of roses. As a rough rule of thumb, any scientific theory that includes doomsday scenarios tends to tweak my BS detector. * RESPONDENT: The Holoscience people discount the notion of higher dimensions, but I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about that ... maybe we are seeing all that there is. Maybe it is adequate, and complete. I’ll have to mull this over some more and rein in my skeptical bent a tad. PETER: Human beings have an obsession with ‘the notion of higher dimensions’ – the belief that the world is subject to the influence of good forces and evil forces is prevalent in every tribe and every culture on the planet. RESPONDENT: My statement does not imply anima, intelligence, etc. I flat out refute the notion of gods, fairies, and other such forces. PETER: Your use of the words ‘higher dimension’ led me to make my comment – i.e. I was taking your words at face value. If I take out the word ‘higher’, as in lofty or elevated or principle, and take out the word ‘dimension’, as in attribute or aspect, I am left presuming you meant that the human sensory apparatus is limited in that it cannot detect the full range of all of the physical matter, nor the full range of all of the physical energies in the universe. Scientific progress has gone hand-in-hand with the invention of tools and apparatus that have allowed humans to extend the range and effectiveness of their sensory apparatus. The human invention of language, then written language, then mass printed words on paper, then the digitalizing of words and the subsequent invention of a world wide web of home computers is what allows us to have this conversation across the globe – an astounding extension of the ‘limitations’ of the human language and auditory capacity. RESPONDENT: No 45 quoted David Bohm recently: [David Bohm]: ‘The only thing I know is that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ You may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent, but I maintain his statement is valid. We can’t see UV for instance, so how do we know that there is not important information being presented to us at those wavelengths? PETER: I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena. Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 103 HZ to 1022 HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 1014 HZ to 1015 HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature. Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves. Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid. In doing so, you may well find that Mr. Bohm is using the word phenomena in the philosophical sense – Phenomena Philos. An immediate object of perception (as distinguished from substance, or a thing in itself). Oxford Dictionary – in which case he is talking of objects of perception that have neither substance nor physical existence – in other words, he is talking of phenomena that are meta-physical, as in – Metaphysical Not empirically verifiable. Immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible; supernatural. Oxford Dictionary While you say ‘you may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent’, there is no need for me to do so because his spiritual bent is a matter of fact – well-publicized, well-known and readily verifiable. ( see also) RESPONDENT: So, making absolute statements about the nature of the universe is presumptuous and smacks of a belief system. PETER: And yet, earlier in this same post, you have maintained that Mr. Bohm’s absolute statement about the nature of the universe – ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ – is valid. I take it from this that you do not regard his statement as being presumptuous nor do you regard it as smacking of a belief system. Whilst you have said in the past – [Respondent]: Belief and superstition are not primary obstacles to me, ... I don’t believe either that the universe is finite or infinite, or that it is filled with gods or fairies. Respondent to Peter 16.2.03 you are, yet again, coming out of the ‘not-knowing’ closet and championing yet another meta-physical theory about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: But that’s just my opinion... PETER: Having an opinion about something that you do not know to be a fact is but another way of saying I believe this to be so solely on the basis of what I hear other people have to say about the matter. If I can refer you back to your claim that you hold no beliefs about the nature of the physical universe, I’ll take the opportunity of reposting my response – [Respondent]: Belief and superstition are not primary obstacles to me, ... I don’t believe either that the universe is finite or infinite, or that it is filled with gods or fairies. [endquote]. To choose to not believe that the universe is finite or infinite is but to remain an agnostic – a person who is uncertain and non-committal about a particular issue. An agnostic is not someone who is free of belief; an agnostic is someone who remains open to belief, who keeps his or her options open, who has a bet each way. On the other hand, an actualist is someone who recognizes the necessity of becoming free from being a believer in the much-vaunted wisdom of humanity if one is to become free of the human condition and the way to become free from beliefs is to replace one’s beliefs with obvious and irrefutable facts thereby depriving ‘the believer’ from sustenance. I do realize that ‘not-knowing’ is highly valued in the spiritual world, but an actualist is vitally interested in life, the universe and what it is to be a human being and as such makes exploring, investigating and ‘finding-out’ his or her prime mission in life. Peter to Respondent 22.2.03 I don’t know whether it has occurred to you in the course of our conversations but those who value ‘not-knowing’ do in fact hold to many opinions based solely on what they have heard other people say and they do in fact stubbornly cherish many beliefs – principal amongst them the belief that some type of ‘Unknowable’ forces and energies permeate the physical universe. PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically- encoded instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. PETER: A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow – [David Bohm]: ‘Indeed, for both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles. It is the main point of this book that the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is ‘hidden’ because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society.’ D. Bohm & Mark Edwards, Changing Consciousness And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction – <snip> I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? RESPONDENT: Actually he doesn’t separate thinking and feeling. In his book ‘Thought As A System’ he considers thought to be one aspect of a larger system that not only includes feelings in the body but the all the myriad of connections with the body and world at large. Put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought (ie the idea that thought is only internal and ephemeral ‘whispers in the mind’) and consider it to be part of a larger whole. PETER: What you appear to be suggesting here is that if I ‘put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought’ then I could consider it to ‘be part of a lager whole’, which presumably means that it includes the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Therefore when David Bohm says that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself’, I am to assume he is saying that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: You can see that the movement of thought influences the brain, the body and the environment at large (buildings, roads, pollution, cultural influence, government etc) and that feedback returns into our bodies through the senses to make us feel and act in certain ways. PETER: The ‘larger whole’ – the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory – still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: He considers the effect that evolution has had as well. PETER: Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause? RESPONDENT: And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti. PETER: If I may point out, it was you who made the comment – [Respondent]: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. [endquote]. When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey? PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically- encoded instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. PETER: A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow – [David Bohm]: ‘Indeed, for both the rich and the poor, life is dominated by an ever growing current of problems, most of which seem to have no real and lasting solution. Clearly we have not touched the deeper causes of our troubles. It is the main point of this book that the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself, the very thing of which our civilization is most proud, and therefore the one thing that is ‘hidden’ because of our failure seriously to engage with its actual working in our own individual lives and in the life of society.’ D. Bohm & Mark Edwards, Changing Consciousness And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction – [David Bohm]: ‘... we went on to consider the general disorder and confusion that pervades the consciousness of mankind. It is here that I encountered what I feel to be Krishnamurti’s major discovery. What he was seriously proposing is that all this disorder, which is the root cause of such widespread sorrow and misery, and which prevents human beings from properly working together, has its root in the fact that we are ignorant of the general nature of our own processes of thought. D. Bohm, A Brief Introduction to the Work of Krishnamurti. I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? RESPONDENT: That’s my term but and I fail to see why a teaching has to match the terminology exactly before equivalence can be seen. In a fair-minded person this is not a problem. PETER: So if someone says that thought is the root cause of human sorrow and misery and someone else says that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow you, being ‘a fair-minded person’, claim that the statements mean the same thing, i.e. they are equivalent. By your logic, thought and feeling are different terminology that describe the same thing. I wonder if this is your experience as it is certainly not mine and it is certainly not the experience of others. Just last night I was watching a TV documentary in which a soldier in the GW1 was talking about his first experience in combat. He described the first time he killed an enemy soldier and he said there was an immediate rush of exhilaration, which was followed a half second later by a feeling of shame. He was most specific about the half second as he repeated it with hand gestures to indicate that these were distinctly separate reactions, one immediately following the other. I could relate to what he was saying as I have also experienced the primal rush of the instinctual passions – including the thrill of killing although I have never killed – as well as the split second later feeling-fed thoughts, the socially-conditioned response. Real-life anecdotes evidence such as this one confirm that instinctual reactions and their associated passions are primary and that thought-related reactions and their associated socially-conditioned feelings are secondary and that sensible thought doesn’t even get a leg in, as it were. This is yet again evidence that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not thought, as Eastern spirituality would have it. RESPONDENT: No 30 has kindly supplied an interesting quote from David Bohm. I’ll reproduce it here so that the fair-minded amongst us can see some equivalence to your preferred actualistic cliché: [David Bohm]: ‘Thought has become conditioned over the ages, partly by heredity, and partly through tradition, culture and environment. It has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsify, to distort. And this is in the material structure of the brain. In one sense this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage. Conditioning gives great importance to thought, to the self and to the center. It overloads, it distorts and gradually damages the brain.’ They both then agreed that fear, sorrow, economic conditions, social environment.... ‘does damage to the brain cells.’ Bohm went on to state: ‘There is real physical, chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells will produce thought that is inherently distorted. Therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, it does so from a distorted brain.’ From a talk, ‘Tradition and Truth’, Gstaad, 8.6.1975 PETER: Again the quote says that thought and human conditioning is the problem – not the genetically-encoded instinctual passions and the human condition itself. * RESPONDENT: Actually he [Bohm] doesn’t separate thinking and feeling. In his book ‘Thought As A System’ he considers thought to be one aspect of a larger system that not only includes feelings in the body but the all the myriad of connections with the body and world at large. Put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought (ie the idea that thought is only internal and ephemeral ‘whispers in the mind’) and consider it to be part of a larger whole. PETER: What you appear to be suggesting here is that if I ‘put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought’ then I could consider it to ‘be part of a lager whole’, which presumably means that it includes the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Therefore when David Bohm says that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself’, I am to assume he is saying that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: Yes, I am for real. You actualists have a real problem with deviations to your preferred lingusitic patternings. You took the logical step and then got all incredulous. PETER: What you are saying in support of your long-running case that spiritualism is saying the same thing as actualism is the word ‘thought’ means the same thing as the words’ instinctual passions’ because I should consider them to ‘be part of a larger whole’. To me that is nonsense because words do have meanings and the reason we use words is so that we can accurately communicate meaning to others. As an example, as I sit here at the computer I am typing these words on a keyboard and watching the words appear on the CRT screen – both are part of a larger whole called a computer but each are distinct and different components. You might have noticed that when I used the word ‘keyboard’, the word accurately describes something that anyone familiar with computers would know, i.e. they would not assume that I was talking about a CRT screen or a printer. Now if I can move this discussion from the intellectual to the experiential – what I am saying is that there is a distinct difference between thought and the deep-seated feelings of malice and sorrow that are the product of the instinctual passions. If, in your experience, you cannot make such a distinction, then you will fail to understand that what actualism is saying is distinctly different to what the Eastern spiritualists have been saying for millennia. RESPONDENT: I would have said ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought which is both informed by and feeds back into the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’. PETER: Well, the soldier who experienced the rush of the instinctual passions a half-second before feeling-fed thought kicked in would not agree with you and nor can I because I have experienced the fact that the instinctual passions are the primary reaction and thinking or rational thought only has a chance to feed back later. And not only that but the brain’s circuitry is such that the feedback loop is biased in that the instinctual reactions and subsequent emotional responses are seemingly stronger and quicker circuitry than those that carry the cognitive reaction and subsequent reasoned response. Whilst you say ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought which is both informed by and feeds back into the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’ actualism says, and LeDoux amongst others confirms, that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in genetically-encoded instinctual passions which are not only primary ‘quick and dirty’ reactions but they also feed back into thinking such that reasoned responses, sensibility, sensitivity and clear thinking have little if any chance to operate’. If you think that you and I are talking about the same thing, I can only suggest getting in touch with your feelings and observe them in operation because that’s how I came to experientially understand the difference between thinking and feeling. * RESPONDENT: You can see that the movement of thought influences the brain, the body and the environment at large (buildings, roads, pollution, cultural influence, government etc) and that feedback returns into our bodies through the senses to make us feel and act in certain ways. PETER: The ‘larger whole’ – the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory – still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Come on, you’re not playing fair. If you wish to critique the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory then you must respect the internal logic, even if you believe the assumptions to be flawed. PETER: Why must I respect the internal logic – I gave up believing Eastern spiritualism years ago. The internal ‘logic’ of spiritualism is a crock and an utterly ‘self’-centred crock at that. James Randy amongst others offered substantial prize money to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal feats – including the claims that thought can influence matter – and no-one has thus far succeeded. As someone who has worked in the building industry for years I have yet to hear of anyone who has evidence that ‘the movement of thought influences … buildings’. I have had people tell me that a house should be sited on a certain position on a block of land because of an imaginary ‘energy line’ that runs under the ground and that a particular internal arrangements of the house will bring either good or bad ‘Chi’ if that’s what you mean by thought influencing matter, but I don’t believe in superstition. RESPONDENT: You’re not playing fair when you conclude that the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory ‘still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions’. PETER: You keep coming up with these spiritual theories and then, when I don’t agree with them, you accuse me of not playing fair. I take it that a fair game to you is one in which I would sit here saying ‘Yes, No 59 … yes No 59… oh yes No 59’. If this is your idea of a fair game I can only suggest you stop playing it with me and start playing it in front of the mirror – that way you would not only have a captive audience but no doubt an admiring one as well. RESPONDENT: The theory does not say that. In this theory you can’t separate the feelings borne of instinctual passions from the larger system of thought. PETER: This theory only appeals to those who are either incapable of, or are not interested, in making a distinction between feeling and thought … whereas I, along with others, can and do make a distinction. RESPONDENT: The instinctual passions are an important part of the larger whole, being drivers and reactors to other elaborately interconnected parts of the thought system. PETER: From what I understand of the brain’s operation – both intellectually through reading LeDoux and others and experientially by being attentive as to how this brain and other brains operate – there are no ‘elaborately interconnected parts of the thought system’, it’s all very simple really. As I said above – ‘the ultimate source … is in genetically-encoded instinctual passions which are not only primary ‘quick and dirty’ reactions but they also feed back into thinking such that reasoned responses, sensibility, sensitivity and clear thinking have little if any chance to operate’. Once I understood this intellectually I then ditched the ‘‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory’ and all other spiritual concepts and started to find out for myself the experiential evidence that this is so. In short, I started to get in touch with my own feelings and passions and began to observe them in action – something that men, in particular, have been conditioned not to do. * RESPONDENT: He [Bohm] considers the effect that evolution has had as well. PETER: Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause? RESPONDENT: I see that you are looking for something that I’m not asking of Dr Bohm. You are demanding that Dr Bohm use your terminology before you will recognise any equivalence. I’ve not claimed that there would be a one-to-one relationship to actualism. I’ve suggested that other people have been thinking along similar lines. PETER: Okay. You have again posted a quote in this post that supposedly demonstrate equivalence – [Respondent]: ‘They both then agreed that fear, sorrow, economic conditions, social environment ... ‘does damage to the brain cells.’’ [endquote]. And yet it is clear that the instinctual passions are genetically-encoded in every normal healthy brain, i.e. people with undamaged brain cells feel fear, aggression, nurture and desire. There is no equivalence here – one is a myth, the other is a fact, a fact that has been the subject of historical denial but one that is gradually being confirmed by more and more empirical evidence. RESPONDENT: I’ve agreed that Actualism does a good job in asserting the importance of inherited instinctual conditioning but that the notion is not original to actualism. Here’s another quote: [quote]: ‘Our difficulties arise from our education, our physical and mental heredity which all bear the stamp of false values. The fundamental transformation which is most urgent, is both physical and spiritual’ ‘Living Zen’ page 265 Introduction to the Conclusions PETER: I assume the reason you have posted this quote is because the author mentions the words ‘physical heredity’ – even though he doesn’t make plain what he means by the term. Nevertheless, as I read the relevant part of this quote the author says ‘our physical heredity ... bear(s) the stamp of false values’. If I go along with your assumption that ‘physical heredity’ means genetically-encoded instinctual passions then what you assume he is saying is ‘the genetically-encoded instinctual passions bear the stamp of false values’. So if fear, aggression, nurture and desire are ‘false values’ then ‘fundamental transformation’ would presumably occur when those false values were replaced by authentic or true values – which in the spiritual traditions means fear is replaced by the feeling of omnipotence, aggression is replaced by the ideal of pacifism, nurture is aggrandized into a feeling of Divine or unconditional love and desire is disguised as Divine gratitude or humility. All you have posted is yet another recipe for self-righteousness and this bears no equivalence at all with what is on offer hereabouts. RESPONDENT: Here’s a source that DOES use your preferred terminology. You won’t like their conclusions (nor do I) and you will dismiss then as ‘spiritual’ but it shows that others are thinking along actualist lines: [quote]: ‘Explaining the human condition involves looking at what occurred in human evolutionary development when the intellect evolved to the level where it could take control from the instincts. In particular what occurred in the human species when our intellectual, or conscious thinking ability emerged in the presence of our already established genetic, or instinctive self.’ from www.humancondition.info specifically www.humancondition.info/TheHumanCondition.html Wow. Look at that. They talk about the human condition AND instinctive self! PETER: No equivalence at all. When the author says ‘the intellect evolved to the level where it could take control from the instincts’ he has got it completely wrong. How does he explain the fact that the ‘evolutionary development’ that produced homo sapiens (literally ‘man the wise’) occurred at least 100,000 years ago and possibly even 400,000 years ago and yet war, murder, rape, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, suicide, depression, corruption, superstition and the likes are still endemic within the human condition – so much for the intellect taking ‘control from the instincts’. A lot of people write a lot of things about the instincts – but none say that it is possible, let alone even desirable, to eliminate the instinctual passions … in fact human beings are mightily proud of being ‘passionate beings’. * RESPONDENT: And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti. PETER: If I may point out, it was you who made the comment – [Respondent]: ‘Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example.’ [endquote]. When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey? RESPONDENT: You put pay to discussion with feeble conclusions like that. PETER: It was your failure to stand by the evidence you are offering in order to prove your point that actualism is nothing other than re-branded spiritualism, i.e. that it is not new, which led me to this conclusion. If you stop providing evidence that you are not prepared to stand by, and start to provide some that you are prepared to stand by, then we can have a sensible discussion. In other words, it’s high time you stopped bluffing and started to play your trump cards – if you had any, that is. RESPONDENT: In a previous point I said that Bohm would regard instinctual passions to be a part of the whole system of thought, so if Bohm sheets home the blame to thought you can be sure he includes a very wide section of experience including instinctual passions. PETER: Why should I assume that he said something when he didn’t say it? Or more to the point, why do you assume that he said something when he didn’t say it? RESPONDENT: That’s not something I ‘disclaim away’ from. My disclaimer was in defence of your previous propensity to attribute my complete agreement with my quotes and misunderstanding the purpose of my quotations. I am demonstrating that other people are thinking in the same direction as actualists. You are trying to suggest that unless people use the same terminology as expressed in actualist clichés then they can’t even be remotely thinking along actualist lines. It seems that you actualists hate being anything but totally unique and you’re prepared to argue at great length to be so. Why is that so? PETER: If I may point out, you are the one who has subscribed to this mailing list and you are the one who says that being free of the human condition is not unique and that actualism is nothing but re-branded spiritualism. All I have done is respond to your objections and take a clear look at the evidence you have provided in support of your claims. Why did I respond to your post at some length? Because I was once in your position and Richard took the time and made the effort to explain to me the difference between an actual freedom from the human condition and the altered states of consciousness that are revered in the spiritual world as well as sharing his expertise as to how he became free of the human condition. And it wasn’t a quick thing to do. It took a lot of time and effort on my part to get the gist of what he was saying – that an actual freedom from the human condition is unique – and the only way I could understand that it was unique was to throw out my spiritual beliefs, exactly as I had to throw out my drawing board before I could really get to grips with using a computer to draw, instead of a pen with ink in it. And whilst you have indicated in this post as well as in a post you sent one minute after this post that you are ‘done on this list’ I have nevertheless replied because what I write may also be of use to others on the list as well as to you. RESPONDENT: I’d say that your little uniqueness sensitivity points to an underlying insecurity. PETER: The marvellous thing about being virtually free of malice and sorrow is that I am no longer plagued by the insecurities others tell me they suffer from. Neither am I plagued by insecurity or doubt when I respond to posts on the list because I can stand by what I write because I write from my own experience, I don’t rely on the borrowed wisdom of others. RESPONDENT: Must be hard being in a tiny minority, holding all the answers with so few people listening and being so misunderstood. PETER: I have always been a minority in that I have always been on my own presumably from the time I was led by the hand to the school yard for the first time, although I have no memory of the day. It’s taken me a long time to come to acknowledge the fact and to be comfortable with the fact to the point of thoroughly enjoying my own company as it were. As for holding all the answers, I don’t pretend to, nor am I interested in, nor could I possibly do so. But when it comes to how to become happy and harmless I am an expert on the subject and I am only too happy to respond to those who write to me telling me they think and feel this is neither desirable nor possible. RESPONDENT: Looking at the website I can see great ideas floating in a vast sea of effusive, wordy turbulence. PETER: If that’s the case then it’s clear why you keep saying that you are ‘done on this list’. RESPONDENT: I see this is an expression of wonder and enthusiasm but I also see a counter current of wordcraft designed to allow no deviation. Linguistic excess as a bulwark against insecurity perhaps. The actualist path may be wondrous but it’s not wide. PETER: The actualism path is wide for those who fully launch themselves upon it; it’s just that everybody else has written a sign ‘Do not enter here’ over the entrance … and there are plenty of spiritualists milling around waving red warning flags at the start of the path so as to warn the ‘fool-hardy’ from taking the plunge. Actualism Homepage
This Topic Continued | Peter’s Selected Correspondence Index | Library – Topics Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity