# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Relativism/ Subjectivism CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, please check out this link and tell me how this guy’s model relates to your actual experience. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Lehar.html RICHARD: As Mr. Steven Lehar’s model does not relate to a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto your request is a non sequitur. CO-RESPONDENT: (...) if that guy I gave you his link is correct then couldn’t it be that you are being actual within a virtual reality? RICHARD: Mr. Steven Lehar has the following to say (from Chapter One of his book ‘The World In Your Head: A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious Experience’): [quote] ‘I propose that out beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions, i.e. above the dome of the sky, and below the solid earth under your feet, or beyond the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room you see around you, is located the inner surface of your true physical skull. And beyond that skull is an unimaginably immense external world of which the world you see around you is merely a miniature internal replica. In other words, the head you have come to know as your own is not your true physical head, but only a miniature perceptual copy of your head in a perceptual copy of the world, all of which is contained within your real head in the external objective world’. [endquote]. As there is no way he is proposing that flesh and blood bodies (aka ‘true physical skull/ true physical head/ real head’) have any physical existence in that miniature internal replica/ perceptual copy (of ‘an unimaginably immense external world/ the external objective world’) your query is a non sequitur. RESPONDENT: Our senses are wrong some of the time, though. RICHARD: As nowhere above is it either stated or implied that human senses are right all of the time that assertion is way out in left field. RESPONDENT: Isn’t my personal world a representative reality, a reflection of the universe as it is? RICHARD: If by ‘as it is’ you mean the actual universe then ... no (more on this further below). RESPONDENT: The universe has no colours and no appearance, for example, it is the human organism that sees it with colour. RICHARD: Presuming that you mean ‘appearance’ in a phenomenological sense then its intellectually-intuited ‘essence’ (aka ‘thing-in-itself’) has no existence in actuality either ... and in regards to colours/ colour the following may be of interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Around us, out there, there is one underlying reality. • [Richard]: ‘First, there is no ‘out there’ in actuality – somehow you seem to have overlooked the main point of an actual freedom from the human condition (the absence of identity and its ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds) – and how do you know there is ‘one underlying reality’ anyway as you make it quite clear that ‘we can never know what is out there per se’ (further below)? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Something like the NOUMENON of Immanuel Kant. • [Richard]: ‘Well now, Mr. Immanuel Kant was just plain wrong: there is no ‘NOUMENON’ (an object of purely intellectual intuition, devoid of all phenomenal attributes, here in this actual world ... only phenomenon. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘What I was trying to say to you and may be I didn’t express my self well, is that we can never know what is out there per se. • [Richard]: ‘Indeed not ... the identity within creates an inner world and pastes its reality as a veneer over this actual world ... it then calls it an outer world and, feeling separate from its own creation, seeks union with it (little realising it is its own creation of course). Yet even those who succeed in this narcissistic enterprise say it is unknowable ... being but a delusion born out of an illusion is it any wonder why? • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Our perception does not identify the outside world as it really is, but the way we are allowed to recognize it, as a consequence of transformations performed by our senses. • [Richard]: ‘Where you say ‘the outside world’ again you are speaking of the reality which the identity within creates ... in actuality one does not perceive the world ‘by our senses’ as one is the senses. The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/ ‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/ ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose ... plus adding all kinds of emotional/ psychological baggage to what is otherwise the bare sensory experience of the flesh and blood body. That identity (‘I’/ ‘me’) is forever cut-off from the actual ... from the world as-it-is. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Thus, we transform photons into images, vibrations into sounds and noises and chemical reactions into specific smells and tastes. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. • [Richard]: ‘First of all, did you notice that you left out the sensation of touch (cutaneous perception)? Thus to be consistent you must also say that the universe (the physical world) is not hard or soft; is not smooth or rough; is not squishy or firm; is not vibrating or still; is not wet or dry; is not hot or cold; is not windy or windless ... and so on and so on through the entire range of what tactilely perceived. Second, the universe is only experienced as being colourless by a totally colour-blind person; the universe is only experienced as being inodorous by a totally smell-blind person; the universe is only experienced as being insipid by totally taste-blind person (and a surprising large number of people have some degree of taste-blindness); the universe is only experienced as being silent by a totally deaf person. Third, I have come across this argument many times before ... the first time I heard it was some person saying that the universe was really black and white because it is the human eye which creates colour: to be consistent that person would have to say that the universe is not black and white either as it is rod-shaped receptors in the retina which detect brightness (there are upwards of 130 million of these photosensitive cells in an eye, which detect size, shape, and movement, as well as brightness, whilst it is the cone-shaped receptors which determine colour and fine detail). Do you see where this line of argument leads to? No colour, no brightness (no light and dark/ black and white), no size, no shape, no movement, no detail at all? This argument has similarities to that corny ‘brain in a vat’ idea so beloved of epistemologists ... no universe at all (other than the conveniently disregarded universe the ‘brain in a vat’ is residing in of course). So much for intellectual intuition ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 6 June 2003). * RESPONDENT: The universe has no colours and no appearance, for example, it is the human organism that sees it with colour. RICHARD: Presuming that you mean ‘appearance’ in a phenomenological sense then its intellectually-intuited ‘essence’ (aka ‘thing-in-itself’) has no existence in actuality either ... and in regards to colours/ colour the following may be of interest: [Richard]: ‘(...) I have come across this argument many times before ... the first time I heard it was some person saying that the universe was really black and white because it is the human eye which creates colour: to be consistent that person would have to say that the universe is not black and white either as it is rod-shaped receptors in the retina which detect brightness (there are upwards of 130 million of these photosensitive cells in an eye, which detect size, shape, and movement, as well as brightness, whilst it is the cone-shaped receptors which determine colour and fine detail). Do you see where this line of argument leads to? No colour, no brightness (no light and dark/ black and white), no size, no shape, no movement, no detail at all ... RESPONDENT: I’m not exactly sure what you mean by ‘detail’ there. RICHARD: I mean the particulars, the finer features of something, usually noticed only upon closer inspection (such as a visually blind person running their fingertips all over and all around something after having first ascertained its basic nature, shape, size, and so on, with a few quick touches). RESPONDENT: That line of argument does indeed lead to a ‘noumenon’ universe with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape and no movement. RICHARD: Put succinctly: that line of argument leads to no universe at all. RESPONDENT: What is wrong with that model, just that it is not experienced directly? RICHARD: No, what is wrong with that model is that there is nothing to experience, period (nor any body to be experiencing). RESPONDENT: If we find the corresponding faculties in the brain and senses, then couldn’t the source of the sense data be without those things? RICHARD: Hmm ... there is no ‘brain and senses’ in that model to find anything in (the word universe is, of course, inclusive of all brains and all sense organs). RESPONDENT: As for the colour example, my obvious question is: How can you be experiencing actuality if your eyes see something as red while other humans see it as green? RICHARD: First and foremost, it makes no sense to say [quote] ‘your eyes see something ...’ [endquote] as I am these eyes seeing something. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/ ‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/ ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose ... plus adding all kinds of emotional/ psychological baggage to what is otherwise the bare sensory experience of the flesh and blood body’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 6 June 2003). Second, no identity ever experiences actuality ... all psychological/ psychic entities, by their very nature, are oblivious to this actual world. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘That identity (‘I’/ ‘me’) is forever cut-off from the actual ... from the world as-it-is’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 6 June 2003). Third, as I am not colour-blind I see something green as being just that (green) and not red ... besides which invoking defective sense organs, in order to make a case, is tantamount to throwing in one’s hand. You may find the following to be of interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... the tree is not green, the brain is giving the colour. • [Richard]: ‘The green of a tree’s leaves is due to chlorophyll (a group of magnesium-containing green pigments) not absorbing a particular wavelength of light radiation: wavelength is a property of light and colour is the sensation caused by this property as it interacts with the eye ... which gives rise to the expression ‘what colour is a carrot in the ground’. In other words quality (quale) is sourced in properties ... and not in the perceiver as more than a few peoples contend. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘If something happens to my brain, I will see it like having a different colour of what you see for example. The same happens with all the senses. • [Richard]: ‘However, if something does not happen to your brain the leaves of the tree will be seen as being green just as this brain does ... and the same happens with all the senses. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘So if I close my eyes I can’t say that the tree is green. • [Richard]: ‘Perhaps, upon reflection, you will find that you can ... just because the eyes are closed does not mean that the chlorophyll pigmentation in the leaves ceases deflecting a particular wavelength of the sun’s radiant energy and absorbing the rest. Sometimes it is helpful to take a step sideways to ascertain what is going on: three-dimensional vision, for example, is also dependent upon the eyes being open ... yet ambulation shows that three-dimensionality does not all-of-a-sudden disappear upon closing the eyes (a blind person can determine that a tree-trunk is round by walking around it or running their hands over it). • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Actually I can not say that what you call green is the same with what I call green. We assume it is, because we have the same brain. • [Richard]: ‘Obviously the precise hue of the colour green varies from person-to-person (due, if nothing else, upon the number, quality, and arrangement of the cone-shaped receptors in the retina) yet the general colour green is the same for all normal human beings’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 3 June 2003). * RESPONDENT: That line of argument does indeed lead to a ‘noumenon’ universe with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape and no movement. RICHARD: Put succinctly: that line of argument leads to no universe at all. RESPONDENT: Couldn’t it lead to a universe made up of something we can’t and don’t perceive ... such as ‘particles’, ‘energy’ and other such things? RICHARD: What is often overlooked, in regards to theoretical physics, is that mathematics do not describe the universe (a mathematical model has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process). What Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré (a mathematician and physicist of some note) has to say about mathematical models is quite illuminating: • ‘Poincaré put forward important ideas on mathematical models of the real world. If one set of axioms is preferred over another to model a physical situation then, Poincaré claimed, this was nothing more than a convention. Conditions such as simplicity, easy of use, and usefulness in future research, help to determine which will be the convention, while it is meaningless to ask which is correct. The question of whether physical space is Euclidean is not a meaningful one to ask. The distinction, he argues, between mathematical theories and physical situations is that mathematics is a construction of the human mind, whereas nature is independent of the human mind. Here lies that problem; fitting a mathematical model to reality is to forcing a construct of the human mind onto nature which is ultimately independent of mind’. (www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/World.html#s54). * RESPONDENT: We use microscopes to see that everything is made of parts smaller than are directly detectable by the senses. RICHARD: Just by way of example, then, if you could describe what parts can be seen when the most abundant element in the universe (hydrogen) is viewed through a microscope it would be most appreciated ... as would a description of what parts can be seen when one of the most plentiful and essential compounds, which covers nearly seventy one percent of the earth’s surface, is similarly viewed. I am, of course, referring to water. RESPONDENT: In principle, couldn’t a noumenon universe be made up of tiny undetectable constituents ... RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘in principle’ you mean ‘in theory, theoretically’ (Oxford Dictionary), and that by ‘noumenon’ you mean ‘an object of purely intellectual intuition, devoid of all phenomenal attributes’ (Oxford Dictionary), and that by universe you mean ‘(figuratively) a domain or sphere characterised by a particular (specified) quality or activity’ (Oxford Dictionary) then such an abstract/ metaphysical realm as that could be made up of tiny undetectable constituents ... or could even be made up of one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eaters, for that matter. RESPONDENT: ... while our nervous systems give it its macro-level appearance, colour, size, shape, etc? RICHARD: Not the nervous systems ... no, never at all; the identities’ imaginative/ intuitive facilities ... yes, only too often. RESPONDENT: It does not have to lead to no universe at all. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend: what you are positing is an abstract/ metaphysical realm of purely intellectual intuition, devoid of all phenomenal attributes yet to which your (macro-level) nervous system somehow gives it its macro-level appearance, colour, size, shape, and etcetera, but then say that the line of argument which does indeed lead to an abstract/ metaphysical realm with no colour, no brightness, no size, no shape, and no movement does not have to lead to no universe at all. Am I understanding you correctly? * RICHARD: (...) Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: Perhaps more than I am. RICHARD: Being bereft of any subjective/ objective dichotomy has its distinct advantages. RESPONDENT: Reading over some of your previous correspondence (regarding UV Light, quantum physics and subjective realities), I seem to have no reason to believe in private representative realities or a noumenon objective reality anymore. Stunning stuff. Thanks again Richard. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... it is indeed stunning to discover that more than a little of the wisdom of the real world is not worth the parchment/ papyrus/ palm leaves/ rice paper/ clay panels/ stone tablets it is inscribed upon. What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention ... so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down. It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for – the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/ the basic premise of the argument or proposition – and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense. RESPONDENT: ... are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical. RESPONDENT: Are you suggesting that researchers only ever deal with theory and that they never employ observation to arrive at their own experiential revelations? RICHARD: All I was doing was responding to your invitation to see a web page you cited for an overview of [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] on aggression ... however, in view of your ‘they are theories to me’ explanation (further above) are you now suggesting that the overview on aggression at that web page you cited should be read as being [quote] ‘experiential revelations’ [endquote] and not theories after all? For example: • [example only]: ‘See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of experiential revelations on aggression’. [end example]. * RICHARD: As the author of the web page article you cited clearly says right up-front [quote] ‘... I find it helpful to look at *theories* of aggression by dividing them into three schools ...’ [emphasis added], as well as using the word ‘theorists’ more than once, further on, to refer to what you describe as [quote] ‘researchers’ [endquote], then the reason why I responded to your initial paragraph the way I did might become more readily apparent were it to look something like this: • [example only]: ‘The experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations about the role of instincts on the website are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst theorists about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst theorists but actualists seem confident’. • [Richard]: ‘Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical’. [end example]. RESPONDENT: You are artificially dividing theory and the experiential. RICHARD: Here is the example you provided from The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and my succinct response: • [Respondent]: ‘On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims? • [Richard]: ‘They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 107, 5 January 2006). Given that more than a few ... um ... researchers posit/ postulate/ propose that the instincts being referred to (instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are ‘hardware’, and not ‘software’, then if you could explain how I am [quote] ‘artificially dividing theory and the experiential’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You simply say that your experience is ‘experiential’ and therefore superior. RICHARD: Unless you are suggesting that ‘hardware’ can be removed non-surgically (in an experiential process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation) then my experiential ‘proof’ as to their ‘software’ nature – the experience of the very deletion of same – is so vastly superior to those posits/ postulates/ proposals as to make them not even worth the mass-produced papers they are printed on. RESPONDENT: Good theories are not completely divorced from experiential evidence. RICHARD: If you could provide me with the name of one – just one – of those researchers you allude to who has experiential evidence that the extirpation of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, is a matter of the removal of ‘hardware’ (in a non-surgical process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation), and not the deletion of ‘software’, it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory. RICHARD: So as to keep it topical here is what I wrote in my first response to you: • [Richard]: ‘... the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact ...’. [endquote]. If you could point out where I am [quote] ‘expounding theory’ [endquote] in that instance of me opening my mouth it will be most appreciated ... as it is a fact, and not theory, that it was an act of altruism (and not an act of selfism) whereby ‘self’-immolation occurred; it is a fact, and not theory, that it was the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago who altruistically ‘self-immolated; it is a fact, and not theory, that the identity’s altruistic ‘self’-immolation was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges; it is a fact, and not theory, that the simultaneous extirpation included the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility). RESPONDENT: It’s unavoidable. A description cannot capture all the details of a situation, so it is necessarily a distillation of experience ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Since when has a distilled description of experience rendered the experience a theory? Or, even more to the point, how can experience be theoretical? RESPONDENT: ... it’s a theory that could be modified or disproved by further experience or a change in perspective. RICHARD: Here again is what I wrote in my first response to you: • [Richard]: ‘... the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact ...’. [endquote]. If you could demonstrate how [quote] ‘a change in perspective’ [endquote] can modify or disprove that factual account it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: ‘The chair is blue’ is untrue at 10,000X magnification. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you wrote a scant three sentences ago: • [Respondent]: ‘As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory’. [endquote]. As you have, perforce, opened your mouth in order to share that bit of wisdom then, by your own reckoning, you are expounding theory and I can only guess that your theory, that the chair miraculously ceases to be blue per favour the transmogrifying power of a human eye looking at it through a magnifying lenses, is as valid or as invalid as any other in the factless world you live in. So be it then ... end of discussion. * RESPONDENT: I see that you’re not talking to me now because of my position on theory and experience ... RICHARD: If by that you mean I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory then ... yes. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential [evidence] you are expounding theory. It’s unavoidable’. (Tuesday 10/01/2006 10:10 PM AEDST). Similar situations have arisen before ... for instance: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: ‘interpretations’) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke. • [Richard]: ‘So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will ... (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ... and (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/ everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest). Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Knowledge’ is ‘interpretation’, either the brain’s interpretation or the entity’s reinterpretation of the brain’s interpretation’. [endquote]. It is your call. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am not sure what I am called for. • [Richard]: ‘You are the one making the claim that knowledge is interpretation – not me – so it is up to you to deal with the consequences ... one of which is that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who does not know anything. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Maybe that helps in your understanding of what I mean when I say ‘we cannot know anything’ ... • [Richard]: ‘I am already cognisant of what you mean when you say that *you* cannot know anything: ... I am making it clear that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who maintains, via fallacious reasoning, that nothing can be known yet insists on discussing things as if they can be. You just cannot have it both ways ... either admit that you can (and do) know things or cease writing/ talking/ thinking forthwith. It is your call’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89e, 22 September 2005). (...) RICHARD: ... I, for one, have no interest (and thus no intention) whatsoever in conducting my correspondence on that basis [that any description of all matters experiential is to be expounding theory]. RESPONDENT: So you would prefer that your facts be accepted as such by your correspondent? RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following (from the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site): • [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (*which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name*). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Homepage). Did you overlook that when you copy-pasted a copy of it into your e-mail to me less than 48 hours ago? There is another version which is even more specific (just substitute the words ‘accept my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations as fact’ for the words ‘believe me’ and it will all become patently obvious). Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me [accept my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations as fact]. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me [accept accept my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations as fact] then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience* the facticity of what is written. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12d, 23 November 2000). As that version was reposted only six days ago (Friday, 6/01/2006 6:02 AM AEDST), in an e-mail to another under the title ‘Re: Nature vs. Nurture’, it does seem rather odd that you would overlook that as well. * RESPONDENT: It tells me a lot about Actualism that you cannot tolerate or put aside what you label as deficient thinking in another and still keep a dialogue going. RICHARD: How on earth can I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is dismissed out of hand as being an expounding of theory? RESPONDENT: You could realise that I deal with facts and believe them to exist as well ... with the usual proviso that contradictions render previously accepted facts into falsehood. RICHARD: Why would I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is treated as being (a) evidence believed to exist ... and (b) potentially false evidence? RESPONDENT: You’ve created a straw man to argue with. RICHARD: Here is an example which will illustrate: • [Respondent]: ‘On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims? • [Richard]: ‘They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same’. (Thursday, 5/01/2006 4:26 PM AEDST). Do you see that by the use of the plural you requested evidence that (a) the instincts being referred to are indeed ‘software’ (and not ‘hardware’) ... and that (b) the instincts being referred to can indeed be deleted? If you do see that then I will ask you this: knowing in advance that any evidence whatsoever is going to be treated as being potentially false evidence believed to exist just what is the point of me answering at all? In fact, is there any point in asking that question in the first place? RESPONDENT: Could you be so kind as to point out where I have ‘dismissed out of hand’? RICHARD: Look, by your own reckoning as soon as you open your mouth and say, for instance, that ‘the bus is bearing down on you’ you are unavoidably expounding theory – it *may* be a bus; it *may* be bearing down; it *may* be you the theoretical bus is theoretically bearing down upon – and, as a description cannot capture all the details of a situation, it is necessarily a distillation of experience ... it is a theory which could be modified or disproved by further experience or a change in perspective (‘the bus’ is untrue at 10,000x magnification/ ‘the bus’ is untrue in a dark room) and the only way you can insist that it is a bus is to control the way you look at it. Perhaps a fanciful conversation will throw some light: • [Person ‘A’]: ‘I say, old chap, the bus is bearing down on you. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘There you go again ... expounding theory. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘It’s a good theory, though. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘By Jove, I do believe you might be right ... and it may well be so good it approaches the status of fact. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘It could be so close to the status of fact we might as well colloquially call it fact. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘Only with the usual proviso, though, that a contrary observation may change that fact into falsehood at any time. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘Of course, that goes without saying, else you make a mockery of my position and turn it into a parody. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘I might just get out of the way of the jolly old thing, then. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘Just a moment ... it could be explained by other theories too, you know. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘True enough. Or even by a change in perspective. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘What do you mean by ‘change in perspective’? • [Person ‘B’]: ‘What colour is a carrot in the ground? • [Person ‘A’]: ‘Oh, that one ... I see you’ve boned up on relativism. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘Yes, all knowledge is relative; not absolute’. [end example]. An alternative ending might look something like this: • [Person ‘A’]: ‘What do you mean by ‘change in perspective’? • [Person ‘B’]: ‘I re-invented myself. • [Person ‘A’]: ‘Oh, that one ... I see you’ve boned up on subjectivism. • [Person ‘B’]: ‘Yes, all knowledge is merely subjective and relative; there is no objective truth’. [end example]. The slippery-slope into the place where the sun don’t shine goes something like this: first there is relativism; when relativity becomes totally non-absolute it is subjectivism; when subjectivity becomes totally non-objective it is solipsism. * RESPONDENT No. 60 (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909456484 (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60a, 25 January 2004b). And here is what your co-respondent was replying to: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909449803 (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89e, 26 January 2006). Finally, here is my response to that reply: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909452231 (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 87a, 29 January 2006). If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT No. 60: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. CO-RESPONDENT: Give it up No. 60, it’s hopeless. In all these years not one person has elicited a ^you may have a point there^ or even a ^the words dribbling from your mouth may, given a stiff breeze from the SE and proper’ alignment of the stars, be construed to contain a semblance of sense^. I don’t know if deep down inside there is any merit at all to what he says, but to try to wade through the verbal swamp that issues forth just ain’t worth it. The man is a textbook sociopath. Nice freedom on offer, kinda like Sam’s at the end of Brazil. RESPONDENT: Don’t give it up, No. 60. Eliciting anything in particular from Richard is not the point. Exposure of Richard’s character to an audience is where it’s at. Watching Richard’s attempts to control audience perception is fascinating and revealing. RICHARD: So, you have effectively reduced yourself to sniping away at Richard from the sidelines, exhorting another subscriber on like some frilly-decked cheerleader, and throwing peanuts from the gallery where assorted malcontents have gathered together for mutual support, eh? And all because Richard has the audacity, the unmitigated intrepidity, to fly in the face of a popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure). Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. * RESPONDENT: How could I possibly snipe away at Richard? RICHARD: As you are one who is doing it – as in your ‘Richard’s attempts to control audience perception’ misconception – why ask me? RESPONDENT: There’s nothing to shoot at, remember? RICHARD: So why do it, then? RESPONDENT: It’s all water off a ducks back, remember? RICHARD: You are not the first person to take the absence of any feeling ‘being’ whatsoever to be licence ... and you will most probably not be the last. * RICHARD: And all because Richard has the audacity, the unmitigated intrepidity, to fly in the face of a popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure). RESPONDENT: ‘Fly in the face of popular wisdom’? RICHARD: No ... fly in the face of [quote] ‘a’ [endquote] popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure) as popularised by Mr. Karl Popper. RESPONDENT: Not likely. RICHARD: Ha ... you either have a short memory or that is just silliness masquerading as a meaningful comment. Viz.: • [Respondent to Richard]: ‘... there may well be solid facts in reality but I don’t believe we can be completely certain we know the facts’. (Thursday, 12/01/2006 12:13 PM AEDST). RESPONDENT: You’d like to be special ... RICHARD: No, I *am* special. RESPONDENT: ... but your particular brand of naive realism is the most common wisdom of all. (*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism). RICHARD: All you are doing is displaying your ignorance in public for the sake of a cheap shot: actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, and not philosophical, and that unmediated perception of this actual world (the sensate world where flesh and blood bodies live) only occurs where identity in toto is either in abeyance (as during a PCE) or extinct (as upon an actual freedom from the human condition) ... naive realism (aka direct realism) is nothing of the sort. Viz.: • [Wikipedia]: ‘Naïve Realism: In the philosophy of perception naïve realism is the belief that the world is exactly as it appears’. [endquote]. In short: any identity can be a naïve realist ... all they have to do is adopt that philosophy. RESPONDENT: Richard believes in ‘scientific facts’ as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of ‘actual facts’; therefore, he rejects quantum physics (‘the observation incarnates the observed’), the Big Bang theory (‘finitude of the universe’), and Einstein’s relativity theory (‘space/ time are relative’). RICHARD: First of all, after nearly 6 months of being subscribed to the mailing list, and after having posted 280+ e-mails receiving extensive feedback, it is just silliness masquerading as sensible discussion to say that Richard [quote] ‘believes’ [endquote] in anything ... let alone in facts. RESPONDENT: My usage of the word *believes* is mis-understandable. I beg for pardon, English is not my mother-tongue; what I meant and better had said and say is the following: ‘Richard uses ‘scientific facts’ to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of ‘actual facts’ ...’. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent]: ‘Your facts might be right ... • [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? As there are no such things as ‘your facts’ (or ‘my facts’ or ‘his facts’ or ‘her facts’, and so on) and neither is a fact either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – might it be possible that you are really referring to ‘truths’? • [Respondent]: ‘No I mean ‘facts’ ... ‘facts you talk about’ if you like this more than just ‘your facts’. • [Richard]: ‘Okay, then the facts which I report/ describe/ explain are neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’ ... they are nothing other than that (facts)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89c, 10 September 2005). In a similar fashion to there being no ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’ facts there are no ‘actual facts’ as opposed to ‘scientific facts’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – and, moreover, as you modify ‘scientific facts’ into meaning ‘scientific theories’, further below in this e-mail being responded to, then by taking out the word ‘actual’, and by replacing ‘scientific facts’ with ‘scientific theories’ (as per your amendment), what you are saying looks something like this: • [example only]: ‘Richard uses scientific theories to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with his ‘direct experiences’ of facts ...’. [end example]. And as ‘direct’, in this context, is another way of referring to apperception then what you are saying, in effect, looks something like this: • [example only]: ‘Richard uses scientific theories to support his case as long as they don’t conflict with facts experienced apperceptively ...’. [end example]. If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. Otherwise the impression remains that you are still equating a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto with a flesh and blood body inhabited by a realised/ enlightened/ awakened identity. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘In this regard Richard is not different from a spiritual person who will believe in ‘scientific facts’ as long as they don’t conflict with his/ her mediated experiences of ‘spiritual truths’. (Monday 19/09/2005 6:57 PM AEST). Incidentally, as there is no such thing as an affective faculty sans identity – a self-realised identity (aka the Self, the Absolute, and so on) is still an identity no matter how realised it may be – such mediation simultaneously includes same. * RICHARD: If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. RESPONDENT: What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: interpretations) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke. RICHARD: So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ... RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you refer to? What pivotal word do you mean? RICHARD: I am referring to the word on which your sentence hinges ... and which can have at least two meanings even without scare-quotes: • ‘see: perceive with the eye (...) have the faculty of sight’. • ‘see: perceive mentally (...) attain to comprehension, understand’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: If you mean to ask why I put the word ‘sees’ in scare-quotes here is the answer: [quote] ‘Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually ‘made up’ by the brain’. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html). RICHARD: Hmm ... if that is the line you would like to pursue then obviously we cannot say what you want us to say as the person you postulate may very well be making up all manner of things about the proposed object (that it might really be a wheelbarrow, for instance, and not a bottle after all). Provided there be, of course, an object in the first place (as that would require being able to know that objects exist). * RICHARD: ... [so far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will] ... (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/ everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand that. RICHARD: You want us to say something (as per your abbreviated form of ‘let us say ..’ further above) do you not? Yet the something you want us to say is, according to you, unable to be known as knowledge is interpretation. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge’ is ‘interpretation’, either the brain’s interpretation or the entity’s reinterpretation of the brain’s interpretation’. (Wednesday 21/09/2005 3:09 AM AEST). It is your call. * RICHARD: Apart from that ... is it reasonable to presume that you are not going to provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Ok, here it is. [snip link]. RICHARD: You may find the following useful: • [Richard]: ‘... the way the web site is set-up and maintained, other than my portion of it, is all Vineeto’s doing and the content of the web pages which do not have my name in the URL is either by Peter or Vineeto (unless otherwise referenced) – the entire library, for instance, or the introduction to actual freedom, for another, is not of my doing at all’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 76, 28 September 2004). In the meanwhile, and more to the point, is it not the case that your initial usage of [quote] ‘believes in’ [endquote] in this current exchange was but a continuation of your ‘superstition of facts’ theme ... despite your ostensible comprehension a scant week ago? * RICHARD: If you could provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively – as reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body – it might throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to convey. RESPONDENT: What I want to convey – I try it again (see also my recent email: interpretations) – is the following: Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke. RICHARD: So far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will (1) need to explain why you have put the pivotal word in scare-quotes ... RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you refer to? What pivotal word do you mean? RICHARD: I am referring to the word on which your sentence hinges ... and which can have at least two meanings even without scare-quotes: ‘see: perceive with the eye (...) have the faculty of sight’. And: ‘see: perceive mentally (...) attain to comprehension, understand’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: If you mean to ask why I put the word ‘sees’ in scare-quotes here is the answer: [quote] ‘Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually ‘made up’ by the brain’. (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/latinhib.html). RICHARD: Hmm ... if that is the line you would like to pursue then obviously we cannot say what you want us to say as the person you postulate may very well be making up all manner of things about the proposed object (that it might really be a wheelbarrow, for instance, and not a bottle after all). RESPONDENT: The person’s brain might be mistaken – due to dim light – and ‘sees’ a coke bottle if in fact it is a ‘sprite bottle’, such errors happen often. RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you: why not just drop the last two words off your sentence (so as to do away with your scare-quotes)? For example: • [example only]: ‘Let us say a person sees a bottle’. [end example]. All that remains now is to clear up the matter of whether it can be known to be a bottle or not and you can get on with whatever it is you are wanting to convey. * RICHARD: Provided there be, of course, an object in the first place (as that would require being able to know that objects exist). RESPONDENT: Your brain ‘sees’ an object ... RICHARD: No, this brain sees an object. * RICHARD: ... [so far it is only you saying that: if you want us to say that you will] ... (2) have to explain just what it is that you are referring to (which, given that your whole argument is that nothing can be known/ everything is an interpretation, you may find somewhat difficult without being intellectually dishonest). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand that. RICHARD: You want us to say something (as per your abbreviated form of ‘let us say ..’ further above) do you not? RESPONDENT: The sentence ‘Let’s say a person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’ does not mean I want you to literally say ‘A person ‘sees’ a bottle of coke’. Can you not see that I give an example? RICHARD: Of course I can see that you give it as an example. * RICHARD: Yet the something you want us to say is, according to you, unable to be known as knowledge is interpretation. RESPONDENT: I don’t see your point. RICHARD: How can you know something – anything – if everything is only an interpretation? * RICHARD: Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Knowledge’ is ‘interpretation’, either the brain’s interpretation or the entity’s reinterpretation of the brain’s interpretation’. [endquote]. It is your call. RESPONDENT: I am not sure what I am called for. RICHARD: You are the one making the claim that knowledge is interpretation – not me – so it is up to you to deal with the consequences ... one of which is that I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone who does not know anything. * RICHARD: Apart from that ... is it reasonable to presume that you are not going to provide an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Ok, here it is. [snip link]. RICHARD: You may find the following useful: [Richard]: ‘... the way the web site is set-up and maintained, other than my portion of it, is all Vineeto’s doing and the content of the web pages which do not have my name in the URL is either by Peter or Vineeto (unless otherwise referenced) – the entire library, for instance, or the introduction to actual freedom, for another, is not of my doing at all’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Do you say it is then Vineeto and Peter who use scientific theories as support for the facts ... RICHARD: No ... all that is happening is some technical assistance is being presented so that you can get on with providing an instance of a scientific theory being used, by the flesh and blood body writing these words, as support for the facts experienced apperceptively and reported/ described/ explained by this flesh and blood body. Could it be possible that your continued failure to do so is because no such instance exists? * RICHARD: In the meanwhile, and more to the point, is it not the case that your initial usage of [quote] ‘believes in’ [endquote] in this current exchange was but a continuation of your ‘superstition of facts’ theme ... despite your ostensible comprehension a scant week ago? RESPONDENT: No, it is not. RICHARD: Okay ... then just as there is no need for belief in regards facts, for anybody, there is no need for belief in regards visually seeing an object – or touching an object or smelling an object or tasting an object or hearing an object – as sensate perception is direct (also for anybody). I have written about this before ... here is one instance: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Reality as we know it is what we perceive it to be. • [Richard]: ‘Whereas actuality is what sensory perception directly experiences (physical-on-physical). • [Co-Respondent]: ‘It is still a limited view, an interpretation. • [Richard]: ‘How on earth can sensory perception be ‘a view’ ... let alone ‘an interpretation’? It is direct experiencing; it is an instant, unswerving, undeviating and straightforward apprehension (physical-on-physical). For example: the physical body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the physical eyeballs see these words; the physical hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (actual-on-actual) involves no ‘interpretation’ whatsoever to sensuously ascertain its elemental physicality (fingertips-on-glass) existing purely and cleanly as-it-is. Not even thought is required in this sensory perception ... touch is immediate and intimate. Thus it is not ‘a view’ but an experiencing ... of course, micro-seconds after the direct perception, the affective feelings (12-14 milliseconds) then thought (another 12-14 milliseconds) may or may not come into play ... with all that inheres with that activity. Which is why I always advise coming to one’s senses (both literally and figuratively)’. (Richard, List B, No. 12j, 7 June 2001). RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity