that would be consistent with the (my) previously mentioned (possibly etymologically strained) definition of “existence” (as, essentially, the feeling of being a separate, independent object/agent that “stands out/separate from” other/all else)
and thus that “real” (not actual) objects do (can) have such “existence”
and, in fact, are thus defined - that which is “real”, is not actual, and has “existence”,
such as “me/i” (the feeling sense of being a separate, independently existing . . . volitional agent/thing that, essentially, rides around in this biological apparatus operating its levers that we believe we are
BUT for which there is no experiential/empirical evidence I can ACTUALLY find (beyond a nebulous, undefineable, non-physical-sensory feeling of being “me”)
the “actual” - again, as i presently understand it - through the glass but darkly, darkly - would BE that which does NOT “stand out from/separate” (as i have (perhaps re)defined it here)
and, if i am not way off-track, and i might - it is this very sense (of independently self-existent “i/me”) that is at root of “Actualism” as defined here
Thank you very much for providing those references and for contributing to the discussion about the nature of existence. Before commenting further I would like to consider more (and either challenge or expand on) the connotations of separateness and independence you associate with the etymological meaning of existence. Things to mull over as I go about things here, not least of which includes tending to a long overdue reply to Miguel.
Yes, please do not be distracted from addressing @Miguel and @Claudiu as i think those discussions will go a long way to helping to clarify (at least for me) what is straining to come out of my mouth as well
so, i will cease and desist with this:
"Buddha: It would be better to consider the body as an ‘ego’ than to consider the mind as such, for the body seems to last for a year, two years or a hundred years, but that which is called mind, thought or knowledge, appears and disappears in a perpetual state of change.
Just as a monkey gambolling in the forest grasps a branch, then lets it go to seize another, so that which is called mind, thought or knowledge, appears and disappears in a perpetual change, day and night. - Samyutta Nikaya”
quoted in “The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects”
Interdependent Origination (leading to no (independent, self-existent) self (or Self)) : " … everything which exists depends, for its existence, on the existence of other things which produce it or which support it, and that the existence of that which exists ceases when the causes or the conditions which support it themselves cease. Thus, all existence is relative. One cannot say that it is, because it is not autogenous, nor, on the other hand, can one consider it as pure nothingness."
- “The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects”
(btw @Rick, thank you for being a cause of me (re)reading this book
II. Response to Questions One (in part), Two (in part), and Three (in full)
Looking through Richard’s Journal I found the following ways in which he referred to the actual world:
actual world, physical actuality, material world, physical world, actuality, this universe, benevolent world, benign world, miraculous world, external world, perfect world, genuine world, authentic world, fairy tale-like world, sensate world, world of the senses, sensory world, sensorial world, world of factual splendor, world of actual splendour, magical world, world-as-it-is, world of people-things-and-events, a world of purity, my world, another world, wonderful world, friendly world, world of natural delight, the world I live in, natural world Richard’s Journal, 2004
These are some of the ways in which he referred to the ‘real world’:
real world, normal reality, reality, inner world reality, normal world, psychic world, imperfect world, unnecessarily complicated world, grim and glum world, socialised world, dream world, ‘my’ world, ‘human’ world, ‘inner world’, ‘outer world’ Richard’s Journal, 2004
Lastly, these are some of the ways in which referred to the Divine World:
Divine World, Greater Reality, Reality, Metaphysical World, Other-World, After-World, Mystical World, Divine World, World of Collective Conscious, psychic world, dream world, Supernatural World, esoteric world Richard’s Journal, 2004
It would seem that the “world” in “actual world” refers to either the direct/unmediated experience of the actual world/universe or it refers to the the actual world/universe in of itself, depending on context (which context might be difficult for the reader to discern at times given how in apperception there is no separation between the experience and the universe); whereas the “world” in “real world” or “Divine World” refers to a feeling-being’s illusory or delusory experience of the one and only actual world/universe. There are thus three different experiences (i.e. three different worlds) of the one and only world (i.e. the one and only universe) but only one of those experiences (i.e. one of those worlds) is actual (i.e. non-illusory or non-delusory).
Richard (n.d.): There are three worlds altogether but only one is actual; there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe (the normal ‘reality’ as experienced by 6.0 billion human beings is an illusion and the abnormal ‘Reality’ as experienced by 0.0000001 of the population is a delusion born out of the illusion because of the self-aggrandising tendency of the narcissism born of the survival instincts). A Précis Of Actual Freedom
The entirety of your 3rd question and the latter halves of your 1st and 2nd questions have been addressed. Proceeding.
III. “Only the actual world exists”: A Closer Look
Despite my estimation of that sequence of words being a suitable representation of my understanding and experience, it is those very same words, when used by the man who first expressed them, which correspond to something categorically different when understood as he intends them. The manner in which that sequence of words corresponds to Richard’s experience can be understood by accounting for his idiosyncratic association with the term “actual.” Richard fused (or maybe expanded upon) its common-held connotation along with his own idiosyncratic association which, when put together, articulates a novel dimension of experience, namely, that of a human animal devoid of both affect and affect-based identity whose person, intelligence, and consciousness is literally (not metaphorically) infinite.
Richard’s intelligence is unlimited:
Richard (1998): This is one’s native intelligence in operation, and this intelligence is the intelligence of this universe. It is unlimited in its scope; it knows no boundaries; it is infinitude personified. Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 22
Richard’s consciousness is unlimited:
Richard (2002): … the apperceptive brain in action in the human skull is a ‘self’-less consciousness … as such is an unlimited consciousness automatically conscious of the perfection and purity of the infinitude of the universe as an on-going awareness. Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 3
Richard’s consciousness is boundless:
Richard (2005): An apperceptive consciousness – a flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) being conscious – has no boundaries as it is the centre of normal consciousness (identity) which creates same. Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 25
Richard himself is boundless:
Richard (1998): An insight into the infinite and eternal character of this universe and the implications of that in regards to one’s situation in the scheme of things can indeed set something profound in motion. Speaking personally, I have no boundaries. Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 12
I would now like to delve a bit into the idiosyncratic connotations he has for “actual”, “actuality”, and “actual world.”
A. Connotations of “Actual”, “Actual World” and “Actuality”
1. Dictionary Meaning
In actualism the meanings of “actual” and “actuality” appear to be composites of standard dictionary denotations and Richard’s idiosyncratic connotations. Here are some examples where Richard is subscribing to the dictionary meanings of the words, which comprise part of the composite:
The Actual Freedom Trust website (n.d.): Actual: Existing in act or fact. Oxford Dictionary Topics Actual
The “specific connotation” for “actual” and “actuality” in “actualism terminology” refers to what Richard calls the “sensate world.” That idiosyncratic association has remained intact over the years:
Richard (2013): … in actualism terminology […] the word actual refers to what a flesh-and-blood body only […] experiences … namely: the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world … Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 36
For Richard, then, as the ‘real world’ is an emotional-conceptual construct it naturally does not exist in actuality (aka in the sensate world). In addition, while it may appear to everyone one else on earth that the occurrence or happenstance of emotion is actual inasmuch as it unquestionably exists and occurs in sentient beings throughout the animal kingdom as a matter of verifiable fact (else asking yourself “how am I experiencing this moment of being alive” in order to discern your existent mood or emotion would be a meaningless exercise), it is not actual in actualism because it is not considered a sensate phenomenon.
Despite Richard’s adherence over the years to conveying a strict association between the “actual world/ actuality” and sensate-only experiences, the rigid associations become strained when considering other non-sensate aspects of the apperceptive experience. If during apperception non-sensate phenomena such as thoughts and concepts continue to occur, then they must also be considered actual as they are occurring in the actual world/ in actuality. (note: nowadays other actually free people report occurrences of mental imagery in their apperceptive experiences as well):
Richard (1998): Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure … this is innocence in action. […] Without the ‘thinker’ any brain activity is clear and clean and pure … which includes thinking. Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 12
(2004)
RESPONDENT: [Would you have claimed to be] free from concepts, illusions and delusions [during this 30+ months]?
RICHARD: Free from illusion and delusion … yes; concepts are another matter, however, as many of them were fed in from an early age (the sun, for instance, being a giant ball of nuclear fusion … or, for another example, tobacco use being the cause of various illnesses).
RESPONDENT: You took time to evaluate these concepts in that duration then?
RICHARD: No …it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that the sun was a giant ball of nuclear fusion until about five years ago; it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that tobacco use was the cause of various illnesses until about two years ago (which is why I said that concepts are another matter). Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 66
Richard (2012): … ‘he’ sussed-out how that inner world/outer world consensus reality was of an affective/ psychic nature … and how the sensate and cognitive faculties (sensuality and thinking) were needlessly copping the blame. Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 28
Curiously, despite the existence of both sensate perceptions, cognitive processes, and conceptual phenomena in the actual world, the actual world is adjudged to be a sensate world “only” and not a cognitive or conceptual world, nor even a sensate/conceptual world.
So despite the explicit association made between the “actual world/ actuality” and the “sensate world” it is apparent that phenomena other than sensorial perception occur in actuality and in the apperceptive consciousness that is aware of same.
IV. In Context
I would like at this point to reorient those statements which you sought clarification about along with their alternately expressed equivalents (i.e. “only the actual world exists”/ “there is only this actual world”/ “there is no ‘the real’ in actuality”/ “the ‘real world’ does not exist”) into the original context from where I had referenced them in my last post to you (relevant parts bolded):
March 10 2004
RESPONDENT: The universe itself does not distinguish between the physical and the metaphysical.
RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality this is hardly surprising.
RESPONDENT: The universe contains physical things, and some of these physical things (eg. human bodies) give rise to metaphysical entities (eg. minds, souls, ‘selves’).
RICHARD: There is nothing metaphysical about minds … a mind is a human brain in action in a human skull. As for ‘souls’ and ‘selves’: each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions […] which passions automatically form themselves […] into an amorphous feeling being […] within the flesh and blood body. […]
RESPONDENT: Hence, the universe generates metaphysical beings who are capable of creating metaphysical simulations of themselves and the universe.
RICHARD: It is the amorphous feeling being […] who generates metaphysical beings/metaphysical simulations and not the universe per se … […].
RESPONDENT: This is what the actual universe does. Is the universe doing something wrong?
RICHARD: As the universe is not doing what you conclude it is doing – as in your ‘hence’ – your follow-up question is a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT: Implicit in actualism is the value judgement that the physical is superior to the metaphysical.
RICHARD: Ha … implicit in actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is that there is only the physical in actuality and, as an appraisal requires comparison, no such value judgement as you speak of can take place in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: ‘You’ (the metaphysical entity) decide this.
RICHARD: If I may point out? In the direct experience that matter is not merely passive there is no ‘you’ (no ‘metaphysical entity’ whatsoever) … there is only this actual world (aka this actual universe).
RESPONDENT: And having decided this, the totality of the universe is then divided up into the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’.
RICHARD: I would hazard a guess that it is ‘you’ (the ‘metaphysical entity’ who decides) who has decided that ‘the ‘actual’’ and ‘the ‘real’’ together make up a whole … otherwise known as ‘the totality of the universe’.
RESPONDENT: The ‘real’ is minimised to the point where only the ‘actual’ remains.
RICHARD: In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site […snip description of actualism process …] apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. In short: there is no ‘the ‘real’’ in actuality to minimise (let alone to the point that only ‘the ‘actual’’ remains).
RESPONDENT: So this (actually non-existent) division between the physical and the metaphysical becomes a concept in the mind of ‘you’, a metaphysical entity.
RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), there is no division to be either existent or non-existent … the entire argument being presented (above) is but a conceptual contention created in the feeling-fed mind of ‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’ – for reasons as yet unstated but bearing at least some of the hall-marks of the ‘Tried and True’ (as in when the division is seen to be false there is only the totality/whole) as made popular by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.
RESPONDENT: The division only exists in the minds of metaphysical entities. The universe knows nothing of such divisions.
RICHARD: Possible translation: that which is the totality (the whole) knows nothing of such divisions.
[…]
RESPONDENT: … and so you aim to strip away the naturally-occurring metaphysicality because you think it is ‘better’ that way.
RICHARD: May I ask? Are you of the school of thought which maintains that, just because something is natural, it is somehow better than that which is unnatural? I only ask because it is natural, for example, to injure, maim, or kill one’s fellow human being in a fit of anger and I am somewhat nonplussed as to how that is better than, say, there not being any anger in the first place (nor any ‘self’ which is the anger in motion of course) such as to occasion that course of action.
RESPONDENT: The question is why?
RICHARD: Is it because it is actualism which is being discussed, and not spiritualism in yet another guise, perchance? Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 64
A. Analysis
In the above March 10 2004 correspondence, according to Richard:
The feeling being is a metaphysical being:“‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’” …“‘you’ (the ‘metaphysical entity’)”.
The feeling being – a metaphysical being – exists in the flesh-and-blood body: “an amorphous feeling being, an inchoate intuitive presence, popularly known as a ‘self’ or a ‘soul’ (or ‘spirit’) in the human animal, within the flesh and blood body.”.
The feeling being – a metaphysical being – does not exist in actuality: “there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality”.
The flesh-and-blood body generates instinctual passions: “each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions”.
The instinctual passions generate the feeling being – a metaphysical being: which passions automatically form themselves […] into an amorphous feeling being”.
Although it is flesh-and-blood bodies which generate instinctual passions which generate feeling beings – which are themselves metaphysical beings – it is feeling beings (metaphysical beings) which generate metaphysical beings: “It is the amorphous feeling being […] who generates metaphysical beings”.
While it is the universe that generates flesh-and-blood bodies that generate instinctual passions that generate feeling beings – which are themselves metaphysical beings – that generate metaphysical beings it is not the universe that generates feeling beings or metaphysical beings “per se”. (“It is the amorphous feeling being […] who generates metaphysical beings/metaphysical simulations and not the universe per se”).
To adopt the rationale exhibited in the last paragraph (point No. 7) is to say then that nothing – not a single thing – is generated by the universe per se. One could assert then, for example, that it is “lumber and labor” which generate houses and not the universe per se. Additionally, to say both that (a) a metaphysical feeling being exists in what is actual (“an amorphous feeling being […] within the flesh and blood body”) and (b) does not exist in what is actual (“there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality”) is beyond my comprehension. Lastly, as there is no separation between flesh-and-blood bodies and the actual world/universe, and because the identity and its ‘real world’ are unequivocally acknowledged to exist in flesh-and-blood bodies, then it directly follows that the ‘real world’ exists in the actual world/universe. To put it another way: since the flesh-and-blood body is an actuality, and since the identity and its ‘real world’ reside there (“the identity residing inside the flesh and blood body”) then both identity and the ‘real world’ it manifests very literally exist in actuality.
Richard (2004): The identity, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, can best be described as either a psychological or psychic parasite living inside the body. Richard’s Journal: Article 13
Richard (2004): It is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body … Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 25
For anything to inhabit or to be inside a flesh and blood body (parasitically or otherwise) is for that thing to inhabit or to be inside the universe – inside space, inside form, and inside time.
Miguel: 1. “Only the actual world exists” Can you tell me if this is your opinion/understanding …
As you expressed interest in my own opinion and understanding, and having delved into what those words may mean for Richard, I will take a moment to expound on what those words individually and collectively mean to me when viewing them in fidelity to their lexical denotations, independent of Richard’s idiosyncratic connotations. Doing so reveals something remarkably ordinary and obvious; maybe so obvious and ordinary that it is overlooked or, if not overlooked, deemed to possess little value. Maybe it is of little value as, like everything else, the value of something exists in the eye of the beholder. Against this backdrop of lexical fidelity, it is revealed that the expression “only the actual world exists” is a pure tautology.
(n) tautology ((logic) a statement that is necessarily true)
(n) tautology (useless repetition) WordNet Search - 3.1
tautology (n.): 1.1. A phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.; 1.2. A statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The statement’s tautological nature is exposed by distilling its structure into its most condensed form such that the meaning of its individual and collective components remains intact.
A. The Distillation Process
Because “world” is synonymous with “universe,” the original statement (“Only the actual world exists”) could equally be put this way: “Only the actual universe exists.”
As the word “actual” means “existent” or “existing in fact” then one can insert its meaning into the statement, to where it can now read as: “Only the existent universe exists.”
The tautological nature of the original phrase is becoming apparent. Going further, as there is no other existent universe (uni = one) – inherent to the universe is its sole and no-other nature – then the word “only” is redundant and can be dropped with no loss in meaning; the phrase can be shortened to: “The existent universe exists.”
As the universe refers to everything there is (“everything that exists anywhere”, WordNet 3.1), then “universe” can be replaced with what it refers to, so that it now states: “The existent everything exists.”
At this point in the process, my word processor is drawing blue squiggly lines under “the existent everything” recommending I replace that odd turn of phrase with simply the word “everything.” I agree with my word processor. “The existent everything” simply means everything. The distillation is now complete and what is revealed is the obvious truism that: “Everything exists.”
B. Results of Distillation and Further Implications
The result of distillation reveals how “only the actual world exists” essentially means “everything exists.” From here, there is at least one additional implication that arises. The fact that everything exists necessarily means that there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that does not exist. Since a “thing” exists; then a “no thing” does not exist; of course, since a “no thing” is literally nothing. To repeat, there is “no thing” (nothing) – absolutely nothing – that does not exist. There always was and always will be something which does. Ergo:
Only the actual world exists = Everything exists = Nothing does not exist.
(The answer to the first part of your 2nd question should at this point be self-evident).
Richard arrived at the same deceptively plain conclusion:
Richard (n.d.): If the universe was not here, then what would be here instead? Nothing? But we have no idea what nothing is without a ‘something’ to know it by … hence the universe is necessary for that concept. Ergo, the universe must be here – there cannot not be a universe. This is where philosophers get caught by their own logic. Because there is a ‘something’ – the universe – there can be a concept of a ‘nothing’ … but it is only a concept. ‘Nothing’ does not exist as an actuality … hence eastern philosophy, with their concept of ‘Nothingness’ and ‘The Void’ and ‘Emptiness’ is nothing but that … a concept. That they are then able to experience it as a psychic adumbration is nothing short of institutionalised insanity. The mind creates a fantasy, then yearns to live in it … and a rare few do! It is amazing, because there is no ‘nothing’; there is no ‘outside’ to this universe … it is infinite and eternal. Infinitude Is The Boundlessness of Space and Time
VI. Final Thought
As the universe, at every moment, is making consciousness out of itself and likewise is making everything that consciousness is conscious of, then to be conscious of something (anything) at any given moment is for the universe – at that same moment – to be conscious of it too (the synchroneity of it is staggering). It comes as no surprise then that what applies in this case to the entirety (the universe) likewise applies to the local (consciousness).
Existence surrounds and abounds. “‘Nothing’ does not exist.”
This whole discussion reminds me of when I had the same dilemma a couple of years back when I first read actualist material. Philosophically always having been a ‘neutral monist’ (seeing the mind/matter dichotomy as a moot point), I became interested in the teachings of this man who would solve this problem this way: the universe is made of one kind of stuff > it shapes itself into all that is perceived > in human experience before apperception (if ever achieved) feelings are seen as undeniable facts > after apperception the fact of what was previously perceived as “feeling” is actually a neutral and unique “movement of energy in inner space” followed by a voice in your head saying “I am sad”, for example.
So during his coaching he’d say to the person claiming sadness “No. You are not feeling sad. There is a movement of energy in inner space accompanied by a voice/video/text/still image in inner space describing it as ‘sadness’.”
He would clarify that inner and outer space are concepts used for demonstrative purposes only and there is only the one infinite universe (which he described as an Essence). He thought calling it material made no difference. Practicality or Experience took primacy over Ideas and Concepts for this teacher, as the swirl of the latter could end up in a lifetime spent in the accumulation of Knowledge with no change in quality of life.
Anyway the gist of it was that perceiving the goings on of inner/outer space this way I.e getting into a “Truthful relationship” with what is happening, dissolves the “I”. The goal was apperception.
So yeah according to this guy feelings are not facts. The facts about feelings are that there are unique (pure and raw) sensations and correlated sounds (either out loud or in our heads) that we call words. Correlation is not necessarily causation so seeing it this way “gives us the opportunity” to experience emotions in a new liberating way.
Anyway I just shared this because the whole discussion reminds me of that teaching (which contributed to me ending up here) and I wonder if it has any overlap or utility in terms of actualism.
To me this rather sounds like denial or dissociation… when you are feeling sad, you are feeling sad, that is an accurate assessment of the situation. To call it something other than sadness is either to deny you are sad (denial), or to deny that the sadness is ‘you’ / ‘you’ are the sadness (dissociation), neither of which are helpful with regards to actualism.
Was the goal the same apperception that’s talked about on the AFT website? Can you provide links/references to the source material?
From the brief descriptions here, it’s unlikely… in any case I found it better, when it came to actualism, to put all other approaches on the shelf - not necessarily to say they are or aren’t somewhat or totally useful / useless, not to in-depth investigate the differences/details, etc., but just rather to simplify things, make things less confusing, and go all-in with actualism. As I came from a spiritual background this was very pragmatically useful for me.
It’s funny because he was accused of this, then referred to as spiritual bypassing, during one of his workshops. He didn’t see any issue and said it’s a perfect example of a feeling being arbitrarily described. He also mentioned that his teaching in no way suggests that emotions should be denied but rather should be felt to their fullest and that feeling them without labels opened up the ‘character’ (his lingo for “I”) to be able to do this. In previous versions of his teachings he had a “process” that went like this:
Remind yourself it isn’t real
Dive right smack into the middle of it
Feel the “discomfort energy” fully
When it reaches a peak, call it what it is and tell the truth about it
Reclaim your power from the creation
Express appreciation
The idea was to apply this to situations that caused discomfort. Situations we were to pursue rather than avoid. A treasure hunt to disempower that which enslaves us.
He later shedded this process because he felt it suggested free will/agency which didn’t align with his “later findings”.
Well he would refer to some Chinese “master” who most likely never existed (most likely writings of an America “translator” who believed his message would get across if believed to be from an ancient sage) who would describe a state with a more non-dualistic bent:
“The return to wholeness is nothing more than the end of this division. It is an apperception of the unity between the noumenal and the phenomenal in much the same way as there is a single unity between the sun and sunlight. Then, the pseudo-subject is finally seen as only another object while the true Subjectivity exists prior to the arising of both and is their source.” - Brief Background. The Lost Writings of Wu Hsin
Disregard my previous (now-deleted) message - it is clear that your answer to #2 is that the ‘real world’ does in fact exist.
However I see a simple way forward… but it hinges on whether you yourself agree with the following, or you disagree and you were simply explaining the meaning Richard gives to ‘real world’:
To ask it explicitly: Do you yourself think that the ‘real world’ is a feeling-being’s illusory ‘experience’ of the one and only world-that-exists? That is, setting aside the question of whether illusions exist, for the moment, do you think the ‘real world’ is an illusion (and therefore you as a feeling-being are also illusory/an illusion)?
I completely agree with the premise that everything exists necessarily, as both yourself, Richard, and many others who have thought it through understand; “Nothing” is a concept, which does not describe anything at all. There is no such thing as “Nothing”.
I actually arrived at that in reverse order than they way i have seen it described.
By defining a sensible meaning of “Nothing”, it can be seen that there is no such thing.
The definition I came up with is “Nothing is that described with zero attributes”.
When one uses this definition, it becomes clear (again, one could do it as a tautology), that “nothing” is an idea that has no existence.
If something has an edge, it has an attribute. Thus “space” no matter how empty, if it has an edge, is not nothing.
Thank you very much Milito for sharing with the group your background of exploration into these matters and for providing details of your past experiences with your ex-teacher/coach. I read everything you wrote with great interest.
Thank you very much for the compliment, Andrew. I’m glad it didn’t come across as something too tedious to digest. I like your approach to looking at the concept of “nothing” (by observing its edges). I can think of yet another attribute to add to this “empty space”: its potential (potentiality?) or capacity to be filled or occupied by something else.
Another great question that got me thinking deeply. Sure, we can set aside whether this thing called an illusion exists. But what is this thing called an illusion that you are asking whether I – as a sensate-cognitive-affective human animal – experience or am? I found the dictionary definitions and encyclopedic articles to be inadequate at best. The closest that I found that reflected my experience and understanding was written in a 1988 academic article (dealing with the problem of defining “illusion”) by Robert Reynolds:
Some further elaboration on that definition (which I am not entirely satisfied with but in my estimation it is better than others I have come across):
Reynolds: Illusions involve changes in [sensate] perception accompanying changes in conditions, while hallucinations are not stimulus bound. […] A further consequence of accepting [this definition] is that we have a definition which does not specify which, if any, percept is true. […] Dispensing with the criterion of a discrepancy between awareness and a stimulus also eliminates the above mentioned problem of ‘immediacy’, in which awareness lags behind the distal event being perceived. In determining the existence of an illusion, we need not concern ourselves with whether the stimulus existed at the time of perception, only whether it appears the same or different. Finally, [this definition] has the advantage that it may help to reconcile the long-standing argument between proponents of the ‘indirect’ and ‘direct’ approaches, since the proposed definition does not make reference to truth or falsity, but only to different percepts occurring under different conditions.
More on this later. (Although the timeframe is indefinite right now).
Sure. I think I’ll set this topic aside for a while, but my parting words for now will be to encourage you to look not to dictionary definitions and encyclopedic articles, but to your PCE’s for guidance.
Earlier on in the thread you wrote:
If your goal is to become actually free (which I presume it is, though I’m not certain), then there is no substitute to having more PCEs, and EEs as well, activating pure intent, and following that experiential guide (and that experiential guide, specifically, and not any other) to resolve all these existential questions. Find out for yourself, experientially, just what it is that disappears in a PCE and reappears to end the PCE. See that contrast, vividly and directly, between what is called the “real world” and what is called the “actual world”. Thereby will you be able to ascertain what precisely the nature of each is, the nature of feeling-being ‘me’ and actual me.
All the rest is essentially besides the point. And I don’t say this to be dismissive of the effort you’ve put in here - this is not a value judgment - but rather to inform that it simply will never get you there, namely to PCEs and eventually to actual freedom.
If I understand correctly, @rick’s question is whether or not the “meta-fact” of a feeling-being experiencing an emotion is actual or actually occurring.
I think the paradox stems from the AFT positing that our “common-sense” understanding of the physical world is essentially akin to its “ultimate reality.” Religions seem to get around this by positing that “ultimate reality”—however described—cannot be known intellectually, initially, and that any paradoxes resulting from its contemplation will be removed gradually, or that the questions will be ultimately invalidated. This means that religions require “faith” (“murky vision”).
The AFT doesn’t posit faith, though, because its content is designed to appeal to… “common sense.” But the problem with “common-sense physical world” is that this version of the universe is culturally relative. In other words, it seems like the AFT posits classical mechanics as its viewpoint but also ignores Einstein’s relativity or quantum mechanics, mostly because the latter two ascribe impermanence to the physical universe (at different scales, i.e. very large or very small), which would invalidate the “infinite, eternal, and (therefore) perfect universe” hypothesis of the AFT.
(By the above paragraph, I mean that depending on when you are, where you are, and who you’re talking to, “common sense” can be many different things. So we cannot assume 20th century physics to be the unchanging edifice of the AFT’s actualism. Of course if actualism is experiential, then seemingly no edifice is needed, but the AFT does posit that an actual freedom is impossible if the universe is not “infinite, eternal, and perfect.”)
Another way of looking at the paradox is that the AFT prescribes emotional and visceral transformation, but (seemingly) no cognitive transformation, as a result of its practice, which is perhaps why it’s still possible to come up with paradoxes when considering its content at face value.
It’s certainly valid to say that actualism is experiential, but then this would be that actualism requires faith, at least initially, which is not on-brand for the AFT.
I do recall Richard saying somewhere that he only meets flesh-and-blood bodies, so perhaps that can help with the above query.
- would BE that which does NOT “stand out from/separate” (as i have (perhaps re)defined it here)