The Truths of Larry Allen

[Mal12345]

Dear Friend,

Without love, we "are" nothing.

For what we call consciousness, and what we call love, are one in the
self-same thing.

We fail to perceive this reality owing to the demands made upon us by
the source of our very being. Which source itself we (necessarily)
deny.

For we believe we are self-made on the one hand, or we believe we are
the by products of our parents copulation on the other. Metaphysical
vs. physical.

Both of which ideas are centered in the ignorance of our very true
being.

There is no dream in the absence of a dreamer. No beliefs absent a
believer.

We have come to confuse ourselves with the matrix of our spiritual
production.

That is to say, we sleep, and we do so deeply. And we dream ourselves
as being.

And I say let us sleep, and let us do so deeply, until we awaken.
Which we will.

For it is only upon the awakening from a dream that the dreamer of it
can taste the unspeakable magnificance and beauty of the meaning of
the whole affair.

Do some think I err? I tell you a truth. Nearly all think I err. But I
err not.

I know of what I speak of. And the silence from which my speech
arises.

But brilliance itself is regulated to the limitation of dullness in
terms of the mind heart and soul beholding it.

Thus to a fool I am a fool. To a master I am a master. To the pure I
am pure.

I am all things to all people.

As are you.

Now in order for such a thing as conditioning to exist, there must be
such a thing as unconditioning to exist equally, yes? Polarity
demands it.

What then is it, that is unconditioned?

Within you?

And within me?

I tell you a truth, the answer to this most beautiful and
profound question will set both you and I, (and our entire respective
worlds), free.

But let us tread slowly here my friend. For we are mere men, and this
is a question belonging to the gods.

We scarcely have the right to ask it.

Love,

Larry Allen

 

[Mal12345]

First Caveat.

This was not meant to be received by the weak-kneed or by the
faint of heart. It was penned for only the srong minded man (and
woman).

As usual, an error (or lie) is founded upon a negative emotion.
Generally fear.

Such is the foundation upon which the fanciful notion of free-will
exists.

Stated something like this: If free-will doesn't actually exist,
humanity will collapse. Or, on a more personal note, If free-will
doesn't actually exist, my whole life has been a farce. In other
words, I get no credit nor blame.

You see the fear factor at work here, I trust.

Physical experiments have already been done, and proven, the reality
of my claim, namely free-will is an illusion suffered collectively by
the masses, for a specific purpose. Well, the experiments merely
proved the absence of free will, the collective suffering for a
specific purpose was a bit of commentary on my part. You'll find them
searching the internet under "free-will".

Firstly, in order to prove to you that free will doesn't exist, it is
useful, if not necessary, that the reader at least grasp the concept
of its non-existance, as a possibility.

This is the first stage of the prevention of such a profound
realization.

Namely, few people have the psychological capacity to even entertain
such a conceivability, for the reasons already stated. A threat to
ones survival, be it perceived or actual, physical or psychological,
is no small matter.

I understand, and thus will tread as lightly as possible. Initially.

Second Caveat. If you have the slightest bit of aprehension about
reading on, please do not. You can always come back to this
later. Sometime in the future, if you, well, choose to. So to speak.

I shall begin with simple proofs, and increasingly up the intensity
until the conclusion as to the truth is experienced as unescapable.

That one has absolutely zero free will in regard to ones bodily
functions is a given. Though the signifcance of this fact is
overlooked or mispercieved.

Add a hair to your head. Take control of your livers function,
consciously. Increase your physcial stature by 2 or 3 inches, now.
You cannot. Can you?

The point being elementary. Foundational. We have no free will in
regard to our physical being. To the contrary, we are entirely subject
to it. Agreed?

Which leaves only 2 arenas of being in which free will could possibly
exist.

The heart (i.e. emotion) and or the mind (i.e. thought). Or both.

We are taught to believe, and hold in conviction, the idea that we
have free will in terms of both emotion and thought. We can choose to
feel happy or sad, we can choose to desire one thing and choose to not
desire another. We can choose to think about anything we want to think
about, and choose to not think about anything that we choose not to
think about.

That about sums up the fabrication.

The proofs of such claims have been constructed of such emptiness of
authority as to render them barely palatable. Though to such proofs we
dearly cling.

For example: I can choose to think about an apple, ok I'm thinking
about an apple. Or, I can choose to feel happy, ok I'm feeling happy.
See there? I have just proven (to myself) that I indeed have
free-will.

Or, in terms of bodily free-will, in terms of control, heres one: I
can choose to stand up (or sit down), ok now I just stood up, or sat
down. There, proven. I have free will.

Such engagements have nothing to do with the establishment of the
presence (or absence) of free will. They merely confirm the presence
or absence of whats generally called pre-disposition. Of the
psychological or emotional variety.

A better experiement is possible.

For example, firstly considering the basic relationships between
emotion and thought, in terms of universal experience, one concludes
these are two seemingly distinct functions of being, though are
seemingly simultaneously wed.

In other words, there can be (and is) emotional-thought, and there can
be (and is) thoughful-emotion. The actual complete structure being a
bit more complex, however this fundamental reality is sufficient to
serve as a groundwork for our demonstrations of the absence of free
will, via self-experiement.

The fundamental flaw in proofs designed by the one laboring under the
false notion of already possessing what they do not possess, is that
the proofs are self-fulfilling owing to the authors design of them.

To wit: the proof of the presence of free will calls for a
demonstration of the impossibility of the presence of its opposite, to
hold water.

If a man claims he is deaf, one does not sit in silence to confirm it
is so.

One rings bells.

In like manner, the presence of free-will is not proven by one
standing up and sitting down at will, rather it is dis-proven by their
in-ability to do anything but what they are presently doing.

Such a notion of course requires a certain capacity for the
contemlation of complex thought. Not meant to be food for the masses.

All events (be they mental, emotional and or physical in nature) tend
to be recognized as being a consequential appearance under the theory
of cause and effect. Which theory is not without substance nor form.

However, the theory of free-will dismisses (unwittingly) such order.

Doing it, as it does, quite cleverly.

3rd (and final) Caveat.

You must turn back now, or forever hold your peace. I cannot be held
responsible for any ramifications of your reading the material that
follows.

If you have ever been (or are now) under the care of a psychiatrist,
or psychologist, or a doctor of any mental practicing concern, I
suggest you discontinue your reading of this material at this point.
If you choose, you can provide this material in its entirety to your
mental physician (or your religious teacher or counselor) and allow
him or her to make appropriate suggestions as to your appropriate
course of action.

You have my permission to print this post in its entirety and share it
with whomever you desire to share it with.

............

Free-will demands the presence of the principle of spontaneity (to
exist).

Which principle espouses the distinction between mechanical and
non-mechanical being. Wherein free-will is presented as being
non-mechanical.

Yet such a principle is in violation of the tenets of cause and
effect.

That is to say, all expressions of a human being are necessarily
subject to the preceeding experiences of their being itself. An infant
is not a man.

The blind treatment of the necessary pre-requisites to any human
experience being a testament itself to to the folly of the free-will
claim.

Restated, at absolute best, the limitation of will, called free,
exists.

But a limited-will and a free-will are not one in the same thing.

Thus we have not free-will, but limited-will. The king is naked.

Do I err? Please correct me if I do.

I do not err.

A mans present thought is 100% subject to and consequential to prior
experience.

Remove the prior experience and you remove the specific presence of
thought.

In order for a man to actually possess free-will then, he must have
the ability to remove, and or add, prior experience to his collective
experience of being.

But we have no such ability. Neither mentally, emotionally nor
physically.

Every thought and every emotion one experiences (calling it free), is
bound by the history of his own being.

"But I am the source of my own history of being" proclaims the one not
yet wise.

Which proclamation is but evidence of a misunderstanding of ones true
identity.

Lastly I can provide anyone with a series of mundane experiments that
will give rise to the proof of my claim. However I prefer meat to
milk. So to speak.

Free will is an illusion, as it is presented to the world.

However it remains a distinct possibility (in terms of development) as
it has been experienced by individuals, whom know.

I know.

Larry Allen