Please note that Peter’s correspondence below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.

Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

with Correspondent No 12

Topics covered

No 22’s claim of being God-on-earth, Rajneesh on being God, Godmen declare themselves to be the ‘One and Only’ * put your mind-reading aside for a bit and indulge in a bit of word-reading, If you find no exception then it is a fact that all God-men deny that they are God-men, spiritual seekers who lust for the sense of power that accompanies insights, pride * round and round * leaving the table, of course I am a liar from your perspective * treating the table * still an unsubstantiated allegation of yours that  of me being a liar,  the action of surrendering one’s will to a mythical God is the very antithesis of freedom, Richard was such a breath of fresh air compared to the Gurus I had been sussing out before, how is No 12’s viewpoint, ‘...enlightenment... ’, going to bring peace on earth? * Actualism is about freeing oneself from the programming that gives rise to such debilitating and crippling feelings as guilt, shame, resentment, anger, sorrow, despair, loneliness and fear, to take this programming personally is to take one’s self far too seriously, peace on earth already exists * the satire of flinging mud

 

2.6.2001

PETER: Just to follow this most interesting thread a wee bit further –

RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place.

a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’

PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond.

RESPONDENT: b. ‘How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth?’ The thread where I suggested to you to clarify what reasoning processes went through your mind in your reaching the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth. You stated that No 22 believes that. No 22 provided a list of his own writings that in no way indicate he believes such. It is surely up to you to provide the relevant texts from No 22 that led you to your conclusion.

PETER: Why?

Simply because you demand this of me? Surely if you were sincerely interested in finding the facts you would ascertain them for yourself? Unless you are prepared to find out for yourself the fact of the situation you are either going to believe what I say or disagree with what I say – a situation that results in only two options, blindly following and believing or blindly disagreeing and arguing.

The only way to become free of the belief-go-round is to ascertain the facts, for yourself, by yourself.

Given that you have stated in part 3 of your reply to my post –

[Respondent]: ‘I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the totality of No 22’s writings to know if I agree with him on average.’ [endquote].

– it does seem you might be somewhat on shaky ground in questioning the facticity of what I said, particularly when you take your issue even further, as you have done immediately below.

RESPONDENT: But you insist on avoiding the issue – the issue is you are lying, Peter – you avoid the issue by blaming it on me somehow. I have an agenda, you say. I have a pre-prepared response, you say. What relevance do I have to this? What is being sought is for you to examine some of your own beliefs. The current belief you have expressed is that ‘somebody believes x’. How (or why?) does that belief in you arise, the belief that somebody believes x?

The fact is Peter that you seem to imagine a lot. You seem to imagine that No 22 presents himself as god-on-earth; and you seem to present it as fact. The fact is, this is but one example of a tendency seen in you by me over the last couple of years. I imagine you are not as clear-headed as you imagine yourself to be; and that is a fact.

PETER: You do realize that No 22’s list of his own writings that you are now using as evidence was nothing other than a list of his repeated refuting of the term God-man which I used in my correspondence with him? If you had read more of No 22’s writing you may have twigged to the fact that No 22 does not like the ‘man’ part of the term ‘God-man’ but has no trouble at all with the ‘God’ part.

A quote from a Mohan Rajneesh discourse will illustrate that this is an archetypical rebuttal –

[Question]: Beloved Master, what is the difference between you and other Godmen?

[Mohan Rajneesh]: Swami. S..., I am not a Godman, I am simply God – as you are, as trees are, as birds are, as rocks are. I don’t belong to any category. ‘Godman’ is a category invented by journalists. <Snip> If someone has realized God, he is not a Godman – he is simply God! Osho, The Dharmapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 1 Chapter 10 ‘Neither This Nor That’ Q.1.

The other argument usually offered by God-men in refusing to be categorized as God-men is again well demonstrated by another quote from Mohan Rajneesh. It is from a discourse given soon after J. Krishnamurti died –

[Mohan Rajneesh]: ‘In the end the hands are empty. As far as results are concerned, nothing has happened, as if he had not been here. The world goes on ... the same old routine, the old rut. Do you see anything has changed because J. Krishnamurti was born, and lived for ninety years? Has it made even a scratch? Naturally he died in the same state.

And this has been the case with thousands of masters; humanity remains unevolving because they became so serious in wanting man to evolve. And naturally they fail.

But I cannot fail, because I am not concerned at all whether humanity evolves or not, whether a new man is born or not. < Snip> Just include me out of the category of Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti and others.’ Beyond Psychology. Chapter 29 Come a little closer. Q.1

Is there no wonder there is no peace on earth in the East after thousands of years of God-men teachings when what passes for wisdom in that part of the world is the feeling of ‘We are all One’ while the fact is that those who trumpet it are also those who narcissistically feel and declare themselves to be the ‘One and Only’.

So much for peace and harmony in the spiritual world – scratch the thin veneer of lovey-dovey and the same old dog-eat-dog world is readily apparent for anyone to see.

4.6.2001

PETER: Just to follow this most interesting thread a wee bit further –

RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place.

a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’

PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond.

RESPONDENT: So you are responding to the question as terminated with a question mark in the negative? You have referred to my state of mind ... I ‘have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient’ ... You included an allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the question asker.

PETER: No. I haven’t referred to your state of mind, I was referring to the words you wrote to No 22–

[Respondent]: Even if he were to provide a direct quote from you along the lines of ‘I, No 22, have direct access to the source of the creation of all that is, i.e. God on-earth’ (and I do not intend to imply you would make such a claim j; although you are free to, with my respect for such); I would reply to Peter along the lines of ‘thankyou; now could you explain how you arrived at your stated belief about what No 22 believes; given that his stated belief is in fact divergent from your reporting of his belief. No 12 to No 22 16.5.2001

This is not an allusion to the state of your mind, nor your life situation, but it is your very own words – cut and pasted to ensure accuracy. I long ago ceased having illusions about what goes on in the minds of others. I ceased this obsessive compulsiveness when I started running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

The I in the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ focuses one’s attention precisely where it should be – if your interest is ‘self’-discovery. Further, if the question is run sincerely, the innate tendency to blame others for my feeling unhappy and my feeling offended, as well as the obsessive compulsiveness of forever trying to mind-read others, will soon wilt on the vine.

Good, hey.

*

RESPONDENT: b. ‘How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth?’ The thread where I suggested to you to clarify what reasoning processes went through your mind in your reaching the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth. You stated that No 22 believes that. No 22 provided a list of his own writings that in no way indicate he believes such. It is surely up to you to provide the relevant texts from No 22 that led you to your conclusion.

PETER: Why?

Simply because you demand this of me? Surely if you were sincerely interested in finding the facts you would ascertain them for yourself? Unless you are prepared to find out for yourself the fact of the situation you are either going to believe what I say or disagree with what I say – a situation that results in only two options, blindly following and believing or blindly disagreeing and arguing.

RESPONDENT: The fact I am after is in your mind and thus only expressible by you. The fact I am after is how you, Peter, reached the conclusion that No 22 considers himself god-on-earth. How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth? I am interested in something about you; not about No 22.

PETER: If you are willing to put your mind-reading aside for a bit and indulge in a bit of word-reading you may be capable of understanding how I reached the conclusion I did. To put it as plainly, simply and unambiguously as I can – because No 22 said so, and not only once, but many times, in many ways.

What this says about me is –

I can read.

I take people’s words at face value.

By doing so I am able to come to a reasonable, reasoned deduction based on facts rather than have a ‘self’-centred knee-jerk emotional reaction based on gut-feelings, intuition or mind-reading.

*

PETER: The only way to become free of the belief-go-round is to ascertain the facts, for yourself, by yourself.

Given that you have stated in part 3 of your reply to my post –

[Respondent]: ‘I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the totality of No 22’s writings to know if I agree with him on average.’ [endquote].

PETER: – it does seem you might be somewhat on shaky ground in questioning the facticity of what I said, particularly when you take your issue even further, as you have done immediately below. (see – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’).

RESPONDENT: The facticity I am after is a simple statement of your logic. You will not state your logic?

PETER: To put it as plainly, simply and unambiguously as I can – because No 22 said so, not once, but many times, in many ways. There is no simpler statement I can make, nor is there a simpler form of logic than this.

It goes like this – X says A. I read that X says A. I then report that X says A.

It’s called reporting what someone else said. The excellent thing about mailing lists is that this reporting does not rely on rumour, intuition, inaccurate recall, fudging or the like. A direct, copy and paste, accurate written quote is as good a report as is possible – it is a statement of fact.

Neither tortuous yang logic nor fickle yin intuition is necessary at all to discover a fact, they only serve to sidetrack and befuddle.

RESPONDENT: You will not provide the texts that you suggest if taken at face value would show that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth?

PETER: No. It would be not only illogical but silly to do so given that you have already stated that if I did so you would simply ask the same question again. Given that that is what you are doing anyway, I simply skipped a round in your game.

*

RESPONDENT: But you insist on avoiding the issue – the issue is you lying, Peter – you avoid the issue by blaming it on me somehow. I have an agenda, you say. I have a pre-prepared response, you say. What relevance do I have to this? What is being sought is for you to examine some of your own beliefs. The current belief you have expressed is that ‘somebody believes x’. How (or why?) does that belief in you arise, the belief that somebody believes x?

The fact is Peter that you seem to imagine a lot. You seem to imagine that No 22 presents himself as god-on-earth; and you seem to present it as fact. The fact is this is but one example of a tendency seen in you by me over the last couple of years. I imagine you are not as clear headed as you imagine yourself to be; and that is a fact.

PETER: You do realize that No 22’s ‘list of his own writings’ that you are now using as evidence was nothing other than a list of his repeated refuting of the term God-man which I used in my correspondence with him? If you had read more of No 22’s writing you may have twigged to the fact that No 22 does not like the ‘man’ part of the term ‘God-man’ but has no trouble at all with the ‘God’ part.

RESPONDENT: At the current time I am not interested in No 22. I am interested in you. I am interested in how your mind has reached a particular conclusion. I am still missing a clear succinct statement from you as to how you reached the conclusion that No 22 considers himself the creator of all that is, god-on-earth. You state that No 22 ‘has no trouble at all with the god part’; ... is that a statement of a belief of yours or a statement of fact? If it is a statement of fact can you substantiate it?

PETER: Again it is a statement of fact substantiated by No 22’s own written words – the very same words you stubbornly insist on not reading for yourself. You may well follow the Eastern philosophical standpoint that ignorance is a virtue but to me it is just plain silly.

*

PETER: A quote from a Mohan Rajneesh discourse will illustrate that this is an archetypical rebuttal –

[Question]: Beloved Master, what is the difference between you and other Godmen?

[Mohan Rajneesh]: Swami. S..., I am not a Godman, I am simply God – as you are, as trees are, as birds are, as rocks are. I don’t belong to any category. ‘Godman’ is a category invented by journalists. <Snip> If someone has realized God, he is not a Godman – he is simply God! Osho, The Dharmapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 1 Chapter 10 ‘Neither This Nor That’ Q.1.

RESPONDENT: It is nice to have a quote from Osho, but I fail to see the relevance. How does something that Osho said, prove to you that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth? Is it a case of categorisation? No 22 has a similarity to Osho (in your estimation) and thus Osho’s words can be used to determine No 22’s entire state of mind. Is that the logic?

PETER: Are you really this silly or are you simply spreading your intelligence so thinly in order to point score such that you can’t follow a simple use of example? Example goes like this –

Man X says he is God but denies he is a God-man.

Man Y also says he is God.

Therefore it is reasonable to look up what Man Y says about God-men to see whether this denial is common to God-men.

When one collects enough examples by this process to see a common pattern emerging, then you go looking for exceptions.

If you find none then it is a fact that all God-men deny that they are God-men.

Which is why I take No 22’s denial to be nothing other than common God-man-speak – i.e. in fact it is his own words that prove that he is a God-man.

*

PETER: The other argument usually offered by God-men in refusing to be categorized as God-men is again well demonstrated by another quote from Mohan Rajneesh. It is from a discourse given soon after J. Krishnamurti died –

[Mohan Rajneesh]: ‘In the end the hands are empty. As far as results are concerned, nothing has happened, as if he had not been here. The world goes on ... the same old routine, the old rut. Do you see anything has changed because J. Krishnamurti was born, and lived for ninety years? Has it made even a scratch? Naturally he died in the same state.

And this has been the case with thousands of masters; humanity remains unevolving because they became so serious in wanting man to evolve. And naturally they fail.

But I cannot fail, because I am not concerned at all whether humanity evolves or not, whether a new man is born or not. < Snip> Just include me out of the category of Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti and others.’ Beyond Psychology. Chapter 29 Come a little closer. Q.1

Is there no wonder there is no peace on earth in the East after thousands of years of God-men teachings when what passes for wisdom in that part of the world is the feeling of ‘We are all One’ while the fact is that those who trumpet it are also those who narcissistically feel and declare themselves to be the ‘One and Only’.

So much for peace and harmony in the spiritual world – scratch the thin veneer of lovey-dovey and the same old dog-eat-dog world is readily apparent for anyone to see.

RESPONDENT: ...

PETER: I see that you chose not to reply to this comment. Just to let you know how my mind works, I included this quote because it was not only further proof about God-men’s distaste at being categorized but also to try and steer the conversation away from mind-reading and back on to a more pertinent subject for this list – peace on earth.

But this line of conversation failed to get a response from you exactly as it did in my correspondence with No 22, because peace on earth is not a subject that is of interest to either God-men or their followers. Again, the above direct quote from Rajneesh provided another example of this common trait and given the lack of exceptions to the rule a clear statement of fact emerges – none of the God-men are, or ever have been, interested in peace on earth.

Actualism is the process of weeding out allusion and belief and replacing them with facts. The process is not a subjective mind-game, there are not ‘my’ facts or ‘your’ facts, there are simply facts. But you know this, or at least you did before your current bout of resistance –

[Respondent]: As I read your correspondence on the sannyas list, one of the most outstanding things is the extent to which people react against facts. This is exemplified by the resistance or refusal of some people to have their words fed back to them. Most people want to tread lightly, sticking in the arena of beliefs and spiritual ‘experiences’. You tend to bring in facts, and people just don’t like it. No 12 to Peter, List C, 14.2.1999

To merely have insights about others and their motives and behaviour without having the intellectual rigor and intestinal fortitude to shine the same light of awareness on one’s own ‘self’ can only lead to a ‘self’-centred feeling of comparative superiority and a supercilious feeling of pity for others who are ‘less aware’.

Spiritual seekers who lust for the sense of power that accompanies such insights about others and go on to make a business of this practice can eventually develop their feeling of superiority into a full-blown holier-than-thou demeanour which, if nourished and nurtured, can be further developed into full blown ‘self’-love. Their pretence of sympathy for those who are unaware can be cunningly presented as a holier-than-thou compassion and then off they trot on the Guru circuit, satsang-ing and sangha-ing, preaching and proselytising, competing and squabbling in order to attract as many followers as possible, simply in order to try to rise to the top of a very smelly heap.

When I started to acknowledge my own spiritual beliefs and acknowledge the facts of the situation in the spiritual world, I was able to stop separating ‘me’ out from others. I was able to clearly see that ‘I’ was not unique, not special and by no means superior. When I sat down and made an assessment of what I was doing with my life I finally realized that it was only pride that stood in the way of acting with integrity.

When I weighed ‘my’ pride and ‘my’ beliefs against integrity and the facts it then became very clear as to which direction I needed to move in life – I abandoned the falsehood of spiritual pride and became an actualist. In short, I opted for peace on earth.

9.6.2001

RESPONDENT: Well; ok Peter... I note that you steadfastly refuse to follow the other threads open in which an exploration of facts versus imagination was taking place.

a. ‘Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question – as terminated with a question mark – with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?’

PETER: I would have no trouble at all responding in this way because I would simply quote No 22’s very own words. By taking his written words at face value as meaning what they say, his words can be taken as a factual statement. Given that you have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient, I simply chose not to respond.

RESPONDENT: So you are responding to the question as terminated with a question mark in the negative? You have referred to my state of mind ... I ‘have already indicated that such an answer is not sufficient’ ... You included an allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the question asker.

PETER: No. I haven’t referred to your state of mind, I was referring to the words you wrote to No 22–

[Respondent]: Even if he were to provide a direct quote from you along the lines of ‘I, No 22, have direct access to the source of the creation of all that is, i.e. God on-earth’ (and I do not intend to imply you would make such a claim No 22; although you are free to, with my respect for such); I would reply to Peter along the lines of ‘thankyou; now could you explain how you arrived at your stated belief about what No 22 believes; given that his stated belief is in fact divergent from your reporting of his belief. No 12 to No 22 Actual Freedom Mailing List 16.5.2001

This is not an allusion to the state of your mind, nor your life situation, but it is your very own words – cut and pasted to ensure accuracy. I long ago ceased having illusions about what goes on in the minds of others. I ceased this obsessive compulsiveness when I started running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

The I in the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ focuses one’s attention precisely where it should be – if your interest is ‘self’-discovery. Further, if the question is run sincerely, the innate tendency to blame others for my feeling unhappy and my feeling offended, as well as the obsessive compulsiveness of forever trying to mind-read others, will soon wilt on the vine.

Good, hey.

RESPONDENT: So I understand that you say that you reached the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth because he said so; and that his saying so is unambiguous and clear – but you will not provide those references for reasons of your own as stated. Yes?

PETER: Yep.

*

RESPONDENT: Your answer as developed by you and concluding with your self-evaluation ‘Good hey’ is incredibly complicated, and not only that, it misrepresents the communication so far.

PETER: If you find my answer incredibly complicated, it is no wonder you don’t understand that No 22 believes he is God-on-earth because he said so, not once but many times, in many ways. That you don’t bother to read the correspondence of others on this list is your problem, which you insist on trying to foist on to me. I am simply not buying into your problem – it is one that is clearly of your own creation.

As for your throw away line about misrepresenting communication, as far as I am concerned the quotation supplied was word accurate. If not, could you point out where I have misrepresented you so I can correct the quote.

RESPONDENT: But let us move on; out of the around and around that you have quite rightly identified as occurring here.

I wish to show you a simpler answer to the above question. Reading a question at face value and answering it without running round and round is a great way to move from beliefs to facts, in my experience. I will repeat the question so you can read it one more time and then provide you with a simple answer, for your possible edification:

Question: Are you able to choose to respond to this very question as terminated with a question mark with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question?

Answer: yes.

See how simple it is, Peter?

PETER: The yes or no only answer is usually demanded by prosecuting attorneys in a court of law or by teachers when they receive a troublesome answer. It is a ploy used by an authority figure to stifle the defendant or student from any further comment on the subject. Again I see no point in participating in a game where you make up all the rules – it’s schoolyard stuff.

Besides, given that you have not only supplied the question but also the answer ... you leave me speechless anyway.

*

RESPONDENT: I will respond to the rest of your email in a timely manner. Thank you for joining in this exploration of factuality with me.

PETER: Is this really what you call an exploration of factuality? This mailing list is about investigating why it is impossible for human beings to be happy and harmless, i.e. how to bring an end to sadness and despair, war and conflict and you insist on wasting your time by investigating whether it is a fact that No 22 believes he is a God-on-earth.

It should be patently clear, even to a blind man, that No 22 not only believes he is God-on-earth but is absolutely convinced he is. Now No 22 would object to the term God-on-earth because for him there is only ‘I-as-God’ and the earth is an illusion, exactly as he objects to the term God-man because there is only ‘I-as-God’, a disembodied entity, and the flesh and blood man known as No 22 is also an illusion.

You have already stated what your exploration of factuality is about and why you insist on endlessly repeating the same question over and over again – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’. Given that you have also taken on the role of the prosecutor, as in ‘My intention, in short, is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism’, I suggest it is up to you to provide evidence for you claim. Any would-be cult-buster worth his salt needs to be able to substantiate his claims with evidence – matters of substance, not endless carping and nitpicking, facts not empty allegations and bluster.

But just to get back to the thread of this conversation –

The relevant aspect of No 22’s fervent objections to actualism is that he, in common with all God-men and all Eastern religion/ philosophy, preaches that suffering is an inherent and unchangeable aspect of corporeal earthly existence – which is why he objects to even the possibility of peace on earth. To put it plainly – peace on earth is not part of the Truth that any of the God-men preach. No 22 also dismisses actualism as a philosophy or worldview solely because he regards any discussion about peace on earth as academic and theoretical, i.e. peace on earth is deemed to be not possible in the mythical Grand Scheme Of Things.

If you can’t understand this and find it too complicated to understand then I suggest you go back to cult-busting on some other list for, as No 24 indicated recently, actualism is for grown-ups. However, if you sincerely want to get off the spiritual belief-go-round and ‘get real’, as the saying goes, then I suggest you start reading so as to discover what actualism is really about.

The choice is clearly yours, keep going round and round as you are ... or stop, take some time off, put your feet up and ask yourself ‘Am I really happy and am I really harmless?’ Given that it would be silly to fool yourself, the sincerity of your own answer will then determine the choice you make.

17.6.2001

RESPONDENT: At 02:57 PM 15.06.2001, you wrote:

[Peter]: Many an actualist has fallen for the trap of thinking that what actualism is about is eliminating feelings’ [endquote].

– how many actualists are there in total? And how many of that total have fallen for the said trap? This statement from Peter makes it sounds like there are at least dozens of actualists crawling out of the woodwork. I suspect there might at a stretch be 6; so what does ‘many an actualist’ mean? Is there any content to the phrase? Reminds of Osho claiming a million disciples when at the most he ever had perhaps 10,000 – I am not sure but nowhere near a million.

And now we have ‘many an actualist’. LOL. Did you help Osho write his discourses when you were there building the commune structures peter? Are you a spin doctor? And who were they? Facts. You proclaim yourself as interested in facts and what you deliver is spin. Answer ‘0’.

PETER: I have corresponded with you for some 2 years now and in that time your initial interest in actualism has not only altered to the point of outright opposition. You time and again dismiss anything anyone says on this list as to how to become free of the human condition, you avidly leap in to support the other spiritualists who object to actualism, you say you’re happy with your life as-it-is and further more that you have declared that you are already actually fucking free.

Taking your words at face value then, I see no more reason to continue on with what has deteriorated into a meaningless conversation between us. If we were sitting at a coffee table together now it would be apparent that we had absolutely nothing in common to talk about and with that I would change the subject, talk about other things for a as long as that lasted and then I would get up, pay for my coffee, wish you well and say goodbye.

So I’ll do likewise on this mailing list. I’ll wish you well, say goodbye and ask that you please don’t bother to write to me telling me I’m wrong. I know I am wrong, you don’t need to keep telling me. I turned around 180 degrees from where everybody else is headed and went down the wrong path. I simply stopped ding the ‘right’ thing, being ‘right’ and insisting I was ‘right’. I put on my dunce’s hat, went back to school and unlearnt all that I had been told was right.

You are also very busy with the issue of me being a liar. Of course I am a liar from your perspective because what I am saying is not your truth, let alone the Truth. However by insisting I am wrong and a liar, you ignore the very point of actualism – it has nothing at all to do with the traditional, the ancient, the normal or the spiritual wisdom of what it is to be human. Actualism is radically different, it is diametrically opposite – it is a path never travelled before. It literally involves going where no man or woman has gone before – from a real-world perspective it is madness and from a spiritual world perspective it is a complete and utter rejection of everything spiritual.

Consequently I gave up the traditional well-worn spiritual path years ago. I no longer believe in animating spirits, Gods and Goddesses, ancient healings and esoteric medicines, divinations and prophecies, energies and auras, folk tales and legends, gurus and shamans, fairies and goblins, sacred sites and cosmic planes, chakras and pranas, telepathy and spiritualism, visions and entities, ESP and UFO’s, Chi Gong and Feng Shui, somas and souls, mysticism and meditation, rituals and rites, reincarnations and past lives, karmas and dharmas, other-worlds and other-dimensions, devils and demons and the like.

Then, when I was halfway ‘normal again’, halfway and no more, I then finished the job I half-started before I got sucked into the spirit-ual world – I got myself free from the clutches of the real world. Having done that, I found I had literally taken the wind out of my instinctual passions. I can’t remember the last time I got annoyed by something or someone, let alone angry. Sadness has passed so long ago I still am a bit taken aback at how people manage to complain about life and bitch about other people. But I’m getting used to the fact that being malicious and feeling sorrowful is what passes for ‘being normal’, whether it be in the real world or the spiritual world.

I’m definitely wrong from your point of view and I am decidedly on the wrong track ... and all I can say it is wonderful to be here.

Wishing you well.

20.6.2001

PETER: Wow ... Since my ‘Leaving the table’ your posts have been titled ‘Painting the table’, ‘Turning the table 180 degrees’, ‘UpEnding the table’ and ‘Levitating the table’. Given this rapid progression, you may well be ‘Throwing the table’ next.

I remember at one stage in the past you were even trying to ‘Make off with the table’ when you claimed your own domain in the name of www.actualfreedom.com.

I may have ‘Left the table’ but I haven’t left the room so to speak.

I just wanted to say that I am fascinated as to what you are going to do to ‘the table’ next.

Cheers ... ... Peter at www.actualfreedom.com.au

25.6.2001

RESPONDENT: At 03:21 AM 24.06.2001, you wrote:

[Peter]: Even as a child I thought the notion that there were so many competing Gods on the planet to be patently silly. I just got suckered into spirituality for want of being able to follow something better ... simply because the process of actualism hadn’t been discovered at the time. [endquote].

LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again.

PETER: I see you are back at it again, ‘busting’ away and deriding my commitment to actualism. Before we enter into another round, I would just remind you that there is still an unsubstantiated allegation of yours that is sitting on the table – the issue of me being a liar –

[Respondent]:

  • How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes ‘he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth’? 15.5.2001
  • My imagining is that despite your ‘huffing and puffing’ you have no factually based answer. 20.5.2001
  • I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the totality of No 22’s writings to know if I agree with him on average. 31.5.2001
  • It is surely up to you to provide the relevant texts from No 22 that led you to your conclusion. But you insist on avoiding the issue – the issue is you lying, Peter – you avoid the issue by blaming it on me somehow. 31.5.2001
  • The fact I am after is in your mind and thus only expressible by you. The fact I am after is how you, Peter, reached the conclusion that No 22 considers himself god-on-earth. How did you arrive at your belief that No 22 believes he is the creator of all that is, i.e. God-on-earth? I am interested in something about you; not about No 22. 3.6.2001
  • You will not provide the texts that you suggest if taken at face value would show that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth? 3.6.2001
  • So I understand that you say that you reached the conclusion that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth because he said so; and that his saying so is unambiguous and clear – but you will not provide those references for reasons of your own as stated. Yes ? 5.6.2001
  • [Peter]: You have already stated what your exploration of factuality is about and why you insist on endlessly repeating the same question over and over again – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’. Given that you have also taken on the role of the prosecutor, as in ‘My intention, in short, is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism’, I suggest it is up to you to provide evidence for you claim. Any would-be cult-buster worth his salt needs to be able to substantiate his claims with evidence – matters of substance, not endless carping and nitpicking, facts not empty allegations and bluster. 9.6.2001
*
  • [Respondent]: Peter; you keep referring to No 22. What has No 22 got to do with the question? The question was – let me remind you – Peter, are you able to choose to respond to this very question as terminated with a question mark with a reply containing no allusion on your part to the state of mind or current life situation of the asker of this question? Where can you see anything to do with No 22 in the question? I know we were also discussing another question at the same time, and that did relate to No 22. If you go back in the email trail you will see I asked you how you know that No 22 thinks of himself as god on earth. Despite every attempt from me you will not give a clear straight non-convoluted answer to that one so we will let that go. I come down to the point of being interested in your ability to understand plain English. I have presented the above question to you now a number of times and each time comes back a lecture about No 22 and my state of mind and all sorts of stuff that may or may not be an answer. Can you answer the question? Despite every attempt from me you will not give a clear straight non-convoluted answer to that one so we will let that go. 14.6.2001

You wimped out, No 12. You invented an issue, dismissed my answer and when challenged to substantiate your claims by providing evidence that I lied, you shifted the goal posts and then decided ‘we will let that go.’

So I took up your offer to let it go, as in –

[Peter]: I have corresponded with you for some 2 years now and in that time your initial interest in actualism has not only altered to the point of outright opposition. You time and again dismiss anything anyone says on this list as to how to become free of the human condition, you avidly leap in to support the other spiritualists who object to actualism, you say you’re happy with your life as-it-is and further more that you have declared that you are already actually fucking free.

Taking your words at face value then, I see no more reason to continue on with what has deteriorated into a meaningless conversation between us. If we were sitting at a coffee table together now it would be apparent that we had absolutely nothing in common to talk about and with that I would change the subject, talk about other things for a as long as that lasted and then I would get up, pay for my coffee, wish you well and say goodbye. Peter to Respondent, 17.6.2001

Since that time you have posted a number of derisory comments so I will resume my seat at the table, whilst overlooking the egg on your face. I will reply to the subject you have raised in this post and then, at a later stage, backtrack through your other comments that you have made since my ‘leaving the table’.

*

RESPONDENT: At 03:21 AM 24.06.2001, you wrote:

[Peter]: Even as a child I thought the notion that there were so many competing Gods on the planet to be patently silly. I just got suckered into spirituality for want of being able to follow something better ... simply because the process of actualism hadn’t been discovered at the time. [endquote].

LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again.

PETER: What you snipped out from this post was the context in which I made this comment, the very substance of the post –

[Peter]: The idea that this New Dark Age is someday going to bring peace on earth is the equivalent of perennially waiting for Godot.

The first major question that would need to be confronted would be whether the New Brotherhood would be ruled by a God or Goddess? Would it be politically correct to call it a Brotherhood? What about a Sisterhood or a Neuter-hood or perhaps a Celibacy-hood? Would human beings worship only One God or many Gods? Would there be a Western New Order or an Eastern New Order or both? Is Buddhism going to win the battle of the religions, or Hinduism, or Taoism, or Christianity? Which branch of which religion will become the unifying faith and what then happens to the believers of other religions or will kathenotheism be the rule? If so, what about all the other theisms?

Is the New Order going to eventuate by an apocalypse, in whatever form, thereby obliterating all bar the ‘chosen ones’ and, if so, which group of ‘chosen ones’ will be ‘saved? Or is some Enlightened Being going to wave a magic wand and everybody will simultaneously see the light? And if so, which light? Will a Messiah return and, if so, which Messiah or will a spacecraft land with the Message and if so what is the Message and where will it come from?

If you are still holding on the belief that the New Dark Ages will bring forth salvation and redemption, these questions need definitive answers. Then, if you are at all sincere about spiritualism, you would need to throw your lot 100% in with whomever is going to bring ‘the long awaited brotherhood.’ I remember thinking as a kid what nonsense religion was but, true to form, as middle age came along and the real-world failed to bring any satisfaction or have any meaningfulness whatsoever, I ended up being sucked into religion – albeit of the ‘new’ Eastern variety. This act of surrendering to God is what is commonly known as acceptance – in desperation for an answer to the meaning of life I abandoned all common sense, pulled a blanket of denial over my head and accepted, or simply gave in, to believing what everyone else believed.

The action of surrendering one’s will to a mythical God – in whatever form and by whatever name – is the very antithesis of freedom. <snip>

Even as a child I thought the notion that there were so many competing Gods on the planet to be patently silly. I just got suckered into spirituality for want of being able to follow something better ... simply because the process of actualism hadn’t been discovered at the time. [endquote].

To which you replied –

[Respondent]: LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again. [endquote].

Rather making any comment on the main issue I was raising– ‘how is spirituality ever going to bring peace on earth?’ you again leapt into your cult-busting role.

I know this subject is not at all of interest to you, but you yourself have recently thrown down the gauntlet in another post to me –

[Respondent]: You refuse to accept that actualism is very pretty – I mean that it has a lot of valuable insight contained therein – but as a complete system it is no more conducive to world peace than any other has been. Until you stop making so many assumptions your talk about actualism and peace on earth is just that... talk. 31.5.2001

Okay, No 12. Given that you dismiss actualism as just talk ... put your money where your mouth is.

The question is – ‘how is spiritualism going to bring about peace on earth’, or, if you object to that question because you no longer have a spiritual viewpoint, ‘How is No 12’s viewpoint going to bring about peace on earth?’

I know it is not on your agenda as in,

[Respondent]: ‘my intention in short is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism. My intention in short is to assist in the cult-busting of actualism.’ [endquote].

But it is you who have raised the issue of peace on earth and it is only reasonable to ask you, once again, to substantiate the latest of your allegations.

Just as a reminder of your viewpoint in your early days when you were interested in actualism, you said –

[Respondent]: Anyone who manages to get out of Sannyas and all the spiritual conditioning and find living day to day pleasure with a woman I admire. I like your sense of aloneness I saw when I last met you in the cafe in Byron. 30.7.2000

Given that the day to day pleasure of living with a woman in utter peace, harmony and equity is due to me following Richard’s method of becoming happy and harmless, in the world as-it-is, with people as they are – what you admired back then was the result of actualism put into practice.

In other words, what you were admiring was not ‘talk about actualism’ but a demonstration that actualism works, so clearly in fact that you could directly observe and admire that it worked.

And yet you seem to have changed your mind, or your viewpoint, radically since then by choosing to be of the viewpoint that actualism is an evil cult that needs busting. This change of viewpoint seemed to occur about the time you posted the following –

[Respondent]: I have been reading more of your site and still find many things you say resonate with me, but I am feeling that one of the things that causes me to feel some distance in regard to you is your constant naming of our departed friend as Rajneesh, instead of the name he came to prefer, OSHO. I cannot understand this lack of respect. In my experience sannyasins rarely called ourselves Rajneeshees, it always seemed to be a term flung at us by the media and others who wanted to cast us in a certain light. I have always found the term a bit offensive.

Perhaps this is a result of my beliefs and conditioning. I will look into myself further around this. Meanwhile I just want to put this out. I love the name OSHO, I love the being OSHO, and I find that the way you choose to speak of him stands in my mind as something between us. So I put it out to you, into the space between us. .Isn’t that part of the method you love? To examine everything that prevents us becoming intimate and equal. Well this is something I would like to examine with you. 22.11.1998

Your subsequent examinations obviously left your viewpoint about Rajneesh unchanged, as in –

[Respondent]: I think Osho did the best he could; his ‘condition’ that he called enlightenment and that attracted so many of us around him; I see as the pinnacle of possibility of human volition and creativity and ability to assemble so many different streams of knowledge into the support of his vision. That is why I remain calling myself his friend. Even though he is dead. 30.5.2001

Given that your most recent viewpoint is that ‘ ...I see (enlightenment) as the pinnacle of possibility of human volition creativity and creativity’ – I seek an answer to the question ‘how is spirituality ever going to bring peace on earth?’, lest your viewpoint be demonstrated to be ‘just talk’.

And just to finish off with a reply to your dismissive –

[Respondent]: LOL Peter; this has to be the most clear account of your reason for being an actualist you have as yet provided. Read your own words again – at face value – and enjoy to laugh at yourself for being suckered in once again. [endquote].

The reason I pricked up my ears and listened to what Richard was saying was that he was the first Guru I discovered who was ordinary and not super-ordinary, who was down-to-earth and not other-worldly, who was approachable and not living in an ivory tower, who was straightforward and not devious, who was upfront and not evasive and who lived what he talked.

It was such a breath of fresh air compared to the Gurus I had been sussing out before that I found myself intrigued. Initially, of course, I regarded him as a Guru and what he said as spiritual-talk, but the genuineness of what was on offer and its innate sensibleness meant that I was able to question not only the spiritual teachers I had followed but the revered spiritual teachings themselves. It was soon evident that I had simply been suckered into believing in God, albeit the fashionable Eastern God-man variety.

Although I was on the spiritual path when I met him, it was Richard’s sincerity, and the very down-to-earthness of what he offered, that was instrumental in me continuing on regardless of the initial fear of going down a path never travelled before.

I wasn’t suckered into actualism as you say – I walked into it with both eyes open. One of the first things I did was try it out to see if the method Richard used to become free of the human condition worked. I chose to start living with a woman in peace and harmony as my experiment because it made sense that if I couldn’t live with one other person without being moody, being resentful, getting angry, feeling sad, blaming the other, wanting to change the other, feeling trapped, etc., then not only was peace on earth impossible for me but human life on earth was a sick joke.

The other issue that ran parallel with this was a longing to find an answer to my continual failure to freely enjoy the pleasures of sex. The results of this experiment of putting the actualism method into action are way beyond normal human expectations and actualism has allowed me to investigate issues and find solutions to down-to-earth matters – those that Eastern spirituality dismisses as totally irrelevant. The quality that most stood me in good stead, apart from a sense of adventure, was that I was still naive enough to believe that down-to-earth life was not a sick joke – the cynical viewpoint reinforced by all of the spiritual other-worldly beliefs.

That’s about it. I plan to address your other comments before the list closes down. But I do await a considered and specific answer as to ‘How is No 12’s viewpoint, [Respondent]:  ‘... I see (enlightenment) as the pinnacle of possibility of human volition creativity and creativity’, [endquote] going to bring peace on earth?’

29.6.2001

RESPONDENT: You clearly have the opinion that I No 12 am responsible personally for all the wars and rape and sorrow on the planet – I must be according to your ideal, mustn’t I?

PETER: This is perhaps one of most extreme extrapolations you have yet come up with.

No single person is at fault, no single person is guilty. Everybody, without exception, is born with a genetically-encoded animal- instinctual compulsive program which is then overlaid by social/religious conditioning – we all had no say in the matter at all.

What Richard discovered is that you can safely undo all this programming, such that you can become what you are, as opposed to ‘who’ blind nature fated you to be and ‘who’ your peers insisted you should be. Nothing spiritual in this at all – it’s the equivalent of hitting the delete button every time you come across a bit of this programming until it ceases to function as a cohesive whole. The remaining bits float around for a while causing only minor nuisances and eventually even these disappear, leaving one totally free from any social/religious or animal/instinctual programming whatsoever, i.e. free from the human condition of malice and sorrow

Actualism is about freeing oneself from the programming that gives rise to such debilitating and crippling feelings as guilt, shame, resentment, anger, sorrow, despair, loneliness and fear such that one can become what one is rather than ‘who’ you think and feel you are. To take this instinctual and social programming personally is to take one’s self far too seriously.

RESPONDENT: And then you complain when you yourself are derided? You state clearly that you know and I don’t and you expect to create peace on earth?

PETER: What I have always offered is facts as opposed to beliefs and what I have stated clearly is that the actualism method works in that it eliminates malice and sorrow from one’s life such that anyone can be happy and harmless ... if they want to, that is.

After your initial interest in actualism waned you have now been quite clear that you are perfectly happy as you are. You have made your choice, I made a different choice. I decided to follow the path Richard’s has blazed – you didn’t. I just see it as an either/or issue or a choice of lifestyle issue if you like.

Why do you keep writing to me on this mailing list, deriding me about the choice I made, and telling me I’m wrong?

RESPONDENT: Are you stupid or just a brat?

PETER: A bit of a rebel may be a better description. Not in the sense of being a dissenter, but in the sense of taking up the serendipitous opportunities and challenges that came my way – not running with the pack, so to speak. It’s not that I did any physically dangerous things – far from it. I just found myself trying out different things, moving on easily if they didn’t work out, changing jobs, meeting new people, moving to new places to live.

Consequently I always liked to live light – not wanting be a burden on others, which also meant I rarely felt burdened by others. It was always a case of – wow, so this is what I am doing now, rather than dithering about ‘should I do this or should I do that?’ Maybe it was this bit of a rebel streak that attracted me to actualism and the opportunity not only to be autonomous, but to be happy and harmless as well. What I discovered on the way is that it is impossible to be autonomous unless one is free of misery and resentment.

RESPONDENT: How are you going to create peace on earth out of an attitude that ‘we know and you don’t’?

PETER: I am not going to create peace on earth – it already exists. Not only does it already exist, everyone has had brief glimpses of this peace at some time in their lives. Here is a description of the experience that I remembered that twigged me to understand what Richard meant by actual freedom, as opposed to spiritual freedom –

Lake

[Peter]: ... ‘I remember walking in the shallow water marvelling at my magical fairy-tale-like surroundings. A vast blue sky overhead with an ever-changing array of wispy white clouds. The sun glistens on the tiny ripples of water washing gently over my feet. The feel of the mud oozing between my toes as they sink into the muddy beach. Huge pelicans glide overhead and I liken them to the jumbo jets of the bird world as they come in to land on the water some distance out. The sun on my skin warming me through and through, the breeze ruffling my hair and tingling my forearms, and the water cooling on my feet. It is so good to be alive, senses bristling as if on stalks and everything is perfect. Absolutely no objections to being here – pure delight!

After a while I turn to my partner who is sitting in the shade beneath a wonderfully gnarled and ancient tree on the lake’s edge. There sits a fellow human being to whom I have no ‘relationship’.

Any past or future disappears; she and I are simply here together, experiencing these perfect moments. The past five years that I have known her, with all the memories of good and bad times, simply do not exist. It is just delightful that she is here with me, and I do not even have any thoughts of ‘our’ future. In short, everything is perfect, always has been, and always will be. It is a temporary experience of actual freedom where I, as this flesh and blood body only, am able to experience with my physical senses the perfection and purity of the universe, totally free of any psychological or psychic entity within. I am also free of the delusion that this is all the work of some mythical maker to whom I owe gratitude for ‘my’ being here, and there are no heartfelt delusions of grandeur or Oneness. So totally involving is this sensate experience that the feelings and emotions of a ‘self’ or ‘Self’ have no place in the magical paradise of this actual world that is abundantly apparent. I am actually here, in the physical universe and enjoying a direct and unfettered involvement, every moment.’ Peter’s Journal, ‘Introduction’

It was because I remembered this experience that I didn’t have to believe or disbelieve what Richard was offering, I knew by my own brief experience that actual freedom existed. Being a hands-on practical type, I simply decided to give his method of becoming free of the human condition a thorough road test.

All I can say is that the actualism method is flawless, perfect. It’s totally free, it’s available to anyone, anywhere in the world providing they have access to a computer. There are no meditations, meetings, prayers, moral admonishments or ethical codes, precedents or pressures, traditions or demands. One is totally free to take it up or not. One can have a little, or one can have the lot. One always sets one’s own pace.

There is a wonderful freedom in being able to become free of the human condition – the very process itself gives meaning, purpose and direction to ‘my’ life for the very first time. It is utterly delicious to devote oneself 100% to something and not remain a fence-sitter or a spectator to this extraordinary business of being alive as a flesh and blood human being.

RESPONDENT: I have stated repeatedly that your attitude is what is STANDING in the WAY of peace on earth. Get rid of the attitude that our system of belief, or our path or our master or our Richard is the DEFINITIVE WAY ... and we are well on the way to peace on earth. When I was a child I was Baptist. I was taught to believe I was guilty (responsible for all the war and rape and sorrow on earth) and that I could be saved (get rid of self); and that Jesus is the only one who is perfectly acceptable to god (Richard).

PETER: Then why would you want to stay feeling guilty by inventing yet another God (Richard) simply in order to feel guilty, yet again?

It is you who keep insisting that actualism is somehow spiritualism in disguise and who keeps imagining Richard to be God and deriding me for being a Disciple. It is all your own invented viewpoint that has nought to do with what is on offer on this mailing list.

To reiterate, actualism is about freeing oneself from the programming that gives rise to such feelings as guilt, shame, resentment, anger, sorrow, despair, loneliness and fear such that one can become what one is rather than ‘who’ you think and feel you are. To take this programming personally is to take one’s self far too seriously.

But I do totally agree with you about believing in Gods – holding any such beliefs can only perpetuate misery and suffering, guilt and shame. Holding any spiritual/religious beliefs can only stand in the way of peace on earth.

As I wrote to No 3 the other day –

[Peter]: The belief in God is so insidious that it permeates every aspect of the human condition. If people haven’t got a God they invariably feel that their life is meaningless, if they don’t like their parents’ God they invariably devote their latter years searching for a God they like, if they don’t like any of the human-type Gods they invariably revert to making things or animals or the planet itself into Gods.

Love them or hate them, praise them or damn them, pursue them or flee from them – these imaginary little critters or ethereal spirits or father figures or mother figures or departed souls or guiding lights or supreme intelligences or manifestations of goodness or God-realized beings so dominate the human psyche that it is nigh on impossible for human beings to clearly see the world as it actually is.

It’s so good to be free of the God trap and to be aware that either believing in an imaginary God, in whatever form and by whatever name, or riling against an imaginary God, in whatever form and by whatever name, is patently nonsensical ... and an utter waste of time that could be better be spent becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. Peter to No 3, 28.6.2001

2.7.2001

RESPONDENT: PETER!!!!!! understand the satire!!!! You always misinterpret me. You exaggerate my words. You put my words into some category of your choosing. I return it and you take it so seriously. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

PETER: I am glad you pointed this out so clearly in order that we can all see your mock trial of actualists for what it is – pure satire.

Given the sheer quantity of allegations being currently presented you now appear to be in the summing up phase of your 2½year long investigation. I know we actualists are the villains in the dock in your show trial, but given this is a satirical court case and not a serious one, I thought I would take the opportunity of satirically commenting on the prosecutions findings to date.

*

PETER: Thus far, three witnesses cum prosecutors, including most noticeably your-self, or should we say your-viewpoint, have presented allegations to your own court while the rest seem to have merely dashed in for a quick dump and left, loudly slamming the door behind them.

Perhaps the most heavyweight of the prosecutors is No 22 who not only believes, but states quite definitively, that he is GOD. Who better to pass judgement than an omnipotent and omnipresent Authority? But, lo and behold, a stuff-up occurred.

In one of your latest allegations you proceeded to accuse Richard of being God –

[Respondent]: When I was a child I was Baptist. I was taught to believe I was guilty (responsible for all the war and rape and sorrow on earth) and that I could be saved (get rid of self); and that Jesus is the only one who is perfectly acceptable to god (Richard). No 12 to Peter 26.6.2001

It is no wonder that No 22, aka the only GOD, has been auspicious by his absence from the prosecution team lately, he’s probably feeling miffed right now. Now talk about satire, this was a classic shot in the foot move in true Monty Python style.

Then we have the guest prosecutor, just popped in again to join the fray. The net-famous provocateur and salivant M. No 8 –

[Respondent No 8]: ... relishing the opportunity to expose these hypocrisies before the list closes. No 8 to Richard 30.6.2001

who is renowned for presenting his/her case stealthily cloaked in anonymity.

Again the satirical play continues as he/she attempts to influence the non-negotiable viewpoint aka the chief prosecutor remarks –

[Respondent]: My friend at that time told you to ‘go away and die’ I was shocked and wrote privately with my friend telling I thought that was too much. Now I see that his attitude was justified. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

with the cautionary whisper –

[Respondent No 8]: ...real caring for each other regardless of our wonderful variety of mental opinions is the only priority and talk of killing anything to realise that just reduces us to the way Richard behaves; dog eat dog alexithymic delight in mental cruelty. No 8 to No 12 30.6.2001

We await with bated breath to see whether the balaclava-clad prosecutor is willing to keep up with the frenetic pace of the accusations or decides to head off again, in true Pimpernel style, in search of fresh pickings for his thrusting rapier.

Meanwhile the allegations mount seemingly to a crescendo –

[Respondent]:

  • I have asked him <Richard> for an official list of outlawed states of being and he refuses to provide such, so clearly happiness being an emotion is wrong. No 12 to No 13 30.6.2001

  • Oh and the other main thing is to categorise people ... you are clearly a happinism follower and it is important you stop that for the sake of the world. No 12 to No 13 30.6.2001

  • Actualism contains a lot of sick hypocritical callous uncaring shit, No 12 to No 8 30.6.2001

  • Will I be allowed to keep on existing as a human being in the brave new third Reich actualist world? Or is it the gas ovens for me and my ilk? No 12 to No 23 29.6.2001

  • For two years I have been trying to show you that ANY system of belief given more credence than an actual flesh and blood human being is as bad as NAZISM. And that is how I see you. Ok? No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

  • Richard and you and Vineeto are 3 of the most malicious people I have ever met. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

  • FUCK YOU TOO! Stop misinterpreting me. I never had an interest in actualism. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

  • You have never seen it as either or. You continuously deride me for having a different point of view. You are the closest to a Nazi I have ever met. More than Richard in fact. At least Richard is original. You are a lieutenant. Stop it! No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

  • Your writing off of your fellow human beings as ‘spiritualists’ as if that explains everything is malicious. No 12 to Vineeto 29.6.2001

  • Vineeto you have to turn further and read more words because clearly we cannot have happy Vineeto running around. Happiness creates wars and malice and sorrow and rape and hardship. Get rid of it. No 12 to Vineeto 29.6.2001

  • Look ... let me make it clear with you Vineeto. I consider the putting of systems above people akin to Nazism and fascism. No 12 to Vineeto 30.6.2001

  • I seriously have advocated a future in a decade or three where heads of major therapeutic institutions are carted off to the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity – just as Milosevic was today. No 12 to No. 23 30.6.2001

  • Clearly any discerning explorer of A.F. will be all ears and eyes will open wide and the text be read at face-value at the mention that Milosevic is an actualist. He has managed to expunge and eradicate all vestiges of self from ‘his’ actuality. ‘Feels no guilt’. There is now only one relevant question. Was Milosevic the first to discover the hitherto undiscovered third Reich way of expundiation of feelings? ... Or was our beloved Richard thusly thus? No 12 to Vineeto 2.7.2001

And lastly, we have the prosecutor tag-team approach –

[Respondent]: No. 8 has served warrant against you twice about this serious matter; and I have once; and should you not respond today; the supreme court of this list will have no legal option but to allow the united nations to gain jurisdiction over you and arrange your transportation to the Hague. No 12 to Vineeto 2.7.2001

Will No 12 be the star prosecutor/judge of this international trial? Can male/female No 8 up the ante on the chief prosecutor’s accusations? Stay tuned folks for the next exciting episode in the ongoing satirical cyber fantasy of a couple of cyber viewpoints.

*

PETER: But all may not be as it appears to be, hey No 12?

I do also have an inkling that maybe you are also playing the journalist’s satirical game of ‘fling enough mud and some of it will stick or be seen by some to stick’ – a sort of a doubled over, double entendre satirical twist with pike.

After all, you have made your position very clear on this very list –

[Respondent]: I am a journalist by training and intent and I write from an artistic perspective. My work is full for example of multi-layered mirroring and irony. I document the early history of the actual freedom trust from an alternative perspective to the officially offered one at www.actualfreedom.com.au. Others are free to also document their own perspective. Think about it. The internet is amazing.

Read my words again and you may read them and laugh. I do. No 12 to No. 21 21.12.2000

But I must admit you have me guessing as to where you are leading next ...

What a hoot ...

 


 

Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity

<