|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 71
RESPONDENT to No 64: And I also imagined how Richard would propose to a woman. Could the conversation go something like this? <snipped for length> (just joking, fellas) VINEETO: And a few hours later you wrote – RESPONDENT: … My post was not meant to be sarcastic, it was just a parody of Richard’s conversational style, and also a reflection on what relationships are based on in the real world. I did seriously think about how an actualist would propose to a woman. A joke is after all, a joke, because it makes light of a serious situation. VINEETO: To save you from the pitfalls of parody and the inefficaciousness of imagining, here are two descriptions from events that actually took place. The first one is from Richard –
The second is from Peter –
I would have recommended
RESPONDENT to No 32: You may wriggle out of each relationship. But I can tell you each relationship is full of conflicts, opposing desires for commitment and freedom, and so on. For me the challenge is now to break free of my very need to relate with a woman sexually. As long as I need her, I am subject to the pain which entails such relationships in the real world. If however, I don’t need a woman, I can live with her as a friend etc. Then sex is just another way of relating. It is not a source of addictive pleasure. However, I have serious doubts as to whether even the mature actualists like Richard, Peter, Vineeto, etc. are at that stage. Richard, maybe. VINEETO: If by ‘at that stage’ you mean being free of the ‘very need to relate with a [wo]man sexually’ then I am indeed at that stage and I can say that this is a ‘stage’ that happened quite early in my practice of actualism. This is what I wrote about exploring sexuality in ‘A Bit of Vineeto’ – about 9 months after beginning to practice actualism –
About two years after I wrote this, medical reasons prevented Peter and I from having sex for a couple of months and it was then that I could observe that I was no longer driven by the urge for sex – I missed it not in the least. In fact when the instinctual urge for sex disappeared I had great difficulties to adjust at first – a defining part of my identity had irretrievably disappeared, and the shift from sex as fulfilling a compulsive desire to sex as a pleasurable sensate play of intimacy was at times quite confusing and scary, to say the least. Needless to say that imagining that abstinence from sex or celibacy equates to freedom from desire makes no sense at all – like all things in life, practical learning and down-to-earth understanding only comes from doing it yourself and finding out for yourself, not from thinking about it or from believing what others tell you about it. Only by making such an investigation could I fully experience that sexual instinctual desire is a major aspect of one’s identity. Besides, it was all worth the trouble because the intimacy that has emerged after exploring all the impediments is far beyond my wildest dreams. Not only do I enjoy an ongoing peaceful and harmonious living together free of any emotional bondage whatsoever but also a sensuous sexual play that far exceeds anything I ever experienced when I was still driven by sexual passions.
RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. That it is a privilege etc. But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist. I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed (which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). VINEETO: As long as you continue to evaluate actualism by what you call the ‘highest
standards’ of the Indian saints RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. VINEETO: As No 37 has already pointed out, Richard met his second wife at a Satsang retreat when he was still enlightened. At this time his affective faculty was still present and he would have been affectively aware of ‘a certain ‘environment’’. The reason I posted this story as an example how an actualist would propose to a woman was because Richard was upfront in his intent to live together as man and woman intimately, in perfect peace and harmony. In fact if you read Richard’s Journal it becomes clear that the investigations he made into the human condition during this period were vital to his understanding of the human condition and to his eventual realization that the whole eastern tradition of self-realization aka Enlightenment is but a massive delusion of self-aggrandizement. Rather than avoid the challenges of a down-to-earth intimacy with a fellow human being as did the Eastern saints you have quoted, Richard headed the other way – yet another example that actualism is 180 degrees opposite to the spiritual path. * RESPONDENT: However, I have serious doubts as to whether even the mature actualists like Richard, Peter, Vineeto, etc. are at that stage. Richard, maybe. VINEETO: If by ‘at that stage’ you mean being free of the ‘very need to relate with a [wo]man sexually’ then I am indeed at that stage and I can say that this is a ‘stage’ that happened quite early in my practice of actualism. This is what I wrote about exploring sexuality in About two years after I wrote this, medical reasons prevented Peter and I from having sex for a couple of months and it was then that I could observe that I was no longer driven by the urge for sex – I missed it not in the least. In fact when the instinctual urge for sex disappeared I had great difficulties to adjust at first – a defining part of my identity had irretrievably disappeared, and the shift from sex as fulfilling a compulsive desire, to sex as a pleasurable sensate play of intimacy was at times quite confusing and scary, to say the least. Needless to say that imagining that abstinence from sex or celibacy equates to freedom from desire makes no sense at all – like all things in life, practical learning and down-to-earth understanding only comes from doing it yourself and finding out for yourself, not from thinking about it or from believing what others tell you about it. Only by making such an investigation could I fully experience that sexual instinctual desire is a major aspect of one’s identity. However, it was all worth the trouble because the intimacy that has emerged after exploring all the impediments is far beyond my wildest dreams. Not only do I enjoy an ongoing peaceful and harmonious living together free of any emotional bondage whatsoever but also a sensuous sexual play that far exceeds anything I ever experienced when I was still driven by sexual passions. RESPONDENT: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same. VINEETO: It is little wonder that you doubt what we report because it flies in the face of Eastern religious teachings and practices – the deeply ingrained belief that denial, avoidance, abstinence and transcendence (aka celibacy) equates with being actually free from the instinctual passions. If you are looking to promote the virtues of celibacy, then you are certainly on the wrong mailing list and actualism is clearly not for you. RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? Simply a matter of preference? Doesn’t really sound very convincing. Of course, they don’t need to convince me. But as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. VINEETO: Are you seriously proposing that human beings, once they are actually free from the human condition should all live a solitary life so as to prove to you that they are not plagued by sexual desire – in other words that when they become actually free that they should still remain shackled by the demands of puerile religious moralities and beliefs? If you investigate deeper into this traditional demand that saints should live a solitary celibate life you will find that this tradition is rooted in the fear that he or she will succumb to and be overcome by the temptations of the instinctual passions which spiritual masters and their disciples have only been able to tame but never extinguished. Dig a little further and you will find that enlightened beings also avoid a healthy, equitable, harmonious and sensual relationship with a person of the other gender in order to maintain their saintly image and nourish their feeling of holier-than-thouness. For me, there is nothing to prove to anyone else, let alone any need to kowtow to the moral demands of others because I know by daily experience that I am no longer driven by the debilitating need for sex (and the debilitating need for love for that matter) and I find the company of a mate with whom I can share the delights of being alive to be preferable to living on my own.
RESPONDENT: Richard, Is it possible for you to give pointers to your correspondence on other mailing lists ([Mailing List B], atheism) which is not archived on the actualfreedom.com.au website? Since Richard is such a common name, it is very hard to find out the relevant postings. I was able to find many of your postings on [Mailing List B] because I knew the archive site for it. Just the names of the mailing lists would be enough. After that I can figure out on my own. VINEETO: As a librarian of the Actual Freedom website I am able to inform you that *all* of Richard’s correspondence on other mailing lists has been archived and made available on the Actual Freedom website, i.e. there is no correspondence to mailing lists ‘which is not archived on the actualfreedom.com.au website’. The original archives of ‘mailing list A’, which correspondence happened in 1997, no longer exist at that forum and those of ‘mailing list B’ are only archived as far back as February 6, 2001. As for Richard’s ‘Mailing list C’ – I have been unable to determine whether this list is still active or not. This quote from his general correspondence may be useful in your further search for the original list –
RESPONDENT: Richard, Is it possible for you to give pointers to your correspondence on other mailing lists ([Mailing List B], atheism) which is not archived on the actualfreedom.com.au website? Since Richard is such a common name, it is very hard to find out the relevant postings. I was able to find many of your postings on [Mailing List B] because I knew the archive site for it. Just the names of the mailing lists would be enough. After that I can figure out on my own. VINEETO: As a librarian of the Actual Freedom website I am able to inform you that *all* of Richard’s correspondence on other mailing lists has been archived and made available on the Actual Freedom website, i.e. there is no correspondence to mailing lists ‘which is not archived on the actualfreedom.com.au website’. The original archives of ‘mailing list A’, which correspondence happened in 1997, no longer exist at that forum and those of ‘Mailing List B’ are only archived as far back as February 6, 2001. As for Richard’s ‘Mailing list C’ – I have been unable to determine whether this list is still active or not. This quote from his general correspondence may be useful in your further search for the original list – <snip> RESPONDENT: Is there a reason why the names of the mailing lists and the correspondents are anonymized? Mailing list ‘A’ and Respondent 42 etc.? VINEETO: All correspondence is posted anonymously on the Actual Freedom website – the only exceptions are people who have either agreed, or particularly requested, to be mentioned by name. The Actual Freedom mailing list was established as an uncensored forum in order that people can openly talk about and discuss the often sensitive and always controversial issues raised on the website and as such the posts that are archived on the website are done so anonymously in order to focus the attention of the reader on the subject being discussed rather than on who is discussing it. The same is applicable for correspondence from other mailing lists. In order to understand the various aspects of the human condition it makes not a fig of difference whether say Correspondent No. 42 is male or female, 30 years old or 50 years old, light skinned or dark skinned, living in Nairobi or New York, been indoctrinated into a pantheist society or a monotheist society, is rich or poor, and so on. It is far more important to understand the particular objection to being happy and harmless being discussed – given that by and large the bulk of the correspondence consists of objections – and then use this understanding as an aid to eliminate one’s own objections to being happy and harmless.
RESPONDENT: Is there a reason why the names of the mailing lists and the correspondents are anonymized? Mailing list ‘A’ and Respondent 42 etc.? VINEETO: All correspondence is posted anonymously on the Actual Freedom website – the only exceptions are people who have either agreed, or particularly requested, to be mentioned by name. The Actual Freedom mailing list was established as an uncensored forum in order that people can openly talk about and discuss the often sensitive and always controversial issues raised on the website and as such the posts that are archived on the website are done so anonymously in order to focus the attention of the reader on the subject being discussed rather than on who is discussing it. RESPONDENT: I think both are important. If one knows that discussions about Krishnamurti are being held on the [Mailing List B], this is just additional information which will tell the reader that most people on the list might be very enamoured and defensive of Krishnamurti. VINEETO: I fail to see your point. When you read Richard’s list-b correspondence published on the Actual Freedom Trust website, it is obvious without needing further information that ‘most people on the list’ *are* ‘very enamoured and defensive of Krishnamurti’. * VINEETO: The same is applicable for correspondence from other mailing lists. In order to understand the various aspects of the human condition it makes not a fig of difference whether say Correspondent No. 42 is male or female, 30 years old or 50 years old, light skinned or dark skinned, living in Nairobi or New York, been indoctrinated into a pantheist society or a monotheist society, is rich or poor, and so on. RESPONDENT: It does, I think. An eastern Buddhist might have a very different take on actual freedom than a Christian or an avowed atheist. VINEETO: Think again. Whatever ‘take’ those fictitious people you are talking about have on actual freedom from the human condition does not alter the fact that each and every one needs to abandon their own particular ‘take’ in order to understand what actual freedom is about. I am left wondering why you bother wasting pixels by focussing your concern on the take that other people have on actual freedom rather than focus on that which is far more pertinent and pressing – the spiritual teachings and teachers that you personally are enamoured with that colour the ‘take’ that you have on an actual freedom from the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: People rebel against a new viewpoint based on their upbringing and conditioning. VINEETO: Regardless of what ‘upbringing and conditioning’ people base their rebellion on, as long as they persist in rebelling they cannot be open to, let alone be sufficiently motivated to change themselves in order to become free from malice and sorrow. Only those who are entirely fed up with their ‘upbringing and conditioning’ and with being driven by their instinctual passions will be interested in radical change. * VINEETO: It is far more important to understand the particular objection to being happy and harmless being discussed – given that by and large the bulk of the correspondence consists of objections – and then use this understanding as an aid to eliminate one’s own objections to being happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t you say that the particularity of the objection would be better understood as the background of the participants (and of the environment, in this case, the charter of a particular list) is described. Why, I think Richard himself makes this point in many conversations that as he is talking on the ‘K list’ he is talking of K, and if he were to talk on the Ramana list, he would choose Ramana’s quotes about enlightenment. VINEETO: The correspondence on the Actual Freedom Trust website covers an enormous amount of objections to becoming happy and harmless – in fact by far the bulk of all conversations are answers to objections. As such anybody who is willing to roll up their sleeves and rid themselves from their beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts, maxims, dictums, truths, factoids, philosophies, values, principles, ideals, standards, credos, doctrines, tenets, canons, morals, ethics, customs, traditions, psittacisms, superstitions, myths, legends, folklores, imaginations, divinations, visions, fantasies, chimeras, illusions, delusions, hallucinations, phantasmagoria and any other of the social schemes and dreams and cultural precepts and mores which constitute the familial/tribal/national conditioning process can certainly do so without knowing on which particular list the correspondence they are reading was originally conducted. RESPONDENT: If I may ask the question: What is lost by NOT making the lists and conversations anonymous? Is it legally more dangerous etc.? VINEETO: People’s anonymity and the all-too-human propensity to focus on trivia in order to avoid the essence of the what is known as the human dilemma as well as the all-too-male propensity to intellectualize and philosophize and speculate rather than get off their bums and do something practical.
VINEETO: I know for a fact that there is no God because I know for a fact that God is a construct of ‘my’ fear and hope, of ‘my’ passionate imagination. No imagination – no God, no passion – no God. It is essential to go this far in order to become free of the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT No 81: The only thing you know for fact is that ‘your’ version of ‘God’ doesn’t exist because that God was a construct of ‘your’ fear and hope, of ‘your’ passionate imagination. And now that construct is gone. If there is God s/he is certainly beyond of ‘our’ fears, hopes and passionate imaginations. So the question whether there is God or is not God and what kind of God etc can never be known for fact. You believed in an idol [’your’ version of God] and realized that this ideal doesn’t exist and now you conclude ‘God’ [the real one so to speak] doesn’t exist. VINEETO: You must be talking about *your* version of God then, the Principle or Godhead or Atma or whatever name you want to call it. There are no gods of any kind in the actual world. RESPONDENT No 81: That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me. VINEETO: Of course not – your God is preventing you from using common sense. RESPONDENT: Hope/fear can lead to belief, but absence of hope/fear does not mean the absence of the thing believed in, it just means an absence of belief (at best). Existence of something is independent of whether it is believed in or not. VINEETO: The existence of something tangible and palpable is independent of whether it is believed in or not – but can you prove that any of the 1200 or so gods that human beings believe in have a tangible and palpable existence independent of those who believe in them? As for so-called meta-physical proofs – have you noticed that no devout Buddhist ever had a vision of
a blue-skinned Krishna and no Christian hears Chalchihuitzli
RESPONDENT No 65 to Peter: You forgot g… Richard got it wrong: it is patently silly to ‘claim’ to be the first and only actually free, happy and harmless human being whilst writing like an aggressive argumentative asshole. VINEETO to No 65: No 65, have you looked up the word ‘automorphism’ RESPONDENT: While No 65’s response wins no prizes for being free of malice; yours could, for being a sarcastic jibe. What purpose does your note to No 65 serve, perchance? There are other options to feeling that my response to No 65 was ‘a sarcastic jibe’. I actually thought he could learn something about the human condition in action, which is after all what the process of actualism is about. When I began practicing actualism I found that the common trait of automorphism – the ascription of one’s own characteristics to another – lay at the core of many instances of my former habit of either criticizing or quietly putting other people down. I also discovered that once I developed sufficient attentiveness to be able to nip this habit in the bud, the habit of criticizing myself and putting myself down also greatly diminished. It takes a good deal of effort to cease being fixated on the emotions of others or on trying to second-guess the emotions of others but the rewards in terms of being then able to focus one’s attentiveness where it is much more beneficial is well worth the effort in my experience.
RESPONDENT No 58 to Richard: You are most certainly a probity cop when it suits your agenda. i.e., your previous companion Irene, got her virtually free license revoked upon the demise of your relationship. T’wasn’t that true? It is written somewhere in your voluminous petty archives … I will not search for it … if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your flock of sheep who await the very next breath you fake. VINEETO to No 58: Such ploy is akin to me saying that it is true that No 58 masturbates all day
and buys his companions at www.realdoll.com … it is written somewhere in your 1057 emails written
to this list … I will not search for it … if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your audience who await the very next breath you
fake. RESPONDENT: Vineeto, Your prejudices are showing. VINEETO: No … it seems to be you who turns my example of unsubstantiated allegations into moral judgements. I simply pulled up No 58 on his ploy to first make unsubstantiated allegations and then to call the other a liar should they either decline to provide evidence to the contrary or volunteer to provide evidence to the contrary. I have no bias as to how No 58 chooses to spend his time when he is not vocally objecting to there being an alternative to his own no-change-do-nothing-solution. RESPONDENT: Why would you consider masturbation and related activities reprehensible and worthy of defense? VINEETO: Where did I say anything about being ‘reprehensible’ and ‘worthy of defense’? RESPONDENT: And disinclination to search the voluminous AF archives is distinctly separate from an allegation which is not even based on memory, as is your example. VINEETO: I clearly admit that my allegations were meant as a humorous example (in order to demonstrate a modus operandi) which is distinctly separate from blatantly making an outright allegation that has nothing to do with fact. RESPONDENT: Let me see if I can find the in-question quote from Richard: From:
VINEETO: Given that you have taken it upon yourself to do No 58’s legwork for him and have posted a quote that you think No 58 is referring to when he says –
– then let me point out that the above quote does not provide any evidence of Richard either giving Irene ‘her virtually free license’ nor of Richard ‘revoking’ ‘her virtually free license’. The quote above makes it clear that Richard is saying that it is entirely Irene’s business to put a different slant on her past experience. You might have to do some more legwork if you really want to prove No 58’s point. In case you are in agreement with No 58’s assessment that Richard is being a probity policeman then this assessment is entirely at odds with the facts presented in Richard’s Journal wherein Irene freely contributed descriptions and comments about her experiences of being virtually free only to recant and change her mind just as the book was about to be published. Rather than rewrite the whole Journal, Richard added another article in which he succinctly and without any hint of blame whatsoever described the reasons for Irene’s leaving. After she had left Richard then encouraged her to write about her change of heart and provided her both with a computer + modem and a paid-for internet connection and spent many hours setting it up for her and teaching her how to use it. He also subscribed her to the Actual Freedom mailing list in case she felt inclined to write about her change of heart. He then published all of the mailing list correspondence with her on his website so as to ensure that any readers who were interested could read all of it. How you can make Richard out to be a probity cop in any of this is beyond me. * VINEETO to No 58: … it is written somewhere in your 1057 emails written to this list … I
will not search for it … if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your audience who await the very next breath you fake. RESPONDENT: Did you have a hazy idea that No 58 had written something like this? VINEETO: Now that you mention it, I might have had a bit of a hunch for the first allegation * VINEETO to No 58: You might as well admit that your genre is cyber fantasy and poison pen fiction – it would solve the mystery as to why you are always so way off the mark in your allegations. RESPONDENT: Perhaps with the above referenced text, you might want to reconsider your judgment of No 58’s words? VINEETO: I might point out that it was you who has provided a quote that you have presumed substantiates No 58’s claim and not No 58. Your latter day intervention on No 58’s behalf doesn’t alter the fact of No 58 making unsubstantiated allegations, trumping it up with his comment – [Respondent No 58]:‘if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your flock of sheep who await the very next breath you fake’. [endquote]. Perhaps you could formulate the appropriate allegations yourself so that it becomes clear as to what are your own concerns and judgements in this matter.
RESPONDENT No 58 to Richard: You are most certainly a probity cop when it suits your agenda. i.e., your previous companion Irene, got her virtually free license revoked upon the demise of your relationship. T’wasn’t that true? It is written somewhere in your voluminous petty archives … I will not search for it … if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your flock of sheep who await the very next breath you fake. VINEETO to No 58: Such ploy is akin to me saying that it is true that No 58masturbates all day and buys his companions at www.realdoll.com … it is written somewhere in your 1057 emails written to this list … I will not search for it … if you deny it, you lie only to yourself & your audience who await the very next breath you fake. RESPONDENT: Vineeto, Your prejudices are showing. VINEETO: No … it seems to be you who turns my example of unsubstantiated allegations into moral judgements. RESPONDENT: An allegation is always about something reprehensible (according to the person making the allegation). Whether the reprehensibility is moral, pragmatic (as in silly/ sensible) or otherwise depends... Do you agree to the above? VINEETO: No. According to the definition of the word, an allegation does not always have to be reprehensible –
And I do mean when I say –
By the way, there is no such thing as ‘pragmatic reprehensibility’ – finding something to be
reprehensible RESPONDENT: I never said you had moral prejudices, just that that ‘your prejudices are showing’. VINEETO: And what ‘non-moral prejudices’ would those be? RESPONDENT: However, as you yourself agree, that your statement that No 58 masturbates was an allegation (albeit a humourous one), and as an allegation is about something that one finds reprehensible, … VINEETO: Nowhere did I say that I find masturbation or the purchase of companion dolls reprehensible. RESPONDENT: … can you please pay more attention to my statement that you seem to have a prejudice regarding this activity? VINEETO: Look, it is entirely your business what you do with what I write but, as I said in my previous post, I have no bias as to how No 58 chooses to spend his time, neither I do not have any prejudice about anyone masturbating all day or buying themselves a companion doll – it is their business and their business alone. RESPONDENT: ASSUMING that you were to be making this allegation seriously (as opposed to humourously), would it be a moral stance, a pragmatic stance or something else which would make this statement that someone masturbates worthy of being termed an allegation? VINEETO: How could I make such an allegation seriously? Firstly, I know perfectly well, because men have told me, that it is a physical impossibility to masturbate all day and secondly I cannot possibly know about how another spends their time apart from what they choose to write about on this list. But to put your mind at rest – I couldn’t care less if anyone, anyone at all, chooses to spend their time masturbating all day or playing with sexual companion dolls. * VINEETO: I simply pulled up No 58 on his ploy to first make unsubstantiated allegations and then to call the other a liar should they either decline to provide evidence to the contrary or volunteer to provide evidence to the contrary. RESPONDENT: I understand. But your pulling up No 58 by making a totally unsubstantiated allegation does not compare with No 58 making an allegation whose substance can be debated by looking upon Richard and Irene’s dialogues. VINEETO: No 58 not only made unsubstantiated allegations but he also declared that Richard was a liar no matter how he responded, i.e. No 58 certainly made clear that he did not intend to debate his confabulation at all.
To put No 58’s allegation in context – No 58 initially fantasized that the reason why Richard didn’t write to the mailing list for a while was because his companion had supposedly left him, which he since qualified such that Richard was [quote] ‘busy looking for another sperm receptacle’ [endquote] and that Richard supposedly gives out, and revokes, the title of virtual freedom according to his sexual relationship with women. Vis:
How you manage to find ‘at least some substance’ in the above unsubstantiated sex-and-power allegations against Richard whilst you simultaneously consider my choice of exemplifying the nature of No 58’s modus operandi to be showing my ‘prejudices’ is a mystery to me. Ah, well, it’s a strange world indeed. * VINEETO: I have no bias as to how No 58 chooses to spend his time when he is not vocally objecting to there being an alternative to his own no-change-do-nothing-solution. RESPONDENT: But the fact of the matter is that you chose, as an example of an unsubstantiated allegation (albeit a humourous one) the activity of masturbation. If you had say, chosen the activity of child molestation, I would have no objection to your argument and stance, as I understand why child molestation is reprehensible. VINEETO: As I never said that masturbation or the purchase of companion dolls was reprehensible, your ‘objection’ is baseless. * RESPONDENT: Why would you consider masturbation and related activities reprehensible and worthy of defense? VINEETO: Where did I say anything about being ‘reprehensible’ and ‘worthy of defense’? RESPONDENT: An allegation is an implicit judgment about some activity. VINEETO: Indeed and yet an allegation need not be a judgement of reprehensibility about something or someone as you seemingly insist it is. For example, many people allege that actualism is nothing but spiritualism in disguise and that Richard is really an Enlightened Master in disguise. Given that some of those making such allegations are themselves spiritualists they are making complimentary allegations, albeit totally misguided. * RESPONDENT: And disinclination to search the voluminous AF archives is distinctly separate from an allegation which is not even based on memory, as is your example. VINEETO: I clearly admit that my allegations were meant as a humorous example (in order to demonstrate a modus operandi) which is distinctly separate from blatantly making an outright allegation that has nothing to do with fact. RESPONDENT: It is not that ‘that has nothing to do with fact’, there is at least some substance (which is ultimately found good enough or wanting is besides the point) to it. VINEETO: No. It has been clearly demonstrated that there is no substance whatsoever to any of No 58’s allegation, neither was there any intent on No 58’s side to provide the substance. Furthermore, No 58 pre-emptively declared Richard to be a liar, no matter what Richard’s response would be. Vis –
The fact that you found some archived correspondence which you think relates to No 58’s point By your logic, if someone makes an allegation then there must be ‘at least some substance’ to it regardless of the fact that the allegations are found wanting or not, in other words regardless of whether or not the allegation is a lie or is a fact. If this is your stance, you are aiding and abetting those whose modus operandi is based on the credo of ‘where there is smoke there must be fire’ and ‘if you throw enough mud at least some of it will stick’ and ‘if someone accuses you then you must have given them a reason’. If this is your position with regard to unsubstantiated allegations then you can count me out of discussing this any further. Mind you, this is not a moral prejudice but a choice of how I prefer to spend my time. RESPONDENT: The archives do show Irene and Richard discussing Irene’s state when she left Richard and whether it was Virtual Freedom or something else. VINEETO: Let me see if I understand you right – No 58 presents a fantasy that the reason why Richard did not write for 7 weeks was because his present companion had left, which No 58 since qualified such that Richard was [quote] ‘busy looking for another sperm receptacle’ [endquote] and that Richard supposedly gives out, and revokes, the title of virtual freedom according to his sexual relationship with women – and you find ‘at least some substance’ in it because you found an archived conversation of ‘Irene and Richard discussing Irene’s state when she left Richard and whether it was Virtual Freedom or something else’. In order to find any justifiable substance for No 58’s allegation you would have to –
I suggest that rather than being a philosophical fence sitter with regard to the unsubstantiated allegations of someone else why not come clean and state clearly whether or not you support the allegations that No 58 has made and what are your own feelings and judgements on the matter.
VINEETO: Given that in your post to No 66 you made an allegation – ‘is it perchance to make sure you are not doing anything non-actualist (sic) when you partake of new-age foods?’ – and when queried about it you passed it off as being tongue-in-cheek humour and suggest to No 66 that ‘your sense of humour has certainly gone fishing’, why then did you take my post to No 58, ‘an allegation (albeit a humorous one)’, so seriously as to allege that it demonstrates my prejudices? Have you heard of the saying ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’? Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
