|
Page Four of a Dialogue With Jayahn Saward (Jayahn’s Writing © J.D Saward 2000)
JAYAHN: I am writing vis à vis one and only one word you use and I do not understand its usage by you. From your site (a very good paragraph indeed): ‘The second discovery accords with the practical experience of eliminating one’s innate ‘being’ – the primitive ‘self’ and the associated instinctual passions that cause our animal survival behaviour to kick in whenever we, or our kin, ‘feel’ threatened (which is almost always...). This program is automatic and often psychic in nature, it is programmed within the primitive or reptilian brain, and ‘felt’ in the body due to the resulting chemical surges arising from the primitive brain. This blind and senseless survival program can now be safely deleted for the human species has not only survived ... it is now beginning to flourish’. Would you mind explaining, Richard, your usage of the word ‘psychic’ in this context, thank you. RICHARD: All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example). Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or
pertaining to the energies of the psyche It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil. Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world. JAYAHN: As well, any and all exchanges of pleasantries regarding weather and cafes welcomed. I am doing fine right now amidst working on my major disability which is DNA based. The sky is blue punctuated by clouds. RICHARD: Ahh yes ... I am especially enjoying this early spring weather – the time before sunrise and just prior to sunset are particularly exquisite – and some of the cafés, closed for winter during the daylight hours, will soon be opening again as more peoples venture forth. Plus the ahead of schedule ‘daylight saving’ this year means the evenings are warmer for dining out already. This DNA-based disability – the human condition – is the very stuff for derring-do, eh?
JAYAHN: Richard, the other week ‘you’ answered a question from me about the dynamics of the ‘self’. You explained, or I think you explained, that the self is a vortex for psychic energies and that that vortex – which we call ‘I’ (or is it ‘me’?) – largely runs on automatic just being pushed around within the psychic web. Is that a fair enough approximation of what you said?? RICHARD: Yes (apart from the fact that there is no ‘you’ (‘me’) extant in this flesh and blood body to have answered) ... and a ‘vortex’ of psychic currents, as in an eddy or a whirlpool of affective energies, is an apt description of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself). Yet not only ‘being pushed around’ but also ‘pushing others around’ (the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious). It is just as important to be aware of what ‘I’ do to others as it is to be aware of what others do to ‘me’. Interestingly enough, when ‘I’ cease taking offence (being hurt) it is nigh-on impossible to be offensive (being hurtful). JAYAHN: So ... assuming it is, am I to understand: a) a person like you who seems to believe only in the tangible actual stuff ... believes (is that the right word) in the psychic world as well?? RICHARD: Oh no, there is no psychic world here in the actual ... I am talking from remembered prior experience and other people’s reports regarding the psyche, the psychic and the psychical. Also, there is no need to believe ‘only in the tangible actual stuff’ where one is free of the human condition ... there is nothing else happening but the direct experience of the actual world: the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the sky by day and the stars by night. JAYAHN: And that this self you refer to has in the past been called the soul? RICHARD: Yes. The word ‘soul’ is a commonly used English word corresponding to ‘psyche’, ‘self’, ‘spirit’, ‘being’, ‘atman’ and so on (when not getting hung-up on doctrinal distinctions and cultural characteristics). JAYAHN: b) when you say you have no self I take it that means that ‘you’ are no longer effected by the psychic energy field that we are all creating together on the planet. Is that how it is? RICHARD: There is no ‘you’ (‘me’) to either be affected or to affect others when one is free from the human condition. The affective energies are a two-way street ... mostly peoples initially overlook the ‘harmless’ part of my oft-used ‘happy and harmless’ phrase. In other words: how can I live freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst ‘I’ nurse malice and sorrow to ‘my’ bosom? One cannot be happy unless one is first harmless ... and one cannot be harmless unless one is first happy. This is because all sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. To be actually free one abandons ‘humanity’ in oneself – one cuts the umbilical cord – which means that the ability to connect or relate vanishes ... life is not ‘a movement in relationship’ (as one enlightened being was wont to say) here in this actual world. Completely on one’s own one walks tall, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter perfection and peace, beholden to no-one. JAYAHN: Also could you explain what you mean when you say ‘this DNA-based disability – the human condition – is the very stuff for derring-do, eh?’ ‘Derring-do’ ... what do you mean? Is it fun? RICHARD: Yes, it is fun – sincere and thrilling fun but fun nevertheless – to embark on the voyage of a lifetime ... and an exploration into ‘my’ psyche is a journey into the ‘human’ psyche as ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. The phrase ‘derring-do’ means ‘daring to do’ ... anybody still run by the instinctual passions – specifically fear – coincidentally has recourse to the valour to match (where there is no fear there is no courage). It requires great audacity to fly in the face of the ‘Tried and True’ ... after all, could it really be so that 6.0 billion peoples now living (and maybe 4.0 billion having once lived) have all got it wrong? JAYAHN: Please forgive me if this is kindergarten stuff and has been covered on the list previously. RICHARD: Exploring the psychic world is not ‘kindergarten stuff’ at all and unless one has successfully removed the need for a social identity (a conscience) such a journey is fraught with danger ... one may become enlightened. Unless it be but an intellectual excursion, of course. JAYAHN: And please reply at your convenience as I have other interesting conversations going to entertain and illuminate myself whilst I wait patiently for your reply. It is dark here in Sydney; being well into the evening. I still have a DNA disability and still believe and enjoy the entire compass of directions ... including the 180 degrees that is the focus of this list. RICHARD: Yes, a comparative study is well worthwhile ... and computers – plus the internet – makes research possible in an unprecedented way through access to a unprecedented range and quality of material. JAYAHN: It is wondrous that there are other lists as well! RICHARD: I do consider that mailing lists are second to none in regards to a largely uncensored contact with a breadth of experience and views. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – allows for an uninhibited expression and questioning in that (apart from being subject to ‘Greeks Bearing Gifts’) discussion cannot devolve into the scratching, clawing, wrestling, fisticuffs or whatever other way peoples traditionally go about their search for freedom, peace and harmony. JAYAHN: P.S. I forgot the other question I had intended to ask you ... perhaps it was not important. Let’s hope so. RICHARD: Life is so perfect that whatever is overlooked or forgotten or omitted has the habit of reappearing until it is finally eliminated forever.
JAYAHN: Richard, have you come across the work of J. Samuel Bois and developed by Alfred Korzybski called General Semantics? RICHARD: Yes, I have come across it before ... and someone used their expertise in ‘General
Semantics’ about a year ago on another Mailing List and determined that I exhibited ‘a worldview that is beleaguered,
spiteful, presumptuous, condescending, reductive, etc.’ (what the ‘etc’ represents I will never know). JAYAHN: www.generalsemantics.org is the place to begin. Some background at: www.philosphere.com/bois.html. There is a page of intro stuff at: www.generalsemantics.org/Education/gsdef.htm. RICHARD: I have accessed the pages you suggested to see what is offered. JAYAHN: I would be very interested in your unique and valuable perspective on General Semantics, which, according to Korzybski, is ‘not any ‘philosophy’, or ‘psychology’, or ‘logic’, in the ordinary sense. It is a new extensional discipline which explains and trains us how to use our nervous systems most efficiently’. RICHARD: I am all in favour of clarity in expression ... is there some aspect of ‘General Semantics’ which attracted your attention? Like how it has helped you ‘to use your nervous system most efficiently’, for example.
JAYAHN: Richard, have you come across the work of J. Samuel Bois and developed by Alfred Korzybski called General Semantics? RICHARD: Yes, I have come across it before ... and someone used their expertise in ‘General
Semantics’ about a year ago on another Mailing List and determined that I exhibited ‘a worldview that is beleaguered,
spiteful, presumptuous, condescending, reductive, etc’. (what the ‘etc’ represents I will never know). JAYAHN: Well; I read some of the correspondence you link to and certainly I would be inclined to agree with your correspondent. I tell you that, just in case that fact interests you. RICHARD: This is what is of interest to me: which part of what the respondent wrote is it that you are ‘inclined to agree with’? That is, are you ‘inclined to agree with’ what that person initially said (further above) based on their ‘General Semantics’ expertise ... or what that person said after some discussion with me? Viz.:
To explain: the respondent had not read anything at all of what I had actually written before writing their ‘General Semantics’ critique ... their assessment was made based upon an arbitrary list of words, selected ad hoc from various places throughout my millions of words, posted to the list by another respondent endeavouring to thus make the point that I was ‘argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering, repetitious and bullying’. This is what the ‘General Semantics’ respondent initially wrote in full:
I am providing these quotes here as you say that ‘I read some of the correspondence ...’ and it may very well be that you did not fully inform yourself, of all of what the ‘General Semantics’ correspondent had to say, by reading all that they had to write before coming to your conclusion ‘certainly I would be inclined to agree with your correspondent’. JAYAHN: I certainly do not argue with your freedom. I have met you in person and I enjoy your company. I also respect highly your autonomy. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that you live in Actual Freedom. I just affirm with your correspondent that from that freedom you communicate with others in a way that would suggest you hold your viewpoint as correct and thus definitive; and that therefore all other viewpoints are valid to the extent they agree with yours. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: I do not have a ‘viewpoint’ at all ... let alone ‘correct’ or ‘definitive’. Nothing I write or say about an actual freedom from the human condition is either a viewpoint or a mindset or a world-view or a philosophy or a metaphysics or a thesis and so on as all that I write is a description which comes out of my direct and spontaneous experiencing at this moment in time at this place in space ... my words are an ‘after the event’ report, as it were. Thus, loosely rephrasing your words, the actual freedom which I communicate with others is expressed in a way that clearly describes the actual and direct experiencing of being this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and this description is a factual account. That which is actual is neither ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’: it is evident. A fact cannot be argued with ... it can only be reported. For example, if I were to say ‘this is a computer monitor’ I am reporting a fact which cannot be argued with (without being silly). And when I say ‘this is a computer monitor’ no one tells me I am being ‘spiteful, presumptuous, condescending, reductive, etc.’. No way ... Richard is only ‘spiteful, presumptuous, condescending, reductive, etc.’ when he points out a fact that pulls the rug from under another’s elaborate belief system slyly dressed up as truth and masquerading as being genuine, authentic and valid. It is the fact which pulls the rug ... not me. JAYAHN: Which brings me to a question I have had arising for awhile. Richard, you claim to have no ego, and no ‘self’. How do you know that the situation is: there is no self in Richard; as distinct from the situation that Richard is not aware of Richard’s self? RICHARD: Apperception. * JAYAHN: I would be very interested in your unique and valuable perspective on General Semantics, which, according to Korzybski, is ‘not any ‘philosophy’, or ‘psychology’, or ‘logic’, in the ordinary sense. It is a new extensional discipline which explains and trains us how to use our nervous systems most efficiently’. RICHARD: I am all in favour of clarity in expression ... is there some aspect of ‘General Semantics’ which attracted your attention? JAYAHN: Yes; in particular it was one of the given definitions of General Semantics that caught my attention. ‘General semantics is the study of the relationship between words and people ...’. Robert Wanderer: www.generalsemantics.org/Education/gsdef.htm. It would seem to me that this email list is in essence an environment that relates words and people. As are all email lists. RICHARD: Words are, of course, mutually agreed upon sounds referring to or a description of people, things and events for the purpose of communication. An E-Mail list such as this one, then, is an avenue wherein people can communicate with each other globally and, by sharing their experience of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, thus further human knowledge and expertise. This knowledge and expertise may then be put to good use (as in ushering in peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body) ... which is what The Actual Freedom Mailing List is expressly set-up for. Those people who wish to study the relationship between these words and the people who read them may come to notice that there is at least three possible outcomes in the dynamics of the connection: a reactive effect, a responsive effect ... and action. I choose my words carefully and they are consciously designed for a specific effect: nothing I say is intended to produce a reactive effect ... all my words are sufficiently challenging to stimulate, motivate and initiate active investigation and responsive discussion. If someone reads them as being the reflection of a reactive personality – an identity – then the result they effect in themselves is a foregone conclusion: a reactive effect. This attitude (so well described by the respondent further above as ‘my disbelief of you or anyone claiming to be enlightened, or beyond, seems to have clouded my perception’), if held to their bosom tendentiously will preclude them from ever actually comprehending. I do recall writing to you before that my writing is not intended to stand literary scrutiny for scholarly style and form and content and so on – the academics would have a field-day with it – rather it is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant planet is. JAYAHN: Another definition also seems significant: ‘General semantics deals with our reactions to words, symbols, and to whatever happens to us; as distinguished from semantics, which deals with words and their meanings’. J. Samuel Bois. It is easy to overlook the fact that all we have in the space between us is an email list composed of words and that at each inbox there is a human sitting who reacts to the words. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never, ever overlook the fact that the words are written by a flesh and blood human being ... irregardless of whatever name, gender, age, place of birth or any other details which may or may not be factual. I only ever talk or write in order to communicate ... I do not talk because ‘I like the sound of my own voice’, as the saying goes (I never have an internal dialogue going on, for example, as I take perfection for granted). It is that the words are being typed by a fellow human being which is important. * RICHARD: Like how it has helped you ‘to use your nervous system most efficiently’, for example. JAYAHN: Ah. This bit I was genuinely hoping you had examined and were inclined to write more about. I do understand that your interest ranges into the role of the nervous system in enforcing confinement in the human condition; and I wondered whether the general semantics knowledge base had any relationship to what you are presenting; in your estimation. RICHARD: Sure ... if you could communicate how ‘General Semantics’ has helped you ‘to use your nervous system most efficiently’ I would be more than happy to read it. If what I then read accords with my experience we would have a mutual point of interest ... one which relates to an actual freedom from the human condition. Otherwise I would simply be doing ‘armchair philosophising’ for you.
JAYAHN: I have just brought online a new website – <www.actualfreedom.com> – on which I intend to publish my understanding of what it means to be free; and in particular my relationship with the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’. The vision I have for the new site is as if I were writing a book about the Actual Freedom ‘tried and tested way of being happy and harmless in the world as it actually is’ from a journalistic perspective. It is a perspective that I choose to take; in freedom. The site will grow over time. I wonder if my site – which represents my viewpoint – could have a link to it from the home page of the www.actualfreedom.com.au site. In the same block as the links to Richard’s personal collection and Peter and Vineeto’s personal collection would do fine. I suggest the following text: Jayahn’s Viewpoint: ‘The viewpoint that is ours, that is correct and true, may not be the only correct and true viewpoint. The willingness to look through 360 degrees and live accordingly is essential to freedom’. Latest Writing and Correspondence: www.actualfreedom.com. RICHARD: I am very pleased to take you up on your request – I appreciate your on-going interest and
exploration – and am only too happy to provide such a link. I can do more, however, than the little which you suggest. I have
already had such a request before and was delighted to set-up a ‘mini-web page’ for the express purpose of presenting that
person’s response to the words reporting my experience of peace-on-earth and how I got here. I took note, where you wrote ‘my relationship with the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’, that for you an actual freedom from the human condition is an entity or a method or a concept or a mindset or a viewpoint ... rather than the experiential, moment-by-moment, direct experience of the actual. Perhaps this explains why you quite rightly see me as not being ‘open-minded’ towards the multifarious philosophies (by whatever name) which abound in the ‘real world’. A philosophy (by whatever name) that does not deliver the goods in regards to peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body, is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am as open-minded towards them as I am to ‘Santa Claus’ and the ‘Tooth Fairy’. I also took note of what you wrote in your ‘Jayahn’s Viewpoint’: you do allow, although you hold your viewpoint to be ‘correct and true’, that it may not be. This is an excellent approach.
JAYAHN: I have just brought online a new website – <www.actualfreedom.com> – on which I intend to publish my understanding of what it means to be free; and in particular my relationship with the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’. The vision I have for the new site is as if I were writing a book about the Actual Freedom ‘tried and tested way of being happy and harmless in the world as it actually is’ from a journalistic perspective. It is a perspective that I choose to take; in freedom. The site will grow over time. I wonder if my site – which represents my viewpoint – could have a link to it from the home page of the www.actualfreedom.com.au site. In the same block as the links to Richard’s personal collection and Peter and Vineeto’s personal collection would do fine. I suggest the following text: Jayahn’s Viewpoint: ‘The viewpoint that is ours, that is correct and true, may not be the only correct and true viewpoint. The willingness to look through 360 degrees and live accordingly is essential to freedom’. Latest Writing and Correspondence www.actualfreedom.com RICHARD: I am very pleased to take you up on your request – I appreciate your on-going interest and exploration – and am only too happy to provide such a link. JAYAHN: Thank you; I would like you to do it as I suggested ... can you? As above? RICHARD: I have ... plus more than what you suggested. JAYAHN: I love doing the publishing. That is why I publish my point of view at actualfreedom.com. RICHARD: Okay ... and what I do is present facts and actuality. To each his own, eh? * RICHARD: I can do more, however, than the little which you suggest. JAYAHN: Well; thank you. Can I assume you mean you can do the little I request AND also do it the way that you see it could be done? RICHARD: Yes ... much more than the little you requested. I have set-up a ‘mini-web page’ just as I have before with another respondent. * RICHARD: I have already had such a request before and was delighted to set-up a ‘mini-web page’
for the express purpose of presenting that person’s response to the words reporting my experience of peace-on-earth and how I
got here. You may be inclined to access this URL and see for yourself. JAYAHN: I cannot access that link – I get an error message – but my internet connection has been erratic all day. I will look later and let you know if the words are to my liking. Thanks. RICHARD: Okay ... you are aware, of course, that I will not proceed to make a public link to the writing under your name on the ‘mini-web page’ I have set-up until I have your approval? * RICHARD: I took note, where you wrote ‘my relationship with the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’, that for you an actual freedom from the human condition is an entity or a method or a concept or a mindset or a viewpoint ... JAYAHN: No. I did not say that. RICHARD: Okay ... I always take words at their face value. JAYAHN: You seem to often assume that you know and the other does not and you read the words of the other accordingly. RICHARD: No, I read the words of the other at their face value. JAYAHN: Read what I said again. RICHARD: Okay ... I have. JAYAHN: I do not think you want to understand me. RICHARD: What you want to think is entirely up to you, of course. JAYAHN: And that is probably ok. Should I educate you? Do I have a responsibility to? RICHARD: Are you asking me or musing out aloud? JAYAHN: The entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’ I refer to is all the words and communication that is labelled ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: Yet there is no ‘entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’ other than what exists in your mind. JAYAHN: So I was referring to my relationship with all that you and The Actual Freedom Trust puts out in the name of actual freedom. Of course; actual freedom is not that. Of course. RICHARD: In that case, then what you are referring to is your relationship with two million words (at a guess) appearing as pixels on a screen ... and those words explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice. Not that you have read all the words, of course. JAYAHN: Of course; actual freedom is not that. Of course. RICHARD: Good ... I am glad we have cleared that up. * RICHARD: ... rather than the experiential, moment-by-moment, direct experience of the actual. JAYAHN: Obviously. Of course. I knew that is what I was saying; I am sorry that I did not communicate in a way that conveyed that to you. RICHARD: I am all in favour of clarity in expression, as is ‘General Semantics’ ... but we are discussing that topic in the other thread. JAYAHN: But I suspect at least in part it is the fault of your filters ... RICHARD: You may, of course, suspect whatever you wish. JAYAHN: ... the belief you have that you are somehow the only one who is actually free ... RICHARD: In all my years of travelling, talking with people, reading, watching media and now the internet I am yet to come across someone who experiences life as I do. Hence it is not a belief. JAYAHN: ... so everybody who writes to you is there to ‘explore’ and learn ... from you. RICHARD: A person would only wish to learn if they see value in what I write: it is the value which ensures that learning happens ... not me. JAYAHN: Well of course we all are here to learn and explore ... but some of us are fulfilled autonomously. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: Perhaps this explains why you quite rightly see me as not being ‘open-minded’ towards the multifarious philosophies (by whatever name) which abound in the ‘real world’. JAYAHN: You so often misunderstand ... I was not referring to you being not open-minded to the ‘multifarious philosophies’. I was referring to you being less than open minded when a real and actual breathing experiencing human writes to you. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? When a ‘real and actual breathing experiencing human’ writes to me, saying that they intend to publish their understanding of their relationship with ‘the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’, then I engage in a conversation designed to elucidate why they are busy turning two million words (at a guess) into an entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint in order to not only have a relationship with it ... but to also study ‘General Semantics’ so as to find out what the nature of their relationship is. To clarify: the only entity which exists is a legal entity named ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ ... created by an accountant in accord with the laws of this country. The only method offered is to run the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ until it becomes a non-verbal attitude or approach each moment again. As for the remainder of what you are busily having a relationship with – a concept or a mindset or a viewpoint – they do not exist outside of your mind. JAYAHN: You tend to make a lot of incorrect assumptions with that person – in this case me – then the person gets tired of exploring with you. RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? If you do not write to me informing me that you have set-up a web page in order to publish your understanding of the relationship you are having with the two million words (at a guess) which you experience as ‘the entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’ then I will not make what you call these ‘incorrect assumptions’ in the first place ... and then, maybe, you will not get tired of exploring with me. That is, exploring with me the issue of how malice and sorrow stand in the way of being happy and harmless. Which means: exploring with me the issue of why one nurses malice and sorrow to one’s bosom. Or, for example, exploring with me why someone would say, ‘I am human; I have love and hate’ and who then asks what makes me imagine they are any less in actual freedom than I am. JAYAHN: And you explain it to yourself and others as ‘ah ... another person without the fortitude to explore actual freedom’. RICHARD: No. JAYAHN: It is not the case ... they get sick of your assumptions, your closed-mind towards the actuality of the other person. RICHARD: Where is ‘the actuality of the other person’ who is busy telling me about the relationship they are having with something – which they hold to be ‘correct and true’ – that exists only in their own mind? JAYAHN: I am not a philosophy to be argued with ... RICHARD: Simple: do not present a philosophy to me and I will have nothing to argue with. JAYAHN: ... and negated and turned into an Actual Freedomer ... I don’t need that. RICHARD: There is no such thing as an ‘Actual Freedomer’ (whatever that is). JAYAHN: I prefer to be actually free. RICHARD: Good ... you have come to the appropriate Mailing List, then. * RICHARD: A philosophy (by whatever name) that does not deliver the goods in regards to peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body, is not worth the paper it is printed on. I am as open-minded towards them as I am to ‘Santa Claus’ and the ‘Tooth Fairy’. JAYAHN: EXACTLY. So perhaps it is time for you to re-examine the role of The Actual Freedom Trust. RICHARD: The legal entity, known officially as ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’, has one role and one role only: ‘To promulgate and promote the words and writings explicating the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice’. What is it that you would wish me to ‘re-examine’ about this role? JAYAHN: Note I am not saying it is time for you to re-examine your experiential, moment-by-moment, direct experience of the actual. RICHARD: Good. JAYAHN: Do you begin to hear me yet; or are your filters still in place? RICHARD: I have been hearing you all along. * RICHARD: I also took note of what you wrote in your ‘Jayahn’s Viewpoint’: you do allow, although you hold your viewpoint to be ‘correct and true’, that it may not be. This is an excellent approach. JAYAHN: Great you agree that that approach is excellent and thus by definition is yours. RICHARD: As I have remarked before in our other thread, I do not have a viewpoint in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition. In other areas where I do have opinions, make estimations, find it reasonable to presume and so on, I never hold it to be ‘true and correct’ in the first place ... for I am well aware that it is only a current appraisal until further investigation shows otherwise. Where I commented that ‘this is an excellent approach’ I was saying that to those who do hold that their viewpoint is ‘correct and true’ for they would be well-advised to allow that it may not be (which is what you are advising on your new web page). Therefore, to those that do, this is an excellent approach. JAYAHN: I am sure you would not settle on a less than excellent approach any more than I would. RICHARD: But I do not assume that any viewpoint is ‘correct and true’ in the first place ... it is so much easier.
A DIALOGUE WITH JAYAHN (Page Five) RETURN TO A REQUEST FROM JAYAHN SAWARD RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
