|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 105
RESPONDENT: It [the goal of being happy and harmless] seemed contrived because I thought the there was some effort involved, a working up of happiness in oneself ... RICHARD: If I may ask? What was it that occasioned you to think that [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] was involved when the actualism method is so remarkably simple in practice? For just one example:
RICHARD: I will re-post the operative words, which are just sitting there in plain view, in the section you snipped from the above response of mine: [Richard]: ‘In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Ok, forgive me, but I am bit confused. When you say ‘in the section you snipped from the above response of mine’ are you referring to this bit that I did not include: [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have my OWN commitment to integrity in this investigation, that depends not a whit upon yours. [Richard]: ‘If I may suggest? Sincerity is the key to unlock one’s innate naiveté, the nourishing of which is essential if the wondrous magic of life itself is to be apparent, which naiveté effortlessly provides the integrity you say you have your own commitment to. (...) I might add, though, that naïveté does away with all that ‘heavy lifting’ you spoke of in an earlier e-mail. Viz.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘From what I can glean so far, virtual freedom is a period of ‘heavy lifting’. [endquote]. Where you have gleaned this diaphoretic impression from has got me stumped ... here is but one of the many ways I describe the actualism practice: [quote]: ‘... the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events’. [endquote]. Or even more specifically to the point of your ‘heavy lifting’ comment: [Respondent No. 12]: ‘If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right? [Richard]: ‘Since when has naiveté been sudorific? [endquote]. In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’. [endquote]. Because that is very plain and I understand that. RICHARD: Just so there is no misapprehension: are you saying that you plainly understand there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived? RESPONDENT: In the examples I copied and pasted from the AF site, all of which I thought were written by Peter, speak of effort ... RICHARD: Aye ... yet nowhere do those examples speak of [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote], such as to occasion someone to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived, do they? RESPONDENT: ... and it is not clear to me why it takes effort as in: [quote] ‘but it does take ‘effort’, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote] and: [quote] ‘to suppose that one can become free of being a psychological and psychic ‘self’ without ‘mental effort’ does not make sense’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Yet is it clear to you that there is no [quote] ‘working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] involved in that effort such as to occasion you to think the goal of being happy and harmless seems contrived? RESPONDENT: When you say the exact opposite as in: [quote] ‘in short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again’ [endquote] is the ‘looking until it is again’ the effort that is referred to in the passages I copied? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to a section of the above text:
Then I will re-post the relevant part of the first of those quotes you provided:
Now, when Peter writes of it being [quote] ‘amazing that I now get up in the morning and take it for granted that I will again have a perfect day’ [endquote] do you reckon he is on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) or has he inadvertently wandered off the way? And when Peter writes of it having taken [quote] ‘effort, commitment, drive, ambition, stubbornness and sheer will power to get there’ [endquote], whenever he needed them, do you reckon he was writing about what it took, on occasion, to get back on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (a path marked by enjoyment and appreciation) after having inadvertently wandered off the way or is he writing about what it takes to stay on that path marked by enjoyment and appreciation (the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’)? There is no need to answer ... these are rhetorical questions designed solely to draw attention to what is patently obvious (once seen). * RICHARD: Furthermore, what Peter is saying in those quotes which you have provided is a far cry from [quote] ‘attempting to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘making an effort to be here now’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘trying to force ones self to be happy and harmless’ [endquote] is it not? RESPONDENT: Ok but you did not explain specifically what he does mean by that. RICHARD: I will say this much: he does not mean that [quote] ‘a working up of happiness in oneself’ [endquote] is involved. RESPONDENT: I realize I can ask him, but I figure you guys are on the same page since he is writing on your site. RICHARD: It is not my site ... my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site is clearly indicated on the homepage under the linked title ‘The Third Alternative’. Viz.:
Thus any page with my name in the URL is by me. Peter’s and Vineeto’s portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site is also clearly indicated on that homepage ... under the linked title ‘Actualism’. Viz.:
Thus any page with the word actualism in the URL is by either Peter or Vineeto; if that URL also has Peter’s name it is exclusively by him; if that URL also has Vineeto’s name it is exclusively by her. There is also a link to a library/ glossary which is written, compiled and arranged solely by Peter and Vineeto, on that same homepage. Viz.:
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:
RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a
regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire
e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress).
Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in
deflecting attention away from itself. (...) CO-RESPONDENT: Sounds like they [epidemiologists] are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body. RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended). CO-RESPONDENT: Why is it you say that it isn’t? RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body
there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity). RESPONDENT: Richard, are you saying exercise is not needed to reduce emotional stress in the actual world ... RICHARD: No, I am not saying that. RESPONDENT: ... or that it is not needed to keep a healthy body? RICHARD: No, I am not saying that, either.
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:
RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress). Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself. (...) CO-RESPONDENT: Sounds like they [epidemiologists] are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body. RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended). CO-RESPONDENT: Why is it you say that it isn’t? RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body
there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity). RESPONDENT: Richard, are you saying exercise is not needed to reduce emotional stress in the actual world ... RICHARD: No, I am not saying that. RESPONDENT: ... or that it is not needed to keep a healthy body? RICHARD: No, I am not saying that, either. RESPONDENT: Wow, thanks for the clarification. RICHARD: You are very welcome. RESPONDENT: I think maybe No. 74 is on to something. RICHARD: Oh? And what do you think that something may be? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you will understand what I was getting at if you read No. 74’s message. RICHARD: Just what is it, which you did not include in your two-choice question above, that you want me to understand?
(...) RICHARD (to Co-Respondent): I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote] that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body ... RESPONDENT: When you say particular body, you mean no science study has proven that R.E. is good for each and every individual? RICHARD: As all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments, which statistical associations
cannot be used to establish causation in any individual RESPONDENT: Do you believe that there is good scientific evidence for global warming? RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to anthropogenic global warming (and not geological global warming) you may find the following informative:
What I did find, however, was that in 1900 Mr. Knut Ångström * RESPONDENT: Also, when you talk about finding out what caused our emotions, how can we be sure that we are not creating a just so story? RICHARD: By pin-pointing the moment one ceased feeling good. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: When an emotion is too overwhelming it must be looked at later and that is no good. RICHARD: It is never too late to get back to feeling good (no matter what the event may have been which occasioned those felicitous/innocuous feelings to cease). RESPONDENT: Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable for the fact that we remember incorrectly or fabricate unknowingly. RICHARD: Are you making a general observation or is it your experience that you remember incorrectly/unknowingly fabricate what occasioned you to cease feeling good? RESPONDENT: In other words how do you avoid self deception? RICHARD: By being scrupulously honest with oneself.
RESPONDENT: Do you believe that there is good scientific evidence for global warming? RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to anthropogenic global warming (and not geological global warming) you may find the following informative:
What I did find, however, was that in 1900 Mr. Knut Ångström (...) RICHARD (to Respondent No. 23): As that [sixteen clinically depressed geriatrics undertaking a remedial weight-lifting regimen three times a week for ten weeks] is an example of scientific evidence it is no wonder (modern) science is in the parlous state it is. RESPONDENT: I have also found no evidence of human causes driving global warming after looking closer at the evidence. Why then do the majority of scientists endorse this view? RICHARD: As it is questionable both whether there is any global warming and whether a majority of scientists do endorse the view that humans are the effectors it would be better to respond generally ... to wit: more than a little of modern science could be categorised as being opinion-based ‘science’ (rather than evidence-based science). RESPONDENT: Maybe I am getting way too far outside the scope of this message board but given the discussion about what is real science and what is distortion, do you think there is any validity to the claims that the World Trade Towers including building 7 could not have fallen due to structural fire in such a rapid and neat manner without explosives being used that were already planted in the buildings. Also consider almost everyone interviewed mentions hearing explosions just before the collapse. I guess the whole science, global warming, oil-wars stuff got me on this subject. Just curious what you think. RICHARD: As I have not looked into that claim (nor am I likely to) I am in no position to comment. In regards to verification (as in your ‘what is real science and what is distortion’ phrasing): one of the problems with science today is that, as there are over 100,000 scientific journals published each year, containing more than 6,000,000 articles, no single person can ever even read them all ... let alone make sense of them (no single person could possibly have cross-disciplinal expertise in all areas of scientific research as there are over 1,000 areas of specialised study). This era is truly the age of information overload.
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ [endquote]. How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began:
How can a non-feeling awareness of/a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? RESPONDENT: Unbiased observation would be: [Richard]: ‘Attentiveness gets not infatuated with the good feelings nor sidesteps the bad as attentiveness is a non-feeling awareness; a sensuous attention’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Exactly. Just as a matter of associated interest ... why did you entitle this e-mail of yours [quote] ‘exit ism’ [endquote]?
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ [endquote]. How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began:
How can a non-feeling awareness of/a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? RESPONDENT: This is what the inquiry which you obtained that quote from was actually asking: If one gives attentiveness to what pulled one away from feeling good as in this quote from your Rock ... RICHARD: As I do not have a ‘Rock’ (whatever that may be) perhaps you might be inclined to write whatever it is you are wanting to convey in a way that makes sense? * RICHARD: Just as a matter of associated interest ... why did you entitle this e-mail of yours [quote] ‘exit ism’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: I don’t know what I will do with AF, I am still trying to understand it and me and the world but in the moment of writing that message and questioning your: distinctive doctrine, system, theory, etc., in short, investigating your ism ... RICHARD: As I neither have a doctrine * RESPONDENT: But to give credit where credit is due I was playing on Carlyle’s words: ‘If I had my way’, said Thomas Carlyle, ‘the world would hear a pretty stern command – Exit Christ’. RICHARD: As Mr. Thomas Carlyle was quite obviously ignorant of what I have to report/ describe/ explain it may be to your advantage to either take an aspirin, and have a good lie-down, or read what I have to report/ describe/ explain with both eyes open before reaching for your keyboard again.
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ [endquote]. How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began:
How can a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? RESPONDENT: This is what the inquiry which you obtained that quote from was actually asking: If one gives attentiveness to what pulled one away from feeling good as in this quote from your Rock ... RICHARD: As I do not have a ‘Rock’ (whatever that may be) perhaps you might be inclined to write whatever it is you are wanting to convey in a way that makes sense? RESPONDENT: Funny how one word left you unable to make sense of my entire second message. RICHARD: Indeed it is but, then again, that is what comes of making an inane word-association with what is purely happenstance – the (obviously unsolicited) name a person is assigned at birth – which is so puerile it eluded my notice the first time around ... the following has come to my attention since my previous e-mail:
As for making sense of your [quote] ‘entire second message’ [endquote] ... when the above is taken in conjunction with the following a rather inescapable impression is conveyed:
‘Tis no wonder that feeling of being released from the grip of what you have turned actualism into (a religious cult) was short-lived for here is what the word finish means in that context:
Whereas this is what the word exit generally means:
Or, in the context you give it vis-à-vis Mr. Thomas Carlyle’s words, it usually means this:
Needless is it to add that, as neither is Richard a saviour nor is Peter having a religious community/ society built upon him, the actors which briefly departed that stage of yours exist only in your imaginative/ intuitive facility? RESPONDENT: Evasion is what that is called sir. RICHARD: You may as well drop that ‘sir’ affectation as one thing is for sure ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti you ain’t. * RICHARD: Just as a matter of associated interest ... why did you entitle this e-mail of yours [quote] ‘exit ism’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: I don’t know what I will do with AF, I am still trying to understand it and me and the world but in the moment of writing that message and questioning your: distinctive doctrine, system, theory, etc., in short, investigating your ism ... RICHARD: As I neither have a doctrine, etcetera, nor an ism perhaps you might be inclined to write whatever it is you are wanting to convey in a way that makes sense? RESPONDENT: Hmm? Here is the definition of ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. Which is what I wrote. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... the mere fact of writing something does not miraculously turn it into a fact, however. RESPONDENT: Ism, you know as in actulISM. RICHARD: It is no such thing ... the following is:
As contrasted to this:
You are not the first and, given the endemic nature of the human condition, you will probably not be the last to try and score a cheap point out the word actualism. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: But to give credit where credit is due I was playing on Carlyle’s words: ‘If I had my way’, said Thomas Carlyle, ‘the world would hear a pretty stern command – Exit Christ’. RICHARD: As Mr. Thomas Carlyle was quite obviously ignorant of what I have to report/ describe/ explain ... RESPONDENT: Well it is not all about you now is it? RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is about what I have to report/ describe/ explain (nowadays known as actualism). Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, the following is self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: After all you agree with me that the meaning of the word Ism had nothing to do with the meat of my question ... RICHARD: On the contrary, that (pejorative) meaning, along with your (imaginary) role-ascription, is the very meat of your question. RESPONDENT: ... your exact words were: ‘Just as a matter of associated interest ... why did you entitle this e-mail of yours [quote] ‘exit ism’ [endquote]?’ See right there, just a matter of associated interest that had nothing to do with anything at all. RICHARD: Ha ... try this on for size and see how it fits:
And, just to make it easy for you to do so, here are your very own words again:
RESPONDENT: I’m glad you see it my way. RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that the more you wriggle the longer you stand still (make no progress)? * RICHARD: ... [As Mr. Thomas Carlyle was quite obviously ignorant of what I have to report/ describe/ explain] it may be to your advantage to either take an aspirin, and have a good lie-down, or read what I have to report/ describe/ explain with both eyes open before reaching for your keyboard again. RESPONDENT: Why do I need to go lie down or take an aspirin because you can’t make sense of a matter of associated interest to you? RICHARD: As I never said that was because I could not make sense of your word-play/ word-association (I make it abundantly clear it is because Mr. Thomas Carlyle was quite obviously ignorant of what I have to report/ describe/ explain) your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: You make no sense. RICHARD: I am only too happy to spell it out: if you were to try reading what I have to report/ describe/ explain with both eyes open before reaching for your keyboard again you may very well find there is no longer any need to do that (reach for your keyboard).
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ [endquote]. How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began:
How can a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? (...) RESPONDENT: This question has totally gone off track. RICHARD: It never was on track in the first place (as was made obvious further above). RESPONDENT: I admit my throwing in words that had nothing to do with anything did not help ... RICHARD: Your entire e-mail exchange is a fund of valuable information (if you ever choose to do something substantial about the human condition, that is). RESPONDENT: ... so let me start over. Below is my original question. RICHARD: As it is already at the top of this page (just where it has been, complete with its answer, all the while) there was no need to re-present it. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to score points. RICHARD: In which case I would suggest you refrain from interchanging what another wrote, about getting back to feeling good as soon as possible (so as to begin to revel in feeling good/ to start to wallow in feeling excellent in order to switch over to marvelling at the wonder of it all), with what I wrote about what is involved in having an actual freedom from the human condition come about. Just so there is no misunderstanding: only somebody actually free from the human condition has the expertise/ the authority to thus speak knowledgably of what is involved in having same come about (just as only someone virtually free has the expertise/ the authority to speak knowledgably about that) and to expect someone not yet actually free to speak in that manner (experientially) is the height of absurdity. RESPONDENT: I really want an answer. RICHARD: I am none too sure how to put it any other way yet, nevertheless, I will have a go: a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to both the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and the feelings arising one after the other is in no way a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation as it is an observation with a bias towards peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body ... indeed, that is the express intent clearly detailed in the article (‘Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness’) which you obtained that quote of mine from. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Evasion is what that [being unable to make sense of my entire second message] is called sir. RICHARD: You may as well drop that ‘sir’ affectation as one thing is for sure ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti you ain’t. RESPONDENT: The actor which thinks he is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti exist only in your imaginative/ intuitive facility. RICHARD: As I have no imaginative/ intuitive facility I will draw your attention to the following (from further above):
RESPONDENT: I said in another message that he clearly teaches a dissociative awareness, something I want nothing to do with ... RICHARD: You have also said this (amongst other items complimentary):
RESPONDENT: ... I don’t know why anyone would want to imitate him or anyone else. RICHARD: Oh, it is not the first occasion one of his readers, having imitated that distinctive mannerism of his, has tried it out on me ... for instance:
Here is another:
RESPONDENT: You act as though Krishnamurti invented the word sir. RICHARD: As that is a nothing but a large and wildly-flapping red herring I will again draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: It simply popped into my mind ... RICHARD: Given what you have said in the above quote (and in other items complimentary) it is not at all surprising that affectation simply popped into your mind. RESPONDENT: ... while the mannerisms of a dead Indian God-man were the furthest things from my mind. Here are some examples if you don’t believe me: [snip quotes from Mr. Arthur Miller, Mr. William Easttom, Mr. James Barrie and Mr. Caleb Cushing] ... RICHARD: As you have not previously referred to anything those persons wrote (in stark contrast to both the above quote and other items complimentary) their independent usage of that mode of address is irrelevant. RESPONDENT: If you think that using the word sir is pretentious that is one thing but the idea that I was taking Krishnamurti’s words specifically is from your imagination and nowhere else. RICHARD: As I have no imagination I will again draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: Or perhaps you were not aware that anyone else has ever used the word sir? RICHARD: Hmm ... to paraphrase Mr. William Shakespeare: the gent doth protest too much, methinks.
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ [endquote]. How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began:
How can a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? (...) RESPONDENT: This question has totally gone off track. RICHARD: It never was on track in the first place (as was made obvious further above). RESPONDENT: I admit my throwing in words that had nothing to do with anything did not help ... RICHARD: Your entire e-mail exchange is a fund of valuable information (if you ever choose to do something substantial about the human condition, that is). RESPONDENT: ... so let me start over. Below is my original question. RICHARD: As it is already at the top of this page (just where it has been, complete with its answer, all the while) there was no need to re-present it. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to score points. RICHARD: In which case I would suggest you refrain from interchanging what another wrote, about getting back to feeling good as soon as possible (so as to begin to revel in feeling good/ to start to wallow in feeling excellent in order to switch over to marvelling at the wonder of it all), with what I wrote about what is involved in having an actual freedom from the human condition come about. Just so there is no misunderstanding: only somebody actually free from the human condition has the expertise/ the authority to thus speak knowledgably of what is involved in having same come about (just as only someone virtually free has the expertise/ the authority to speak knowledgably about that) and to expect someone not yet actually free to speak in that manner (experientially) is the height of absurdity. RESPONDENT: I really want an answer. RICHARD: I am none too sure how to put it any other way yet, nevertheless, I will have a go: a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to both the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and the feelings arising one after the other is in no way a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation as it is an observation with a bias towards peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body ... indeed, that is the express intent clearly detailed in the article (‘Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness’) which you obtained that quote of mine from. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: (...) I want no answers from you. RICHARD: As all you have done is ask a cooked-up question – after first concocting a discrepancy – that is not at all surprising. RESPONDENT: You are a waste of my valuable time. RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘valuable time’ [endquote] has so far been taken up with (a) concocting a
discrepancy and (b) cooking-up a question and (c) ignoring my immediate and to-the-point answer and (d) therefore falsely accusing
me of being evasive and (e) trying to score a cheap point out of the word actualism having the suffix ‘-ism’ and (f) turning
actualism into a religious cult and (g) having a feeling of being released from its grip (albeit short-lived) by substituting the
word exit for the word finish in some words of mine and (h) likening those words of mine to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s
all-or-nothing approach RESPONDENT: It is obvious to more than one or two or even three what you are pulling here. All words no substance. You can’t live it and neither can anyone else. It is scary that someone can completely loose the capacity to admit error. Good day Sir. RICHARD: And thus – by granting yourself that oh-so-convenient way out (‘and neither can anyone else’) – does all the anguish and animosity which epitomises the human condition go on unabated. Ah well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT: [...] Peter: When I feel happy – that’s good, when I am excellent – that’s excellent, I enjoy it a much as possible. When an issue, a feeling or an emotion surfaces, then I investigate them in order to get back to being happy as quickly as possible. [...] RICHARD:
https://www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/list-af/alan-f.htm#24.7.2000
CO-RESPONDENT: (...) How is the method best done – should I examine the feeling and find its trigger while experiencing it, in order to get back to feeling good? RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an intellectual/ abstractional-type person then ... yes. CO-RESPONDENT: Or should I get back to feeling good and then figure out why I last felt less-than-good? RICHARD: If you have a tendency towards being an emotional/ passional-type person then ... yes. (...) RESPONDENT: And why would this very important piece of the puzzle not be on the site in such simple straight forward words? RICHARD: The problem with loaded questions is that they cannot be answered simply ... whereas this, for example, can be:
It is. Viz.: And, more to the point, that clarifying response was posted a mere five days after the following was answered point-by-point (including a yet-to-be-answered illuminative query) for your edification:
As your next e-mail (posted eight days after that clarifying response and a scant two weeks before you launched your he-said/ she-said campaign) was about a conspiracy theory with a domestic left-wing political agenda then doing the rounds of the internet you would again be well-advised to either take an aspirin, and have a good lie-down, or read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open before reaching for your keyboard again. And in case that be taken as a facetious comment ... your first two e-mails to this mailing list (entitled
respectively ‘Actualist eat puppies’ and ‘Actualist repel puppies’), being based as they were upon misconstrual/
misrepresentation/ misinformation, clearly showed right from the very beginning just what your modus operandi RESPONDENT: It is all so simple there in the actual world ain’t it? RICHARD: As for you a fact is really an unrecalled maybe with, however, surety about what happened
therein Continued on Direct Route: No. 24
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX 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 |
