Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 115


May 04 2006

RESPONDENT: Why does the PCE happen?

RICHARD: A pure consciousness experience (PCE) happens because the identity, being an illusion/ delusion, cannot always sustain its dominance over actuality.

RESPONDENT: Is it a glitch in the matrix?

RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to an in utero defect – ‘matrix: the uterus, the womb; a place or medium in which something is bred ...’ (Oxford Dictionary) – it is handy to bear in mind that virtually everybody, no matter what age, gender or race, has experienced such moments of perfection at some stage in their life ... usually most often in childhood.

May 10 2006

RESPONDENT: I feel that I am a highly sophisticated and analytical intellectual. Any ideas regarding how I can get in touch with what has been termed as 'naiveté’?

RICHARD: In a word: sincerity.

Copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at Google:

the key to unlocking naiveté site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/

Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 16 hits.

RESPONDENT: Is it a feeling state of mind? Or is it an attitude and a way of looking at the world?

RICHARD: It is a state of wide-eyed wonder ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, I have read this definition of naiveté earlier on AF site, but could never really understand it. You define it as ‘the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’’. But what is this ‘innocence’ one can have whilst being a ‘self’.
• [Richard]: ‘It is the nearest a ‘self’ can have to innocence ... innocence is when the ‘self’ is no longer in existence.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can you please describe it the way you describe your AF experience.
• [Richard]: ‘In a nutshell it is where one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder ... simply marvelling at it all. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish ... it is like being a child again, but with adult sensibilities, which means that one can separate out the distinction between being naďve and being gullible.
Some synonyms of naiveté are: guileless, artless, simple, ingenuous, innocuous, unsophisticated, artless, frank, open.
What ensues when one walks through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement – simply marvelling at the magnificence that this physical universe actually is – is a blitheness (being carefree, happy, merry, amiable and so on) and a gaiety (jollity, joviality, cheeriness, delight, fun, and so on) as the inevitable result ... cynicism can no longer get a look-in.
One can easily enter into the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant and azure earth actually is’.

May 10 2006

CO-RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?

RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/ fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.

Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation.

(...)

RESPONDENT: How do you discover/ know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)?

RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male.

May 11 2006

RESPONDENT: I feel that I am a highly sophisticated and analytical intellectual. Any ideas regarding how I can get in touch with what has been termed as ‘naiveté’?

RICHARD: In a word: sincerity. Copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at Google: [the key to unlocking naiveté site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/]. Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 16 hits.

RESPONDENT: I did; thanks.

RICHARD: If you were to reach down deep within yourself, way past the more superficial emotions and even further than the deeper passions where you intuitively feel yourself to be as your essence (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being or ‘being’ itself), you may possibly come upon naiveté quite readily ... it is where you are intimately likeable.

Physically, it is locatable just below that feeling of ‘being’ (typically four-fingers width below the navel) and just above your sexuality (at the top of the pubic area).

RESPONDENT: I have some follow up questions. You say: [quote] ‘... only naďveté entertains the notion that not only is peace-on-earth possible, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, but that it is already always existing (meaning it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-naivete.htm]. What is peace-on-earth is already always existing?

RICHARD: It is another way of saying it exists eternally (never beginning/never ending).

RESPONDENT: What does peace on earth mean?

RICHARD: It means a physical, or corporeal, peace (as distinct from a metaphysical, or incorporeal, peace).

RESPONDENT: What kind of peace?

RICHARD: It is not only both a personal peace (as in calmness, tranquillity, serenity, and so on) and an interpersonal peace (as in harmony, amity, cordiality, and so forth) but the ultimate peace of having attained to one’s destiny (as in fulfilment, satisfaction, contentment, and so on) whereupon the meaning of life lies open all about ... complete with an utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/incomprehensible and unimaginable/unbelievable to any identity whatsoever.

There is a vast stillness here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: How is it equivalent to saying ‘it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be’?

RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment?

*

RESPONDENT: Is it a feeling state of mind? Or is it an attitude and a way of looking at the world?

RICHARD: It is a state of wide-eyed wonder ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, I have read this definition of naiveté earlier on AF site, but could never really understand it. You define it as ‘the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’’. But what is this ‘innocence’ one can have whilst being a ‘self’.
• [Richard]: ‘It is the nearest a ‘self’ can have to innocence ... innocence is when the ‘self’ is no longer in existence.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can you please describe it the way you describe your AF experience.
• [Richard]: ‘In a nutshell it is where one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder ... simply marvelling at it all. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish ... it is like being a child again, but with adult sensibilities, which means that one can separate out the distinction between being naďve and being gullible.
Some synonyms of naiveté are: guileless, artless, simple, ingenuous, innocuous, unsophisticated, artless, frank, open.
What ensues when one walks through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement – simply marvelling at the magnificence that this physical universe actually is – is a blitheness (being carefree, happy, merry, amiable and so on) and a gaiety (jollity, joviality, cheeriness, delight, fun, and so on) as the inevitable result ... cynicism can no longer get a look-in.
One can easily enter into the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant and azure earth actually is’.

RESPONDENT: I get it to some extent; but as naiveté is a state of the identity, is it an affective state?

RICHARD: Yes ... a happy and harmless state.

RESPONDENT: A felicitous feeling?

RICHARD: It is a felicitous/ innocuous feeling-state.

*

RESPONDENT: Also, can you help me in remembering any PCE that I had?

RICHARD: As a generalisation, pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are more prevalent in childhood and the memory is tucked away in an area of the brain not normally accessed. Because a PCE has no emotional/ passional qualities whatsoever – there is no affective being present to record the memory in its affective memory banks – it cannot be remembered in the normal way (reverie, reminiscence, nostalgia, and so on).

Also, ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’.

Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things such as washing the dishes (for instance) and can be quite brief ... I can recall being on a farmhouse veranda at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.

Often in my early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening.

They were the pre-school years: soon such experiences would occur of a weekend ... so much so that I would later on call them ‘Saturday Morning’ experiences where, contrary to having to be dragged out of bed during the week, I would be up and about at first light, traipsing through the fields and the forests with the early morning rays of sunshine dancing their magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; where kookaburras are echoing their laughing-like calls to one another and magpies are warbling their liquid sounds; where an abundance of aromas and scents are drifting fragrantly all about; where every pore of the skin is being caressed by the friendly ambience of the balmy air; where benevolence and benignity streams endlessly bathing all in its impeccable integrity.

This magical world is what occasions me to write like this:

• [Richard]: ‘When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful and rapturous ‘States Of Being’ ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble.
It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent – as a physical actuality. The limpid and lucid purity and perfection of actually being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent bead of moisture with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with at length has experienced this impeccable integrity and excellence in some way or another at varying stages in their life.
This preciosity is what one is as-one-is – me as I am in actuality as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ am in reality – for one is the universe’s experience of itself’.

RESPONDENT: Can you give me some good pointers and questions and help/assist me with your expertise on human condition to uncover any such pure experience I had?

RICHARD: Have you ever thought that there must be more to life than currently experienced (the everyday norm in which maybe 6.0 billion peoples live)?

RESPONDENT: I shall read more about this and co-operate with you sincerely if you have the time/ inclination to do so.

RICHARD: It can only be to your benefit to interact sincerely ... I simply take people as they come and respond accordingly.

May 11 2006

CO-RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?

RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/ fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.

Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation. (...)

RESPONDENT: How do you discover/ know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)?

RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) ...

RESPONDENT: It is interesting that you say ‘regardless of genitalia’.

RICHARD: I am, of course, referring to well-documented reports by transsexuals (who experience themselves as being the other gender to what their genitals signify).

RESPONDENT: What constitutes such an experience if not an affective feeling of ‘maleness’ or a ‘male identity’ or a ‘manliness’?

RICHARD: It is an innate sensory experiencing of the gender set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception).

RESPONDENT: Can you provide some further explanation/ details on the nature of this experience?

RICHARD: It is not all that dissimilar to, say, experiencing oneself as being of a certain height.

*

RICHARD: ... in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ...

RESPONDENT: Again the same question. What is the nature of this receptivity if neither an instinctual urge/desire/affective feeling of tenderness etc. nor a preference?

RICHARD: Again the same answer: it is an innate sensory experiencing of the sexual orientation set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception).

*

RICHARD: ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if your sexual orientation was otherwise it would have shown up as something even during all those days you were experiencing life as an identity (under the influence of instincts and cultural programming)?

RICHARD: In effect ... yes. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity ...’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘... the point I am making is that sexual orientation is not a product of identity (I only gave the ‘other animals’ example so that you would not have to take my word for it).

RESPONDENT: Do you see any relationship between the orientation of raw instinctual desire (if it can ever be seen without the overlaying cultural program) and the sexual orientation?

RICHARD: Yes, the one follows the other ... the former impulsively/ compulsively energises the latter.

RESPONDENT: As an identity did you affectively experience any repulsion for the idea of physical closeness/sexual act with men?

RICHARD: Not that I can recall (at least not of any significance) but by being born and raised in the ‘forties and the ‘fifties there was, of course, a culturally-induced disdain ... a deprecation which did not become apparent, curiously enough, until married and whilst serving in the military.

RESPONDENT: Certainly not a desire, right? (from what you say).

RICHARD: No, not at all ... the identity in residence never had any doubts/ any confusion about either gender or sexual orientation (even at pubescence when there was some minor same-sex experimentation).

May 12 2006

RESPONDENT: What causes the death (of the ego; of the soul)?

RICHARD: In a word: altruism.

RESPONDENT: Is it a physical event? Part of the cause & effect universe?

RICHARD: The following (from the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) should be self-explanatory:

• [Richard]: ‘The day finally dawns where the definitive moment of being here, right now, conclusively arrives; something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending.
‘My’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. I have always been here, I realise, it was that ‘I’ only imagined that ‘I’ existed. It was all an emotional play in a fertile imagination ... which was, however, fuelled by an actual hormonal substance triggered off from within the brain-stem because of the instinctual passions bestowed by blind nature. Thus the psyche – the entire affective faculty born of the instincts itself – is wiped out forever and one is finally what one actually is: this thinking and reflective flesh-and-blood body simply brimming with sense organs, delighting in this very sensual world of actual experience’.

RESPONDENT: What was your last thought/ feeling before the events?

RICHARD: I was musing idly upon the irony that the change in human needs regarding physical survival had wrought such radical transformation in the attitudes toward the environment during the forty five years I had been upon this planet. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... in the late afternoon of the day before Friday the thirtieth of October 1992, whilst out in an abandoned cow-paddock planting tree seedlings, I was struck by the curious fact that at the beginning of my life I had been engaged in chopping down trees to turn the land into cow-pasture. Now the needs of the situation were sharply reversed and so I paused in my task and stood erect, looking about me in this little sub-tropical valley that the ex-dairy farm was nestled in. As I looked I idly mused upon the irony that the change in human needs regarding physical survival had wrought such radical transformation in the attitudes toward the environment during the forty five years I had been upon this planet. In a flash of a moment a vast understanding of the enormity of the Human Condition transfigured my comfortable comprehension of what it was to be an Enlightened Master ... a Self-Realised Being. My entire affective and cognitive configuration – my highly prized state of awareness – was seen at a glance to be nothing more than a passionate mental construct. In other words, my world fell apart’.

June 10 2006

RESPONDENT: Does anybody else describe ‘Enlightenment’ as a turning over in the brain stem?

RICHARD: I have not read of anybody else using that description.

RESPONDENT: Can one feel other’s feelings?

RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being.

RESPONDENT: Thoughts?

RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being with developed psychic abilities.

RESPONDENT: From a distance?

RICHARD: In the first instance ... yes, from a near-distance; in the latter instance ... yes, from a far-distance.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by saying ‘all beings are connected’?

RICHARD: I mean what I say ... for example:

• [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)’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘... a normal person does not have an ‘I’ (or have a ‘me’) as they are an ‘I’ (or are a ‘me’) ... and ‘I’ exist inside the body only because all human beings are genetically endowed at conception with a package of instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which gives rise to emotions (such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) and this emotional and passional package is ‘me’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). And irregardless of whether ‘I’, who am the emotional and passional impulses, persuade the body to physically act or not ‘I’ involuntarily transmit emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore ‘I’ am not harmless even when ‘I’ refrain from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution. (...) There is nothing that can stop other sentient beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence. For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that charismatic leaders ride to power on such ‘energies’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘It is not just the emotional/ passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but, more insidiously, the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/ affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) irregardless of conscious intent. There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in psychic powers)’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘A question to Richard: What about this psychic web? It seems at odds with the here and now down to earth stuff. Especially when it refers to ‘vibes’ between people who are present. I was taught in psychology classes that the verbal message is only 20 percent of the message, the rest being expression and body language. (...)
• [Richard]: ‘Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this 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 clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So I understand this to mean that the psychic web is something in the real world as opposed to the actual world and as such has no actual existence outside imagination.
• [Richard]: ‘It has no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/ intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/ unnoticed.
Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays’.

June 16 2006

RESPONDENT: Does anybody else describe ‘Enlightenment’ as a turning over in the brain stem?

RICHARD: I have not read of anybody else using that description.

RESPONDENT: If that is the case, is it possible that your experience of it and other’s experience can be of different quality, though described with similar words?

RICHARD: The experience of something turning over in the base of the brain/ in the top of the brain-stem in 1981 was for me a feature of becoming actually free from the human condition, not of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment per se, and had the identity in residence back then known what is known nowadays ‘he’ would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening ... by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years).

*

RESPONDENT: Can one feel other’s feelings?

RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being.

RESPONDENT: Thoughts?

RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being with developed psychic abilities.

RESPONDENT: From a distance?

RICHARD: In the first instance ... yes, from a near-distance; in the latter instance ... yes, from a far-distance.

RESPONDENT: In that case is it not that the ‘connection’ is actual?

RICHARD: As the connection is between feeling beings – affective entities within bodies – it is not actual (in the sense that bodies, trees and rocks, are actual) but is quite real (in the sense that the affections, the affective entity and the psychic abilities formed thereof, are real) nevertheless.

RESPONDENT: If somebody can feel the thoughts and feelings of the other from a far distance, does it not mean that there is some kind of ‘actual’ transmission or connection going on?

RICHARD: There is an affective/ psychic transmission/ connection going on ... but only between the feeling beings within bodies (there is no such thing going on between bodies).

RESPONDENT: With advancement in sciences a machine could do the same in the future?

RICHARD: As a machine that could not only affectively feel a feeling being’s feelings/ psychically intuit a feeling being’s thoughts but could also affectively/ psychically radiate/ transmit its own feelings/ thoughts to feeling/ psychic beings would be a machine like no other machine either currently existing or even on the drawing boards then such a question more properly pertains to the sci-fi genre than advancement in science.

September 01 2006

RESPONDENT No. 74: I went back to the original message: [... snip ...] Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No. 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else.

CO-RESPONDENT: No. 74, this is well said imo. Thank you for the courage to stand up to this hypocrisy. I have spoken up before but was beat down and gave up.

RICHARD: No. 23, the difference between you and Vineeto is that when she speaks up she does not give up, when others seek to beat her down, as only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will do the trick. She has already written (to No. 27) that she is fascinated to find if there is an exception to her ‘without exception’ generalisation ... and, by the way, so am I. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘One will never become free by sitting in a deck-chair on the patio and waiting for the ‘Grace of God’ to descend’.

Incidentally, did you notice the sweeping generalisation in the midst of the last paragraph of this e-mail you responded to (the sentence with the colon in it)? If so, then why are you not jumping upon that author, from some great height, just as you did Vineeto (back when you last had moral support)? And even further to the subject of hypocrisy ... why is nobody jumping upon your sweeping generalisation (as in ‘only an ego needs to defend its words’), eh?

P.S.: So as to pre-empt the obvious rejoinder: nowhere has it ever been said that a virtual freedom (or an actual freedom) obviates one from making sweeping generalisations.

RESPONDENT: It is a pity that you don’t follow No. 60’s line of argument, be it trivial, not central to the argument or whatever...

RICHARD: I already have ... here: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913275360

RESPONDENT: ... and No. 74’s mail:  http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913288566&sort=a&start=14603

RICHARD: I have already addressed the crux of that [quote] ‘line of argument’ [endquote] in this e-mail you are responding to ... to wit: Vineeto has already written (to No. 27) that she is fascinated to find if there is an exception to her ‘without exception’ generalisation.

In other words, only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will do the trick.

September 02 2006

RESPONDENT: It is a pity that you don’t follow No. 60’s line of argument, be it trivial, not central to the argument or whatever...

RICHARD: I already have ... here: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913275360

RESPONDENT: Here is the snippet where she is denying it: (defending the indefensible?

RICHARD: The only way you can say that – ‘defending the indefensible’ – is by focussing exclusively on the second paragraph of the text in question, as in pretending that the first paragraph simply does not exist, and applying a logical analysis to those (thus-isolated) words written by (a) a person who was born a female and thus raised/ educated as such ... and (b) a person for whom English is a second language. In other words, if one wishes to join in on the pillorying of Vineeto then all one has to do is (a) abandon commonsense ... and (b) be strictly logical about an abstracted paragraph.

Howsoever, if one wishes to understand what Vineeto is saying then all one has to do is (a) retain commonsense ... and (b) read the second paragraph with the clearly-expressed intent of the first paragraph held firmly in mind.

Needless is it to add that I, for one, fall into the latter category (as is evidenced at the URL I provided further above)?

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S. Regarding where you wrote [quote] ‘No. 60’s line of argument’ [endquote] further above: I assumed you were referring to his initial line of argument, which is resolved with the ‘and/or’ correction, but the e-mail of yours which follows this one (the one which has the words ‘the tangled webs they weave’ at the end) indicates that you were probably referring to the abstract-logic line of argument of his which came later.

If that is the case then I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that I do indeed ‘get it’ (for whatever that is worth).

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••


RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity