|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: I brought up merriment and you cut it off and I presume that means that merriment is not an officially sanctioned affective state. I once actually asked you for such a list and you ignored the request. Now we have Vineeto claiming happiness and I get confused because some emotions are fine and some are not and really you ought to provide a list. RICHARD: Might I draw your attention to the following comment? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I enjoyed your response to No. 18. I found it a very clear exposition of your viewpoint’. (June 20 2001; The Actual Freedom Mailing List). Sometimes what you write simply amazes me. RESPONDENT: Thank you for the compliment. RICHARD: Yet there is no ‘compliment’ to be thankful for because the essence of your expression of apparent approval (‘I enjoyed your response ... I found it a very clear exposition’ ) is exposed as having no meaning whatsoever when only three days after having ostensibly read the response you say ‘I get confused because some emotions are fine and some are not and really you ought to provide a list’ . Furthermore it puts lie to your recent statement that ‘actualism ... as a complete system it is no more conducive to world peace than any other has been’ inasmuch that you do need to know what the ‘complete system’ is before you can rightfully appraise it (let alone dismiss it so cavalierly). Viz.:
Maybe your expression of apparent approval was nothing more than a convenient way to slip in that non-negotiable ‘viewpoint’ theme you are currently running? I would like to present an intriguing hypothesis: in light of your self-evidenced ignorance of what was written in that response, and when your expression of apparent approval (‘I enjoyed your response ... I found it a very clear exposition of your viewpoint’ ) is read in full, some further light may thrown upon what your use of the words ‘viewpoint’ and ‘point of view’ might really mean when the following is taken into account:
As this paragraph was in an e-mail that immediately followed another e-mail wherein you asked your co-respondent whether they would ‘like to be governed by a coterie of artists who claim they have the Actual Final Expression of Truth down pat in (2 million words)’ it becomes more and more obvious, by your own words, that your use of ‘viewpoint’ and ‘point of view’ are interchangeable with the word ‘truth’. I will re-visit at the recent ‘end of discussion’ impasse:
What if it were to be written this way? Viz.:
Here are some more examples to contemplate:
It is impossible to marry an actual freedom and spiritual freedom ... there is more to being happy and harmless than redefining and/or rewording other peoples’ tried and failed concepts. An actual freedom is about facts ... not ‘truths’ or ‘points of view’ or ‘viewpoints’. RESPONDENT: Now could I check out with you; in the actualist ethical scheme is amazement a cause of war and rape and sorrow or a state that is part of the third way that is ‘180 degrees in the opposite direction’? RICHARD: This is an opportune time to refer you to something you wrote a few days ago:
For over two years you have been presenting your ‘truth’ about assumptions to this Mailing List demanding that it be answered ... and yet all this while you still have not comprehended that there are no instinctive drives, no furious urges, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil dispositions – no malicious and sorrowful tendencies whatsoever – here in the pristine perfection of this actual world to have to keep under control with superimposed ethics or morals or principals? How can you hope to even begin to critique something you demonstrably know so very little about?
RICHARD: It is impossible to marry an actual freedom and spiritual freedom ... there is more to being happy and harmless than redefining and/or rewording other peoples’ tried and failed concepts. An actual freedom is about facts ... not ‘truths’ or ‘points of view’ or ‘viewpoints’. RESPONDENT: Richard, when I use the term viewpoint I refer to facts. a/ When you stand at the Byron lighthouse and look east what do you see? Ocean, and in the foreground bushes, and perhaps the end of your nose (more or less). Your viewpoint is from the lighthouse easterly. The view is as described. b/ But if you stand outside the Byronian cafe and look east what do you see? The big Retravision sign; and on the periphery of your vision the clock tower; and in the foreground some cars parked at the kerb and again, perhaps, the end of your nose. Your viewpoint is from the Byronian cafe easterly. The view is as described. Do you see that your viewpoint changes? And that is a fact. In the first instance your viewpoint is situated in such a way that the view is as described in a/ above. In the second instance your viewpoint is situated in such a way that the view is as described in b/ above. In each instance the facticity of your spatial location and orientation cannot be disputed ... surely? Wouldn’t you say these are facts? The views are of the physical universe, which is surely a fact. Your spatial location is a fact and the orientation of your physical body in that spatial location towards the majesty of the physical universe displayed for your viewing in front of you is also a fact. None of these things are in the realm of belief. Is it a belief that you are, in case a/, situated at the lighthouse? Yes, whilst standing there, there is belief that you are standing there rather than flying to the moon; but the underlying, the more important consideration is the facticity of the situation. Is it a belief that you are, in case b/ situated at the Byronian cafe? Yes, but the underlying, the more important consideration is the facticity of the situation. Is it a belief that in each situation the view is as perceived? Yes, there is the belief but the most important consideration is the facticity of the situation. The beliefs are secondary, and in some cases, with some people, may not correspond with the facts (somebody may believe he is flying to the moon whilst in fact he is standing at the base of the lighthouse). The facts are primary and paramount and indisputable. Now let us compare you being at the lighthouse and me being at the Byronian, each of us facing east, and speaking on our mobile phones to each other. I say to you via my phone: my viewpoint is easterly from the Byronian. You say: (well, I don’t want to put words in your mouth Richard, I am sure you would rather choose your own, so let us just say that in some way you give the impression you are situated at the Byronian looking east). I say: there is a sign, it says ‘Retravision’. You say ‘Respondent, you are deluded; there is no sign; there is the ocean and some bushes’ (or words to that effect). I say: no I am not deluded, we just have different viewpoints Richard. You say: no; viewpoints are for spiritualists and are a lot of hogwash (or words to that effect). I say: perhaps you do not understand what I am getting at. You say: there is no precedent to this actual freedom, it is new, and it is cute that my psychiatrists call it a mental problem. I say: that is the view they have Richard, and it is valid from their viewpoint. It does not mean it is true; it means it has validity from that viewpoint, that is all we can say. Same with the view you have from your viewpoint. You call your state actual freedom. That way of explaining your state has validity from your viewpoint. But that does not mean it is true. All that is true is your viewpoint, along with the viewpoints of all the other people on the planet. These are facts. Your viewpoint is a fact. My viewpoint is a fact. What we see is relative to those viewpoints and is thus not absolute truth, the only absolute truth is viewpoint here (me), and viewpoint there (you). Facts, Richard, not beliefs. You say: fuck off, Respondent, I am telling you what are the facts around here! (or politer words to that effect). I say: I don’t like being categorised. You say: I will cut and paste you here ... and here ... and here ... to PROVE to you that what you said supports what I believe ... and contradicts what you were trying to say – whatever that was, .... except I do not believe!, I have facts ... you have beliefs ... . I say: take your medication Richard. You say: everybody is so cute these days! Do you begin to understand a little about viewpoint Richard. I have only introduced one aspect in this explanation – the spatial location aspect ... the two other aspects I am sure <?> you recall are the genetic and the history of the individual. Both those aspects combine with the spatial location to determine that at any moment no person will have the viewpoint of any other person. Thus no person will perceive the same ‘view’ as any other. At this level we are not speaking of course only of physical sight when we use the word view. We mean all that a person thinks and feels and perceives and his or her self-explanations about all that and his or her explanations to others about all that, and the discrepancy between the self-explanation and the for-others-explanation and the explanation(s) for that discrepancy if any. Note that all these things are the view, not the viewpoint. The viewpoint is the unique perspective defined by a particular genome, a particular history, and a particular spatial location. Views can be changed. Viewpoints in any instance of time are fixed. Absolutely fixed. Slowly over time viewpoints can change. But it is good not to confuse the view with the viewpoint. Your viewpoint is defined by your genetic makeup (which perhaps the psychs suggest has relevance in the ‘mental disorder’ way of describing things) as well as by your history, which we understand from what you have written includes a period of time of psychosis (aka ASC enlightenment), and a period on the farm and a period in Vietnam. The mental disorder way of describing things may be written off as cute by you, but that does not make it irrelevant. It just means that your viewpoint will not allow the viewing of yourself from that perspective. And let me add; if – I stress if – you were able to view yourself from the perspective that your psychs view you it would be sad indeed if that vision motivated you to give up the alternative perspective of you in actual freedom. Both have validity, but neither are true. Neither can be true in an absolute sense because all that is absolute is the physical universe having multiple disparate viewpoints into it. Each viewpoint is called a person. Each person is unique. You are a person. I am a person. Osho was a person – and his viewpoint is extinct. As each of ours will be some day. Extinct. Absolutely non-reproducible. The delight and wonder and preciousness of life on earth is inherent in that. The delight and the gravity. For unless each of us expresses what is valid from our own viewpoint that perspective will be lost forever. That is why I express what is valid from my viewpoint; I express it because having had some near death experiences I came to realise that I am unique and irreplaceable and if I do not tell what I see then it CANNOT be told. Same for you Richard. Same for you. We each are unique and we each can choose to express as best we can the vision from our own viewpoint – as you have done admirably Richard .... but to go further than that and for one of us to define our vision, our expression, our teaching, our path, as the ABSOLUTE truth that arises from an ULTIMATE VIEWPOINT over and above all the other little viewpoints is to make oneself into a god-man. And we do not want that, do we Richard? For no one of us may lay claim to a more absolute viewpoint than another. Unless that one wants that claim to be stomped on. RICHARD: First, the extent, the range, the scope of the ocular vista does indeed vary according to whence it is beheld – I would never deny that – as is evidenced by taking a series of photographs of the same scene whilst moving the tripod to differing positions. Howsoever, if another person stands in the same-same physical position the same-same panorama will be witnessed ... as is evident by signs strategically placed for tourists at various vantage-points with words to the effect ‘for the best photograph click here’. Thus when you say, in the example you provide, ‘there is a sign, it says ‘Retravision’ I most certainly do not say, as in the example you provide, ‘you are deluded; there is no sign; there is the ocean and some bushes’ at all as I say, keeping with the example you provide, there is indeed a sign that says ‘Retravision’ ... thus establishing commonality (that what you ocularly perceive I ocularly perceive also) between fellow human beings. And, just as with ocular perception, so it is for cutaneous perception, for gustatory perception, for olfactory perception, for aural perception and even for proprioceptive perception (making due allowance for variances in degree such as colour blindness and so on). Second, when I say that an actual freedom is new to human experience and that there is no precedent to go by
I mean what I say. That peoples attempt to comprehend what I report via either the psychiatric model (derealisation,
depersonalisation, alexithymia, anhedonia
Third, I do not say ‘fuck off’ (in politer words) at all as I have been, and still am, only too happy to explain what I am on about with you again and again. My records show that my correspondence with you far exceeds the correspondence I have with anyone else on this Mailing List ... if not all mailing lists. Fourth, whilst you say you do not like being categorised and labelled you then proceed to categorise yourself as having a ‘unique point of view’ and label yourself as being a ‘viewpoint’. Furthermore, the issue you take with certain peoples on this Mailing List might have more impact if you refrained from doing the very thing you object to others doing. Viz.:
I see the labels <therapists>, <psychologists>, <gurus>, <teachers>, <politicians>, <geneticists>, <neurologists>, <biochemists> and <psychiatrists> all in one short paragraph among but many other paragraphs of the same ilk you have posted to this Mailing List. Fifth, where you say that the functions categorised under the label ‘viewpoint’
also includes what a person ‘thinks and feels’ is where you start to generalise about what happens for other peoples. I
have reported, again and again, that the affective faculty is non-existent in either a PCE or an actual freedom ... and that
thought may or may not operate in the concomitant apperceptive Sixth, where you say that it is ‘absolute’ that the physical universe has ‘multiple disparate viewpoints’ and that ‘each viewpoint is called a person’ is where Mr. Harry Palmer’s concept, which underlies your concept that each person is viewpoint, shines through your overlaid understanding of his concept. Viz.:
It is where you use words such as ‘absolute’ and ‘non-negotiable’ when talking of such an overlaid understanding is where the warning bells start going ding-a-ling. Seventh, where you not only say that ‘we each can choose to express as best we can the vision from our own viewpoint’ but that this is what I have done ‘admirably’ (that I have expressed such a ‘vision’ just as, for example, the self-proclaimed god Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain expressed his ‘vision’) is where you, once again, seek to generalise – and categorise – all what I have reported so as to have it accord to your ‘point of view’ (aka a non-negotiable ‘viewpoint’) that it is ‘absolute’ that the physical universe has ‘multiple disparate viewpoints’ and that ‘each viewpoint is called a person’. Last, where you say that ‘for one of us to define our vision, our expression, our teaching, our path, as the ABSOLUTE truth that arises from an ULTIMATE VIEWPOINT over and above all the other little viewpoints is to make oneself into a god-man. (...) For no one of us may lay claim to a more absolute viewpoint than another’ is where your entire case against me falls flat for this is what you are doing and not me. I will spell it out specifically: I do not have ‘a vision’ such that my on-going experiencing in the world as-it-is is ‘the ABSOLUTE truth that arises from an ULTIMATE VIEWPOINT over and above all the other little viewpoints’ ... for that is what Mr. Harry Palmer is on about and not me. Viz.:
‘Tis your overlaid understanding that is persuading you to read what I say in this light.
RESPONDENT: ... enough for one email from my perspective currently!!!! I will reply to the rest of your (in my estimation) overly long email, separately. Thank you for writing. Maybe from your perspective you prefer longer ones. I hope we can meet somewhere in this. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend just what it is that you want me to see (that is, what the world at large looks like from the ‘viewpoint’ you are now metonymically labelling as your ‘perspective’): you write an e-mail of 1,423 words and I respond with 1,200 ... and from your ‘perspective’ my e-mail is ‘overly long’ (thus requiring a further 2,064 words from you to demonstrate what your ‘perspective’ persuades you to see). Am I understanding your ‘perspective’ correctly ... did I just ‘meet’ you in that ‘somewhere’
world
RESPONDENT: ... enough for one email from my perspective currently!!!! I will reply to the rest of your (in my estimation) overly long email, separately. Thank you for writing. Maybe from your perspective you prefer longer ones. I hope we can meet somewhere in this. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend just what it is that you want me to see (that is, what the world at large looks like from the ‘viewpoint’ you are now metonymically labelling as your ‘perspective’ ): you write an e-mail of 1,423 words and I respond with 1,200 ... and from your ‘perspective’ my e-mail is ‘overly long’ (thus requiring a further 2,064 words from you to demonstrate what your ‘perspective’ persuades you to see). Am I understanding your ‘perspective’ correctly ... did I just ‘meet’ you in that ‘somewhere’ world you are living in? RESPONDENT: Admirably (and with obviously only one of your eyes open). For you see Richard ... the problem is not the ‘self’ (in regard to war, rape, murder, heartache, sorrow, malice, tooth decay, etc., etc,), the problem is always ‘the other’. And we cannot ‘get rid of’ the other. RICHARD: Au contraire ... when ‘the ‘self’’ in its entirety (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body, psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) self-immolated ... ‘the other’ (all six billion ‘others’ plus all past and future ‘others’) vanished. I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: And you are well on the way of feeling that fact (and identifying such). P.S.: Nice subject line. P.P.S.: I provide the dictionary ref. for the word of the day: me·ton·y·my (m?-ton’?-me); n., pl. -mies. A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power. [Late Latin metonymia, from Greek metonumia : meta-, meta- + onuma, name]. RICHARD: Ahh ... I see that you mention the ‘nice subject line’ en passant (en route to providing a dictionary description of the word ‘metonymic’ in case anyone other than yourself is literately challenged). Perhaps I can do likewise with regards to providing a description of the world according to GARP – the acronym for ‘Geographical Atlas (using) Radial Projections’ – which is otherwise known as ‘Azimuthal Equidistant’? Having spent some 4 to 5 years at sea in my late teens/early twenties, navigating ships per favour of the world according to MERCATOR, I was particularly chuffed to discover that the curious anomaly of ‘Mercator Projections’ (that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line) was resolved when the world is viewed according to GARP (wherein the shortest distance between two points is a straight line). Howsoever, the price paid for this navigational convenience is that the further one projects a straight-line course from the central point (one’s current position) the more distorted the environment becomes ... to the extent that all topography becomes totally distorted when one’s course is plotted to the other side of the globe (that is, 180 degrees opposite where one is currently viewing the world from). I have managed to locate an URL that has a nifty little Java Applet which demonstrates (somewhat crudely) this oh-so-familiar phenomenon: http://www.schaik.com/garp/garp_map.html Just by-the-by: I am also somewhat curious as to just where Mr. John Irving got the name for his nihilistic literary character from.
RICHARD: A quick question if I may, before I even consider responding to any more of your numerous replies. You posted the following a scant forty minutes ago:
As you have made it abundantly clear that for you it is basically a crock (my idiom) why was it worthy of ‘being investigated’ at all ... let alone ‘being investigated further’ after two and a half years of it being exposed via ... um ... satire (sic)?
RICHARD: A quick question if I may, before I even consider responding to any more of your numerous replies. You posted the following a scant forty minutes ago: [Respondent]: ‘I have decided actualism is worthy of being investigated further after this pre-committal 2and a half year long hearing’. [endquote]. As you have made it abundantly clear that for you it is basically a crock (my idiom) why was it worthy of ‘being investigated’ at all ... let alone ‘being investigated further’ after two and a half years of it being exposed via ... um ... satire (sic)? RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘As you have made it abundantly clear that for you it is basically a crock (my idiom) {thank you for the parenthesised ‘owning’ of your own perception} why was it worthy of being investigated at all & let alone being investigated further after two and a half years of it being exposed via ... um {cute} ... satire (sic)? {‘satire’ remains}. RICHARD: First, I have already described what occurs with regard to what you are calling the ‘‘owning’ of [my] own perception’ several times already:
Second, my use of the common human expression <um> in this paragraph is nothing more than expressing a searching for a word (as in <er> or <er-um> or any other variation) as I was unsure as to whether to write <humour> or <irony> or <satire> given that you have previously explained what your modus operandi is using, at the very least, any and all of those words. Lastly, you may very well indicate (as you have above) that for you the word <satire> remains ... if that is what you chose to maintain it to be. However, for satirical humour to successfully be satire it has to both hit its mark plus wittily display (through absurdity) the fallacy thus revealed ... which means that in order for satire to be satirical the satirist has to be able to identify and locate its mark (which you are yet to do) and locate and identify the fallacy (which you are yet to do). In other words: you have been busily satirising your own inventions (as in straw-man argumentations) all along. The same applies for the satire (sic) obviously referring to me which is published by [name withheld] and Mr. [name withheld] at the URL’s you provided recently. Viz.:
And:
It will be easily noticed that neither of the above come anywhere near the mark. * RESPONDENT: 1. Because I have learnt so much already by carrying out the investigation. Without your input into my life I would perhaps have taken a little longer to change my (unconscious) belief that the infinite-eternal-mind uses the brain (my brain; your brain his brain her brain) as some sort of transmittal device for the mind ... i.e. the mind is primary and the brain secondary; to my now consciously chosen and held position that the brain is primary, and the mind is a function of that actuality. Thus I am mortal. Thus I am free. I learnt a lot more from you; AND I am free to see things very differently than you in some regards ... and perhaps sometime I will document that or tell you over a coffee. Or perhaps not. 2. Actualism is worthy of being investigated in the same sense that any cult is worthy of being investigated. I am also currently very active on a list that is supporting actual world investigations of the coterie who is running the osho cult from Pune New York and Switzerland currently, and other places in the past. So I do not discriminate (unlike some). I have provided before on this list a definition of cult and should anybody be interested I will run that past the list again. At the time nobody expressed interest. That is ok; often I continue when there is no interest. Does ANY organisation express interest in being deconstructed? (They all say they are NOT an organisation; NOT a cult! down to a tee). RICHARD: Please correct me if I am in error here ... but in answer to my question (‘why was it worthy of being investigated at all ... let alone being investigated further’) you do seem to conveying, with words more or less to the effect, that it is worthy of being investigated and being investigated further because you have concluded that it is a cult. Yet how can you reliably come to this conclusion about something you demonstrably know so very little about?
RESPONDENT: Please answer this query if none other Richard. Above you refer to ‘[name withheld]’ and ‘Mr. [name withheld]’ why is the Mr honorific used for Mr. [name withheld] and not for [name withheld]? You have demonstrated that you use the ‘Mr’ for people who are: a/ spiritualists and b/ about to be proven wrong by you so why is not [name withheld] in that category given what he is beginning to write about you? RICHARD: Irregardless of your assumptions marked ‘a/’ and ‘b/’ (although ‘b/’ is quite humorous for all its inaccuracy) it is nothing more and nothing less than that I know [name withheld] personally – going back maybe five years now – and our acquaintance is of the ‘meet in the street have a chat’ status. Furthermore, he has sat in my lounge room and we have spoken deeply together for quite a few hours about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... about which conversation I cannot say more without divulging matters shared in confidence in such an intimate discussion. Whereas I have never met Mr. [name withheld]. RESPONDENT: Lastly; I have tried and tried and tried and I CANNOT notice that either of the quotes you cut and pasted come nowhere near the mark. RICHARD: Keep on trying •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Here is a quote you may or may not appreciate: • [quote]: ‘Now she [Sheela] has resigned on her own, and she has taken those idiots she has put in powerful positions. Vidya is gone with her. She was one of the thickest heads here. And they all have written letters to me, ‘Beloved Master ...’. Still they don’t see the point, that now it is better to address them ‘Mr. Rajneesh’. Why ‘Beloved Master’? ... still no sensibility that words like ‘Beloved Master’ do not suit in the context they are, perhaps unconsciously, using them ( ... ) to see the words ‘Beloved Master’ from these people makes me sick’ (emphasis added). (‘From Bondage To Freedom’: Chapter 1: ‘To Be Ordinary Is The Most Exdtraordinary Thing In The World’; Question 1).
RESPONDENT No. 23: ... I speak with personal experience because I have been in two cults in the past. One of them was very similar to this one which is why I think I initially identified with this one so well. I have extreme reservations about sending this to this list because I am sure it will be denied .... RICHARD: Yes, as I understand it, from the information provided to this Mailing List by several concerned people, I cannot know that it is a cult because I am in denial ... so, given that you too see that I am in denial (‘I am sure it will be denied’ ), perhaps you can throw a little light on the matter for me if I share with you something from my personal life that I am currently involved in up to my neck (some would say obsessed with). Four-five years ago I purchased a computer for the first time: at the time I considered it a major achievement if I could manage to get cash out of an ATM and I was incapable of tuning my TV and VCR (I arranged to get them tuned from the shop I purchased them from as part of the deal) so I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me. So as to ensure anonymity I will call the person I found ‘Rachael’ and the name of the small company she was a director of ‘Bootstrap Computers’: I came to look upon Rachael as my mentor as she was only too happy to take the time to coach me through, not only the early stages of learning about the computer’s software programmes, but even through the more advanced stages wherein, thanks to her guidance and tutelage, I was coming into direct contact with the deeper aspects of the (to me at least) arcane world of computer hardware. For the sake of convenience she called the system she had devised to assist people like me ‘bootstrapism’ and digitally provided brochures, pamphlets, articles and books (there are even two that are for sale in paper-back form). However, I have since found out – the more I became drawn into the intricacies of the computer condition – that not only was there a coterie that had formed around Rachael and the Bootstrap Computers organisation – but that I was starting to use the same-same lingo as all these other bootstrapists that she had sucked into her ... dare I say it ... her cult. And to think that all this was because I was ignorant enough to take advice from another – to follow another’s advice – instead of starting off from scratch (painting symbols on cave walls with various iron oxides and subsequently inventing pencils, pens, paper, typewriters and thence computers) in isolation from my fellow human beings. Now, here is my problem: I have confronted her again and again – I have even hurled gutter invective against her and/or her followers using all the satirical criticism I can muster – but she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Obviously, seeing that she denies all the charges levelled against her, she is in denial too. What should I do ... especially as I still want to learn about computers? RESPONDENT: Cute. Well written. I enjoyed reading it immensely. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you enjoyed it ... but perhaps you might like to expand a little on why? After all, my co-respondent presently seems to be inclined towards writing on another mailing list, about more important matters, rather than continuing to throw some light on why it is that I am in denial about actualism being a cult. This is what I have managed to ascertain so far as proofs of cultism:
There was a stage where it appeared that speaking the same lingo might be a proof but that one has sort of fizzled-out ... plus it is not clear whether not being able to belong here (on this Mailing List) is a proof or not. Needless to say I am currently still in denial.
RESPONDENT No. 18: Could you explain to me Richard what you mean with being in denial. RICHARD: You would be better off asking those who say that I am in denial what they mean ... I really do not know what it is they are going on and on about or why. RESPONDENT: You say you do not know what they are going on and on about or why. Have you considered asking them? RICHARD: Maybe it has escaped your notice that I am already doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do ... you will be very pleased, therefore, at what you will find at the following ListBot references: ListBot Message No.: 2207
RESPONDENT No. 18: Could you explain to me Richard what you mean with being in denial. RICHARD: You would be better off asking those who say that I am in denial what they mean ... I really do not know what it is they are going on and on about or why. RESPONDENT: You say you do not know what they are going on and on about or why. Have you considered asking them? RICHARD: Maybe it has escaped your notice that I am already doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do ... you will be very pleased, therefore, at what you will find at the following ListBot references: ListBot Message No.: 2207 RESPONDENT: That may well be ... RICHARD: There is no ‘may’ about it ... doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do definitely occurred (and before you suggested it): the posts certainly exist under the Message Numbers provided (above) ... and I am genuinely referring you to them. There is no ‘I think she/he said it ...’ about this event ... this one has really happened. RESPONDENT: ... and a pretty blue font it is. But are you interested in asking NOW? RICHARD: When you access the Message Numbers provided (above) you will find, when you get through to reading the last one, that I am still doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do (before you suggested it) and that I am currently awaiting a reply (if there is going to be one, that is). That is the nearest thing to ‘asking NOW’ that is possible to have happen.
RESPONDENT No. 18: Could you explain to me Richard what you mean with being in denial. RICHARD: You would be better off asking those who say that I am in denial what they mean ... I really do not know what it is they are going on and on about or why. RESPONDENT: You say you do not know what they are going on and on about or why. Have you considered asking them? RICHARD: Maybe it has escaped your notice that I am already doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do ... you will be very pleased, therefore, at what you will find at the following ListBot references: ListBot Message No.: 2207 RESPONDENT: That may well be ... RICHARD: There is no ‘may’ about it ... doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do definitely occurred (and before you suggested it): the posts certainly exist under the Message Numbers provided (above) ... and I am genuinely referring you to them. There is no ‘I think she/he said it ...’ about this event ... this one has really happened. RESPONDENT: ... and a pretty blue font it is. But are you interested in asking NOW? RICHARD: When you access the Message Numbers provided (above) you will find, when you get through to reading the last one, that I am still doing this very thing that you are suggesting I do (before you suggested it) and that I am currently awaiting a reply (if there is going to be one, that is). That is the nearest thing to ‘asking NOW’ that is possible to have happen. RESPONDENT: Aha. You are saying that it happens on your terms or not at all? RICHARD: No ... if you were to access the Message Numbers provided (further above), instead of communicating a thought via an e-mail, you will find that what has happened/is happening is factual. Thus what I report (and refer you to) is not ‘on [my] terms’ at all ... it is in accord with the fact. Living with the fact obviates the need to think up ‘terms’ ... or points of view and/or viewpoints, for that matter.
RESPONDENT No. 23: I think the lady [No. 20 RICHARD: Perhaps you might be able to demonstrate where ‘the lady from another country said it well’ (the last time someone tried that one on me they were remarkably silent when asked to put their money where their mouth is)? RESPONDENT: Are you able to hear that No. 23 is telling you something he thinks. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: He thinks the lady from another country said it well. RICHARD: Aye. RESPONDENT: And what do you express interest in? The lady from another country. RICHARD: No ... the facts. RESPONDENT: The lady from another country (howsoever anybody might or might not demonstrate her to you) ... RICHARD: If you look even casually you will see that this is not what I asked. RESPONDENT: ... [The lady from another country] is a concept right now given that she is not writing to you. RICHARD: I am glad I am not your wife when she goes off to work (or whenever else she moves out of your presence). RESPONDENT: And what do you pass over as if irrelevant? RICHARD: Anything non-factual. RESPONDENT: A thought communicated via email to you. RICHARD: Okay ... here is a for-example thought for you (communicated via e-mail):
RESPONDENT: You miss the actual Richard. RICHARD: Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are telling me that the contents of the thought which is currently surging through your synapses is what is actual ... and not the e-mails under various designated ListBot Message Numbers? Might I suggest you look-up the word ‘solipsism’ in the dictionary?
RESPONDENT: I have been inviting the actualism club members to consider the possibility that what they are most intent on doing is making everyone else on the planet wrong. RICHARD: ‘Tis impossible to be ‘making’ everyone else on the planet wrong ... they are
already. Unless, of course, you consider that the global malice RESPONDENT: Really I am so thankful they came along. Without them I would be a spiritualist. Or normal. And look at me now. RICHARD: I am ... and I see that you have reduced yourself to being nothing but a ‘viewpoint’ with a meteoric ‘point of view’ (which sometimes changes even in the same e-mail) in your frantic efforts to avoid being categorised and labelled.
RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Yet all traditional religions, all social and economic ideologies, and all political parties, are alike in one respect. They ignore the biochemical roots of our ill-being. So the noisy trivia of party-politics distract us from what needs to be done [endquote]. The above par applies equally to actualism as any other ism from ayranism thru jesusism and oshoism to zenism? For in essence what is the method of actualism. An enquiry via the actualist mantra. The target is missed. The target is physical, actual, and hittable. RICHARD: I would have said that ignoring ‘the biochemical roots of our ill-being’ applies
to the method of viewpointism
RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Yet all traditional religions, all social and economic ideologies, and all political parties, are alike in one respect. They ignore the biochemical roots of our ill-being. So the noisy trivia of party-politics distract us from what needs to be done [endquote]. The above par applies equally to actualism as any other ism from ayranism thru jesusism and oshoism to zenism? For in essence what is the method of actualism. An enquiry via the actualist mantra. The target is missed. The target is physical, actual, and hittable. RICHARD: I would have said that ignoring ‘the biochemical roots of our ill-being’ applies to the method of viewpointism rather than actualism. RESPONDENT: LOL. Viewpointism is not a method at all; RICHARD: My mistake ... I should have said that ignoring ‘the biochemical roots of our ill-being’
applies to the way RESPONDENT: ... it is one of many possible ways of formulating an understanding and a communication of such an understanding to one’s fellow humans of what it means to be human. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in equating what you say here to the way of viewpointism as expressly detailed by yourself to me (along with a lengthy dissertation on where, when, how and why I was amiss) in December last. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: We can throw it out the window – or not. RICHARD: I do not need to ‘throw it out the window’ ... I never took it in. RESPONDENT: Makes no difference to the actual. RICHARD: That is because it does not exist in this actual world. RESPONDENT: And what is actual? ... blood, bones; and biochemical interactions. As well as rocks and gas and trees of course. RICHARD: Yes ... and a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable. RESPONDENT: By the way. What is a ‘self’? I mean is a ‘self’ actual or metaphysical? According to you. Are you free of a metaphysical phenomenon or an actuality? Or to put it more like I imagine you would formulate it: was the parasitical ‘I’ that is not now or ever again in ‘you’, but still is in every other person on the planet, metaphysical or actual? RICHARD: You would be better off asking them and not me as there is/are no ‘self’ or ‘selves’ here in this actual world (I only ever get to meet flesh and blood bodies) and it is they who tell me they have/are a ‘self’ ... I have been here all this while, as this flesh and blood body, just simply having a ball. Incidentally, I certainly noticed that you adroitly by-passed the obvious ... did you?
RICHARD: In 1980, ‘I’, the persona that was, saw that this universe is so enormous in its scope, so grand in its arrangement, so exquisite in its structure, that it is sheer vanity and utter insolence to presume that ‘my’ petty meanings had any significance whatsoever. They were consigned to the dust-bin of history. RESPONDENT: You are a copycat Richard. I told that all the meaning I was conveying with my ‘viewpoint’ could be tossed out the window. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend correctly what you are saying: you are proposing that ‘I’, the persona that was, time-travelled from the year 1980 to the year 2001 and saw that you wrote ‘we can throw it out the window – or not’ and then time-travelled back to 1980 and copy-catted you by consigning ‘his’ petty meanings to the dust-bin of history? RESPONDENT: And now you tell that all the meaning you have been conveying could be – and in fact were – thrown in the trash. RICHARD: No ... that is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: So actualism is in the rubbish-bin. RICHARD: No ... the petty meanings of the persona that was were consigned to the dust-bin of history. RESPONDENT: Lovely. Let us begin. RICHARD: Perhaps you could begin by reading with both eyes open?
RESPONDENT: Richard. What is life? RICHARD: Life is the event which occurs between birth and death.
RESPONDENT: Richard. What is life? RICHARD: Life is the event which occurs between birth and death. RESPONDENT: What is the actuality of the event which occurs between birth and death that we refer to as life? RICHARD: The pristine perfection which is experienced temporarily in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or as an on-going experiencing, night and day, in an actual freedom from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: Richard. What is life? RICHARD: Life is the event which occurs between birth and death. RESPONDENT: What is the actuality of the event which occurs between birth and death that we refer to as life? RICHARD: The pristine perfection which is experienced temporarily in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or as an on-going experiencing, night and day, in an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Are you saying any more or less than – life is ‘pristine perfection’? RICHARD: When one is living life in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), or living life in an actual freedom from the human condition, life is indeed ‘pristine perfection’ .
RESPONDENT: Richard. What is life? RICHARD: Life is the event which occurs between birth and death. RESPONDENT: What is the actuality of the event which occurs between birth and death that we refer to as life? RICHARD: The pristine perfection which is experienced temporarily in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or as an on-going experiencing, night and day, in an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Are you saying any more or less than – life is ‘pristine perfection’? RICHARD: When one is living life in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), or living life in an actual freedom from the human condition, life is indeed ‘pristine perfection’ . RESPONDENT: Richard, are you suggesting that life is composed of ‘pristine perfection’; or alternatively are you suggesting that life has an attribute (perhaps amongst many), ‘pristine perfection’ ... or are you suggesting other? In other words is the term pristine perfection, as offered by you, the recipe for life, or is it a description of life ... or are you suggesting other? In this enquiry I am seeking to reach a better understanding of what life IS, as against what life is like, or what life is experienced as. The question once again: WHAT is life. RICHARD: Not ‘an attribute’, no (nor a ‘recipe’ or ‘description’ ). Perhaps an analogy may help: typically an object (any object) has native properties; intrinsic qualities are sourced in (not attributed to) these indigenous properties; inherent values are derived from (not ascribed to) these congenital qualities. Life is not divorced from the universe – the very flesh and blood body is the same-same stuff as the universe is – and it is the universe which is the actuality of life you are looking for in this enquiry. Thus the pristine perfection arises from/as the consummate purity welling endlessly from/as the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is. And where one is actually free from the human condition one is the universe experiencing itself as a sentient creature being apperceptively aware. As such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude. One walks in wide-eyed wonder through this veritable paradise simply marvelling in immediacy.
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 |
