On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
With Correspondent No. 18
RESPONDENT: Richard, I noticed someone played the K-card. I know and it assumed that you know too but, correct me if I’m mistaken, that if you wanna play that way you also need to have the O-card.
RICHARD: Would it not be easier to call it the spiritual-card (aka the mystical-card/metaphysical-card) and be done with it?
RESPONDENT: As it is now for me Reality means Actuality.
RICHARD: Am I to take it that you are wanting to ‘play that way’ too?
RESPONDENT: So if we were to share notes on our experience of the world today. To me that means how am I experiencing Reality in the year 2003. In a nutshell ‘this body has reasonably recovered from state of Shock and Awe’ and now I see there is no more else to do then to celebrate my survival, obviously I was ‘fit’ enough to survive all this.
RICHARD: Here is how you previously described shock and awe:
Do you see that ‘all this’ was self-induced (with some help from the many and varied doom and gloom prophesiers of course)?
RESPONDENT: It is some kind of a miracle to be here and I watch with avid interest this perfect universe unfolding; Life appears to be a cosmic joke after all.
RICHARD: There was no ‘miracle’ ... all that happened was that the doomsayers had their moment of fear mongering, milking the resultant media frenzy for every last drop of hysteria it was capable of, and rode the wave of panic until it petered out on the shores of everyday reality.
In other words: the end of the world never happened (again).
RESPONDENT: Would you take apperception as [non spiritual enlightenment of the body?].
RICHARD: Nope ... non-spiritual enlightenment (such as the ‘age of enlightenment’ of the 18th-19th century) which promotes reason over tradition, although helpful insofar as it goes to dispel belief, does not address life in this actual world.
Even though it is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that actualism is the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism it is surprising the number of people who seek to understand it in either materialistic terms or spiritualistic terms ... or even a combination of the two.
It is neither ... it is, as the name says, actual.
P.S.: I never did get around to responding to your last three e-mails on this, and related subjects, but I did read them through thoroughly (and I re-read them before writing the above): in view of what you have to say in this e-mail the last part of your second post is particularly well worth revisiting (I will post it right after this e-mail).
RESPONDENT: As you have put all your cards on the table I will do the same: [quote] ‘Someone will come along after a while who will speak against my words and the scriptures that will have been made from them. There need be no fear! But a strange thing happens here and that is this: In the future, my work in this world will be furthered by the very person who speaks against me’. (Osho 1970).
RICHARD: As the remainder of that quote shows that he was doing the work of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and saying the same thing as the Vedas said (the Vedas are, loosely speaking, Hinduism prior to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan), he was clearly indicating that someone, someday, would be doing his work, saying the same thing he was saying, by speaking against him. And, as these are your cards you are laying on the table, are you indicating that you are here to do Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work (which is, loosely speaking, an admixture of Hinduism and Buddhism)?
RESPONDENT: Your ‘MALICE AND SORROW’ as being nursed in one’s own bosom (chest) is much more urgently speaking and hence more appealing to me, then the consideration of words that have become fossilised as stones (that is not to say that these are completely void of meaning and/or value) in the heart.
Thus I would rather say that as far as I am concerned it is you, who have fulfilled the prophecy of the old man Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain: [‘... someone will come along after a while who will speak against my words and the scriptures that will have been made from them’].
RICHARD: Perhaps it may be of assistance to re-read what he says (above):
I am not furthering his work (the work of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and what the Vedas say) as spiritual enlightenment was consigned to where it rightly belongs – the trash bin of history – over a decade ago now when an actual freedom from the human condition became apparent, as an on-going experiencing, for the very first time.
What do the words ‘beyond enlightenment’ signify to you if not being beyond Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work?
RESPONDENT: Not to over-inflate the relevance of such a statement or make it into a bigger thing then it is, I for one would say it is least to say an interesting coincidence.
Hence you may have supported him inadvertently as you are an apt example of someone who has spoken against those words.
RICHARD: I have neither supported spiritual enlightenment inadvertently nor advertently. Furthermore I am not into deceiving people by trashing something (in this case spiritual enlightenment) only to resurrect that very something (in this case spiritual enlightenment) when I have got their attention.
Just the same as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain lived, and spoke extensively of, nothing but the same-old same-old.
RESPONDENT: You’ll have to admit Richard, that this observation beats ‘the incomprehensible intelligence resonation theory’ by 20 miles doesn’t it?
RICHARD: Nope ... put bluntly (in view of our extensive discussions over several years): it sucks big-time.
RESPONDENT: As to: [are you indicating that you are here to do Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work (which is, loosely speaking, an admixture of Hinduism and Buddhism)?] I would say Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work has come to an end when he died.
RICHARD: If it had truly come to an end when he died how come thousands of otherwise intelligent people are still pursing spiritual enlightenment like all get-out ... not to mention those awakened/self-realised ex-sannyasins who are emerging from time to time teaching/preaching their version of the same message?
RESPONDENT: And, as to my work being speaking a mixture of Hinduism and Buddhism, have not you noticed that my ‘babbling’ is a little less primitive perhaps?
RICHARD: Not when you say that I am furthering Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s work (aka spiritual enlightenment) by speaking against him.
RESPONDENT: It is fun to correspond with you, I begin to detect a very subtle sense of humour in your style.
RICHARD: Ahh ... this is because I find so much about life that is irrepressibly comical and not because of any cosmic joke.
RESPONDENT: P.S. I noticed you have changed the thread name from evolution into Revolution (capitalised) can we say that some progress has been made in our communication as to the clarity aspect?
RICHARD: No, that was a mistake on my part as I took your retitling of ‘Re: evolution’ into ‘Re: (R)evolution’ to be you changing the thread name ... I now see that you intended the ‘R’ in brackets to represent the first letter of my name as you have re-titled this thread into being ‘Re: (R)Revolution’.
RESPONDENT: I think it’s getting better.
RICHARD: Maybe this e-mail will go someway towards making what is fundamental to actual progress better as well, eh?
RESPONDENT No. 44: ... with what right Vineeto and Peter are defending you in the moment they don’t have personal experience?
RICHARD: They do not have to have any ‘right’ – for what they have to report/say comes out of PCE’s and not just out of what I have to report/say – and it is rather telling that you would describe it as ‘defending’ me ... rather than, for instance, confirming what I have to report/say.
RESPONDENT No. 44: That means they obey you ...
RICHARD: It is the PCE which is a person’s lodestone ... not me and/or my words. Me and/or my words provide confirmation of what the PCE makes evident ... and provide the affirmation that a fellow human being has safely negotiated the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.
RESPONDENT No. 44: [That means they obey you] because of belief ...
RESPONDENT No. 44: [That means they obey you because of belief] and might destroy other peoples’ life.
RICHARD: If you can satisfactorily explain to me how being happy and harmless (virtually free from malice and sorrow) 99% of the time might destroy other peoples’ life I would be more than a little surprised ... which brings me to the obvious question: what is your objection to people being happy and harmless? My guess, and it is but a guess, is that the latter part of your last sentence would be more in accord with the truth if it were put something like this: [example only]: ... might destroy other peoples’ after-life. [end example]. ‘Tis only a guess, mind you.
RESPONDENT: Is this [... might destroy other peoples’ after-life] meant to be written tongue in cheek?
RICHARD: No, it was written straightforwardly.
RESPONDENT: As to [... might destroy other peoples’ after-life]: Respondent No. 44 specifically wrote [might destroy other peoples’ life]. Could it be that thereby he was expressing some of his concern (as others have done in the past, i.e. calling you a hazard to mankind) as to the impact of the writings on the AF-site on the lives (not afterlives) of what may be considered the overly gullible readers/inquirers/aspirant students of AF?
RICHARD: No, it was not about me being a hazard to humankind.
RESPONDENT: I’m aware of the disclaimers at the bottom of the AF-page yet nevertheless ...
RICHARD: The disclaimers only refer to any before-death hazards.
RESPONDENT: I noticed that one of the posts from Respondent No. 44’s address was signed Respondent No. 49. Has that perhaps escaped your attention?
RESPONDENT: So ... I assume that you meant ‘... might destroy the hope for a continuation of a self after what is called death’ (this death established, preferably by an expert, as such to have happened so that there can be no shadow of a doubt that an alleged to have perished particular flesh blood being has definitely entered into the state of decomposition). Is that assumption correct?
RICHARD: No, I meant it just as it is written (eschatologically).
RESPONDENT: Snipped from: www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm: ‘Who’ we think and feel ourselves to be is a psychological ‘self’ – both an emotional and a mental construct – that develops in the neo-cortex as a discordant and alien identity that appears to be located in the head and felt in the heart and gut’. [endquote]. As to: [we think and feel ourselves to be is a psychological ‘self’ .. and felt in the heart and gut] this well might be considered as an opinion of the ‘discoverer of the third alternative’.
RICHARD: Unless otherwise referenced anything on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that does not have my name in the URL is not written by me.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I recall you having mentioned once that you were in need of very little sleep. After a certain point you said that at times you were just ‘dozing off’ with the remote control still in your hand. As you also mentioned that usually a ‘sleeping break’ would last not longer then some 5-6 hours, it seems to be correct to conclude that you have a not so conventional so to speak ‘biorhythm’. I.e. you might fall asleep at 3 ‘clock in the afternoon to wake up at say 8’ clock in the evening to next ‘doze off’ 1 o’clock at night and then wake up again at 6/7 o’clock in the early morning next day and so on. Is this a more or less accurate description of how you ‘cycle’ throughout the week/month/year?
RICHARD: No ... I have previously said I sleep 3-4 hours per night: if I were to fall asleep at 3.00 PM and wake at 8.00 PM, as in your example, then that would be it for the next twenty four hours or so ... I would still be awake, not only at 1.00 AM and through to 6.00 AM, but for the remainder of that day (sleep being a circadian rhythm).
As for dozing off in front of the television: apart from it being typical, as one gets older, to nap during the day dozing off during a non-interactive event has been a feature throughout my life ... I would fall asleep during an educational movie as a child at school; I would nod off at the movies as a youth (I had to watch ‘Lawrence Of Arabia’ five times to see all of it for example); I would drop off during an art film as a young adult in college; I would sleep through many a television programme in my thirties and forties.
It is an idiosyncrasy of this flesh and blood body ... and it is for reasons such as this that I would like to read about/hear about another flesh and blood body (not some hypothetical/fictitious entity) that is also free from the human condition so as to compare notes and more reliably determine what is common to the species at large.
RESPONDENT: I’m asking this because as I understand it is commonly understood that sleep is a means to re-vitalize the body such as that it is enabled to get to work in order to sustain the flesh and blood body (aka supplying it the necessary nutrients and liquids; as it appears to be fairly dependent on those).
RICHARD: My experience – with nightly sleep being the average 8 hours or so per day back when both normal and abnormal – shows that the emotional/passional identity consumes an inordinate amount of calorific energy ... so much so that only 3-4 hours (sometimes 4-5 hours) of sleep are needed for revitalisation these days.
RESPONDENT: Lately I have considered: what if - though this ‘waking-state’ is assumed to in someway a person to provide the <reason/ meaning/ goal> for life it is not. And thus that perhaps<reason/ meaning/ goal> for life actually may only become apparent while sleeping.
RICHARD: As sleep is indistinguishable from unconsciousness for me (I once had a general anaesthesia as a youth so I can compare) then the ‘<reason/ meaning/ goal> for life’ could only be oblivion under your proposition.
RESPONDENT: I wonder if in your case actualism is a form of ‘sleeping’ with both eyes open, while dreaming you have a ball behind the key-board? Naturally this dreaming is a 180 degree opposite of what is generally considered to be such activity.
RICHARD: Ha ... you mean I am going to wake-up one day, in an abandoned cow-paddock 10 kilometres northwest of here, and find I am still enlightened and have been dreaming, for this last eleven years, that it is possible to be actually free from the human condition? If so, why not have it that I am going to wake-up, in an old farm house 2,000 kilometres to the south of here, and find that I am still normal and that it was all a dream?
Better yet: why not go the whole hog and have it that at physical death I will wake-up and find that I am ‘Brahma’ dreaming I am a flesh and blood body and the universe does not actually exist?
RESPONDENT: I recall a previous conversation with you in which you pointed out the difference between that what is popularly referred to as ‘the law of karma’ and the ‘law of cause and action result’.
RICHARD: I was pointing out that the metaphysical notion of karma (similar to the biblical reaping of what is sown ... only over many lifetimes) has nothing whatsoever to do with physical cause and effect.
RESPONDENT: You emphatically made it a point that this the ‘law of cause and action result’ were to be considered outside any spiritual context.
RICHARD: Indeed ... physical cause and effect (a speck of dust causing an eyelid to blink rapidly in conjunction with tear ducts tearing for instance) has nothing to do with remuneration/retribution for some deed either in this life or any (supposedly) previous life.
The notion of justice is a human concept and is nowhere to be found in actuality.
RESPONDENT: Just to let you know that I agree with that and have aptly followed your advice to take notice of the fact that you were not kidding about the consequences it might have/lead to if - one were to be <mixing up/neglecting to accurately discriminate between/considering the differences as irrelevant/whatever>. In other words you well pointed out what the risk <could be/is/will be> when indeed not taken well notice of the opportunity on offer here.
RICHARD: It is well known that such notions can lead to fatalism (if that is what you are referring to).
RESPONDENT: Though you may have ‘witnessed’ my previous naïve responses, I’m rather confident that over the years our conversations can be considered to have been ‘fruitful’. Nevertheless though it has been (as I have understood sensible) to discriminate between being worldly and spiritual at this point I do not longer find that a sensible discrimination.
RICHARD: The classifications ‘materialism’ and ‘spiritualism’ existed long before I was born ... I am merely keeping with that convention for the sake of both consistency and clarity in communication.
RESPONDENT: Given the fact that at large spiritual and political notions are so well blended that it seems that the one can/needs not be <accurately/sensibly> discriminated from the other. I for one find this aptly reflected in the rhetoric (albeit somewhat more or less pathetic) of most of the world leaders I have listened to. Thus the third alternative (this being actualism) I from now would like to consider as the second alternative thus possibly facilitating the choice to be made by aspirant students between the traditional ways (tried and proved to have been a failure) and a hitherto not existing alternative now named Actualism. If you have a different opinion as to this matter of discrimination naturally I would gladly take notice of.
RICHARD: Better than mere opinion I can state it as a fact that there is neither ‘materialism’ nor ‘spiritualism’ here in this actual world (the former being an illusion and the latter a delusion born out of the illusion).
Thus there is not even a ‘second alternative’ in actuality.
RESPONDENT: It seems that my reply to your response in the matter of hmm 180 degree reinterpretation of dreaming has set a kindergarten tone age 5-7.
RICHARD: Yet whether it has set a kindergarten tone or has a surrealist ring to it (as you observed in the reply you mention) it is a reality for many millions of people that their god (‘Brahma’) is but dreaming the entire universe and that the name of the game is to wake-up in the dream – as in lucid dreaming – and realise that one is that god (nowadays more generally known as ‘Brahman’) dreaming that the universe really exists and thus live-out one’s days in a lucid dream ... until physical death brings an end to the dream whereupon all that does exist is that god (aka oneself) and nothing else.
RESPONDENT: As you may have gotten from my reply in the ‘imagination post’ I’m with you and for that matter on a more mature level. One had to be the first and why not Richard. That seems to be so logical from where I am right now ...
RICHARD: Indeed ... or, rather, so practical/ pragmatic – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) – and why there is so much brouhaha about being able to live in this actual world 24/7, for the remainder of one’s life, now being possible for the first time in human history defies sensibility.
Perhaps it is nothing other than a knee-jerk reaction to the price of admission?
RESPONDENT: Thus I like to go a bit more into this: [One had to be the first] and [why would that not be Richard?]. As mentioned in previous posts, I have no reason to doubt you’re being a freed intelligence. As you’ll understand nevertheless I could fabricate some doubts, that it is not to say that this is just a piece of cake. But let’s assume that there are others who could make the claim yet, they do not because intelligence understands that indeed there must be provided a strategy for peace.
RICHARD: As a freed intelligence understands that there is no need for a strategy, for that which already always exists, how about only you assume that (and leave me out of your ‘let’s assume’ speculation)?
RESPONDENT: The WAT-script that I have refused to support from the beginning as you may remember ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? You not only refused to support it you were affectively opposed to it (via an oh-so-easy-to-do cyber-petitioning of the Security Council of the United Nations) ... and there is a marked difference betwixt the two stances.
RESPONDENT: ... thus unless actual freedom is and will be only for a very limited number of individuals there is little or no hope that the course humanity has taken now will result in that there will be an ending of the war against terror.
RICHARD: Unless there be an actual or virtual freedom from the human condition there is no chance that there be an ending of war itself ... given that there be 24 ‘major’ wars (wars with more than 1,000 casualties), and 22 ‘minor’ wars (wars with less than 1,000 casualties), currently occurring around the world why the fixation on just what the UK/US coalition are involved in?
And I use the word ‘fixation’ advisedly.
RESPONDENT: Now if indeed as you have suggested in the past, while responding to a somewhat urgent post of mine, that on a list like this there can indeed be something done, to stop the current Warlords from heading for world domination.
RICHARD: Whereas this is what I actually suggested:
RESPONDENT: Much as I support the Peace-on-earth vs. World-peace as Peace-on-earth being the only sensible way to go, as indeed World peace now translates as War against terror, the mere fact that one is no longer contributing to malice and sorrow (not putting out negative vibes) seems to be not sufficient, that is in my book.
RICHARD: I see that your ‘support’ for (individual) peace-on-earth did not even make it through to the end of your sentence.
RESPONDENT: What I observe in what I assume you referred to as Houpla ...
RICHARD: The term ‘houp-la’ is a slang term for a commotion, ballyhoo, or pretentious nonsense.
RESPONDENT: ... is that manipulation through the media has taken an enormous high flight and unfortunately (though I’m far from omniscient) it can be seen that at this point the direction (how the neocortex is re-programmed) seems to be mainly determined by foolishness/superstition as the basic script is written in the backrooms of the warlords.
RICHARD: The global news networks do present a high quality, high budget, never-ending, soap-opera, which attracts enormous ratings ... nevertheless, despite all the commotion, it is possible to see all aspects of the human condition parading daily across the screen (indeed all the commotion is part and parcel of the human condition).
As such the world-wide media is an invaluable resource never before available in human history (another first) ... the days of parochial ignorance are numbered.
RESPONDENT: Though there seems to be also a countermovement unfortunately not as strongly backed as the to wit evil scriptwriters push their scenario. As this ‘backing’ apparently seems to be a matter of numbers. As I see it human intelligence seems to try to moderate between the options that are available and it still seems to be making choices between what is the worst and what is a better scenario.
RICHARD: Yet all this while peace-on-earth already always exists ... and is anybody’s, for the very asking, each moment again.
RESPONDENT: Who/what are i.e., those people who come up with the insidious proposition to provide an anti rocket-shield for Japan (costs $24 billion) is this really the course we have set? I’m wondering, as a dreamer that is of course.
RICHARD: In the case you mention it could very well be said that it is the course the current North Korean dictator has set (rather than something the ubiquitous ‘we’ have set) ... in any situation where someone critically threatens to use physical force against their fellow human being it is not all that surprising that a corresponding defence be prepared.
RESPONDENT: Thus as alienation is the main source of confusion, that is not strange as 99,99999% of the world population is still inhabited/occupied/determined by the alienating entity if- extinguishing is not possible I’d be more then happy to see them being put asleep/being sedated and have humanity controlled through astra by sign language
RICHARD: This may be an apt moment to re-present what I have already re-posted (further above):
RESPONDENT: The computer now has that potential. So ... what you say?
RICHARD: What I say is that one of the fundamental understandings which enables the actualism method to work its magic is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home.
RESPONDENT: How (one thump up) Am (stretch the first finger). L>stop. Just an experiment. P.S. If you say quit here I well can understand because this is soo ... beyond the wildest dreams. But then again I assume a freed intelligence, can understand that someone had to make that call.
RICHARD: Nope ... a freed intelligence understands that one of the fundamental understandings which enables the actualism method to work its magic is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence.
In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home.
RICHARD: A full democracy not only has a representative government (regular competitive elections for governance) but an accountable jurisprudence (a transparent judicial process), freedom of speech (an uncensored media), freedom of association/assembly (no proscribed fellowships/ gatherings), freedom of contract (equal rights/ opportunity), the separation of church/ mosque/ temple/ synagogue and state (where humanism, rather than theism, manages human affairs), freedom of religion (including no religion) ... all of which involve issues of public policing (as opposed to secret police).
RESPONDENT: I’m curious if you can name one country/nation that matches the above criteria. i.e. [where humanism, rather than theism, manages human affairs].
RICHARD: For just one instance: the United States of America has the separation of church and state in its constitution. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has the following to say:
RESPONDENT: As it seems to me to be now a ‘full’ democracy has yet to emerge.
RICHARD: Indeed, I cannot name any country where humanism, rather than theism, *fully* manages human affairs ... Australia, for an example I have first-hand knowledge of, has the speaker of the house of parliament invoke the Christian/ Judaic god to guide the politicians’ deliberations, whenever the elected representatives sit to formulate policy, and then recites a Christian prayer.
Howsoever I will make the following observation: capital punishment has been legislated out of the law-book in every state and territory in Australia whereas the god invoked to guide the elected representatives’ deliberations has done no such thing (the Christian/ Judaic law-book still has that statute, if that is the right word, firmly in place with no indication that it will ever be struck out of divine law in regards, for just three instances, homosexuality, a non-virginal bride, and a betrothed virgin who cries not for help whilst being raped in a city).
Thus, to some degree if not a large degree, humanism, rather than theism, does manage human affairs – just as there is, to some degree if not a large degree, an adherence to all the (further above) criteria of a full democracy – and, thus far in human history, not one of those full democracies have ever waged war against another.
‘Tis held that accountability (regular competitive elections for governance) occasions this phenomenon.
RESPONDENT: It is Richards assumption (as I have understood) that the current direction humanity is moving is largely determined by actions of this Korean leader [Richard] ‘it could very well be said that it is the course the current North Korean dictator has set’ [Re: On/Off]. I’m not too sure whether I agree on this or not but is a fact that Korea is a major player in this human drama.
RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:
I specifically say it is in ‘the case you mention’ (the provision of an anti rocket-shield for Japan) that it could very well be said it is the course the current North Korean dictator has set ... nowhere do I say anything about ‘the current direction humanity is moving’ in that passage.
Which means there is nothing for you to agree on or not in the latter regard.
RESPONDENT: I now begin to see that neither in spiritual non spiritual freedom essential freedom is to be found. Freedom to inquire into life as it is has nothing to do with being spiritual nor has it to do with being non-spiritual. Richard has merely demonstrated that his non spirituality is only the opposite of spirituality and the one cannot exist without the other.
RICHARD: You have been down a similar road to this before:
Now that you have given your proposed ‘second alternative’ to spiritualism/spirituality the name ‘non spiritualty’ I will accordingly amend my last sentence (above). Vis.:
Put simply: there are no alternatives here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT No 28: The problem with HAIETMOBA is H.
RICHARD: Spelt out in full what you are saying looks something like this: [example only]: ‘The problem with asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is ‘how’. [end example]. As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for instance, has made a big thing about not asking ‘how’ – and his admonitions not to have passed into modern-day spiritual lore – it may be apposite to point out that ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ could just as easily be formulated as ‘in what way am I experiencing this moment of being alive’.
RESPONDENT: I see we’re are back to this MR’s stuff, no wonder we never get past that horseshit of the chasing my own tail reflex.
RICHARD: In what way does my use of the abbreviated form of ‘mister’ (the English equivalent of the Dutch ‘meneer’) – a form of address for a man/a conventional title of courtesy – cause you to reflexively chase your own tail?
RESPONDENT: Richard, how about: [example only]: ‘MY problem with asking MY, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is ‘how’.
RICHARD: As I wrote ‘oneself’ then your second ‘MY’ – a reduced form of ‘mine’ (the English equivalent of the Dutch ‘mijn’) – as a substitute for ‘one’ would properly read ‘myself’ in English ... for example:
As there is no problem associated with paying attention to the way in which anyone is experiencing this, the only moment everyone is ever alive, it is a manufactured argument to say the problem with ‘how’ is that, as soon as one is aware of a feeling or thought manifesting, the questioner kicks into action as it is made abundantly clear on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that the whole point of asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is that as soon as one is aware that one is no longer happy and harmless that very awareness soon has one back to being happy and harmless again (as in the passage quoted further below for instance).
RESPONDENT No 28: As soon as one is aware of a feeling or thought manifesting, the questioner kicks in to action.
RICHARD: Hmm ... how about ‘as soon as one is aware that one is no longer happy and harmless that very awareness kicks sensibility into action and one is soon back to being happy and harmless again’?
RESPONDENT: I suppose that the sequence was designed to function as such ...
RICHARD: There is no need to ‘suppose’ ... it actually is. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... unfortunately it doesn’t seem to work perfect because it is flawed. HAIETMOBA must run subconsciously in the background, for some reason the brain has (that is my brain had) difficulty with processing the word OF in this sequence such as that there is made an association with being alive when replacing this word with as it seems to be more fluently associate with being a live. I think it is due to short-term memory processes, ‘of’ is stored in a different department as it is seeking to associate with ‘moment’ whereas ‘as’ seeks to ‘associate’ with ‘being alive’. But don’t believe me just check it out. See, that’s where sometimes, a little bit of nitpicking can save a lot of trouble.
RICHARD: Maybe it is the way a sentence is structured in the Dutch language ... in the English language ‘this moment of being alive’ makes grammatical sense whereas ‘this moment as being alive’ does not.
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.