|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 19
Continued on from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 14 RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. To begin at the beginning, an examination of the proffer: ‘In at least one solar system, this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance, by providing a fresh opportunity for carbon-based life-forms to emerge out of itself ... and thus matter becomes animate matter ...’. In the world view being called ‘actualism’, is there any significance given to the fact that the above posit necessarily indicates that the ‘astonishing universe’ must needs be conscious of its action (the action being ‘providing a fresh opportunity ...’) in order to have ‘... manifested (manifest: adjective: obvious: clear to see or understand; verb (past manifested, past participle manifested, present participle manifesting, 3rd person present singular manifests): 1. transitive verb: show something clearly: to make something evident by showing or demonstrating it very clearly.) ... an event of no little significance’? RICHARD: *cute curtsy*. To end at the beginning: as the quote does not have to ‘necessarily indicate ...’ what you deem it to indicate your query cannot be answered to your satisfaction. RESPONDENT: Also, in the world view being called actualism, is the ‘fresh opportunity for carbon-based life-forms to emerge out of itself ...’ viewed as something other than the ‘amazing universe’? RICHARD: *prolonged prostration*. To end at the middle: as you seem to show some familiarity with finding your way through a dictionary it would appear that you have some sort of a grasp of the English language. As even a basic understanding of syntax would render your mangling of ‘emerge out of itself ...’ into ‘something other than ...’ null and void your query cannot be answered to your satisfaction. RESPONDENT: If so, please describe, according to the tenants of the world view being called actualism, the actual relationship of the amazing universe and the ‘fresh opportunity for carbon-based life-forms to emerge out of itself ...’. RICHARD: *generous genuflection*. To end at the ending: as your deduction is not a case of ‘if
so ...’ at all then your query cannot be answered to your satisfaction. Then again, having had lengthy discussions with the
being who is being you being god as god is being you, on another Mailing List And I am currently not inclined to feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises by responding to any other E-Mails you may see fit to offer.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. To begin at the beginning, an examination of the proffer ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *cute curtsy*. To end at the beginning ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. This is incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: Also, in the ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *prolonged prostration*. To end at the middle ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: If so ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *generous genuflection*. To end at the ending ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RICHARD: And I am currently not inclined to ... <snip> ... respond to any other E-Mails you may see fit to offer’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however ... <snip> ... to choose irrelevant and personal inclinations over an investigation of the truth of the bedrock of the world view called actualism is silly and despicable. Concerning your personal inclination to not respond to any E-Mails I may see fit to offer, other than making your statements of 12/7/2000: [Richard]: ‘I consider that un-moderated mailing lists are second to none in regards to an egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought’ and ‘... I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ completely false, it is of no great impact. As a matter of fact, it would be preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to study actualism, answered by someone less capricious. RICHARD: Taking into consideration your brief evaluation of the behaviour of the human being, that is
experienced by you being god as god is being you being ‘Richard’, as being ‘capricious’ in his response I will
be-stir myself from my disinclination to respond long enough to point you to the following URL: There you will find:
When you have waded through all my ‘capricious’ responses to your tortured tautological treatises you could then peruse the other 3.1 million words on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust Web Page wherein you will find none of your queries answered to your satisfaction either. Nothing, but nothing, can ever satisfy a solipsistic soul.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. To begin at the beginning, an examination of the proffer ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *cute curtsy*. To end at the beginning ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. This is incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: Also, in the ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *prolonged prostration*. To end at the middle ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: If so ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *generous genuflection*. To end at the ending ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RICHARD: And I am currently not inclined to ... <snip> ... respond to any other E-Mails you may see fit to offer’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however ... <snip> ... it would be preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to study actualism, answered by someone less capricious. RICHARD: Taking into consideration your brief evaluation ... <snip> ... of Richard as being ‘capricious’ ... <snip> ... you will find 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you ... <snip> ... nothing, but nothing, can ever satisfy a solipsistic soul. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. Thank you. Please remain aware that everything, absolutely everything is answered to my satisfaction ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... then it would appear that you will thoroughly enjoy re-reading the 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you and perusing the 3.1 million words on The Actual Freedom Trust Web Page. RESPONDENT: ... <snip> according to the following introduction, provided upon subscribing to the forum on which I now write: ‘This is a forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. It is most beneficial that you have joined for the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation, for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition, and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’. This forum is the appropriate stage for this investigation. With the encouragement to undertake the investigation established, the sensibility of the methodology substantiated and the appropriateness of the stage for the investigation confirmed, all that is necessary is the cooperation of the parties. RICHARD: Indeed ... and the key to enabling the ‘cooperation of the parties’ is contained in the sentence ‘the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this lifetime’. RESPONDENT: As stated previously, it is preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to follow the injunction to study actualism answered by someone less capricious, however, the above offering, although pretentious, is an indication there is now a personal inclination to communicate (evidence that capriciousness is factual present and not a personal evaluation) and to represent the world view called actualism. RICHARD: There is neither an ‘inclination to communicate’ nor any ‘evidence that capriciousness is factual present’ whatsoever. As I have shared 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) with you over the past eighteen months or so, any disinclination to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises can in no way be called ‘capricious’ behaviour ... and that I am writing to explain why there is this disinclination can in no way be called an ‘inclination’ to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises either. All I am doing here is nothing more and nothing less than an endeavour to demonstrate the inevitable result (known as cause and effect) of your patent inability to either sincerely participate in ‘an on-going investigation into becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’ or to have a ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this lifetime’. Or, to put it into a lingo you will be more familiar with: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. RESPONDENT: I am willing to undertake the investigation with you being the representative of the world view being called actualism and recognize you as an expert in that same concern. Shall we re-start? RICHARD: No ... the vital ingredients (the ‘sincerity of your participation’ and the ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition’) which enable ‘the cooperation of the parties’ has not only been startlingly absent in all 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so, but is just as strikingly absent now. Again I will quote the words of the being, who was being you being god as god is being you now, who allegedly spoke nearly 2,000 years ago: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. To begin at the beginning, an examination of the proffer ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *cute curtsy*. To end at the beginning ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. This is incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: Also, in the ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *prolonged prostration*. To end at the middle ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: If so ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *generous genuflection*. To end at the ending ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RICHARD: And I am currently not inclined to ... <snip> ... respond to any other E-Mails you may see fit to offer’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however ... <snip> ... it would be preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to study actualism, answered by someone less capricious. RICHARD: Taking into consideration your brief evaluation ... <snip> ... of Richard as being ‘capricious’ ... <snip> ... you will find 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you ... <snip> ... nothing, but nothing, can ever satisfy a solipsistic soul. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. Thank you. Please remain aware that everything, absolutely everything is answered to my satisfaction ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... then it would appear that you will thoroughly enjoy re-reading the 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you and perusing the 3.1 million words on The Actual Freedom Trust Web Page. RESPONDENT: ... <snip> according to the following introduction, provided upon subscribing to the forum on which I now write: ‘This is a forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. It is most beneficial that you have joined for the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation, for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition, and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’. This forum is the appropriate stage for this investigation. With the encouragement to undertake the investigation established, the sensibility of the methodology substantiated and the appropriateness of the stage for the investigation confirmed, all that is necessary is the cooperation of the parties. RICHARD: Indeed ... and the key to enabling the ‘cooperation of the parties’ is contained
in the sentence ‘the sincerity RESPONDENT: As stated previously, it is preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to follow the injunction to study actualism answered by someone less capricious, however, the above offering, although pretentious, is an indication there is now a personal inclination to communicate (evidence that capriciousness is factual present and not a personal evaluation) and to represent the world view called actualism. RICHARD: There is neither an ‘inclination to communicate’ nor any ‘evidence that capriciousness is factual present’ whatsoever. As I have shared 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) with you over the past eighteen months or so, any disinclination to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises can in no way be called ‘capricious’ behaviour ... and that I am writing to explain why there is this disinclination can in no way be called an ‘inclination’ to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises either. All I am doing here is nothing more and nothing less than an endeavour to demonstrate the inevitable result (known as cause and effect) of your patent inability to either sincerely participate in ‘an on-going investigation into becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’ or to have a genuine concern ‘about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this lifetime’. Or, to put it into a lingo you will be more familiar with: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. RESPONDENT: I am willing to undertake the investigation with you being the representative of the world view being called actualism and recognize you as an expert in that same concern. Shall we re-start? RICHARD: No ... the vital ingredients (the ‘sincerity of your participation’ and the ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition’) which enable ‘the cooperation of the parties’ has not only been startlingly absent in all 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so, but is just as strikingly absent now. Again I will quote the words of the being, who was being you being god as god is being you now, who allegedly spoke nearly 2,000 years ago: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. RESPONDENT: Very good. I attest that the interest in carrying out the injunction ‘...I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ is sincere. Further, it would be glorious if in fact that investigation resulted in revealing that my current condition was not free of the human condition and that the world view being called actualism could presently remedy that condition. Nothing that is not sincere will be offered, nor will there be the intentional offering of a tautology or digression into grand standing or rhetoric. Importance shall be given only to the establishing of the factual truth of the world view being called actualism (the truth of the world view being critical to establishing its ability to presently remedy a circumstance of not being free of the human condition). If you would like to suggest a revised pledge of sincerity that may better fit your criteria for evidence of what is being called ‘the vital ingredients (the ‘sincerity of your participation’ and the ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition’)’ being present, I will be happy to review it. RICHARD: Oh? Am I to take it that you have already re-read the 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) that I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so and have seen for yourself that the vital ingredients which enable ‘the cooperation of the parties’ were as startlingly absent then as they are just as strikingly absent in your current E-Mails? I would not want you to merely take my word for it – there are those who would say that ‘this is an incorrect thought’ of mine – because unless one sees it for oneself then any ‘pledge of sincerity’ simply reeks of paltericity. Besides, any ‘pledge’ (or vow or promise or resolution) is but a poor substitute for the genuine
article anyway. To be sincere is a gift one gives to oneself for its own inherent reward of the honesty engendered (which ensures
integrity) And only naiveté knows how close at hand peace-on-earth already always is.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. To begin at the beginning, an examination of the proffer ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *cute curtsy*. To end at the beginning ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. This is incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: Also, in the ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *prolonged prostration*. To end at the middle ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RESPONDENT: If so ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: *generous genuflection*. To end at the ending ... <snip> ...’. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought Good Friend ... <snip> ...’. * RICHARD: And I am currently not inclined to ... <snip> ... respond to any other E-Mails you may see fit to offer’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however ... <snip> ... it would be preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to study actualism, answered by someone less capricious. RICHARD: Taking into consideration your brief evaluation ... <snip> ... of Richard as being ‘capricious’ ... <snip> ... you will find 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you ... <snip> ... nothing, but nothing, can ever satisfy a solipsistic soul. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. Thank you. Please remain aware that everything, absolutely everything is answered to my satisfaction ... <snip> ...’. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... then it would appear that you will thoroughly enjoy re-reading the 150 pages of text I have been ‘capricious’ enough to have shared with you and perusing the 3.1 million words on The Actual Freedom Trust Web Page. RESPONDENT: ... <snip> according to the following introduction, provided upon subscribing to the forum on which I now write: ‘This is a forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. It is most beneficial that you have joined for the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation, for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition, and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’. This forum is the appropriate stage for this investigation. With the encouragement to undertake the investigation established, the sensibility of the methodology substantiated and the appropriateness of the stage for the investigation confirmed, all that is necessary is the cooperation of the parties. RICHARD: Indeed ... and the key to enabling the ‘cooperation of the parties’ is contained in the sentence ‘the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this lifetime’. RESPONDENT: As stated previously, it is preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to follow the injunction to study actualism answered by someone less capricious, however, the above offering, although pretentious, is an indication there is now a personal inclination to communicate (evidence that capriciousness is factual present and not a personal evaluation) and to represent the world view called actualism. RICHARD: There is neither an ‘inclination to communicate’ nor any ‘evidence that capriciousness is factual present’ whatsoever. As I have shared 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) with you over the past eighteen months or so, any disinclination to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises can in no way be called ‘capricious’ behaviour ... and that I am writing to explain why there is this disinclination can in no way be called an ‘inclination’ to further feed your voracious capacity to dismiss all the ills of humankind through tortuous tautological treatises either. All I am doing here is nothing more and nothing less than an endeavour to demonstrate the inevitable result (known as cause and effect) of your patent inability to either sincerely participate in ‘an on-going investigation into becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time’ or to have a genuine concern ‘about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this lifetime’. Or, to put it into a lingo you will be more familiar with: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. RESPONDENT: I am willing to undertake the investigation with you being the representative of the world view being called actualism and recognize you as an expert in that same concern. Shall we re-start? RICHARD: No ... the vital ingredients (the ‘sincerity of your participation’ and the ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition’) which enable ‘the cooperation of the parties’ has not only been startlingly absent in all 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so, but is just as strikingly absent now. Again I will quote the words of the being, who was being you being god as god is being you now, who allegedly spoke nearly 2,000 years ago: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. RESPONDENT: Very good. I attest that the interest in carrying out the injunction ‘...I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ is sincere. Further, it would be glorious if in fact that investigation resulted in revealing that my current condition was not free of the human condition and that the world view being called actualism could presently remedy that condition. Nothing that is not sincere will be offered, nor will there be the intentional offering of a tautology or digression into grand standing or rhetoric. Importance shall be given only to the establishing of the factual truth of the world view being called actualism (the truth of the world view being critical to establishing its ability to presently remedy a circumstance of not being free of the human condition). If you would like to suggest a revised pledge of sincerity that may better fit your criteria for evidence of what is being called ‘the vital ingredients (the ‘sincerity of your participation’ and the ‘genuine concern about becoming free of the Human Condition’)’ being present, I will be happy to review it. RICHARD: Oh? Am I to take it that you have already re-read the 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) that I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so and have seen for yourself that the vital ingredients which enable ‘the cooperation of the parties’ were as startlingly absent then as they are just as strikingly absent in your current E-Mails? I would not want you to merely take my word for it – there are those who would say that ‘this is an incorrect thought’ of mine – because unless one sees it for oneself then any ‘pledge of sincerity’ simply reeks of paltericity. RESPONDENT: *deep bow*. Thank you. As is recommended as part of 3.1 million words of the actualism home page (specifically as the instruction; ‘An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers’), it is preferable to start at the beginning of the world view called actualism. Certainly, it is wise to determine the truthfulness, through investigation, of the basis (first step) of ‘a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression’ before jumping to the middle of the progression that is built on that basis which may or may not be factual true, yes? RICHARD: Be it far from me to tell you what to do, or what not to do, but seeing that you have asked me I will say this much: you may, of course, start reading the 3.1 million words wherever and whenever you wish to ... or even not at all. RESPONDENT: It being sensible that an investigation of the world view called actualism begin and the beginning, and that the 150 pages you have referred to are not part of the beginning (introduction) recommended to newcomers (to wit, until you consent to assist with the investigation of the world view called actualism, allowing me to study the first step, I must needs be considered a newcomer) those same 150 pages are more sensibly re-read, in their correct order in the body of the 3.1 million words we shall investigate and determine to be, or not be, truth. RICHARD: You may, of course, re-read the 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) in any order you like – or even not at all – as any other ‘newcomer’ may or may not do. However, I cannot pretend that I have not shared 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) with you over the past eighteen months or so just to feed your pretence that you are a ‘newcomer’ to the words explicating an actual freedom from the human condition. * RICHARD: Besides, any ‘pledge’ (or vow or promise or resolution) is but a poor substitute for the genuine article anyway. RESPONDENT: Certainly, however, please be assured that in this instance, the words are part and parcel of the genuine article as it were. In fact, if there are specific criteria by which you could judge the genuine article missing in any further conversations that arise from the investigation of the world view called actualism, please spell them out. Then in fact, if those specific criteria are violated, the conversation can be immediately dropped with all observers being aware that in fact, according to the specific criteria you have created and made apparent to me, I was not sincere and/or genuine in my participation. RICHARD: I do appreciate that you are concerned, that ‘all observers’ should be aware whether you are or are not sincere, but as I decline to be a probity policeman there is no ‘specific criteria’ in the first place. This means that there is no ‘specific criteria’ that can be ‘violated’ such as to necessitate you having to ‘immediately drop’ the conversation. The meaning of the adage ‘as ye sow, so shall ye reap’ will obviate the need for you to do that. RESPONDENT: The offering of such a list of disqualifying behaviours seems a little effort for a undertaking that promises to be no less important than being ‘... a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow-to be both happy and harmless.’, no? RICHARD: The reason why there are no ‘disqualifying behaviours’ preventing you from (a) reading the 3.1 million words wherever and whenever you wish to ... and (b) re-reading the 150 pages of text (or 92,336 words or 2,303 paragraphs) that I have shared with you over the past eighteen months or so ... and (c) writing E-Mails to this Mailing List is because only a quasi-integrity can come about through imposition. RESPONDENT: My only aim, and I am sincere dedication to this aim, is to complete the injunction ‘...I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’. This study will include the investigation of the world view called actualism to determine if in fact, as it is described via the 3.1 million words in the ‘... step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow-to be both happy and harmless.’ it satisfies a demand for it to be true. ‘With the following being fact: 1. There is encouragement to undertake the investigation is established (the above injunction). 2. The sensibility of the methodology (to begin at the beginning and to establish the truthfulness of the first step <basis> of ‘...a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression...’ is substantiated (as per the instruction ‘An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers.’). 3. The appropriateness of the stage for the investigation is confirmed (as per the following statement: ‘... This is a forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. It is most beneficial that you have joined for the sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation, for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition, and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time...’). To wit, the afore copied affirmation of this list on which I now write does not include a phrase that reads ‘it could be, or it might be, beneficial that you have joined, to be determined by whether or not you are sincere’ in fact, it quite clearly states that my joining is beneficial and that sincerity is a fact evident by virtue of participation. Further, at no point does the above affirmation of the list on which I now write indicate that ‘genuineness’ is to be proven, or that it should be questioned. In fact ‘genuineness’ , like sincerity, is proven, in the context of the affirmation of the list on which I now write, by virtue of participation. Considering the fact that I have happily and honestly cooperated with being subjected to a rigor far beyond what other participants must be asked to endure, it is silly and despicable to further question the sincerity of my participation, yes? RICHARD: But nothing is preventing you from participating on this Mailing List – no qualifiers are being placed upon your participation – nor have you ever been ‘subjected to a rigor far beyond what other participants must be asked to endure’ in order to participate on this Mailing List. I am simply explaining why I am currently not inclined to respond to your E-Mails. RESPONDENT: All that is necessary is the cooperation of the parties. Shall we re-start? RICHARD: No ... I am currently not inclined to respond to your E-Mails. Continued on in Mailing List ‘B’: No. 14
Continued on from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 14 RESPONDENT No. 10: [quote]: ‘Prescription for America: An Epidemic of Alexithymia’ by Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.; April 30, 2001: www.dadi.org/alexthym.htm [SNIP ARTICLE]. And all this without a hint of a self glorification. Yep, takes a religious nut alright, with one hell of an inflated ego to turn a clinical case of alexithymia into a ‘brand new’ (LOL)*Third Alternative?*. RESPONDENT: Namaste’. The first child whom chose to live with us when our 10 year stint as therapeutic foster care began was a young fellow named [name withheld]. He was 11 when we met he and his family (His mother, his biological father <his mother’s step brother>, his step father and his five siblings) at the county court house. Knowing that after meeting [name withheld] would be asked to leave his family of 11 years to come and live with us, who, at the time, were complete strangers, we expected a tearful good-bye, or even more likely a gut wrenching struggle to free the young boy from an embrace of desperate emotional attachment to his mother. To our surprise, when the meeting ended, young [name withheld] actually beat us to our car. Not in a fearful dash to escape an abusive family, but rather in a skipping gallop which we came to learn after having invited a dozen of so other ‘emotionally disturbed’ children to live with us, was part of the behaviour commonly diagnosed as Attention Deficient Disorder. After a very talkative hour ride to our home, [name withheld] exited the car and walked directly into our house without even a moments hesitation. Not longer after our arrival and showing [name withheld] his new room, either Beautiful Wife or I asked him ‘how are you feeling?’ and he answered immediately ‘I am hungry, do you have any corn dogs’? [Name withheld] then proceeded to eat 5 or 6 corn dogs. As innocent an act as this seems, it was a clue to what would be the most amazing 3 years our lives. [name withheld], it was slowly discovered, was COMPLETELY unable to emote. Not ‘unable to express his feelings’, not ‘unable to share his emotions’, but rather absolutely and completely with out affect. No anger, no sadness, no fear, no remorse, no malice, no happiness, no guilt, no sympathy, no emotions period and absolutely no concern for any-thing, not his own safety nor the safety or feelings of those around him. He could steal without concern, he could harm (himself or another) without thought, he could lie with out concern, always with the same half grin and the same completely blank beady little eyes staring our from behind the thick lenses of his always taped together glasses. [name withheld] was never anything other than all too satisfied to be alive. He never cried, he never got angry. He just lived and took what he needed to do so regardless of who may be hurt or what may be damaged in the act. [Name withheld] was examined by a myriad of medical doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists, all of who offered little more than their sympathy for our family and the patently hollow adulation for the ‘wonderful work’ we were doing with [name withheld]. He became a case study at the local office of mental health. Eventually he was diagnosed with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, though the diagnosing clinic admitted his behaviour was not typical of the condition and that the diagnosis was offered based of his mother’s admittance of using drugs and alcohol while pregnant with [name withheld]. While [name withheld] lived with us, Beautiful Wife and I would work in shifts so that one of us was always awake and attentive to [name withheld]. He had demonstrated a propensity for getting up in the night and raiding the kitchen, gorging himself on the strangest, and sometimes dangerous, combinations of foods. Because [name withheld] was amazingly resourceful and capable of incredible stealth, we placed baby monitors through-out the house to alert us when he evaded the attention of whom ever was on watch. He was suspended from the local special education program for assaulting his teacher. He wasn’t angry with her, he could not be angry, she simply was prohibiting him from ‘going to lunch’ at 10:00 in the morning. He was admitted to a special educational program for children with severe behavioural problems, but after a month, was suspended from the program for harming classmates and for being an uncontrollable threat to his own safety (the other students were ‘daring’ him to perform dangerous stunts, which is he was completely willing to perform). [Name withheld] was the only living example of an utterly ‘emotionless’ person I have ever experienced. He was intelligent, brutal (though not malicious) and completely relentless in his agenda. He acted as he thought appropriate in every instance not encumbered by concern for those around him. When hungry he ate (and did whatever necessary to secure food), when tired he slept, when needing to relieve himself he would simply urinate in the most convenient corner. Always grinning. He experienced no loyalty, no gratitude, no respect, no disappointment, no betrayal, no commitment. There was for him no question of right and wrong, nor any sense that such a question could arise. [Name withheld] is the benchmark to which all claims of being ‘emotionless’ can be measured. RICHARD: Might I enquire as to what your report of a child diagnosed as suffering from ‘Attention Deficient Disorder’ and ‘Foetal Alcohol Syndrome’ has to do with an article prescribing (tongue-in-cheek) an epidemic of alexithymia to combat what the article’s author described as the ‘Ophrahfication’ of America? Furthermore, why would a child diagnosed as suffering from ‘Attention Deficient Disorder’ and ‘Foetal Alcohol Syndrome’ be considered by you to be ‘the benchmark to which all claims of being ‘emotionless’ can be measured’ when a person suffering from the morbid condition of clinical alexithymia (originally found in lobotomised patients) would surely be such a bench-mark? Also, seeing that your report coincidentally contains a few words and phrases strikingly similar to words and
phrases I commonly use (such as ‘relentless’, ‘no loyalty’, ‘no gratitude’, ‘no respect’, ‘no question of
right and wrong’ and so on), and seeing that you are responding to a post from a known ‘agent provocateur’ who is
self-acknowledged as being exquisitely exhilarated by deliberatively provoking anger through contrived debate For is such conduct not unbecoming of GOD Nevertheless, (and even if your intention is perhaps sincerely meant and displays only a reflexive phraseology) in view of the bench-mark you are consciously enjoining and its tacit prognosis I do find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is considered to be a severe psychotic mental disorder, for whatever reason or in whatever way it is thus dismissed, by those who cannot even begin to grasp the fact that something totally new to human experience is being freely shared with the human world-at-large via this remarkable medium known as the internet. There is no precedent to go by.
RESPONDENT: ... what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’? It was asked of Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed. Conclusion: Body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’. RICHARD: A question or two, if I may ... am I to take it that ‘Beautiful Wife’ is an actual flesh and blood female with an actual flesh and blood ‘hand’ and an actual flesh and blood ‘chest’? The reason I ask is because, if not, surely your sentence should read:
Also, you must surely be aware that the word ‘behaviour’ stems from the word ‘haviour’ (possess, have) and that ‘behaviour’ (manners, conduct, performance, actions, deeds,) must be had or done by someone substantial ... as is evidenced by your need to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ had a ‘hand’ that did the pointing to the ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? What I am getting at is that you cannot have some invisibility asking another invisibility a question and then have that invisibility move an invisibility so as to have that invisibility point to an invisibility as an answer ... or can you in the world you live in? If so ... how can an invisibility be ‘beautiful’ ?
RESPONDENT No. 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this:
RESPONDENT: ... what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’? It was asked of Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed. Conclusion: Body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’. RICHARD: ... am I to take it that ‘Beautiful Wife’ is an actual flesh and blood female with an actual flesh and blood ‘hand’ and an actual flesh and blood ‘chest’ ? RESPONDENT: It may be taken that way, however, that is not what was intended by the offering. RICHARD: Okay ... what was ‘intended by the offering’, then? RESPONDENT: If I may, I beg your indulgence with pursuing what was meant by the offering ‘Beautiful Wife, etc.’ at this point. It is certain that the communication will become clearer as the original issue, ‘what is, and/or where is the actual flesh and blood body ...’ is further investigated ... RICHARD: Are my queries not considered by you to be an investigation, then? RESPONDENT: ... however, a detailed explanation of the offering will not reciprocally provide clarification of the original issue if pursued here. Thank you. RICHARD: Why not? * RICHARD: The reason I ask is because, if not, surely your sentence should read: ‘It was asked by the behaviour called No. 19 of the behaviour called Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘the behaviour called hand pointing toward the behaviour called chest’ was observed by the behaviour called Respondent’. RESPONDENT: Yes, however, to offer ‘It was asked by the behaviour called Respondent ...’ is incorrect because the ‘behaviour called No. 19’ and ‘the asking’ are one in the same. RICHARD: If they are ‘one in the same’ then why is it ‘incorrect’ to say ‘it was asked by the behaviour called No. 19’? How is it determined whence ‘the asking’ cometh if there be no indication that it was ‘the behaviour called No. 19’ that was ‘asking’ (and not ‘it was asked by the behaviour called Beautiful Neighbour’, for example)? RESPONDENT: To offer ‘It was asked by the behaviour called No. 19 ...’ is the equivalent of claiming that ‘the motion caused the movement’. RICHARD: Why? * RICHARD: Also, you must surely be aware that the word ‘behaviour’ stems from the word ‘haviour’ (possess, have) and that ‘behaviour’ (manners, conduct, performance, actions, deeds,) must be had or done by someone substantial ... as is evidenced by your need to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ had a ‘hand’ that did the pointing to the ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? RESPONDENT: Thank you, this information was not known. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... does anything change in the way you use words now that is known why you needed to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ indeed had a ‘hand’ that certainly did the pointing to the obvious ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? * RICHARD: What I am getting at is that you cannot have some invisibility asking another invisibility a question and then have that invisibility move an invisibility so as to have that invisibility point to an invisibility as an answer ... or can you in the world you live in? RESPONDENT: To this point, nothing of invisibility has been offered. From here, the pursuit of the original issue, i.e. ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’? ‘, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body’* is not benefited from adding ‘invisibility’ to the discussion at this time. Perhaps you will provide the intention for adding invisibility to the conversation? RICHARD: Simple: if there is no invisibility then ‘the asking’ that is ‘one and the same’ as the (visible and audible by ‘Beautiful Wife’) behaviour called No. 19 needs must have been incurred by the ocular perception of a visible ‘Beautiful Wife’. Furthermore, the moving of a visible ‘hand’, so as to occasion the visible pointing to a visible ‘chest’, were in response to the audible sounds (that are now being called ‘the asking’) issuing forth from the behaviour called mouth/tongue/lips of the behaviour called No. 19, non? In simple words: cause and effect (you asked she responded). * RICHARD: If so ... how can an invisibility be ‘beautiful’ ? RESPONDENT: Again, to this point, nothing of invisibility has been offered. From here, the pursuit of the original issue, i.e. ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’?’, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body*’ is not benefited from adding ‘invisibility’ to the discussion at this time. Perhaps you will provide the intention for adding invisibility to the conversation? RICHARD: Sure ... how do you ascertain that that ‘Beautiful Wife’ is indeed ‘Beautiful’ (and indeed a ‘Wife’ for that matter) unless ‘Beautiful Wife’ is visible? RESPONDENT: *The fact being that all that is directly experienced is experience and that experience ‘is of’ a behaviour <action> and never of that which is other (flesh and blood body) than the behaviour <action>. RICHARD: Is the ‘behaviour <action>’ occurring in a vacuum? RESPONDENT: As an example, to ‘watch a dancer’, if there is an interest in what is actual, is to experience ‘dance’ never to observe a body that dances. RICHARD: As another example: to watch a dead frog on the road (or any road-kill) is to experience ... what? RESPONDENT: In turn, ‘your’ experience is always experience directly, never of a ‘flesh and blood body’ that experiences experience. RICHARD: Ahh ... things work differently here in this physical world.
RESPONDENT No. 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this: ‘Whether this flesh and blood body likes it or not this flesh and blood body is here on this planet anyway; whether this flesh and blood body approves of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether this flesh and blood body accepts it or rejects it this flesh and blood body is going to die one day anyhow’. RESPONDENT: Would the following also be offered: 1. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) likes it or not ...’ is one and the same body that is ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’.and further is one and the same body that eventually dies someday? RICHARD: There is only the one body here (if that is what you are asking). RESPONDENT: 2. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than that approval or disapproval (experience)? RICHARD: There is much more to life than going around approving or disapproving. RESPONDENT: 3. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than ‘... this universe (which) is happening ...’? RICHARD: This body is made of the same-same stuff as the universe. RESPONDENT: 4. The flesh and blood body, which is actual, can become non-existent (non-actual)? RICHARD: No ... it will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash.
RESPONDENT: ... what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’? It was asked of Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed. Conclusion: Body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’. RICHARD: ... surely your sentence should read: ‘It was asked by the behaviour called No. 19 of the behaviour called Beautiful Wife, ‘what is the body?’ and a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘the behaviour called hand pointing toward the behaviour called chest’ was observed by the behaviour called No. 19’. RESPONDENT: Yes, however, to offer ‘It was asked by the behaviour called Respondent ...’ is incorrect because the ‘behaviour called No. 19’ and ‘the asking’ are one in the same. RICHARD: If they are ‘one in the same’ then why is it ‘incorrect’ to say ‘it was asked by the behaviour called No. 19’? RESPONDENT: Incorrect in this instance was used to indicate that in the sentence: ‘... it was asked by the behaviour called No. 19’ implies that the behaviour called No. 19 and the asking were other than one in the same. Specifically, the behaviour called No. 19 caused the asking, in other words, the relationship of the behaviour called No. 19 to the asking was one of efficient cause to effect. If in fact the implication was not intended, and the sentence was the communication: ‘the meaning of that specific behaviour called No. 19 was the asking of ...’ the characterization that the offering was incorrect is withdrawn. If, however, the sentence was intended to communicate that the behaviour called No. 19 caused the asking, the sentence is incorrect, based on the premises: 1. the behaviour (action) called No. 19 and the asking are one in the same thing. 2. A defined action is logically not considered the cause of it self. RICHARD: Golly ... and to consider that all I was conveying was that it was not, for example, ‘It was asked by the behaviour called Beautiful Neighbour of the behaviour called Beautiful Wife ...’. It appears that being GOD is rather complicated and complex ... having to second-guess somebody’s otherwise simple intention, eh? Still ... it is educational to notice that your over-used phrase ‘this is an incorrect thought’ can itself be the outcome of an incorrect thought. * RICHARD: How is it determined whence ‘the asking’ cometh if there be no indication that it was ‘the behaviour called No. 19’ that was ‘asking’ (and not ‘it was asked by the behaviour called Beautiful Neighbour’, for example)? RESPONDENT: To this point whence ‘the asking’ cometh has not been determined as the revealing of whence ‘the asking’ cometh is directly related to the issue under discussion, specifically: ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body’* In other words, direct experience does not reveal a ‘flesh and blood body’, or any-thing other than the action experienced as that from ‘whence ‘the asking’ cometh’. RICHARD: What I am pointing out is that you use un-clear phrases (such as ‘it was asked’) and physical-world words, which refer to people, things and events (such as ‘Wife’, ‘hand’, ‘pointing’ and ‘chest’), in a way that conveys a somewhat ambivalent GOD speaking. If not a confused GOD. RESPONDENT: One can imagine a flesh and blood body being from ‘whence ‘the asking’ cometh’, but of course, the image of a flesh and bloody body as being something other than the action experienced and being from whence ‘the asking’ cometh is not direct sensual experience. RICHARD: Of course ... and therein lies a major distinction betwixt the world as experienced by GOD and my on-going direct sensuous experiencing: the freedom of an actual freedom from the human condition is exemplified by the total absence of the capacity or ability to form images. As the imaginative/intuitive faculty does not exist, in this flesh and blood body, imagination cannot operate here in this actual world. To put it in ‘real world’ terms (aka materialism): for you only what is commonly called the ‘inner world’ exists (aka spiritualism) ... whereas for me only what is commonly called the ‘outer world’ exists (aka actualism). RESPONDENT: Considering the example ‘... it was asked by the behaviour called Beautiful Neighbour’ the experience under consideration, as a different view point, could very well be imagined and described as being offered by Beautiful Neighbour. RICHARD: But as it was not ‘being offered by Beautiful Neighbour’ any imagining on your part is an irrelevance ... it was an example-only of the confusion engendered by the reluctance on the part of GOD to provide clarity in communication. * RESPONDENT: To offer ‘It was asked by the behaviour called No. 19 ...’ is the equivalent of claiming that ‘the motion caused the movement’. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: There can be found no behaviour called No. 19 that is other than the asking nor asking that is other than behaviour called No. 19, hence, the behaviour called No. 19 and the asking are one in the same. Ergo; the offering: ‘it was asked by the behaviour called No. 19 ...’ is equivalent to claiming: the motion (behaviour called No. 19) caused the movement (the asking), or, ‘the movement is the cause for the movement’. RICHARD: And on and on you go ... and all over such a simple thing as which asking asked (spoke) and which listening listened (heard). I was already cognisant that ‘Beautiful Wife’ (she of the ‘hand’ and the ‘pointing’ and the ‘chest’) was the listening ... it just was not made clear whence ‘the asking’ cometh. And all so as to avoid acknowledging the implicit cause and effect (you asked she responded). * RICHARD: Also, you must surely be aware that the word ‘behaviour’ stems from the word ‘haviour’ (possess, have) and that ‘behaviour’ (manners, conduct, performance, actions, deeds,) must be had or done by someone substantial ... as is evidenced by your need to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ had a ‘hand’ that did the pointing to the ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? RESPONDENT: Thank you, this information was not known. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... does anything change in the way you use words now that is known why you needed to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ indeed had a ‘hand’ that certainly did the ‘pointing’ to the obvious ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? RESPONDENT: Forgive please, could the above question be worded differently? I have difficulty with: ‘that is known why’ following: ‘does anything change in the way you use words now’. RICHARD: Sure ... as you now know (‘thank you, this information was not known’) that ‘behaviour’ (manners, conduct, performance, actions, deeds,) must be had or done by someone substantial do you now realise why you needed to say that ‘Beautiful Wife’ indeed had a ‘hand’ that certainly did the ‘pointing’ to the obvious ‘chest’ she presumably has betwixt head and abdomen? Otherwise this all starts to be somewhat reminiscent of that hand in the ‘60’s TV series ‘The Addams Family’. * RICHARD: What I am getting at is that you cannot have some invisibility asking another invisibility a question and then have that invisibility move an invisibility so as to have that invisibility point to an invisibility as an answer ... or can you in the world you live in? RESPONDENT: To this point, nothing of invisibility has been offered. From here, the pursuit of the original issue, i.e. ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’? ‘, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body’* is not benefited from adding ‘invisibility’ to the discussion at this time. Perhaps you will provide the intention for adding invisibility to the conversation? RICHARD: Simple: if there is no invisibility then ‘the asking’ that is ‘one and the same’ as the (visible and audible by ‘Beautiful Wife’) behaviour called No. 19 needs must have been incurred by the ocular perception of a visible ‘Beautiful Wife’. Furthermore, the moving of a visible ‘hand’ , so as to occasion the visible pointing to a visible ‘chest’, were in response to the audible sounds (that are now being called ‘the asking’) issuing forth from the behaviour called mouth/tongue/lips of the behaviour called No. 19, non? RESPONDENT: No. The descriptions hand’, ‘chest’, ‘mouth/tongue/lips’ are completely unnecessary for the direct experience to arise. That is to say that the experience was of only behaviour (action), not of any-thing, i.e.. hand’, ‘chest’, ‘mouth/tongue/lips’, etc., issuing forth, creating, producing or existing in any other relationship to the behaviour (action). Experience, in the instance under discussion, and visibility are one in the same. When investigating the experience, there can be found no hand that moved, mouth/tongue/lips that issued forth the asking, no Beautiful Wife that responded, no Respondent that asked, or any-thing that created, produced or existing in any other relationship to the behaviour (action). RICHARD: Yet as you needed to specifically say [quote] ‘‘hand pointing toward chest’ was observed’ [endquote] – and not a vacuous ‘behaviour acting towards behaviour was experienced’ – does it not follow that when the behaviour (action) ‘it was asked’ occurred that audible sounds, offered as ‘what is the body’, happened in association with and concurrent to mouth/tongue/lips moving? After all, if ‘hand pointing toward chest’ can be observed and/or experienced ... why cannot mouth/ tongue/ lips moving be observed and/or experienced? * RICHARD: In simple words: cause and effect (you asked she responded). RESPONDENT: No. There was experience, what caused it, and if it was the effect of anything is not revealed by direct sensual experience, yes? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way: if the audible sounds, offered as ‘it was asked of Beautiful Wife ‘what is the body’’ , had not happened ... would the behaviour (action) offered as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ have occurred (so as to enable the conclusion offered (‘body is a particular behaviour that might be described as ‘hand pointing toward chest’ )? Put simply: there was the intent to elicit a response by asking a specific question and a particular action resulted (which action cannot be described as ... um ... tree pointing towards sun). * RICHARD: If so ... how can an invisibility be ‘beautiful’ ? RESPONDENT: Again, to this point, nothing of invisibility has been offered. From here, the pursuit of the original issue, i.e. ‘what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’?’, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body*’ is not benefited from adding ‘invisibility’ to the discussion at this time. Perhaps you will provide the intention for adding invisibility to the conversation? RICHARD: Sure ... how do you ascertain that that ‘Beautiful Wife’ is indeed ‘Beautiful’ (and indeed a ‘Wife’ for that matter) unless ‘Beautiful Wife’ is visible? RESPONDENT: As follows: A specific experience is Beautiful Wife. The experience was not invisible, in fact visibility and experience is one in the same and that there is a Beautiful Wife (something that exists as some-thing other than the action experienced) to be visible is not necessary at all. RICHARD: Okay ... can the experience called ‘looking in a mirror’ be rightfully described as ‘Beautiful Respondent’? RESPONDENT: The experience can then be imagined to be, and described as, the result of Beautiful Wife, Wife, Sister, Mother, Kathy, employee, friend, neighbour, person, actual flesh and blood body, Daughter, female, responding. RICHARD: Here is an experiment for you: have the experience ‘it was asked ‘what is body’ (now known as ‘the asking’) occur in front of an experience called ‘brick wall’ and let me know by return mail what happens in regards ‘responding’ (without resorting to imagining). * RESPONDENT: *The fact being that all that is directly experienced is experience and that experience ‘is of’ a behaviour <action> and never of that which is other (flesh and blood body) than the behaviour <action>. RICHARD: Is the ‘behaviour <action>’ occurring in a vacuum? RESPONDENT: As far as can be determined by direct experience, it is not occurring in any-thing. There is experience, whether or not it is a field and whether or not that field is inside of, outside of, or existing in any relationship what so ever to any other field is not revealed by that experience or any direct experience. RICHARD: Oh ... and to consider that all I was going to ask was whether the ‘behaviour <action>’ offered as ‘it was asked of Beautiful Wife ‘what is the body’’, had occurred in a kitchen or a bedroom ... or even out on the lawn (where mowing miraculously occurs sans a body controlling the non-actual lawnmower and a not-extant bee stinging the non-existent body sometimes happens ... as was reported to have happened in an e-mail written some time ago by the behaviour called No. 19). So I will ask now: where did the ‘behaviour <action>’ occur? * RESPONDENT: As an example, to ‘watch a dancer’, if there is an interest in what is actual, is to experience ‘dance’ never to observe a body that dances. RICHARD: As another example: to watch a dead frog on the road (or any road-kill) is to experience ... what? RESPONDENT: Directly, experience. However, experience that might be described as deterioration, de-hydration, oozing, bleeding, rotting, changing, etc. RICHARD: Yet ‘to ‘watch a dancer’’ (particularly if the dancing be vigorous) could similarly be described as perspiration, oozing, dehydration, rapid breathing and so on. What is it that clearly delineates ‘to watch a dead frog’ from ‘to ‘watch a dancer’’ ? For example: on a clear moonlit night by the ocean it is possible to ‘experience dance’ (the moonlight dancing on the water) without ever observing ‘a body that dances’ either. In case it be not clear what I am getting at ... this is a re-run of the lack of clarity in communication in ‘the behaviour called No. 19’ versus ‘the behaviour called Beautiful Neighbour’ complicated complexity (towards the top of the page). If it is at all possible to not make it complicated and complex ... perhaps you may be inclined to try again? Viz.: To watch a dead frog on the road (or any road-kill) is to experience ... what? RESPONDENT: The point being, that which is experienced, or that which might be described as that which deteriorates, de-hydrates, oozes, bleeds, rots, changes is not made evident by direct experience. That which is experienced, or that which might be described as that which deteriorates, de-hydrates, oozes, bleeds, rots, changes, may be imagined to exist as in the description ‘... a dead frog on the road’. The fact being that there was no ‘actual flesh and blood frog’ that at one time was performing hopping, and then the same actual flesh a blood frog that at another time deteriorates, de-hydrates, oozes, bleeds, rots, changes revealed by direct sensual experience. Further, that there is an ‘actual flesh and blood frog’ that performs hopping at all has not yet be determined. There is experience (change), that there is any-thing that exists to change has not yet be determined. RICHARD: Here is a description for you: there is an ‘experience (change)’ occurring on the kitchen bench such that is deteriorating, dehydrating, oozing, bleeding and rotting ... could you tell me more about the ‘experience (change)’ I am describing to you? (Hint: it is not the ‘experience (change)’ otherwise known as ‘dead frog’). * RESPONDENT: In turn, ‘your’ experience is always experience directly, never of a ‘flesh and blood body’ that experiences experience. RICHARD: Ahh ... things work differently here in this physical world. RESPONDENT: Thank you. The many theories that attest to explaining how ‘things work’ in the physical world (many theories have been posted here) demonstrate just how different that working can be. Investigating what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’?’, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body* may eventually lead to a new theory of that ancillary consideration. For example, the generally excepted theory of efficient cause is directly dependent on the acceptance of the ‘myth of the given’ (behind every action is an object that performs the action <A heart that beats, a brain that thinks, lungs that breath, a flesh and blood body that moves, blood that flows, etc> or of which the action is quality possessed by an object that exists independent of the action <a ball that rolls, a cloud that floats, etc.). If in fact the consideration of the specific case of the myth of the given (what is, and where is, the ‘actual flesh and blood body’?’, specifically when there is no direct sensual experience of ‘actual flesh and blood body*) reveals there is no ‘flesh and blood body’ actual or otherwise existent as other than a way of imagining and describing any given experience, the entire case for there being an actual physical world (some-thing, or group of things that exist as something other than experience) can be reasonably examined, yes? RICHARD: Not ‘reasonably examined’ , no ... maybe ‘imaginatively entertained’ (for those who find it Great Sport, for example, to be thus amused whilst wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides still keep happening). But ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT No. 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this: ‘Whether this flesh and blood body likes it or not this flesh and blood body is here on this planet anyway; whether this flesh and blood body approves of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether this flesh and blood body accepts it or rejects it this flesh and blood body is going to die one day anyhow’. RESPONDENT: Would the following also be offered: 1. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) likes it or not ...’ is one and the same body that is ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ and further is one and the same body that eventually dies someday? RICHARD: There is only the one body here (if that is what you are asking). RESPONDENT: In fact, no that is not what was asked. Perhaps this: Does that only one body remain the same body (that) likes it or not, and at another time may approve of it or not, and that eventually dies? In other words, is that only one body an ongoing entity that remains the same while the actions it completes change? RICHARD: I shall put it this way, for the sake of communicating in the convoluted and tortuous use of words and sentence structure such as you are most familiar with, if that will assist your comprehension: The body called ‘Richard’ does not become the body called ‘wife’ or the body called ‘neighbour’ halfway through dying. Alternatively, the behaviour called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the behaviour called ‘wife’ or the behaviour called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the behaviour called ‘dying’. Furthermore, the action called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the action called ‘wife’ or the action called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the action called ‘dying’. And lastly (unless you have some more synonyms up your sleeve), the experience called ‘Respondent’, for example, does not become the experience called ‘wife’ or the experience called ‘neighbour’ halfway through the experience called ‘dying’. * RESPONDENT: 2. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than that approval or disapproval (experience)? RICHARD: There is much more to life than going around approving or disapproving. RESPONDENT: Yes of course ... RICHARD: Indeed ... so much so, in fact, that this flesh and blood body does not go around approving or disapproving of this universe happening (which is the whole point of the paragraph you are responding to). RESPONDENT: ... is that only one body some-thing other than that approval or disapproval (experience), in other words does that only one body exist as something other than any experience? RICHARD: As there is no ‘(experience)’ called approving or disapproving of this universe happening your question is a non-sequitur. * RESPONDENT: 3. ‘... this flesh and blood body (that) approves of it or not ...’ is some-thing other than ‘... this universe (which) is happening ...’? RICHARD: This body is made of the same-same stuff as the universe. RESPONDENT: Is approving and disapproving some-thing other than the universe happening? RICHARD: Again ... this flesh and blood body does not go around approving or disapproving of this universe happening. RESPONDENT: Is there any action that is other than the universe happening? RICHARD: There is nothing other than the infinitude of time, space and matter which is this universe ... there is no action called god or action called goddess anywhere, anywhen or anyhow (outside of any particular human psyche that is). RESPONDENT: What is the difference between the universe and the stuff it is made of? RICHARD: As I never said there was a difference between the stuff of this body and the stuff of the universe – I specifically said ‘same-same’ – your question is superfluous. * RESPONDENT: 4. The flesh and blood body, which is actual, can become non-existent (non-actual)? RICHARD: No ... it will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. RESPONDENT: Does this suggest the body is actual, but not actually flesh and blood (the body does not become non-existent, however, flesh and blood does)? RICHARD: No.
CORRESPONDENT No 19 (Part Two) 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 |
