On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
with Correspondent No. 26
RESPONDENT: Actualism’s elimination of the social and instinctual selves is identical with the elimination of the commanding self which is what the Sufis do (the real ones, not the dress-up-and-run-round-in-circles ones). See any of Idries Shah’s books.
RICHARD: Mr. Idries Shah died in London on Saturday 23 November 1996 and the ‘Telegraph’ published an obituary to him on Saturday 7 December 1996. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Actualism is not new or original. It has been done before.
RICHARD: The ‘Telegraph’ obituary goes on to quote Ms. Doris Lessing (who reports that ‘he was a good friend to me, and my teacher’). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Richard’s source book: (www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679723005/qid=999028434/sr=2-4/ref=aps_sr_b_2_1/103-0609686-1395062).
RICHARD: It is plastered all over The Actual Freedom Web Site that what (not who) I am is this flesh and blood body only ... yet this is what the URL you provide displays:
First determination ... Sufism. Second evaluation ... Hinduism. Third assessment ...??
RESPONDENT: ‘I have ceased being ‘human’ ... I am a fellow human being’ (Richard at www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm). You obviously can’t be a human being if you have stopped being human.
RICHARD: One can indeed be a fellow human being if one has stopped being ‘human’ (and the explanation for using scare quotes around the word is to be found in the text at the very URL you provide). Vis.:
It may be that your conclusion (‘you obviously can’t be a human being if you have stopped being human’) is the result of the application of abstract logic (rather than using commonsense)?
RESPONDENT: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity (which was ‘being’ itself). (Richard at www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb21b.htm). You obviously can’t be a human being without being.
RICHARD: One can indeed be a fellow human being without ‘being’ (and the explanation for using scare quotes around the word is to be found in the text at the very URL you provide). Vis.:
Again ... it may be that your conclusion (‘you obviously can’t be a human being if you have stopped being human’) is the result of the application of abstract logic (rather than using commonsense)?
RESPONDENT: If you’re not human and you’re not being, you can’t be a human being.
RICHARD: Hmm ... it may be that your conclusion (‘if you’re not human and you’re not being, you can’t be a human being’) is the result of presenting a beat-up (rather than being factual)?
If the scare quotes are put back from wherever it is that you have adroitly consigned them to you will find that where one is not ‘human’ and where one is not ‘being’ one can indeed be a fellow human being.
Or would you prefer a stilted academic phrase such as a ... um ... a collegial homo sapiens?
RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘I do not make the mistake, as the people who have dissolved only their ego do, of identifying myself with Existence’ (Richard at www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-livingtogether.htm). ‘I am the universe ...’. (Richard at www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/journal/samplearticlenumbertwo.htm among many other places ...). If the universe isn’t existence, what is?
RICHARD: If you were to leave the capital ‘E’ on the word you would see that the ‘Existence’ being referred to is what God (by whatever name) is commonly known as in the spiritual parlance. As for your second (and chopped-off) quote ... the full sentence is self-explanatory. Vis.:
The universe also experiences itself as cats and dogs and so on and so on.
RESPONDENT: ‘Here, I and my partner are perfection personified. Yet there is more ... everything appears to be magically transformed into a fairy tale-like paradise’. (Richard at www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-livingtogether.htm). She obviously didn’t think so, to judge from her leaving and her subsequent comments about living with you.
RICHARD: If you read the full flow of the passage wherein you obtained the quote you will see that I was speaking about any person and their partner (and not my ex-companion). Here is the relevant paragraph for your re-examination:
RESPONDENT: It really was, as you accurately say, just an appearance ...
RICHARD: The use of ‘-like’ in the phrase ‘a fairytale-like paradise’ indicates that it is expressive prose – and not a literal description of actuality – hence the usage of ‘appears to be ...’.
RESPONDENT: ... and apparently you were the only one who could see it.
RICHARD: No ... I was speaking about any person (and not myself) in the passage wherein you obtained the quote. Here is the paragraph again:
Just where would Richard be ‘slipping through’ from?
RESPONDENT: Richard writing to Alan on psychic currents: ‘psychic ‘currents’ span distance instantly’. Richard writing to Alan on picking up emotional ‘vibes’: ‘I have not looked for any research as it has been so obvious from personal experience and in discussing with others. For example: returning from a walk abroad one is in good spirits ... yet as one goes to open the front door to one’s house a feeling of unease, of disquietude may be felt. Upon entering the supposed safety and sanctity of one’s own house one finds one’s husband and/or wife and/or mother and/or father and/or brother and/or sister fuming and ready and willing to give one a serve for either deserved or undeserved wrongs that one may or may not have committed. One felt it through a closed door’. Both from (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-feelings.htm). Richard writing to Irene on intuition: ‘The belief in the power of intuition is one such example. Exhaustive studies have been done – by those people who care to do these things – that demonstrate again and again that the very best scores for intuition were a 53.4% success rate ... which is barely over guess-work. The vast bulk of the intuitive peoples tested scored 50/50 ... which is the odds for guessing. What are these ‘all the other senses’ that you referred too?’ To be found at (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm). Commentary: Richard says to Alan he has not looked for any research – but from his correspondence with Irene clearly he has.
RICHARD: It is not as sinister as you make it out to be ... my ex-companion and I lived together for eleven years and we covered a lot of ground, reading and discussing many, many books, newspapers, articles, magazines and watched countless movies, videos and television documentaries: the figure of 53.4% came from a television programme we watched together ... I just knew that she would remember what I was talking about as we had referred to it often. However, when I was writing to Alan I did not, of course, have any ‘hard evidence’ to present (I had no accredited references ... no substantive quotes) so I proposed personal experiencing and provided a generic description such as anyone may have.
As I said ... I had not looked for any research on the subject.
RESPONDENT: Richard asks Irene what ‘all the other senses’ are as if he doesn’t know (the context shows that this means senses other than the usual five) ...
RICHARD: Here is ‘the context’ you are referring to:
You will see that she only named ‘intuition’ ... I am not a mind reader and have always found it saves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails to ask for specifics up-front.
RESPONDENT: ... but tells Alan a fairly long story of using at least one of them to sense another person’s emotions through a closed door. He says the fact that this is possible is obvious from his personal experience.
RICHARD: Not only personal experience (in years gone by) but from other people’s reports ... here is the paragraph:
All this is anecdotal and generalised ... there are no accredited references, no substantive quotes, no scientific research mentioned.
RESPONDENT: Again from (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm). [Irene to Vineeto]: I often said (before I left) that this [actual freedom] is not something to copy but it can be the opportunity to really make up your own mind by relying on your own senses, not only in what you hear, read, see, think and have learnt by rote, but all the other senses that you so conveniently have come to despise, in emulation of Richard: intuition, sense of where the other person actually comes from (not just your preconceived and concreted interpretation of what you believe the other must be at)’. [endquote]. Richard (commenting to Irene on the above): ‘... you do seem to be saying that actualism is an opportunity to find out for oneself ...’. Obviously.
RICHARD: Here is my response in its sequence:
Unlike yourself (as evidenced by your ‘obviously’ comment) I see that I was preferring not to jump to a conclusion but to seek mutual understanding and, if necessary, obtain any relevant correction.
RESPONDENT: [Richard] ‘... except that by so doing one stands accused of emulating Richard’. No! You are wilfully distorting Irene’s words which say, if you would read with both eyes, that the emulation of Richard is in despising all the other senses, not in finding out for oneself.
RICHARD: But as I do not despise ‘all the other senses’ (whatever they are) it is she who is ‘wilfully distorting’ ... there is a big difference between rigorously and relentlessly pointing out the root cause of all the ills of humankind and ‘despising’ those root causes. And there was more ‘despising’ to come (two paragraphs later). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Your use of the words ‘stands accused’ is revealing.
RICHARD: Aye ... I have been accused of so many different things I have lost count.
RESPONDENT: You behave as an advocate in a court of law, whose purpose is to win, not to communicate honestly.
RICHARD: Ahh ... you would have found the following exchange illuminating then (it came just prior to what you have quoted from):
RESPONDENT: At times (as in your conversation with Irene) you will act as if you despise these other senses.
RICHARD: Hmm ... this ‘despise’ word is contagious, I see.
RESPONDENT: At other times (as in your conversation with Alan) you will tell a story of your use of them.
RICHARD: I never did get an answer to my initial query so maybe you can tell me ... what are ‘these other senses’ you are speaking of?
RESPONDENT: When it suits you not to know about research, you pretend you don’t. When it suits you to know about research, you quote it in detail.
RICHARD: Not so ... it is just that, wherever possible, I prefer not to allude to a reference if I cannot quote it verbatim.
RESPONDENT: It all depends on your rhetorical purpose at the time.
RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. Given all your documented inaccuracies thus far I will keep my own counsel on the matter.
RESPONDENT No 70: Pointless waste of time, isn’t it?
RICHARD: As I do not do what you presume I do [snip a post in order to remove context/read the residue out of context/respond to the changed meaning] your query is a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT No 70: Since my query referred not only to your actions ...
RICHARD: If I may interject again? There is a vast difference between my actions and what you presume my actions indicate/ signify as to intent/ meaning.
RESPONDENT No 70: ... but [referred] to my demonstration of what I have described, it is not a non-sequitur.
RICHARD: If I may point out? Your ‘demonstration’ is a demonstration of a deviousness that has no existence outside of your skull ... as such your conclusion, that I am pointlessly wasting time, just does not rationally follow.
RESPONDENT No 70: Richard, you have created something of great value in the Actual Freedom website.
RICHARD: As the bulk of what is available on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site is comprised of correspondence from this (and other) mailing lists I do look askance at your avowal that it is of ‘great value’ whilst in the next breath, as it were, you arraign same like all get-out.
RESPONDENT: To be accurate, Richard, I do not think that Respondent No 70 is ‘arraigning’ the entire Actual Freedom Trust website.
RICHARD: Yet I never said that ... my co-respondent was referring to what I had done – as in their ‘Richard, *you* have created something of great value *in* the Actual Freedom website’ [emphases added] phrasing – so I specifically responded to this direct question about what *I* had contributed to it – as my ‘the bulk of what is available on *my* portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site’ [emphasis added] phrasing clearly indicates – when I said that I looked askance at their avowal that ‘it’ (my contribution) was what they said it was.
If I might suggest? The next time you preface something you write with words such as ‘to be accurate’ it would pay to really be accurate (and not just think you are) ... especially where you take it upon yourself to tell somebody that they should not put words in another’s mouth.
RESPONDENT: You should not put words in his mouth.
RICHARD: As I did not do what you say I did your advice has no application.
RESPONDENT: He is saying (below, after your snip) that your participation on the mailing list could be more useful and is showing you how.
RICHARD: I am well aware of both what my co-respondent is saying and showing to me ... as what they are saying has no factual basis (as I clearly state further above) then what they are showing me has no relevance to what is actually the situation.
As is the case in regards what you are saying to me.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 70): And I say ‘arraign’ definitively as it is no minor matter to, not only allege that a fellow human being uses a devious technique (such as snipping a post in order to remove context/ reading the residue out of context/ responding to the changed meaning), but to persist in the accusation of such deviousness .... albeit now under the asseverated [’declared seriously or positively; affirmed’] guise [’artful or simulated semblance; false appearance; pretence’] of simplism [the tendency to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications] (as in your ‘you do actually do all of the above’ phrasing further above).
RESPONDENT: Since English is not my native language I looked up the definitions of some of the above words which I did not know on dictionary.com and put them in square brackets. So, if I understand rightly, you are saying that, when Respondent No 70 correctly points out that you do actually do what you say that you don’t do, and when he does not ascribe a motive to you, he is seriously declaring a false appearance of tending to oversimplify an issue or a problem by ignoring complexities or complications.
RICHARD: I am not saying my co-respondent ‘correctly’ points out anything at all ... I am saying that it is no minor matter to not only allege that another is doing such things as snipping a post in order to remove context/ reading the residue out of context/responding to the changed meaning but to persist in such accusations, only now under the ‘declared solemnly or emphatically’ (Oxford Dictionary) ‘disguise, mask; hence, masquerade, show’ (Oxford Dictionary) of such presumed deviousness requiring ‘a tendency to oversimplify; an oversimplification’ (Oxford Dictionary) to counteract, when such an allegation – in whatever form it is presented – can only ever be a presumption on their part.
RESPONDENT: I do not understand this. Would you please explain?
RICHARD: Sure ... this is what ‘all of the above’ refers to in the ‘you do actually do all of the above’ phrasing I pointed to:
Put simply: not only do I never, ever snip a post in order to remove context I never, ever read the residue of a post snipped in that manner out of context ... thus, as I never, ever arrive at the changed meaning resulting from steps No. 1 and No. 2 I never, ever have such a meaning to respond to.
RESPONDENT: I think that you should stop being defensive ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? As I have made it clear on many an occasion that I was both a pacifist and an appeaser for eleven years, night and day (and thus able to experientially discover that such is to allow the bully-boys and feisty-femmes to rule the world), then surely it must be obvious that what you think (with your borrowed wisdom) I should do sucks big time ... given that you have been subscribed to this mailing list for nearly three years.
RESPONDENT: ... [I think that you should] stop putting words in No 70’s mouth ...
RICHARD: If I may interject again? I have done no such thing ... the only place I presumed something regarding what my co-respondent meant to ask via the wording they used I clearly stated I was doing so and, furthermore, acknowledged that my presumption was incorrect immediately on being informed what they really intended with such wording.
RESPONDENT: ... [I think that you should] stop distracting us with all this irrelevant verbiage ...
RICHARD: If I may point out? It was my co-respondent, and not me, who not only initiated what you classify as ‘all this irrelevant verbiage’ but who is persisting with such ... um ... such distractions despite me setting the record straight each time they do so.
And now that you have jumped onto the bandwagon, so to speak, it would seem that such is what appeals to you as well (rather than take the freely-offered opportunity to explore just what it is that a fellow human being has discovered about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are).
RESPONDENT: ... and [I think that you should] actually read what Respondent No 70 says ...
RICHARD: If I may again point out? I am actually reading what my co-respondent has to say.
RESPONDENT: ... [I think that you should actually read what Respondent No 70 says] – you could learn from it.
RICHARD: This is the crux of what my co-respondent has to say:
Put succinctly: they deliberately snipped my post to another in order to remove context, read the residue out of context and gave it a meaning clearly not intended by me, replaced the original figurative meaning with a literal one, and responded to the changed meaning which was not there in the first place ... all of which deviousness they justified by the mere assertion that it is a technique they allege I also use (on others).
Just what is it that I could learn from such a person ... according to you?
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.