|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 36
RESPONDENT: A real teacher will always throw you back upon yourself, which is the opposite of what Richard is doing here with Vineeto and Peter. He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. RICHARD: As I am not a teacher (let alone a real one) I do not even talk the talk.
RESPONDENT: What you call ‘sprituality’ or ‘actualism’ is nothing more than a collection of management techniques. RICHARD: The word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.
RICHARD: The word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: Ok, I’ll agree with that. But, and to the point here, why don’t you clue in Peter and Vineeto, because they’re totally mis-understanding. Hell Richard, you’re creating obnoxious monsters! RICHARD: As both Peter and Vineeto understand that the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive your query is a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT: A real teacher will always throw you back upon yourself, which is the opposite of what Richard is doing here with Vineeto and Peter. He talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. RICHARD: As I am not a teacher (let alone a real one) I do not even talk the talk. RESPONDENT: Touché. So why don’t you clue in Vineeto and Peter? RICHARD: As both Peter and Vineeto are well aware I am not a teacher (let alone a real one), and that I do not even talk the talk, your query is a non-sequitur.
RICHARD: The word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: Ok, I’ll agree with that. But, and to the point here, why don’t you clue in Peter and Vineeto, because they’re totally mis-understanding. Hell Richard, you’re creating obnoxious monsters! RICHARD: As both Peter and Vineeto understand that the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive your query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: They don’t understand shit, so cut the crap! Now you’re making a fool of your own self for chrissakes. Don’t take me for fucking stupid Richard. JezesHChrist! RICHARD: You are the one who understood that the word ‘actualism’ referred to nothing more than a collection of management techniques.
RICHARD: You are the one who understood that the word ‘actualism’ referred to nothing more than a collection of management techniques. RESPONDENT: That’s what Peter and Vineeto are using it for, yes. They can ‘mastrubate’ themselves from now till kingdom come and have ‘experiences’ out the kazoo, and like Wayne put it, ‘You indulge in self-improvement, and all you have to show for it is an improved self.’ You obviously need to clear some things up with them, because they’re off to the races god knows where? RICHARD: No god knows of where they are off to – least of all Mr. Wayne Liquorman
RICHARD: You are the one who understood that the word ‘actualism’ referred to nothing more than a collection of management techniques. RESPONDENT: That’s what Peter and Vineeto are using it for, yes. They can ‘mastrubate’ themselves from now till kingdom come and have ‘experiences’ out the kazoo, and like Wayne put it, ‘You indulge in self-improvement, and all you have to show for it is an improved self.’ You obviously need to clear some things up with them, because they’re off to the races god knows where? RICHARD: No god knows of where they are off to – least of all Mr. Wayne Liquorman RESPONDENT: It just an expression Richard, like ‘sheesh!’ not to be taken literally, don’t get your knickers in a bunch. And Wayne didn’t say that, I did. RICHARD: Okay ... no god knows of where they are off to – least of all No 36
RICHARD: No god knows of where they are off to – least of all Mr. Wayne Liquorman RESPONDENT: It just an expression Richard, like ‘sheesh!’ not to be taken literally, don’t get your knickers in a bunch. And Wayne didn’t say that, I did. RICHARD: Okay ... no god knows of where they are off to – least of all No 36 RESPONDENT: Exactly, yes. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been satisfactorily cleared up, then.
RICHARD: Okay ... no god knows of where they are off to – least of all No 36 RESPONDENT: Exactly, yes. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been satisfactorily cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Not so fast there Buckwheat, ‘god’ was never the ‘matter’, your bullshitting is the matter! Your leading people on to the detriment of not only themselves, but of the world at large is the MATTER! RICHARD: You said ‘exactly, yes’ ... not me.
RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been satisfactorily cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Not so fast there Buckwheat, ‘god’ was never the ‘matter’, your bullshitting is the matter! Your leading people on to the detriment of not only themselves, but of the world at large is the MATTER! RICHARD: You said ‘exactly, yes’ ... not me. RESPONDENT: That there are no gods here, yes. But that was a side-stepping issue that you brought up. You want to try again Richard, or is your brain not working too well today? RICHARD: To paraphrase/plagiarise ... ‘you indulge in self-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised self’.
RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been satisfactorily cleared up, then. RESPONDENT: Not so fast there Buckwheat, ‘god’ was never the ‘matter’, your bullshitting is the matter! Your leading people on to the detriment of not only themselves, but of the world at large is the MATTER! RICHARD: You said ‘exactly, yes’ ... not me. RESPONDENT: That there are no gods here, yes. But that was a side-stepping issue that you brought up. You want to try again Richard, or is your brain not working too well today? RICHARD: To paraphrase/plagiarise ... ‘you indulge in self-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised self’. RESPONDENT: No Richard, been there, done that. And you of all people have the room to talk there! Which IS the whole point, I’m not the one running around selling ‘escapism’. RICHARD: Okay ... ‘you indulge in god-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised god’.
RICHARD: To paraphrase/plagiarise ... ‘you indulge in self-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised self’. RESPONDENT: No Richard, been there, done that. And you of all people have the room to talk there! Which IS the whole point, I’m not the one running around selling ‘escapism’. RICHARD: Okay ... ‘you indulge in god-realisation and all you have to show for it is a realised god’. RESPONDENT: Keep clowning around Richard, it’s your fucking nickle. :-) You don’t need to speak to me, you need to speak to Vineeto and Peter. RICHARD: The reason I am speaking to you, and not to Peter and Vineeto, is because the subject title of this thread is ‘Intent and Altruism’ (and not ‘Intent and Selfism’): according to your web page you cried, in 1973, when you came upon a book by Mr. Franklin Jones, knowing you were not alone with the Incredible Understanding that there were no separate entities as such, and then spent the next 23 years in a seeking position until suddenly one evening the whole adventure came to an end with what your mailing list intro describes as ‘Realisation’ (that is, there is no separate anything that exists apart from God Itself, and you are that). Put succinctly: your intent, from age 26 onwards, accordingly came to its fruition in 1996. As Peter and Vineeto have no such intent there is nothing of that ilk for me to speak to them about/clear up some things with/clue them in regarding (or however else you may choose to phrase it) ... and thus I am not clowning around/bringing in a side-stepping issue/evading the issue/being very childish/not being very manly/playing little dancing avoidance games (or however else you may choose to phrase it) either. Put simply: the direct experience that matter is not merely passive demonstrates that no god (or goddess) is animating the universe. I did point out to you, when you first subscribed to this mailing list in September 2002, that an actual freedom from the human condition lies beyond spiritual enlightenment (aka ‘Realisation’) and thus is not at all compatible with what is popularly known as non-duality (aka Advaita). That you chose to ignore what I had to say then – and continue to choose such ignorance – is your business, of course.
RICHARD: The reason I am speaking to you, and not to Peter and Vineeto, is because the subject title of this thread is ‘Intent and Altruism’ (and not ‘Intent and Selfism’): according to your web page you cried, in 1973, when you came upon a book by Mr. Franklin Jones, knowing you were not alone with the Incredible Understanding that there were no separate entities as such, and then spent the next 23 years in a seeking position until suddenly one evening the whole adventure came to an end with what your mailing list intro describes as ‘Realisation’ (that is, there is no separate anything that exists apart from God Itself, and you are that). Put succinctly: your intent, from age 26 onwards, accordingly came to its fruition in 1996. As Peter and Vineeto have no such intent there is nothing of that ilk for me to speak to them about/clear up some things with/clue them in regarding (or however else you may choose to phrase it) ... and thus I am not clowning around/bringing in a side-stepping issue/evading the issue/being very childish/not being very manly/playing little dancing avoidance games (or however else you may choose to phrase it) either. Put simply: the direct experience that matter is not merely passive demonstrates that no god (or goddess) is animating the universe. I did point out to you, when you first subscribed to this mailing list in September 2002, that an actual freedom from the human condition lies beyond spiritual enlightenment (aka ‘Realisation’) and thus is not at all compatible with what is popularly known as non-duality (aka Advaita). That you chose to ignore what I had to say then – and continue to choose such ignorance – is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: Yes, I know they don’t, they are clueless, and that’s what I’ve been saying. that they would be better served in psycho therapy. Yes, I agree, ‘realization’ is old history, not even relevant. But it’s not freedom ‘from’, it’s freedom ‘into’ and ‘as’. ‘I am that’ in inclusive, not exclusive. RICHARD: I do understand that it is not freedom ‘from’ the human condition – that it is freedom ‘into’ and ‘as’ the human condition – and that ‘I am that’ is inclusive of, and not exclusive of, the human condition (after all I lived that/was that, night and day, for eleven years and intimately know all its nooks and crannies) ... which is why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition.- the direct experience 24/7 that matter is not merely passive – is beyond spiritual enlightenment. And, as both Peter and Vineeto understand this, they are not ‘clueless’ (or any of the other ways you have chosen to describe them).
RESPONDENT No 54: I thought that the point of the riddle is to show that without sense organs there can be no sensual information arising. RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the point of the riddle is to (supposedly) show that without the
observer there is no the observed ... in a word: solipsism RESPONDENT: Yes, I like the analogy that Da Free John used, of the popping of a balloon, where the air inside equalizes with all of space. RICHARD: The Encyclopaedia Britannica reports of a similar metaphor from Mr. Gaudapada:
Interestingly enough Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has this to say about Mr. Gaudapada:
And:
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, lets say hypothetically a stranger had a gun aimed at your face, what sort of thoughts might occur in your mind? RICHARD: Having been rigorously trained in the military, until the appropriate reflex responses became second-nature, for multiple variations of such contingencies – plus having gone to war as a youth – it can be said with a high degree of confidence that there would be no thoughts occurring at the moment ... there would only be action. The whole point of such intensive drilling is that (to use a cliché) there is the quick ... and there is the dead. RESPONDENT: Hey Richard! What a gem this is! :-) RICHARD: The same, or similar, intensive training of reflex responses applies in many fields ... driving a vehicle, for example, where events can occur faster than thought is initially capable of dealing with them. RESPONDENT: And I got to laugh, a few years back I was over this house with about a dozen or so folks all standing around in the living room. And this lamp across the room started to fall off this table, and I hurled myself across the room and caught the damn thing in mid-air. And everyone’s going whooaaaa, how’d you do that? :-) And I joked and said, I’m trained for this kind of stuff, I raised 4 kids. :-) RICHARD: Ha ... as I also raised four children Speaking of which, not until the eldest was about ten years of age did it dawn upon me that children train their parents – they being so utterly helpless and totally dependent at birth – almost as much parents their children ... so much so that re-training is sometimes necessary to undo it all when they eventually leave the nest. The very last example of having been thus thoroughly disciplined occurred for me, with unexpected clarity, a year or so after the last child passed out of my ‘care, custody, and control’ – as bureaucracy so eloquently puts it – even though I was seven years out from my first marriage and two years into my second (and childless) marriage, whilst shopping in a supermarket where an urgent cry of ‘Daddy!’, in a young and plaintively feminine voice, had me already part-way swinging around before the awareness of no longer being a father automatically aborted that well-trained reflex response. Needless is it to add I have not looked back (pun intended) since that day?
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, lets say hypothetically a stranger had a gun aimed at your face, what sort of thoughts might occur in your mind? RICHARD: Having been rigorously trained in the military, until the appropriate reflex responses became second-nature, for multiple variations of such contingencies – plus having gone to war as a youth – it can be said with a high degree of confidence that there would be no thoughts occurring at the moment ... there would only be action. The whole point of such intensive drilling is that (to use a cliché) there is the quick ... and there is the dead. RESPONDENT: Hey Richard! What a gem this is! :-) RICHARD: The same, or similar, intensive training of reflex responses applies in many fields ... driving a vehicle, for example, where events can occur faster than thought is initially capable of dealing with them. RESPONDENT: And I got to laugh, a few years back I was over this house with about a dozen or so folks all standing around in the living room. And this lamp across the room started to fall off this table, and I hurled myself across the room and caught the damn thing in mid-air. And everyone’s going whooaaaa, how’d you do that? :-) And I joked and said, I’m trained for this kind of stuff, I raised 4 kids. :-) RICHARD: Ha ... as I also raised four children, back when I was a parent, I can certainly relate to that. RESPONDENT: Well that explains it! :-) RICHARD: I did not become a father until after I came back from war (and the rigorous military training, for multiple variations of such contingencies whereupon the appropriate reflex responses having become second-nature could mean the difference between life and death, was prior to that) ... besides which I was driving vehicles, for example, long before even that (being born and raised on a farm I was in control of machinery from a very early age). The basic reflex response (aka the startle effect) which sentient beings are born with is what is known as the freeze-flight-fight mechanism ... none of which are always necessarily appropriate. * RICHARD: Speaking of which, not until the eldest was about ten years of age did it dawn upon me that children train their parents – they being so utterly helpless and totally dependent at birth – almost as much parents their children ... so much so that re-training is sometimes necessary to undo it all when they eventually leave the nest. RESPONDENT: Yes, children actually raise the parents. RICHARD: I was, of course, speaking of being rigorously trained by what are, initially, utterly helpless and totally dependent children until the appropriate reflex responses became second-nature ... so much so that there would be no thoughts occurring at the moment, as in your falling lamp example, and there would only be action. RESPONDENT: They keep us on the straight and narrow, they’re the bosses, they teach us love. RICHARD: I can be reasonably sure that, had you said to the folks standing around in the living room you are trained for this kind for stuff inasmuch the four children you raised taught you love, there may very well have been a look of askance here and there ... unless they all knew you well enough, of course, to know that you never miss a chance to preach. RESPONDENT: My youngest is 19 and was home from college for the summer, she said the first day she was home, ‘I am so getting a dog today, Mom!’ Guess who has the dog now? :-) RICHARD: Someone who is still a sucker for love, perchance? * RICHARD: The very last example of having been thus thoroughly disciplined occurred for me, with unexpected clarity, a year or so after the last child passed out of my ‘care, custody, and control’ – as bureaucracy so eloquently puts it – even though I was seven years out from my first marriage and two years into my second (and childless) marriage, whilst shopping in a supermarket where an urgent cry of ‘Daddy!’, in a young and plaintively feminine voice, had me already part-way swinging around before the awareness of no longer being a father automatically aborted that well-trained reflex response. RESPONDENT: Bitter-sweet. I so relate to that. RICHARD: Oh, there was nothing bitter-sweet about it whatsoever ... if anything it was liberating (there is life after children). * RICHARD: Needless is it to add I have not looked back (pun intended) since that day? RESPONDENT: Can I interest you in a dumb hound dog? :-) RICHARD: Ha ... to paraphrase another cliché: it is your love; you deal with it.
RICHARD: ... children train their parents – they being so utterly helpless and totally dependent at birth – almost as much parents their children ... so much so that re-training is sometimes necessary to undo it all when they eventually leave the nest. RESPONDENT: Yes, children actually raise the parents. RICHARD: I was, of course, speaking of being rigorously trained by what are, initially, utterly helpless and totally dependent children until the appropriate reflex responses became second-nature ... so much so that there would be no thoughts occurring at the moment, as in your falling lamp example, and there would only be action. RESPONDENT: That’s an automaticity, no ‘training’ needed. i.e. stick a baby with a pin, what do they do? RICHARD: It would appear that the words train/ trained (and disciplined further below) were misleading – although by specifically citing children’s utter helplessness and total dependency at birth (when they cannot even think let alone formulate tactics so as to achieve strategic goals) it surely would have been obvious that the training being referred to was primarily non-mentalised – because what a baby does when stuck with a pin, for instance, is to react in such a way as to induce the parent to not treat them in that way. RESPONDENT: There is no thought to it. RICHARD: Indeed not ... later on, of course, the child incorporates such primal cause-and-effect successes into its more calculated control-tactics. RESPONDENT: ‘Training’ comes in after mentality gets in the way, clouds the natural response mechanism. RICHARD: Hmm ... and does teaching fall into the same category? For instance:
* RESPONDENT: They keep us on the straight and narrow, they’re the bosses, they teach us love. RICHARD: I can be reasonably sure that, had you said to the folks standing around in the living room you are trained for this kind for stuff inasmuch the four children you raised taught you love, there may very well have been a look of askance here and there ... unless they all knew you well enough, of course, to know that you never miss a chance to preach. RESPONDENT: My youngest is 19 and was home from college for the summer, she said the first day she was home, ‘I am so getting a dog today, Mom!’ Guess who has the dog now? :-) RICHARD: Someone who is still a sucker for love, perchance? RESPONDENT: Ya think? :-) RICHARD: Having had many years experience myself it is a well-informed speculation. RESPONDENT: Hey, I’m trying to get you to take the damn thing, aren’t I? :-) RICHARD: As there is no love whatsoever in this flesh and blood body – neither the natural variety nor the taught version you refer to – all I can do is repeat what I already said (albeit rephrased accordingly): children teach their parents to love them – they being so utterly helpless and totally dependent at birth – almost as much parents their children ... so much so that deconditioning is sometimes necessary to undo it all even before they get around to eventually leaving the nest. RESPONDENT: I’ll tell you something funny though, I’m getting my pound of flesh out of this one way or another. :-) RICHARD: Well now ... as such is the nature of (supposedly) unconditional love she surely would not be expecting anything else than just that. RESPONDENT: My daughter, when she was here, didn’t want him eating any human food, only special dog food – when I would give him little treats, even scraps of meat, she would get all upset and tell me not to. So now that she’s gone, :-), I told her the other day and I said, hey, he really likes potato chips with guacamole dip. :-) Na, na, na, na, na. :-) It’s worth it all just to hear her silence. :-) RICHARD: Oops ... I just plain forgot all about hope springing eternal in the human breast (specifically that love might one day finally get its act together and actually deliver on its feeling-fed promise of delivering the goods so yearned-for by billions of otherwise intelligent peoples). I will now go and stand in the corner, penitentially facing the wall, until I have re-learnt the lesson, okay? * RICHARD: The very last example of having been thus thoroughly disciplined occurred for me, with unexpected clarity, a year or so after the last child passed out of my ‘care, custody, and control’ – as bureaucracy so eloquently puts it – even though I was seven years out from my first marriage and two years into my second (and childless) marriage, whilst shopping in a supermarket where an urgent cry of ‘Daddy!’, in a young and plaintively feminine voice, had me already part-way swinging around before the awareness of no longer being a father automatically aborted that well-trained reflex response. RESPONDENT: Bitter-sweet. I so relate to that. RICHARD: Oh, there was nothing bitter-sweet about it whatsoever ... if anything it was liberating (there is life after children). RESPONDENT: I understand, been there. RICHARD: Uh-oh ... back to the corner, Richard, you have still a lot to re-learn, yet. RESPONDENT: But, you got a life now do ya? :-) RICHARD: I have had a life all along ... that the twenty or so years in the middle of it also included parenting does not diminish it one iota. RESPONDENT: That’s veeeerrrry interesting. :-) RICHARD: Given that you dutifully played host, for an entire summer, to an adult who still calls your house her home – plus obligingly took her dog into your care, custody and control – it is not all that surprising you might find it very interesting that there is life after children (not to mention their pets). RESPONDENT: Tell me who’s the sucker again? :-) RICHARD: As an actual intimacy is not dependent upon cooperation – mutuality and reciprocity – there is one thing for sure: it ain’t yours truly. * RICHARD: Needless is it to add I have not looked back (pun intended) since that day? RESPONDENT: Can I interest you in a dumb hound dog? :-) RICHARD: Ha ... to paraphrase another cliché: it is your love; you deal with it. RESPONDENT: Yeah, well, you’re lookin at it. :-) RICHARD: Nope ... I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. What I am looking at, however, is the words a grandiose identity parasitically inhabiting the body currently known as ‘No. 36’ is persuading it to type out ... an identity so up itself that it feels as to be ever-present, having exhorted other lesser-blest identities for aeons to become as deluded as it is, and forever extolling the virtues (by oh-so-conveniently overlooking the vices) of that which never does deliver, because of those parenthesised reasons, on its feeling-fed promise. By my reckoning you have been Self-Realised for nearly eight and a half years now ... how much longer do you plan on giving that hoary experiment a go before ditching it in the waste-bin of history and starting afresh? I only ask because it is never too late to come to one’s senses ... both literally and metaphorically.
RICHARD: ... ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body many years ago] had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner. Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/ utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)? By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task. RESPONDENT: Yes, but the thing is Richard, unless inquiry actually ‘means’ something to a person, in other words, bodily, ‘concretely’, it all remains just so much intellectual ‘tommyrot’ and inquiry never really goes anywhere. RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘inquiry’ [endquote] you are referring to what it takes to succeed at the task mentioned – of not allowing blind nature to be the winner/to not have intelligence be the loser – it does seem rather odd you would begin your sentence with a qualified yes-but agreement when the significance it had for that identity (as in just what it meant to ‘him’) is clearly expressed with the words ‘whatsoever’ and ‘totally dedicated/utterly devoted’ in the sentences immediately preceding the one you responded to. RESPONDENT: Vineeto is a perfect example. Inquiry is her ‘hobby’, ‘fun-fun’. Putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak, is a completely different story. Actually sacrificing something. RICHARD: What it takes to succeed at the task mentioned – of not allowing blind nature to be the winner/to not have intelligence be the loser – is ‘self’-sacrifice in toto (both ‘I’ as ego/self and ‘me’ as soul/spirit). For instance:
RESPONDENT: Vineeto, god bless her, poor dear, the ‘loveless’ soul that she is, has found meaning in playing with herself, gives her ‘reason to live’. But I hope you and I both know that that’s not what ‘inquiry’ is all about? RICHARD: Again presuming that by [quote] ‘inquiry’ [endquote] you are referring to what it takes to succeed at the task mentioned – of not allowing blind nature to be the winner/to not have intelligence be the loser – it is really not necessary for you to hope that I know what it takes as I can readily recall more than just a little of what it took for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago to do just that. RESPONDENT: And I’ve brought this up with you before, and you never answered me ... RICHARD: Au contraire, I responded to what you brought up, in mid-March 2004, with 13 e-mails (the
last two of which are quite detailed) all told ... most of which can be accessed at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909716569 The chronological sequence is bottom-up. RESPONDENT: ... is she that ‘sick’, that ‘wounded’ of a person that you cannot confront her? RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: I would write you privately, but I don’t have your email address? RICHARD: I do not write privately ... this mailing list is the only venue.
RICHARD: ... ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body many years ago] had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner. Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)? By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task. RESPONDENT: Yes, but the thing is Richard, unless inquiry actually ‘means’ something to a person, in other words, bodily, ‘concretely’, it all remains just so much intellectual ‘tommyrot’ and inquiry never really goes anywhere. RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘inquiry’ [endquote] you are referring to what it takes to succeed at the task mentioned ... RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: Ah, this is one of those occasions where ‘yes’ means ‘no’, eh? RESPONDENT: And this is where we differ ... RICHARD: As the task mentioned was of not allowing blind nature to be the winner/to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time around, it is indeed where we differ ... and differ big-time. RESPONDENT: ... ‘inquiry’ is not about ‘succeeding’ at anything. RICHARD: You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Do I have to go into a long diatribe to explain that to you? :-) RICHARD: Nope.
RICHARD: ... one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task [of not allowing blind nature to be the winner/to not have intelligence be the loser yet again for the umpteenth billionth time around]. (...) RESPONDENT: ... this is where we differ, ‘inquiry’ is not about ‘succeeding’ at anything. RICHARD: You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Do I have to go into a long diatribe to explain that to you? :-) RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: Thanks, much appreciated. :-) RICHARD: As the very raison d’être of this mailing list is all about succeeding in not allowing blind nature to be the winner/not having intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time around, are you not also thankful that neither do you have to explain that (that your inquiry was not about succeeding at anything/ your understanding has left you with all of the emotions/passions intact) to any other subscriber either? In other words, it can only be also much appreciated that your self-assigned work on this mailing list
RESPONDENT: ... ‘inquiry’ is not about ‘succeeding’ at anything. RICHARD: You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Do I have to go into a long diatribe to explain that to you? :-) RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: Thanks, much appreciated. :-) RICHARD: As the very raison d’être of this mailing list is all about succeeding in not allowing blind nature to be the winner/not having intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time around, are you not also thankful that neither do you have to explain that (that your inquiry was not about succeeding at anything/your understanding has left you with all of the emotions/passions intact) to any other subscriber either? In other words, it can only be also much appreciated that your self-assigned work on this mailing list was not required in the first place, no? RESPONDENT: Well you may have a point there Richard, seeing as it seems to be falling on deaf ears. :-) RICHARD: That is not my point (that your self-assigned work seems to be falling on deaf ears) ... my point is that, and for reasons spelt-out so clearly that even Blind Freddie could see it, your inquiry/your understanding was never needed on this mailing list anyway. RESPONDENT: Call me stupid. :-) RICHARD: I would rather call you by your publicised nomenclature:
RESPONDENT: Which begs the question, and my point in even speaking up in the first place, so, for the umpteenth time I’m going to ask you, doesn’t it bother you, don’t you care, that, in effect what you’re doing, what you’ve done, is create monsters? RICHARD: As I am not creating anything (let alone monsters) either in effect or in reality, nor ever have, there is nothing to either bother me or for me to care about. RESPONDENT: In other words, you’ve taken simple middle-class neurosis and turned it into something completely obnoxious? RICHARD: I have neither taken a simple neurosis (be it middle-class or otherwise) nor turned it into something obnoxious (be it completely or otherwise). RESPONDENT: And worse, you’ve crystallized them in place. RICHARD: As I have not taken either a simple neurosis (be it middle-class or otherwise) or turned it into something obnoxious (be it completely or otherwise) I most certainly have not crystallised them in place. RESPONDENT: Thanks a whole fuckin’ lot, Richard ... RICHARD: As I am not doing any of what you assert there is nothing to optatively thank me for. RESPONDENT: ... you’re doing a great fucking service to mankind, NOT! RICHARD: As I am not doing any of what you assert there is no great service (be it of the intensified kind or otherwise) for me to be doing not. RESPONDENT: Not to mention, I’d be embarrassed as shit if I was you. RICHARD: As I am not doing any of what you assert there is nothing for me to be embarrassed about (were I capable of embarrassment that is). RESPONDENT: I mean, is this the best you can do? :-) RICHARD: As I am not doing any of what you assert your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: LOL. RICHARD: As I am not doing any of what you assert your self-generated hilarity is entirely self-serving. RESPONDENT: In all seriousness Richard, you and I both know that these are rough times now ... RICHARD: If I might interject? These times are no rougher than any other times humankind has previously experienced. RESPONDENT: ... and the future is uncertain ... RICHARD: If I might again interject? The future is no more uncertain than any other future humankind has previously entertained. RESPONDENT: ... so I beg you, use your largesse intelligence, stand back and look at the bigger picture of what it is that you’re doing and what the future will look like if you stay on your present course. RICHARD: As I have been well aware of the absoluteness of what it is I am engaged in, and what the future will look like by staying on my present course, for nigh-on thirteen years now no importunacy on your part is required. RESPONDENT: A horror, isn’t it? RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: One asshole at a time, Richard. RICHARD: Here is what a few dictionaries have to say about that term:
As I like my fellow human being – and as I value their importance highly – nobody is detestable, contemptible, or irritating, no matter what mischief they may get up to. Furthermore, I abandoned that ‘one at a time’ approach six months or so before going public (else I would never have gone on-line). RESPONDENT: But if you won’t even make the effort, what does that say about the future? RICHARD: As I am not making your effort then what I am doing (and quite effortlessly for that matter) speaks volumes about a future wherein peoples can prosper and not merely survive. RESPONDENT: I shudder to think. RICHARD: As well you should ... you and your kind will go down in history as the dinosaurs of consciousness studies. RESPONDENT: What planet do you live on? RICHARD: I live on the planet you are totally oblivious to
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick: they are your feelings; you deal with them. RESPONDENT: Direct hit, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: You are so wide of the mark that you may as well literally take up flying kites for all the
effect your figurative kite-flying RESPONDENT: Tsk, tsk. :-) RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that:
For the third time: it is your commiseration/ disapproval/ irritation; you deal with it. RESPONDENT: You can learn a lot from an old broad, ya know? :-) RICHARD: Sure ... yet just what is it that you would have me learn from you (other than your trumped-up ‘grandiose stupidity’ side-track that is) which I do not already experientially know from having lived that/ been that, night and day for eleven years, which you persist in going on about as if this were a mailing list set-up to canvas such bronze-age ways of dealing with the human condition?
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick: they are your feelings; you deal with them. RESPONDENT: Direct hit, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: You are so wide of the mark that you may as well literally take up flying kites for all the
effect your figurative kite-flying RESPONDENT: Well what is it then Richard, do tell? RICHARD: As that smart guy you are feeling bad about (whom you feel has a lot to share) has no
existence outside of your skull – there is no passion play in actuality Put succinctly: it is not possible to even aim at – let alone score a direct hit on – somebody you are
totally oblivious to
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick: they are your feelings; you deal with them. RESPONDENT: Direct hit, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: You are so wide of the mark that you may as well literally take up flying kites for all the effect your figurative kite-flying has on this mailing list RESPONDENT: Well what is it then Richard, do tell? RICHARD: As that smart guy you are feeling bad about (whom you feel has a lot to share) has no existence outside of your skull – there is no passion play in actuality – you are frittering away a vital opportunity ... tilting at windmills will get you nowhere, and fast, on this mailing list. Put succinctly: it is not possible to even aim at – let alone score a direct hit on – somebody you are totally oblivious to. RESPONDENT: Your continuous avoidance of the issue speaks VOLUMES, Richard. RICHARD: There is no such issue to avoid (let alone bespeak volumes to you about). For a (recent) example:
As I posted that on the same day you sent 6 e-mails to this list (which was the day after you sent 9 e-mails/
the day before you sent 8 e-mails) you would have to have been purblind And I only put it like that because it was the e-mail immediately following my other one in the same thread,
and with the same title, which you responded to and in which response you invited me to call you stupid
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick: they are your feelings; you deal with them. RESPONDENT: Direct hit, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: You are so wide of the mark that you may as well literally take up flying kites for all the effect your figurative kite-flying has on this mailing list RESPONDENT: Well what is it then Richard, do tell? RICHARD: As that smart guy you are feeling bad about (whom you feel has a lot to share) has no existence outside of your skull – there is no passion play in actuality – you are frittering away a vital opportunity ... tilting at windmills will get you nowhere, and fast, on this mailing list. Put succinctly: it is not possible to even aim at – let alone score a direct hit on – somebody you are totally oblivious to. RESPONDENT: Your continuous avoidance of the issue speaks VOLUMES, Richard. RICHARD: There is no such issue to avoid (let alone bespeak volumes to you about). RESPONDENT: Keep dancing asshole. RICHARD: As you are obviously no longer feeling bad for that guy inside your skull In other words: do you still feel ‘he’ has a lot to share (or has that feeling also done an about-turn)?
RESPONDENT: Anything of value that Richard might have ever said, this bit of grandiose stupidity with Vineeto and Peter trumps it. And I feel bad for him, cause he’s a smart guy and I feel has a lot to share, but the old adage that you’re judged by the company you keep, certainly holds true here. RICHARD: Perhaps clichéd repetition might do the trick: they are your feelings; you deal with them. RESPONDENT: Direct hit, eh Richard? :-) RICHARD: You are so wide of the mark that you may as well literally take up flying kites for all the effect your figurative kite-flying has on this mailing list RESPONDENT: Well what is it then Richard, do tell? RICHARD: As that smart guy you are feeling bad about (whom you feel has a lot to share) has no existence outside of your skull – there is no passion play in actuality – you are frittering away a vital opportunity ... tilting at windmills will get you nowhere, and fast, on this mailing list. Put succinctly: it is not possible to even aim at – let alone score a direct hit on – somebody you are totally oblivious to. RESPONDENT: Your continuous avoidance of the issue speaks VOLUMES, Richard. RICHARD: There is no such issue to avoid (let alone bespeak volumes to you about). RESPONDENT: Of course you would say that, you don’t see it. RICHARD: There is no such issue to see (let alone to say ‘of course you would say that’ about). RESPONDENT: (...) You take no responsibility. RICHARD: Why do you want one of your perceived ‘others’ to take responsibility for some of your
other perceived ‘others’
RESPONDENT: (...) So ... your dog’s still shitting around, gumming up the works, if you get my drift? RICHARD: I got your drift when you first set it afloat Put succinctly: as the way in which spiritualism operates is of no relevance to actualism your blandishments/ admonishments are about as useful as the teats on a bull. Quite simply you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list.
RESPONDENT: (...) So ... your dog’s still shitting around, gumming up the works, if you get my drift? RICHARD: I got your drift when you first set it afloat amongst all the other flotsam and jetsam which washes up upon the shores of this venue early last year (as evidenced by the content of my twenty-three responses to you, in regards to that floater, since then). Put succinctly: as the way in which spiritualism operates is of no relevance to actualism your blandishments/ admonishments are about as useful as the teats on a bull. Quite simply you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Spiritualism??? There you go again. Another round of avoidance, making something up and then accusing me of it in avoidance of the issue, which, put let me say it again, is Vineeto and Peter’s self-masturbation parading itself as ‘actualism’. You’re doing them a terrible disservice, and along with it, yourself disserving yourself as well. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my sentence so as to be in accord with your phraseology
Or:
RESPONDENT: Spiritualism??? There you go again. Another round of avoidance, making something up and then accusing me of it in avoidance of the issue, which, put let me say it again, is Vineeto and Peter’s self-masturbation parading itself as ‘actualism’. You’re doing them a terrible disservice, and along with it, yourself disserving yourself as well. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my sentence so as to be in accord with your phraseology
Or:
RESPONDENT: Well when a person is dead-fucking asleep dreaming, of course not, they weave whatever is said into their dream, call it whatever you want, including ‘actualism’. Duh? RICHARD: As you have an article on your web page entitled [quote] ‘How I Became Self Realized’ [endquote] I will re-phrase my sentence yet again:
Or, as elsewhere on your web page you talk about [quote] ‘What got me enlightened’ [endquote], it can be phrased this way:
Quite simply, as self-realisation/ enlightenment is not an actual freedom from the human condition, you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list.
RESPONDENT: Well when a person is dead-fucking asleep dreaming, of course not, they weave whatever is said into their dream, call it whatever you want, including ‘actualism’. Duh? RICHARD: As you have an article on your web page entitled [quote] ‘How I Became Self Realized’ [endquote] I will re-phrase my sentence yet again:
Or, as elsewhere on your web page you talk about [quote] ‘What got me enlightened’ [endquote], it can be phrased this way:
Quite simply, as self-realisation/ enlightenment is not an actual freedom from the human condition, you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Ha! Do us both a favor, surrender, before you go on again, about freedom from the human condition. Don’t make me laugh. RICHARD: As the path of surrender
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 |
