|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 48
Continued on from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 53 RESPONDENT: Get with it Richard! Either respond to Respondent No. 46 or look like a spineless coward AGAIN! RICHARD: As I have already responded to two posts so far it would appear you have missed my e-mails
... they can be found in the archives at these links: www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=908309186 I am only about halfway through writing my next response so it may be some time yet before I post it ... in the meanwhile, as you will be in the archives anyway, you may care to access the following URL as well (it is an e-mail Peter wrote to you, going into some detail, in response to your other contribution to this mailing list): www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=903930496 As you never responded it too may have escaped your notice.
RESPONDENT: Get with it Richard! Either respond to Respondent No. 46 or look like a spineless coward AGAIN! RICHARD: As I have already responded to two posts so far it would appear you have missed my e-mails ... they can be found in the archives at these links: (snip links). I am only about halfway through writing my next response so it may be some time yet before I post it ... RESPONDENT: Golly ... your actualist’s spontaneity seems to have slowed right down there Richard ... RICHARD: All that happened was that I had other things to do halfway through and went and attended to them – I do have a life other than writing on the internet – and when I sat at the computer again I chose to respond to some other contributions towards enabling peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, before recommencing where I left off. Just as I am doing now with your contribution to such peace and harmony. RESPONDENT: ... to that of a predictable lizard brain’s pray??? RICHARD: As your premise is baseless so too is your speculation. * RESPONDENT: As for your last 5 attempts (from a safe distance) ... RICHARD: As my response directly addresses the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the questions, as invited, just what ‘safe distance’ would that be you are referring too? RESPONDENT: ... well they didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. * RICHARD: ... in the meanwhile, as you will be in the archives anyway, you may care to access the following URL as well (it is an e-mail Peter wrote to you, going into some detail, in response to your other contribution to this mailing list): (snip link). As you never responded it too may have escaped your notice. RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of this e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual.
RESPONDENT: ... [your last 5 posts] didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of the previous e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual. RESPONDENT: Another cursory glance reveals why we are still waiting. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that the royal ‘we’ has emerged (as you surely cannot be so presumptuous as to think you speak for all people). RESPONDENT: Absolutely nothing I wrote even merits a response. RICHARD: Then why write it? Somehow I am reminded of another co-respondent, some time ago, who told me that they did not want me to respond to what they wrote as they only wished to criticise/comment on my words. In other words: no critique of what the critic has to say, please. RESPONDENT: Yet Respondent No. 46’s correspondence, which appeared LONG BEFORE mine – and certainly does – remains unanswered. ??? RICHARD: As I remarked before: a more than ‘cursory glance’ may very well provide you with something you might not be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: So how about moving it along Richard. RICHARD: As I cannot respond to something which has not been responded to there is nothing to move along. RESPONDENT: Forget about your favourite fare of small fry for a while ... RICHARD: Ahh ... there is no such thing as ‘small fry’ in this actual world (everybody is equal here). RESPONDENT: ... and get down to some real ‘meaty’ stuff instead ... RICHARD: I am working on the assumption that, even though I suggested stopping this e-mail exchange in my last post (because someone who only gives my responses a cursory glance has to be conducting a charade of a discussion), you must consider what you have to say is the ‘meaty’ stuff you want me to get down to. Else why write it? RESPONDENT: ... such as the beginning middle and end of each and every sentence that ‘Respondent No. 46’ has put forward. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: ... waiting. RICHARD: Ha ... as you are now fasting as well you may be in danger of wasting away into the bargain.
RESPONDENT: ... [your last 5 posts] didn’t merit more than a cursory glance ... RICHARD: That would explain it then ... a closer examination may very well provide you with more than you might be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: Still fantasizing! RICHARD: I am using the word ‘digest’ in the Oxford Dictionary/ Thesaurus meaning of think about, consider, contemplate, mull over, weigh up, reflect on, ponder, meditate on, or study, the last five posts referred to so as to assimilate, absorb, take in, comprehend, understand, and thus grasp, the implications and ramifications of a fellow human being having ventured into territory which no enlightened being has ever traversed – virgin territory somewhat akin to the ‘white-out’ experienced by people in a featureless landscape of snow and ice – until that ‘Great Beyond’ which has been proposed heretofore to only be possible at physical death (‘Mahasamadhi’ in Hinduism, ‘Parinirvana’ in Buddhism, ‘Requiem In Pace’ in Christianity, and so on) became an actuality whilst the flesh and blood body was still alive. I am, of course, referring to not only that which has been described as ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (only as an actuality and not a fantasy) but to being the actual experiencing of what has variously been called ‘the meaning of life’, ‘the purpose of the universe’, ‘the riddle of existence’, and so on. In short: being the actual experiencing of infinitude itself. * RESPONDENT: ... neither did Peter’s post [merit more than a cursory glance] way back ... RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you read two of your co-respondents’ responses ... it does throw some light on your (unsubstantiated) ‘AGAIN’ allegation of pusillanimity at the top of the previous e-mail. RESPONDENT: Only an aggressive mind would see it that way. RICHARD: How do you know what way a peaceful mind would see it (as in what are your credentials) so as to be able to make this comparison? * RESPONDENT: ... but Respondent No. 46’s does [merit more than a cursory glance] ... RICHARD: Well now ... we may as well stop this charade of a discussion with this e-mail then, eh? RESPONDENT: Ahh! Imagining this is a ‘discussion’ too now eh? RICHARD: As to discuss means to talk or write about a topic with another your comment has no factual basis whatsoever ... in other words you can only be imagining that this is not, in fact, a discussion. * RESPONDENT: ... waiting ... with pop corn. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you have some nourishment ... because if you are waiting for me to write something which suits your expectations – such as the intellectual constructs/intellectual deconstructs you find so meritorious of more than a cursory glance – you will be waiting forever. Having no imagination I only write about what is actual. RESPONDENT: ... and yet more fantasizing! RICHARD: Oh? So you know better than me what goes on inside this skull (in that it is only a fantasy of mine that I have no imagination)? * RESPONDENT: Another cursory glance reveals why we are still waiting. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see that the royal ‘we’ has emerged (as you surely cannot be so presumptuous as to think you speak for all people). RESPONDENT: Imagining I am alone too now. RICHARD: As I did not say that you were alone you can only be imagining that I said that ... and as I personally know of at least three people who are not ‘still waiting’ you cannot possibly be speaking for all people. * RESPONDENT: Absolutely nothing I wrote even merits a response. RICHARD: Then why write it? RESPONDENT: Feigning ignorance of the variety of purposes for the written word smacks of insincerity. RICHARD: As I was not ‘feigning ignorance of the variety of purposes for the written word’
your conclusion is a non sequitur Specifically I am asking whether you would rather have it that there be no critique of what the critic has to say. * RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of another co-respondent, some time ago, who told me that they did not want me to respond to what they wrote as they only wished to criticise/comment on my words. RESPONDENT: No lack of fertile imagination there either. RICHARD: As I still have the e-mail that co-respondent wrote, backed up on various hard disks and CD’s with all my other correspondence, it cannot possibly be a matter of imagination (be it ‘fertile’ or otherwise). * RESPONDENT: Yet Respondent No. 46’s correspondence, which appeared LONG BEFORE mine – and certainly does – remains unanswered. ??? RICHARD: As I remarked before: a more than ‘cursory glance’ may very well provide you with something you might not be able to digest in one sitting. RESPONDENT: ... and yet more fantasising. RICHARD: No ‘fantasising’ is required to see that the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the correspondence in question was answered as invited ... only someone who gave those responses a ‘cursory glance’ could say that it remains unanswered. * RESPONDENT: So how about moving it along Richard. RICHARD: As I cannot respond to something which has not been responded to there is nothing to move along. RESPONDENT: The sort of reply that can only come from someone who can only imagine they have the mental capacity to work ‘anything’ out. RICHARD: It is this simple: person ‘A’ writes an e-mail on a particular topic; person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s e-mail; person ‘A’ writes a response to person ‘B’s response to their e-mail; person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s response to their response to person ‘A’s initial e-mail. It is then up to person ‘A’ to respond/not respond, to person ‘B’s response to their response to person ‘B’s response to their initial e-mail ... until that happens/unless that happens, there is nothing for person ‘B’ to move along. Where in all this is there any evidence of a ‘someone who can only imagine they have the mental capacity to work ‘anything’ out’ sort of reply? RESPONDENT: Pretentious ignorance and in this case [of internet sequencing] is atrocious coming from someone making the claims you do. RICHARD: When person ‘A’ writes an e-mail saying, for example, that it in a separate email they are going to be responding to what they deem to be the substantive issues they are discussing with both the person they are at that moment writing to and another co-respondent – and that they hope that person ‘B’ will enter that discussion as well then – then when that separate email arrives, for example, three days later and person ‘B’ responds to it as invited, and person ‘A’ writes a response to person ‘B’s response and person ‘B’ writes a response to person ‘A’s response to person ‘B’s response to person ‘A’s initial e-mail, it can only be pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing to then say that person ‘B’ has a pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing. And, quite possibly, this pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing is only so as to then be able to say that it is atrocious that person ‘B’ has a pretentious ignorance of internet sequencing. * RESPONDENT: Forget about your favourite fare of small fry for a while ... RICHARD: Ahh ... there is no such thing as ‘small fry’ in this actual world (everybody is equal here). RESPONDENT: Special too? RICHARD: Yes, everybody is special simply by being alive. RESPONDENT: But then I’m sure your fertile imagination will happily change the context when it serves your inflated ego. RICHARD: What ‘context’ are you referring to? * RESPONDENT: ... and get down to some real ‘meaty’ stuff instead ... RICHARD: I am working on the assumption that, even though I suggested stopping this e-mail exchange in my last post (because someone who only gives my responses a cursory glance has to be conducting a charade of a discussion), you must consider what you have to say is the ‘meaty’ stuff you want me to get down to. RESPONDENT: This deduction is truly pitiful. RICHARD: What if I were to spell it out for clarity? You, apparently, think that you know better than I do how I should conduct my discussions with my fellow human beings – you have made no secret of the fact that you consider the way I am doing it does not merit ‘more than a cursory glance’ – and have further considered this to be important enough to write to me to tell me about it (else why write it). Why then is my assumption, that you must consider what you have to say to be the meaty stuff you want me to get down to, a ‘truly pitiful’ deduction? RESPONDENT: Your imagination has ‘yet again’ run away with you. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Your continued insistence that you know better than I do how I should conduct my discussions with my fellow human beings can only be your imagination yet again running away with you. To explain: I have extensive experience in describing/ explaining to my fellow human beings what an actual
freedom from the human condition is like so I am well aware of the main stumbling block, which goes by the name cognitive
dissonance Thus I have my own way of doing things ... howsoever, if you really think you can do it better then go ahead: you answer the beginning, middle, and end, of each and every sentence of what you deem to be the meaty stuff on this mailing list. * RESPONDENT: ... such as the beginning middle and end of each and every sentence that ‘Respondent No. 46’ has put forward. RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? RESPONDENT: Certainly not! ... only in your imagination. RICHARD: So when person ‘A’ constructs something which does not exist, that 2+2=5 for example, and then proceeds to ... um ... to deconstruct this construct then person ‘B’ has to (a) forget about the small fry (whoever they are)... and (b) get down to the meaty stuff (whatever that is)... and (c) respond to the beginning, middle, and end, of every sentence person ‘A’ has written about 2+2=5 (whatever that means) when even person ‘A’ themself has only invited dealing with the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of the e-mail containing the various expansions of the 2+2=5 construct/ deconstruct they hoped person ‘B’ would respond to? Are you for real? * RESPONDENT: ... waiting. RICHARD: Ha ... as you are now fasting as well you may be in danger of wasting away into the bargain. RESPONDENT: All I can say is that for someone claiming to have no ability to imagine ... you are simply ‘full of it’. RICHARD: Yet I notice that this time around you are not ‘waiting’ anymore at the end of your e-mail – either with or without nourishment – so this ‘ability to imagine’ which you say I am ‘full of’ seems to be remarkably similar to what would otherwise be called seeing what is happening. Or in this case seeing what is no longer happening.
RESPONDENT: Golly (used to express ‘emotional’ surprise and wonder) ... RICHARD: If you use it to express ‘emotional’ surprise and wonder then that is your business ... this is the way I use it:
RESPONDENT: ... you do go on don’t you ... RICHARD: You found the subject matter of enough importance to give 16 replies, to what I had to say in the previous e-mail, so I provided 16 responses ... as responding to each and every point you raise, with care to detail so as to obviate any misunderstanding, evokes an emotional surprise and wonder in you that I ‘do go on’ in this manner am I to take it that other people you write to do not value clarity in communication? RESPONDENT: ... not that I’ve bothered to read it yet ... RICHARD: Hmm ... back to having a charade of a discussion then, eh? RESPONDENT: ... since its undoubtedly more of the same old predictable pedantic pettiness ... RICHARD: Only a person who gives my writing a cursory glance would describe it as ‘pedantic pettiness’ ... closer examination shows that what (presumably) may appear to be a trivial concern for adhering to the literal meaning of the words I use is actually an abiding interest in ensuring that what I have to describe/explain is not able to be misconstrued by my fellow human beings simply because of equivocacy on my part ... they would have to supply the ambiguity they may have become accustomed to by reading it with only one eye open (those that give it more than a cursory glance that is). In other words as I like my fellow human being I share my discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition with the clarity in communication such fellowship regard warrants ... what they do with such lucidity is up to them, of course. RESPONDENT: ... the old passion diverter. RICHARD: What is it that you do not want your passion diverted from? RESPONDENT: But by all means knock yourself out. RICHARD: As I am having so much fun here at the keyboard I am unable to meet your request. RESPONDENT: Yet tremendously humorous all at the same time. Delighted :-))) RICHARD: If being delighted by the tremendous humour you find in an intellectual construct of your own making – ‘pedantic pettiness’ – is what pleases you then it is no wonder that you deem any other such ... um .... meaty stuff you come across to be meritorious of more than a cursory glance. The intriguing part in all this is why you would be urging me to write more than I already have, less I look like [quote] ‘a spineless coward AGAIN’ [endquote] in your eyes, when if I did it would only be [quote] ‘more of the same old predictable pedantic pettiness’ [endquote] anyway, according to you. Ah well ... c‘est la vie, I guess.
CO-RESPONDENT: I notice you changed my original post title from ‘Hey Richie’ to ‘Hey Richard’ in your reply. RICHARD: This computer, being set-up for Australian English, automatically re-spells all words when I click the auto-format button in the word-processor I use ... howsoever, in view of it apparently being a matter of at least some importance to you, I have gone back and re-inserted it this time around (it is now underlined in the word-processor with a wavy red line). CO-RESPONDENT: A bit touchy are we? RICHARD: Ha ... I am yet to come across a ‘touchy’ word-processor. CO-RESPONDENT: Indeed I put it forth as a dig, yet with respect. RICHARD: Oh? Here is what the word ‘dig’ can mean:
CO-RESPONDENT: Much like the old adage ‘it’s not what you say – but how you say it’. RICHARD: Your explanation becomes all the more fascinating the more you go on about it. CO-RESPONDENT: Of course with this type of dialogue though, it’s not always easy to accurately discern another’s attitudes and motives. RICHARD: Just for the record, then, what was your attitude and motive when you respectfully put forth your sarcastic, taunting remark/your gibe/your remark directed against a person/your remark which is intended to criticise, embarrass or make a joke about someone/your aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect/your cutting remark/your cutting comment, taunt, jeer, unkind remark (or whatever the word means to you)? RESPONDENT: Fascinating how you missed noticing your Australian English Dictionary had automatically re-spelt your name yet you have never fail to notice when the auto format is on and un-click it so as to avoid correcting every other corespondents spelling errors. RICHARD: As I have been criticised in the past for ‘correcting every other corespondent’s spelling errors’ (to the point of being informed on one occasion it was an anal obsession) your assumptions are just that – assumptions – and, as there is no point in responding to the conclusions you drew from your assumptions, I will leave it to you to mull over the remainder of your e-mail without any further input from me. I have far better things to do with my time ... such as watching comedies on TV. Continued on Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 87
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 |
