|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 49
RESPONDENT: I am interested in knowing if anyone here might be or has been a student of either physics, math or engineering? (...) Paul Erdos understood how a non-mathematical being is a trivial being, and sex is another trivial pursuit by a non-mathematical being. I do however admit that sometimes I myself slip from the pedestal of staying a mathematical being 24 hours a day,7 days a week, but I cannot let this happen if I want to have the intuition and understanding to change the world and improve things, like Einstein. RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician like Mr. Paul Erdos was – and therefore but a ‘trivial being’ unable to have the intuition and understanding to change the world and improve things like you say Mr. Albert Einstein did – and thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the ‘trivial pursuit’ you say sex is I would suggest you try some other mailing list as what you want is not to be found here. There may be such a mailing list among the links at the following URL: www.oakland.edu/~grossman/erdosdeath.html If not you can always start your own.
RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician like Mr. Paul Erdos was – and therefore but a ‘trivial being’ unable to change the world and improve things like you say Mr. Albert Einstein did – and thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the ‘trivial pursuit’ you say sex is I would suggest you try some other mailing list as what you want is not to be found here. RESPONDENT: You appear to be making the assumption that my interest here is to lure others into my own topics ... RICHARD: As what I ‘appear’ to be doing, and what I am actually doing, are two entirely different things it might very well pay to focus on the latter ... which is that, as I am not a mathematician like Mr. Paul Erdos was – and therefore but a ‘trivial being’ unable to change the world and improve things like you say Mr. Albert Einstein did – and thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the ‘trivial pursuit’ you say sex is I would suggest you try some other mailing list as what you want is not to be found here. There may be such a mailing list among the links at the following URL: www.oakland.edu/~grossman/erdosdeath.html If not you can always start your own. RESPONDENT: ... isn’t that a little cynical of you? RICHARD: As I was making no such assumption your follow-up query is baseless. RESPONDENT: Can a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from anyone else do such a thing? RICHARD: As your initial assumption is baseless your conclusion (although presented as a question) is without foundation.
RESPONDENT: Although sex is a trivial pursuit I’m not saying it isn’t enjoyable. RICHARD: Sure ... but what you are also saying, and you just now part-repeated it, is that sex is a ‘trivial pursuit’ inasmuch it is (another) trivial pursuit ‘by a non-mathematical being’ and that, furthermore, a non-mathematical being is a ‘trivial being’ into the bargain. Viz.:
As I am not a mathematician like Mr. Paul Erdos was – and therefore but a ‘trivial being’ unable to change the world and improve things like you say Mr. Albert Einstein did – and thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the ‘trivial pursuit’ you say sex is you will not find what you are looking for here. RESPONDENT: Some girls wonder why I’m not as easily turned on as Johnny or Jimmy, but for men of my type the scale is much higher is basically all I’m saying. RICHARD: If I may point out? As what you ‘basically’ said in your initial e-mail was that mathematicians have the intuition and understanding to change the world and improve things, and non-mathematicians are trivial beings pursuing trivial things like sex, you either have a short memory, or are now dissembling. Be that as it may ... as the trivial pursuit (to use your phrasing) of an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematical being 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then it is patently obvious that you will not find what you are looking for here. Hence my suggestion that there may be such a mailing list among the links at the following URL: www.oakland.edu/~grossman/erdosdeath.html If not you can always start your own.
RESPONDENT: You appear to be making the assumption that my interest here is to lure others into my own topics ... RICHARD: As what I ‘appear’ to be doing, and what I am actually doing, are two entirely different things it might very well pay to focus on the latter ... RESPONDENT: It could be the ego that is preventing me from doing so. RICHARD: Whatever it is that ‘could be’ preventing the capacity to focus on what I am actually doing does not alter the fact that what I ‘appear’ to be doing, and what I am actually doing, are two entirely different things. RESPONDENT: Do you have answers to resolve that, just as you had answers to me having either a ‘short-memory’ or was ‘dissembling’ in the third post? RICHARD: As it is your assumption that I ‘appear’ to to be making an assumption about what your interest here is I will leave it to you to mull over your speculation as to what it is that ‘could be’ preventing the capacity to focus on what I am actually doing. RESPONDENT: As I am no actualist and can therefore not know what is going on in that skull of yours. RICHARD: You could always try taking my words at face value – instead of reading all manner of things into them – and thus focus on what I am actually doing. * RESPONDENT: ... isn’t that a little cynical of you? RICHARD: As I was making no such assumption your follow-up query is baseless. RESPONDENT: Can a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from anyone else do such a thing? RICHARD: As your initial assumption is baseless your conclusion (although presented as a question) is without foundation. RESPONDENT: I’ll do it, if you do it, as in create ‘assumptions’ with bases, why must I be the one to create the base for an assumption that was provided to me by the inner-workings of your skull? RICHARD: As I never said that you must ‘create’ the base for an assumption your question is groundless.
RESPONDENT: Some girls wonder why I’m not as easily turned on as Johnny or Jimmy, but for men of my type the scale is much higher is basically all I’m saying. RICHARD: If I may point out? As what you ‘basically’ said in your initial e-mail was that mathematicians have the intuition and understanding to change the world and improve things, and non-mathematicians are trivial beings pursuing trivial things like sex, you either have a short memory, or are now dissembling. RESPONDENT: Based on your persistence a somewhat unenlightened observer might believe that you thought my explanation and ‘Erdos’ terms were a personal attack on you that offended you, if so, how would you enlighten them with an explanative response? RICHARD: As you are the one that has built a hypothetical case, upon (a) a response to an assumption about what I am doing (as contrasted to what I am actually doing) and ... (b) a response to a gloss which bears only part-resemblance to your initial statements (insofar as your third e-mail was at odds with your first e-mail), about a persistence for clarity in communication that ‘might’ give rise to the belief in an abstract observer that Richard thought your explanation and (borrowed) terms were a personal attack on Richard which Richard took offence at, then it behoves you to come up with an explanative response. In other words: as it is your hypothesis it is only fitting that you follow it right through to its hollow end. RESPONDENT: I would not narrow my reasons down to two things like you did in that last sentence, unless the word dissembling is meant broadly. RICHARD: This is what the word ‘dissemble’ meant to me when I wrote it:
Is that broad enough for you? RESPONDENT: I’d replace it with, ‘sleepy’. RICHARD: Okay ... here is what the exchange would look like then:
Has the replacement word enabled you to now focus on what I am actually doing (in contrast to focussing on what I ‘appear’ to be doing)? * RICHARD: Be that as it may ... as the trivial pursuit (to use your phrasing) of an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematical being 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then it is patently obvious that you will not find what you are looking for here. RESPONDENT: Do you find me disturbing or something? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Is it you who is not welcoming me? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Or is it that my content is unwelcomed? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Which one? RICHARD: Neither ... what I am doing is letting you know, not only what you will not find here and why you will not find it here, but where you might find what you are looking for as well. Is this helpfulness something you are unaccustomed to? RESPONDENT: I never called you a ‘non-mathematical’ being ... RICHARD: Indeed you did not ... what you specifically said was this:
RESPONDENT: ... you called yourself, which means you are not using the more universal definition of it. RICHARD: This is what I wrote:
I was simply going by the words you wrote ... if they are not ‘the more universal definition of it’ then I would suggest you sharpen up your writing skills. Either that or do not write to mailing lists when sleepy. RESPONDENT: QUESTION: Can anyone predict or IMAGINE Richard flunking mathematics if he were sufficiently interest in studying it? RICHARD: As I read enough of and about Mr. Paul Erdos a couple of years ago, and enough of and about Mr. Albert Einstein long before that, to easily ascertain that neither of them were happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow) and living in peace and harmony there is no point in developing an interest in mathematics as mathematicians have not, are not, and cannot ever enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent with their mathematics. In short: an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematician. * RICHARD: Hence my suggestion that there may be such a mailing list among the links at the following URL: [snip link]. If not you can always start your own. RESPONDENT: AS I have not found, or should I say, provided a sufficiently reasonable reason to do so the first time, what then could make me do so the second time around? RICHARD: You could try looking-up the word ‘sincerity’ in the dictionary.
RICHARD: As it is your assumption that I ‘appear’ to be making an assumption about what your interest here is I will leave it to you to mull over your speculation as to what it is that ‘could be’ preventing the capacity to focus on what I am actually doing. RESPONDENT: In other words, you are avoiding answering any of my questions ... RICHARD: No, if my response (above) were to be put into ‘other words’ it would be words to the effect that whilst your focus is upon what you read into my words – rather than take them at face value – any alternate response on my part (about what is preventing your focus on what I am actually doing) will only result in more of the same. Hence it is best left up to you to mull over your ‘could be’ speculation. RESPONDENT: ... to leave me in curiosity, are you playing with my ego then? RICHARD: As I am not saying those ‘other words’ you read into my response your conclusion is without foundation ... thus your question, which arises out of such a conclusion, is groundless. * RICHARD: You could always try taking my words at face value – instead of reading all manner of things into them – and thus focus on what I am actually doing. RESPONDENT: Sure ... I will rid myself of the curiosity that you, for some reason, for some aim, leave me with. RICHARD: As it is what you read into my words – instead of taking them at face value – that has created the ‘curiosity’ you report being left with your conclusion (that it is me that is doing that for some reason or aim) is without foundation. RESPONDENT: You are a curiosity. RICHARD: As this deduction is based upon a foundationless conclusion it is without substance. * RESPONDENT: ... isn’t that a little cynical of you? RICHARD: As I was making no such assumption your follow-up query is baseless. RESPONDENT: Can a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from anyone else do such a thing? RICHARD: As your initial assumption is baseless your conclusion (although presented as a question) is without foundation. RESPONDENT: I’ll do it, if you do it, as in create ‘assumptions’ with bases, why must I be the one to create the base for an assumption that was provided to me by the inner-workings of your skull? RICHARD: As I never said that you must ‘create’ the base for an assumption your question is groundless. RESPONDENT: Whatever synonym you want to use is fine by me. RICHARD: Now here is a notion: all you have to do is cease making assumed to be apparent assumptions, cease asking baseless queries, cease drawing foundationless conclusions, cease asking groundless questions, cease making insubstantial deductions, and I will be able to pack my thesaurus away. RESPONDENT: But as long as you are able to substitute excuses for answers, vis: ‘... your question is groundless’ ... RICHARD: Yet as I never did say that you must ‘create’ the base for an assumption your question is indeed groundless ... like your other responses to me this response too has got nothing to do with what I actually said. RESPONDENT: ... then you can and will always abuse the advantage of making your way around expectation and questioning. RICHARD: As your assumption (that my answers are excuses) is baseless your conclusions (about abuse and advantage) are without foundation ... thus both your diagnosis (that I can make my way around expectation and questioning) and your prognosis (that I always will) are groundless. RESPONDENT: What is one to do when one is forced to answer one’s own questions when one is in exchange with another of this kind? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try looking at what your questions are based on before you click ‘send’ ... you may very well find they have nothing to do with what I actually said. ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RICHARD: Has the replacement word [‘sleepy’] enabled you to now focus on what I am actually doing (in contrast to focussing on what I ‘appear’ to be doing)? RESPONDENT: One’s focus at any point in time in any given argument should not be the focus of the argument ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... which is why, once it was established that your third e-mail (a gloss which bears only part-resemblance to your initial statements insofar as it was at odds with your first e-mail) was written while sleepy, I brought the exchange back to your initial statement and my initial response. For what is the point of focussing on something written while sleepy? RESPONDENT: ... instead it should be the conclusion drawn from the argument as it brings more enlightenment to all sides than that. RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no ‘argument’ to draw any conclusion from ... there is only your initial statements and my initial response as you negated your third e-mail when you said it was written while sleepy. RESPONDENT: So it is here that you are being hollow in the exchange. RICHARD: In what way is it hollow to revert to what was not written while sleepy? * RESPONDENT: [I never called you a ‘non-mathematical’ being], you called yourself, which means you are not using the more universal definition of it. RICHARD: This is what I wrote: [quote]: ‘As I am not a mathematician like Mr. Paul Erdos was – and therefore but a ‘trivial being’ unable to change the world and improve things like you say Mr. Albert Einstein did – and thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the ‘trivial pursuit’ you say sex is you will not find what you are looking for here’. [endquote]. I was simply going by the words you wrote ... if they are not ‘the more universal definition of it’ then I would suggest you sharpen up your writing skills. RESPONDENT: Ok, in another exchange a long way back with Respondent No. 48 you told him, ‘I am not a Mathematician ... Physicist ...’. I am not about to spend an hour looking for the reference unless I have to, I bet Respondent No. 48 can be one by the very typing of his keyboard, but that was what I should have said I was referring to. RICHARD: In that case your sentence might look something like this:
Is that something like what you want to convey? If so, just as I have already acknowledged that you never called me a non-mathematical being I hereby acknowledge that I have said in an earlier e-mail (although you would lose your bet as to whom) that I am not a mathematician. Here is what a few dictionaries have to say:
Would something like that qualify as the more universal definition of the word ‘mathematician’? If so, then the way I used it in the sentence in question would look something like this:
Does this clear up this issue? If so, are you able to now focus on what I am actually doing (in contrast to focussing on what I ‘appear’ to be doing) which is, of course, letting you know, not only what you will not find here and why you will not find it here, but where you might find what you are looking for as well? * RICHARD: Either that or do not write to mailing lists when sleepy. RESPONDENT: Ah, thank you for telling me so, I thought my future exchanges were going to be like my past exchanges with you that is why I believed I could afford to. RICHARD: As this particular exchange is the first time I have written to you there are no ‘past exchanges’ with me for you to believe you could afford to write to me when sleepy ... and even if there were why would you have such a lack of regard for clarity in communication that you would write sleepy responses anyway? * RICHARD: ... mathematicians have not, are not, and cannot ever enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent with their mathematics. In short: an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematician. RESPONDENT: Oh ok, so you must be pushing humanity’s buttons by implying, ‘to hell with mathematics and science’ this time? RICHARD: As my words, which you indicate having read by saying ‘oh ok’ to them, do not imply anything of the sort your conclusion about what I ‘must be’ pushing is unfounded ... and, just so there is no misunderstanding, I am on record more than a few times as having said that I appreciate the benefits brought about by both applied mathematics and practical science. What I am saying is very, very simple: as I am not a mathematician (by any definition of the word) it is patently obvious that an actual freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with being a mathematician. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? * RICHARD: Hence my suggestion that there may be such a mailing list among the links at the following URL: [snip link]. If not you can always start your own. RESPONDENT: AS I have not found, or should I say, provided a sufficiently reasonable reason to do so the first time, what then could make me do so the second time around? RICHARD: You could try looking-up the word ‘sincerity’ in the dictionary. RESPONDENT: Aye, tis’ not so sincere of you to be calling me insincere at this point in so knowing the natural progress of any and all arguments as you have had countless experience. RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no ‘progress’ at this point (you negated your third e-mail when you said it was written while sleepy). RESPONDENT: This is the only thing, if any, I was being insincere in. What does your blindness enable you to visualize? RICHARD: What ‘blindness’ are you referring to?
RESPONDENT: You are ineffectual to things out there, that is, to things other than you when you lose identity. RICHARD: Aye, it is such a relief – and a delight – to no longer have power over one’s fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: You are ineffectual and you are unknown when you follow through with the AF dream to be happy and harmless. RICHARD: It is also a relief/delight to be anonymous and, by the way, happiness and harmlessness – freedom from malice and sorrow – is not a ‘dream’ but an actuality ... also the implications of what you have to say above (being effectual and known only through remaining malicious and sorrowful) are a cutting indictment on the human condition. * RESPONDENT: Richard woke up one day and said something along the lines of, ‘if there is no God, then my conditioning is pointless. I will show humankind the right way, I will say ‘fuck the supreme and lose it.’ RICHARD: I neither woke up one day nor said anything along those lines ... in 1980 I had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein it was patently obvious there were no gods or goddesses in actuality and that any conditioning had been to somewhat ameliorate the effects of the instinctual passions all sentient beings are born with. As your premise is without substance any conclusions drawn from that are bound to be invalid. RESPONDENT: But little did you know about your breakthrough that is even more deceiving than those who believe in the supreme, is that although you get the a new and shiny rim in place of an identity, it fucks you over in the eyes of the universe. RICHARD: As I did not get ‘a new and shiny rim in place of an identity’ your conclusion, apart from being without foundation, is demonstrably invalid ... I am this flesh and blood body only. Plus the only eyes this universe has are the eyes of sentient creatures. * RESPONDENT: I’m only guessing, hopefully God will forgive those of you who not only don’t believe in him, but cannot believe in him. RICHARD: Why do you hope your god will forgive? When do you anticipate this event will take place? What will happen if your god does not forgive? What will happen if your god does forgive? Why does your god need other human beings to believe in him? Whys does your god get offended – thus necessitating forgiveness – in the first place? What about all the other gods and goddesses (the last time I looked up the subject there were about 1200 of them) do you believe in them as well? If not, what is going to happen to you for not believing in them ... and when? If so, what is going to happen to you for believing in them ... and when? Has it ever occurred to you that all gods/ goddesses were immortal (until their believers died out)?
RESPONDENT: (...) I’m only guessing, hopefully God will forgive those of you who not only don’t believe in him, but cannot believe in him. RICHARD: (...) Has it ever occurred to you that all gods/goddesses were immortal (until their believers died out)? RESPONDENT: Richard, if a fellow human being threatened to kill you, how would you respond to that? RICHARD: In accord with the legal laws of the country, of course. RESPONDENT: If they succeeded, and got away with that would it be justifiable that they receive some kind of penalty for it? RICHARD: How would such a person have ‘got away with that’ when, in accord with the legal laws of the country, such a threat was duly reported to the police and thus recorded on file for later reference? RESPONDENT: What if that person was above the law? RICHARD: Ha ... as your god has no existence in actuality you would be well-advised to not act upon his commands.
RESPONDENT: You are ineffectual to things out there, that is, to things other than you when you lose identity. RICHARD: Aye, it is such a relief – and a delight – to no longer have power over one’s fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: This relieving position can only turn you into nothing in a world of anything and everything only to the inanimate. RICHARD: Not so ... being sans identity in toto has not turned me into anything at all (I am, as I have been all along in actuality, a flesh and blood body only). RESPONDENT: Therefore how can I care about you if I you cannot be identified? RICHARD: As your premise is incorrect your follow-up query is baseless. RESPONDENT: Not that you would care. RICHARD: As your follow-up query is baseless your conclusion is without foundation. RESPONDENT: Do you care about anything ... RICHARD: Yes, I care about my fellow human being ... so much so that The Actual Freedom Trust exists, as an independent legal entity, solely to promulgate and promote the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice. RESPONDENT: ... like your future for instance? RICHARD: Yes, I care about my future insofar as sensible contingency planning can provide for continued creature comforts until the day I die. RESPONDENT: You can never experience new things. RICHARD: Not so ... everything, absolutely everything, has never been before here in this actual world – all is new, never old, all is novel, never boring, all is fresh, never stale – and never will be again. RESPONDENT: I think that virtues are something you should have. RICHARD: Where one is actually free from the human condition all of your god’s virtues are as redundant as his vices they are the antidotes for. RESPONDENT: I think that it is good to be subjected to go through what may seem to you as imaginary, unreal and unnecessary even. RICHARD: As I know for a fact that all gods and goddesses – and their vices/ virtues – are imaginary, unreal, and unnecessary, there is no ‘may seem’ about it. RESPONDENT: I can only imagine a post-modern man with a hippy lifestyle whenever I read your writings. RICHARD: As I am a post-spiritual man living a suburban lifestyle your imagination does not serve you well. RESPONDENT: What do you suppose is the meaning to life? RICHARD: I do not have to ‘suppose’ what the meaning to life is: it is a direct experience each moment again that, as this flesh and blood body only, I am this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is wonderful. * RESPONDENT: You are ineffectual and you are unknown when you follow through with the AF dream to be happy and harmless. RICHARD: It is also a relief/ delight to be anonymous and, by the way, happiness and harmlessness – freedom from malice and sorrow – is not a ‘dream’ but an actuality ... also the implications of what you have to say above (being effectual and known only through remaining malicious and sorrowful) are a cutting indictment on the human condition. RESPONDENT: A person without aim is blind. RICHARD: As I am not ‘without aim’ – and there is nothing in my above paragraph to even remotely suggest that – your observation is without basis. RESPONDENT: The only difference between you and a mall rat or a bum is that you are happy and harmless correct? RICHARD: As your observation is without basis your follow-up query has no substance. RESPONDENT: By the way, being happy and harmless is not the meaning of life ... RICHARD: I have never said it is ... I have said that peace-on-earth is a side-effect of living the meaning of life each moment again. For example:
And for another instance:
RESPONDENT: ... and it is not what was intended for you. RICHARD: As your god has no existence outside of the human psyche it matters not what such a vainglorious entity intends. * RESPONDENT: Richard woke up one day and said something along the lines of, ‘if there is no God, then my conditioning is pointless. I will show humankind the right way, I will say ‘fuck the supreme and lose it.’ RICHARD: I neither woke up one day nor said anything along those lines ... in 1980 I had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein it was patently obvious there were no gods or goddesses in actuality and that any conditioning had been to somewhat ameliorate the effects of the instinctual passions all sentient beings are born with. As your premise is without substance any conclusions drawn from that are bound to be invalid. RESPONDENT: There are two kinds of ways to sense ‘Universal Right’ and ‘Universal Wrong’ in my personal observation, if one defines it as balanced and unbalanced justice. RICHARD: As I do not define it as ‘balanced and unbalanced justice’ – I know it to be a fantasy – your personal observation is irrelevant to a discussion about facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: The first is that the right and wrong can be sensed by the intellect, the second is that is can be sensed by the heart. RICHARD: The notion of justice is a human concept and is nowhere to be found in actuality. * RESPONDENT: But little did you know about your breakthrough that is even more deceiving than those who believe in the supreme, is that although you get the a new and shiny rim in place of an identity, it fucks you over in the eyes of the universe. RICHARD: As I did not get ‘a new and shiny rim in place of an identity’ your conclusion, apart from being without foundation, is demonstrably invalid ... I am this flesh and blood body only. Plus the only eyes this universe has are the eyes of sentient creatures. RESPONDENT: Duh. RICHARD: I appreciate your acknowledgement that the only eyes this universe has are the eyes of sentient creatures. * RESPONDENT: I’m only guessing, hopefully God will forgive those of you who not only don’t believe in him, but cannot believe in him. RICHARD: Why do you hope your god will forgive? RESPONDENT: So that your ass will not be fried. RICHARD: Hmm ... your god appears to have similar characteristics to the malicious/ sorrowful and antidotally loving/ compassionate biblical god. * RICHARD: When do you anticipate this event will take place? RESPONDENT: After death. RICHARD: As physical death is the end, finish, such an event will never take place. * RICHARD: What will happen if your god does not forgive? RESPONDENT: Please refer to my answer above. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: What will happen if your god does forgive? RESPONDENT: You will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven. RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that you believe in your god because of threats of post-mortem penalty and promises of post-mortem reward (aka the the metaphysical stick and metaphysical carrot)? * RICHARD: Why does your god need other human beings to believe in him? RESPONDENT: So that we do not drift astray the way you have. RICHARD: Here is my response to your insubstantial premise (from further above):
How do you get ‘drift astray’ from that passage? RESPONDENT: You need a prayer ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... I need nothing of the sort. RESPONDENT: I shall pray for you. RICHARD: How you waste your time is, of course, your business. * RICHARD: Why does your god get offended – thus necessitating forgiveness – in the first place? RESPONDENT: Because God has chosen a path for us and we are to follow it with the guidance he lends us from above. RICHARD: If you were to re-read my question in the context of your expressed hope you will see that I am asking why your god gets offended when other human beings [quote] ‘not only don’t believe in him, but cannot believe in him’ [endquote] ... if you could address the question as asked it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: We CANNOT go astray. RICHARD: Ha ... if other human beings really ‘CANNOT’ go astray there is no need for penalty and reward, eh? RESPONDENT: Under the Universal code of right and wrong, good and bad, there will be penalty and reward for good and bad deeds. RICHARD: Do you see that you are really saying that other human beings *can* go astray (hence your ineffectual god’s necessity to resort to penalty and reward)? RESPONDENT: You are nothing but a human being, you have chosen to be something else, and that something is nothing but a flesh and blood body. RICHARD: I have not ‘chosen to be’ anything ... I am, as I have been all along in actuality, a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: Therefore you have died and gone lord knows where. RICHARD: I have not died ... ‘twas the parasitical identity within who altruistically ‘self’-immolated in toto so that, not only the already always existing peace-on-earth could become apparent, but in order for the meaning of life to be evident each moment again as a lived experiencing. I would suggest reading what is on offer with both eyes open before mounting a critique ... it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails. * RICHARD: What about all the other gods and goddesses (the last time I looked up the subject there were about 1200 of them) do you believe in them as well? RESPONDENT: Why should I? RICHARD: Indeed ... yet you arbitrarily choose one god out of 1200 or so gods and goddesses (which may very well be the god of your progenitors) and dismiss the rest as being generational mistakes. RESPONDENT: Generations are allowed to make mistakes just as you are. RICHARD: If getting penalised by being [quote] ‘fried’ [endquote] is your definition of being ‘allowed to make mistakes’ (as in not believing in your offendable god) then it is no wonder most of your e-mails do not make any sense. RESPONDENT: Perhaps they knew that there was a God but they did not know what or how he wanted them to be. RICHARD: Any time I have looked into what some of those 1200 or so gods and goddesses have purportedly had to reveal it was made quite clear what they wanted their believers to know and be. It does pay to research your subject before making such surmises. RESPONDENT: Perhaps there came a point on earth where God saw fit for us to be guided and to really know about him. RICHARD: There came a ‘point on earth’ where a refurbished god (rooted in the Sumerian-Babylonian-Israelite lineage) emerged in the human psyche as being the only god to be worshipped because of a supposed blood-sacrifice to end all blood-sacrifices ... how that ghoulish fantasy is supposed to make that god supplant all the other 1199 or so gods and goddesses is the stuff of nightmares and had nowt to do with everyday life. RESPONDENT: How can you explain my psychic friend? RICHARD: As I do not know your psychic friend I unable to explain her/him for you. * RICHARD: [What about all the other gods and goddesses (the last time I looked up the subject there were about 1200 of them) do you believe in them as well?] If not, what is going to happen to you for not believing in them ... and when? RESPONDENT: Those other gods have nothing to do with God. RICHARD: Presuming that your response signifies nothing is going to happen to you, for not believing in all the other gods and goddesses, then you might just begin to comprehend why I do not believe in your god as well ... the main difference between you and me in this matter is that, whilst you are atheistic about 1199 or so gods and goddesses, I am atheistic about all 1200 or so of them. * RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that all gods/goddesses were immortal (until their believers died out)? RESPONDENT: Why should it? RICHARD: I did not say it ‘should’ occur to you ... I asked has it ever occurred to you (that all gods/goddesses were immortal until their believers died out). Has it? RESPONDENT: Has it ever occurred to you that I exist before you started believing in me? RICHARD: As I do not believe in you your query is baseless.
RESPONDENT: Sometimes I think you are purposely being ignorant of the meaning of my questions. RICHARD: As what you ‘think’ I am being, and what I am actually doing, are two entirely different things it might very well pay to focus on the latter ... to wit: I answered your questions in accord with the way they were written. RESPONDENT: Despite my inability to properly convey what should be taken as an a priori meaning in my questions to you, you should be able to decipher it. RICHARD: Here is your first question from your previous e-mail:
And here is what you say, further below in this very next e-mail, ‘should be taken as an a priori meaning’ contained in that question which I ‘should be able to decipher’:
Not being a mind reader I have no notion whatsoever what goes on in your mind when you write other than the portions of those goings-on you choose to put into words and post to this mailing list ... to then tell me what I ‘should’ be able to do with those written words, and then further tell me that failure to do so can only mean either purposeful ignorance or an inability to decipher meanings, borders on the fantastical. RESPONDENT: That can only mean that what you call ‘actuality’ is either purposeful ignorance or an inability to decipher meanings in improper sentences. This inability leads to having very little in common with most people with identity thus resulting in a lack of friends. RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you: as it is your ‘inability to properly convey’ what goes on in your mind when you write how about you deal with your lack of communication skills ... rather than drawing erroneous conclusions from what you say I ‘should’ be able to do with the portions of those goings-on you choose to put into words and post to this mailing list? RESPONDENT: Anyway, I will accept the difficulty you are either purposely or unexpectedly creating for me by rephrasing my questions in a more careful manner. RICHARD: As I neither ‘purposely’ nor ‘unexpectedly’ created anything for you – I merely answered your questions in accord with the way they were written – there is no such difficulty to accept. RESPONDENT: 1) If someone threatened to kill you while you while they were pointing a gun to your head and asked you to plea for your life with real tears, could you do it? 2) If that person killed you and they got away from the law somehow, some way as this is a rare but possible case, should they receive some penalty in the eyes of the Universe for having killed you? Can you please answer these questions without inserting any judgement of them? RICHARD: Here are your previous questions 1) and 2) and my response in sequence:
If you could show me where I inserted ‘any judgement’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: So that my time and your time will not be wasted. RICHARD: If I may point out? This entire e-mail is a waste of your time as I have already made it clear to you, in another e-mail in this thread, that (a) the notion of justice is a human concept and is nowhere to be found in actuality ... and (b) the only eyes this universe has are the eyes of sentient creatures (thus there is no need for your hypothetical questions in whatever form). Moreover, as your response to (a) was [quote] ‘yawn’ [endquote], and your response to (b) was [quote] ‘duh’ [endquote], it is entirely up to you whether you continue to waste your time or not ... put simply the universe, being physical, is value-free (aka non-judgemental) and your god, being metaphysical, is value-loaded (aka judgemental). In short: it is entirely up to humans to sort out their own affairs.
RESPONDENT: Can you tell me why my friend is psychic? RICHARD: I presume you are referring to the person you asked me about before in the following exchange:
Is this the devotedly religious limo driver you wrote about in July last year, who you experienced as having a fascinating humbleness, and who minded you of the supernatural being part of your everyday life (whereas before that you were an atheist or otherwise)? Every being is psychic to some degree ... why some people are more so is usually a matter of them developing that innate ability.
RESPONDENT: Can you tell me why my friend is psychic? RICHARD: I presume you are referring to the person you asked me about before in the following exchange:
Is this the devotedly religious limo driver you wrote about in July last year, who you experienced as having a fascinating humbleness, and who minded you of the supernatural being part of your everyday life (whereas before that you were an atheist or otherwise)? RESPONDENT: Yes, I’m really very touched you remembered. RICHARD: There is no point in me entering into a discussion with my fellow human being if I do not take any notice of what they consider important enough to write about on a mailing list set-up for the express purpose of discussing life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. * RICHARD: Every being is psychic to some degree ... why some people are more so is usually a matter of them developing that innate ability. RESPONDENT: Are you implying that this ‘innate ability’ to read each other’s thoughts to some degree exempt from any space-time association with each other is all part of the mystery and wonder of the unexplored areas human nature? RICHARD: Where I said ‘psychic to some degree’ I was referring to the basic intuitive facility each being has – as evidenced by ‘I have a hunch that ...’ or ‘my gut-feeling is that ...’ and so on – and, as such, does not necessarily include reading another’s thoughts ... indeed most psychic ability, even in those who have developed it more than the norm, does not centre around reading thoughts per se (as in reading each word on a page) but operates more as an intuitive understanding of the essence of what the other is thinking (intimations, images, a key-word here and there, snippets of concepts, and so on). As for it being unexplored: more than a few people have explored various aspects and much has been written about it ... and, yes, as it is an instantaneous event both time and space (duration and distance) play no part. RESPONDENT: So if I decided tonight to develop my innate ability then can I proceed to read your thoughts as well? RICHARD: No ... there is no psyche extant in this flesh and blood body (no ‘being’ whatsoever) to transmit anything at all. RESPONDENT: How would you like that? RICHARD: As there are no malicious or sorrowful feelings whatsoever in this flesh and blood body – nor any alien identity – to corrupt thought there is nothing to hide (if that is what you are enquiring about). RESPONDENT: Also, do you think that there can be a theory for how this medium of human communication might work? RICHARD: There are already many theories about how it works ... none of which touch on it being an epiphenomenon of the affective faculty (indeed the entire psyche – which includes the intuitive/imaginative facility – is rooted in the instinctual passions). Incidentally, it is not a very reliable medium of communication ... and tests done utilising the scientific method show it to have a 50-50 success rate (which is the same as guess-work). RESPONDENT: What is your take on communication with the dead (i.e. spiritual beings)? RICHARD: It is a crock (death is the end, finish). * RESPONDENT: Can you tell me how you know this [that every being is psychic to some degree and that some people have developed that ability]? RICHARD: Sure ... intrinsically (via ‘self’-observation, night and day, over an eleven year period) – an exploration of ‘my’ psyche is an exploration of the ‘human’ psyche) – and then extrinsically (via other beings verbal and written reports) for the sake of confirmation that it is indeed common to all beings. RESPONDENT: Is it something revealed by a PCE? RICHARD: No ... there is no psyche extant in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: I would also like to know, how do you process the opinions others have towards you without a psychological entity inside you? RICHARD: In a word: intellectually. RESPONDENT: Is your consciousness pure intellect? RICHARD: No, there is more to consciousness – the state or condition of a body being conscious –
than intellect
CORRESPONDENT No. 49 (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 |
