|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RESPONDENT: Richard ... why the obsession with proving you are the only one to be in a state of ‘actual freedom’ as you put it? RICHARD: I neither put it that an actual freedom from the human condition is a ‘state’ nor do I have an ‘obsession’ about anything ... let alone ‘proving’ that nobody else either currently alive or in human history has been actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: It seems rather childish. RICHARD: Why does it seem ‘rather childish’ to report something new to human experience? RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt your claims nor does it matter to me if it is true or false ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Why does it not matter to you that somebody has finally found the answer, not only to all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition, but to life itself? RESPONDENT: ... but I don’t see how there is any way to verify such a statement nor to even care. RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write this e-mail and inform me of your concern. RESPONDENT: Humans have been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you actually think no one has succeeded before you? RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I know that nobody has. RESPONDENT: Does it matter? RICHARD: It matters to those who dare to care ... and thus care to dare.
RESPONDENT: Richard ... why the obsession with proving you are the only one to be in a state of ‘actual freedom’ as you put it? RICHARD: I neither put it that an actual freedom from the human condition is a ‘state’ nor do I have an ‘obsession’ about anything ... let alone ‘proving’ that nobody else either currently alive or in human history has been actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Excuse me for calling it a ‘state’ ... RICHARD: Yet you did not just call it that ... you said I put it that way, when I do not, and I was setting the record straight. RESPONDENT: Big deal ... you are nitpicking. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. As I know what an actual freedom from the human condition both is and is not, however, I will keep my own counsel on the matter. RESPONDENT: You have invented your own language (PCE, ASC, actual freedom, etc.). RICHARD: Obviously I cannot comment on the ‘etcetera’ but the acronym ASC (‘altered state of consciousness’) already existed and I am merely following the convention for the sake of consistency and clarity in communication; the acronym PCE (‘pure consciousness experience’) already existed in the form of ‘pure consciousness event’ (a senseless and thoughtless ASC wherein all experiencing ceases) and I merely substituted the word ‘experience’ for the word ‘event’ so as to emphasise that the pure consciousness experience was pure (unmediated) sensuousness; the phrase ‘actual freedom’ (a shortened form of ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’) is, however, totally my own invention. RESPONDENT: No different than the Krishnamurtian lingo he developed to suit his needs. RICHARD: Yet I did not develop the actualism lingo for my own needs – I have none – as the lingo came about when I first went public in 1997 ... until then I had no name for what I discovered in 1992 (and did not even know, for example, of the ‘pure consciousness event’ acronym before that). In other words, the actualism lingo developed as more and more of my fellow human beings interacted, and likened what I had to report to what was already known, so the differentiation in terminology came about, quite organically, for the sake of clarity in communication. * RESPONDENT: It seems rather childish. RICHARD: Why does it seem ‘rather childish’ to report something new to human experience? RESPONDENT: It seems rather childish to compare your supposedly fulfilled state, or whatever name you feel like giving it since you object to the word ‘state’, with all the people from the beginning of people who have attained what they were after. Everyone is unique and one of kind, never to be repeated or seen again, and you are as unique and no more so than the rest of humanity. Everyone lives a life no one has lived or experienced before, why put yourself above all others? RICHARD: First and foremost: as there is no affective identity/affective feelings extant in this flesh and blood body there is no way that what it is actually called comes from what such a feeler may ‘feel like’ giving it; second, why does it seem ‘rather childish’ to compare an actual freedom from the human condition with what all the people who have attained what they were after attained to; third, at root everybody is not as unique as you would have them be – virtually all sentient beings are identical at the core of their being – and this flesh and blood body is unique inasmuch that very core, that identical ‘being’ itself, is no longer extant; lastly, there is no putting of oneself above all others ... that hierarchical model is what you make of it. I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity in toto). * RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt your claims nor does it matter to me if it is true or false ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Why does it not matter to you that somebody has finally found the answer, not only to all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition, but to life itself? RESPONDENT: I congratulate you on your find, if you have found ‘the’ answer, if there is ‘an’ answer. RICHARD: Hmm ... the one hand giveth and the other taketh back twofold, eh? RESPONDENT: But your answer is your answer alone. RICHARD: Au contraire ... one of the many things I did before going public was to ascertain whether people from many walks of life could recall a PCE, as distinct from an ASC, for obvious reasons and everybody I spoke to at length on the topic – everybody – could recall such a moment of sensuous perfection. ‘Tis the living of it, twenty four hours of the day, for the remainder of one’s life (an actual freedom from the human condition) which is new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Everyone needs to find their own answer or their own key. I could care less about you or your answer as you cannot live my life nor anyone else’s. RICHARD: If I may point out? You not only cared enough to write an e-mail, and inform me of your concern, you cared enough to write me this second one as well. * RESPONDENT: ... but I don’t see how there is any way to verify such a statement nor to even care. RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write this e-mail and inform me of your concern. RESPONDENT: You are evading the question of verification. RICHARD: Not at all ... I just fail to see the point of doing so for someone who says that it does not matter to them if it is true or false and, furthermore, say they do not even care whether there is any way to verify same. RESPONDENT: Since you are of a western scientific bent, one would think you would be consistent in verifying your outrageous statements before you stake claim to them and post them for all the world to see. RICHARD: Indeed so ... this is very perspicacious of you. * RESPONDENT: Humans have been on this planet for how long, no doubt in search of the ultimate or freedom or whatever name one chooses to give it: Do you actually think no one has succeeded before you? RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that nobody has succeeded before ... I know that nobody has. RESPONDENT: You can ‘know’ and not ‘think’ what you wish. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with wishing. RESPONDENT: It is irrelevant and of no consequence whatsoever. RICHARD: It is relevant and is of enormous consequence. * RESPONDENT: Does it matter? RICHARD: It matters to those who dare to care ... and thus care to dare. RESPONDENT: I will give you that one ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As this is the closest you have come to a genuine interaction, in both of your e-mails, it may be worthwhile leaving the remainder of your sentence to languish for now so as to focus on the import of what you have just acknowledged. We can always reinstate it later if need be.
RESPONDENT: Richard ... why the obsession with proving you are the only one to be in a state of ‘actual freedom’ as you put it? RICHARD: I neither put it that an actual freedom from the human condition is a ‘state’ nor do I have an ‘obsession’ about anything ... let alone ‘proving’ that nobody else either currently alive or in human history has been actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Excuse me for calling it a ‘state’ ... RICHARD: Yet you did not just call it that ... you said I put it that way, when I do not, and I was setting the record straight. RESPONDENT: I will set the record straight ... the word ‘state’ is irrelevant and you have made it a distraction ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You have made it into a distraction by turning it into an issue – an issue you capriciously decided was ‘nitpicking’ – whereas all I did was set the record straight. RESPONDENT: .... and is not the focus here ... RICHARD: Then why put a focus on it by making an issue out of it (and then try to make out it was me that did)? RESPONDENT: ... ‘as you put it’ referred to your term of ‘actual freedom’ ... RICHARD: As ‘to be in a state of’ referred to my term ‘actual freedom’ then ‘as you put it’ refers to that also ... and, as I have already mentioned twice now, I do not put it that way. RESPONDENT: ... and your claim that you are the one, the only, the only one in the history of man & woman to live, to be in your self-coined term of ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: Now you are saying what you really wanted to know looked something like this:
All that happened was that you had made three assumptions in one sentence – ‘obsession’ and ‘proving’ and ‘state’ – and I set the record straight on all three ... why you chose to make an issue out of one of the three has got me beat. RESPONDENT: Whether this is true or not is besides the point. There is no way for you to know if one or many of the billions or trillions who came before you, lived in your self professed / self-coined term of actual freedom. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. As I know the way I know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience, however, I will keep my own counsel on the matter. * RESPONDENT: ... but I don’t see how there is any way to verify such a statement nor to even care. RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write this e-mail and inform me of your concern. RESPONDENT: You are evading the question of verification. RICHARD: Not at all ... I just fail to see the point of doing so for someone who says that it does not matter to them if it is true or false and, furthermore, say they do not even care whether there is any way to verify same. RESPONDENT: I don’t personally need verification as I don’t care and it doesn’t matter a wit or a whit to me. RICHARD: Okay ... that is the end of the matter, then.
RESPONDENT: ... and your claim that you are the one, the only, the only one in the history of man & woman to live, to be in your self-coined term of ‘actual freedom’. RICHARD: Now you are saying what you really wanted to know looked something like this: [example only]: ‘Richard, why do you claim to be the only one in ‘actual freedom’ as you put it? [end example]. All that happened was that you had made three assumptions in one sentence – ‘obsession’ and ‘proving’ and ‘state’ – and I set the record straight on all three ... why you chose to make an issue out of one of the three has got me beat. RESPONDENT: You knew exactly what I meant and its just typical of your evasive questioning technique. (snip). RICHARD: May I ask? Why are you persisting with this issue, which you have made out of me putting the record straight, when you have already said it is a distraction and not the focus? Of course I knew what your focus was ... here it is, from your initial e-mail, complete with my direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply:
Now I ask you: what is ‘evasive’ about that? Furthermore, the next exchange was in the same vein:
Now I ask you again: what is ‘evasive’ about that direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply? Yet what was your response to this direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply of mine? None other than this:
And, moreover, what was your response to the next direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply of mine? None other than this:
In other words, you already knew what the (supposed) answer to your (rhetorical) question was, which you (purportedly) say is what the focus is upon, yet rather than find out what Richard has to say you would rather go further into the distraction you made – by turning my setting of the record straight at the top of the page into an issue you capriciously decided was ‘nitpicking’ – thereby putting a focus on it instead (and then trying to make out it was me that did so into the bargain). As to why you would do this I can only guess at: maybe it is to somehow disguise the fact that you claim to know that I cannot know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience. Viz.:
‘Tis only a guess, mind you.
RESPONDENT: Richard, how is the AFT funded? RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Trust is funded by the voluntary contributions of three suburbanites. RESPONDENT: How do you cover the costs of the web site and your staff? RICHARD: The costs of The Actual Freedom Trust web site are met by the voluntary contributions of three suburbanites and, as the staff are those three suburbanites, any and all staff-type activities are also voluntary. RESPONDENT: I was going through your intro. Its pretty impressive in its simplicity and logic. RICHARD: The simplicity of an actual freedom from the human condition, if that is what you mean, is indeed impressive ... it has nothing to do with logic, however, and everything to do with actuality. RESPONDENT: If you really want to have an effect on this world, you have the perfect framework for a standard education course. RICHARD: Are you implying that, because The Actual Freedom Trust is not running standard education courses, that I do not really want to have an effect on the world? RESPONDENT: Surely the world is ready for this subject ... what could be more important? RICHARD: Once the five basic needs are met – (preferably clean) air, (preferably pure) water, (preferably healthy) food, (preferably adequate) shelter, and (preferably suitable) clothing if the climate be inclement – there is indeed nothing more important than peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and were the majority of the population to be living peacefully and harmoniously the provision of those basic needs would be such a matter of course that the preference for quality would be easily met. ‘Tis a cutting indictment on the ‘you can’t change human nature’ mentality that it is not already happening in this age of plenty. RESPONDENT: You must have thought of this, no? RICHARD: I thought about it for five years (1992-1997) before I finally went public, as I value my privacy highly and prefer anonymity over publicity any day of the week, yet nothing thought could do had any effect at all on the intrinsic fellowship regard which epitomises the actual intimacy (no separation) of being a flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: Any such plans? RICHARD: None at all. Viz.:
What I do is sit at my computer, when the whim takes me, and share my discovery with my fellow human beings ... being retired, and on a pension, instead of pottering around in the garden I am pottering around the internet. It is a leisure-time activity, a retirement pastime-come-hobby, as it were, and a very pleasant thing to do indeed. I am having a lot of fun here at this keyboard.
RESPONDENT: I was going through your intro. Its pretty impressive in its simplicity and logic. RICHARD: The simplicity of an actual freedom from the human condition, if that is what you mean, is indeed impressive ... it has nothing to do with logic, however, and everything to do with actuality. RESPONDENT: I was going through the introduction where you start with the universe, then you show pictures of the earth, and on down to your 3rd alternative. It was presented in a slideshow type manner that could be readily assimilated in the current educational system. RICHARD: I see ... you were referring to the style and format of what is being conveyed in the ‘Introduction To Actual Freedom’, and not what is being conveyed, and were letting me know that style and format, if it be simple and logical, is ‘pretty impressive’ to you, eh? RESPONDENT: If you really want to have an effect on this world, you have the perfect framework for a standard education course. RICHARD: Are you implying that, because The Actual Freedom Trust is not running standard education courses, that I do not really want to have an effect on the world? RESPONDENT: No, not what I meant. My point was: since you are for peace on earth, don’t you think you could have a greater effect if this was common food for the masses as a standard class for teenagers or at the university level? RICHARD: Oh? Is style and format, if it be simple and logical, the ‘common food for the masses’ then? * RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Trust is a statutory legal body that five nominal directors established in order to operate under for sensible commercial reasons. (snip). RESPONDENT: What does that mean ‘for sensible commercial reasons’? RICHARD: Well, it partly means that the five nominal directors, who established the statutory legal body known as The Actual Freedom Trust, were well aware that they, and any other directors who may take their place one day, live in a litigious society ... but it mainly means that a statutory legal body facilitates all the legal processes and bookkeeping details that are involved in publishing (in order to have an internet domain, for just one instance, there must be a registered business name and number). It is all just standard business practice.
RESPONDENT: I was going through your intro. Its pretty impressive in its simplicity and logic. RICHARD: The simplicity of an actual freedom from the human condition, if that is what you mean, is indeed impressive ... it has nothing to do with logic, however, and everything to do with actuality. RESPONDENT: I was going through the introduction where you start with the universe, then you show pictures of the earth, and on down to your 3rd alternative. It was presented in a slideshow type manner that could be readily assimilated in the current educational system. RICHARD: I see ... you were referring to the style and format of what is being conveyed in the ‘Introduction To Actual Freedom’, and not what is being conveyed, and were letting me know that style and format, if it be simple and logical, is ‘pretty impressive’ to you, eh? RESPONDENT: If you really want to have an effect on this world, you have the perfect framework for a standard education course. RICHARD: Are you implying that, because The Actual Freedom Trust is not running standard education courses, that I do not really want to have an effect on the world? RESPONDENT: No, not what I meant. My point was: since you are for peace on earth, don’t you think you could have a greater effect if this was common food for the masses as a standard class for teenagers or at the university level? RICHARD: Oh? Is style and format, if it be simple and logical, the ‘common food for the masses’ then? RESPONDENT: No, Mr. Difficult ... but I understand your suspiciousness of my queries considering how I have had harsh words for you. RICHARD: As your queries are too blatantly chauvinistic – just as your macho words are too flagrantly poseur-like – to be suspicable the only ‘Mr. Difficult’ is the persona you have become in order to be dismissive of anybody actually getting off their backside and doing something about the human condition. Apart from which ... the neo-anarchistic nihilism popularised by the punk rock subculture is rather passé these days anyway. * RESPONDENT: That aside, my point is: you believe in your method ... RICHARD: It is neither my method nor do I believe in it: it is the method devised by the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago and, as ‘his’ method worked to deliver the goods (which no method before in human history has), its proven track-record means there is no need to believe in it. RESPONDENT: ... you claim it delivers the goods, unlike what the LDM’s have left for us in their respective wakes ... RICHARD: As the many and varied sages, saints, and seers were/are still subject to anger and anguish (usually elevated to the status of a Righteous Wrath and a Sacred Sorrow by some-such name) – and thus still subject to the antidotal pacifiers love and compassion (usually elevated to the status of a Love Agapé and a Divine Compassion by some-such name) – one does not have to be a genius to suss out that the altered state of consciousness (ASC) popularly known as spiritual enlightenment does not deliver the goods ... presuming, of course, that the goods in question be peace on earth and not some spurious Peace That Passeth All Understanding in some specious timeless and spaceless and formless realm where there is no dratted body to stuff things up. And as their mystico-religious answer lies not in the world, but away from it, there is no prize for guessing
what their goods really are RESPONDENT: ... and as I have said, you have a nice, easily digestible, presentable format ... RICHARD: If I may point out? As what you have to say (further below) demonstrates you have not the slightest notion of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site it would appear that it is only the presentable formats/ perfect frameworks/ slideshow-like styles that you find easily digestible ... and as the phrase ‘all style and no substance’ epitomises your posts to this list it is no wonder. RESPONDENT: ... you believe in its contents and its subsequent effects on the problems of humans as you have pointed out in your text. RICHARD: If you can provide the instances – or even one instance – of the text where I have ever said I ‘believe’ in the contents and its effects I will most certainly address your comment ... until then I will take this to be the male bovine faecal matter it is and move on without further remark. * RESPONDENT: Currently we have an educational system that prepares you to earn a livelihood and a religious system that perpetuates the ‘human condition’, and is so enmeshed, inter-twined and is currently the software that is running the human machine – if I have interpreted what you have written correctly. RICHARD: Why interpret what I have to report ... why not take it at face value? Viz.:
As this is on the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site I am being right up-front and out-in-the-open as to what is ‘the software that is running the human machine’ ... how you can interpret that as meaning the ‘so enmeshed, inter-twined’ educational system/religious system (let alone why you would) instead of taking it at face value has got me stumped. Furthermore, all of the above is graphically spelled out in the ... um ... pretty impressive presentable format/perfect framework/slideshow-like ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ presentation for those who find [quote] ‘wordy, verbose prose’ [endquote] off-putting. RESPONDENT: You have said the current software needs deleting and your method is the anti-virus software necessary to do the job, so to speak. RICHARD: As what you say I call ‘the current’ software is not only as old as humankind itself, but even predating the first humanoid, you are way, way off the mark as to what manner of deletion my discovery entails and, if I may make the observation, typical of what was made fashionable by none other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. And this is because nowhere does he come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by the conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning) which he sought to remedy by starting his own religiously-orientated schools. For an example of this ignorance: RESPONDENT: Why not have it as part of the current widespread educational system to rewire the human being for peace on earth? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: first find out what actualism is on about, and then test the actualism method for efficacy in your day-to-day life, before proffering advice as to how best it be promulgated as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism. ‘Tis only a suggestion, though.
RESPONDENT: You have said the current software needs deleting and your method is the anti-virus software necessary to do the job, so to speak. RICHARD: As what you say I call ‘the current’ software is not only as old as humankind itself, but even predating the first humanoid, you are way, way off the mark as to what manner of deletion my discovery entails and, if I may make the observation, typical of what was made fashionable by none other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. And this is because nowhere does he come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being caused by the conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning) which he sought to remedy by starting his own religiously-orientated schools. RESPONDENT: I believe UGK said something along those lines of ‘genetically encoded’. Did you say that first or did he? RICHARD: Neither. I am not the first to say that the instinctual passions are biologically inherited and neither is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti ... it has been public knowledge for at least 145 years (since 1858 when Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. A. R. Wallace agreed to simultaneously publish their discoveries regarding evolution). Mr. Charles Darwin went on to publish a book expressly on that subject in 1899 entitled ‘The Expression Of The Emotions In Man And Animals’. In the topic under discussion (the deletion of the human condition itself and not just the deletion of the human conditioning instilled so as to keep it somewhat under control) it is what somebody does with that public knowledge which is what is important ... and the following is fairly representative of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is on about (that is, if anything he has to say can be):
And this:
Which is why he would say this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
I watched a video of his in 1997, in which he was being interviewed by a South American television station, and in response to the interviewer’s direct question ‘do you experience fear’ (always a hot topic) he answered her question by saying that it is the body which does ... as I did not transcribe that video-tape this is the nearest print-published quote to that answer I have been able to locate:
He may have done a lot of things ... but the deletion of the genetically-inherited instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, is most certainly not one of them. On the contrary, he stresses their importance ... as well as the anger (aka aggression) and the empathetic suffering (aka nurture) already quoted above he has this to say about desire and fear:
And:
Lastly, and because he says in that latter quote ‘you don’t have to think about it’, this next quote goes some way towards demonstrating what he means by ‘you’ in that sentence. Viz.:
This one is a doozie:
In effect he is saying that, as thought itself is the problem, all you have to do live your life in a thoughtless state ... and the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, will take care of everything else. * RESPONDENT: Why not have it as part of the current widespread educational system to rewire the human being for peace on earth? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: first find out what actualism is on about, and then test the actualism method for efficacy in your day-to-day life, before proffering advice as to how best it be promulgated as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism. ‘Tis only a suggestion, though. RESPONDENT: ‘‘Tis only a suggestion, though’. Your typical rather condescending, smug ending. Kind of strange for a no self to be feeling ‘smugness’. Or is it? Can a no self feel smug? Just curious. I sure as hell wouldn’t know. RICHARD: As the phrase ‘no self’ is a term used by some mystics (self-realised spiritualists), usually of a buddhistic persuasion, to refer to an ego-less state of being there is nothing strange about such a ‘being’ feeling something ... after all they are that affective being. Whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when that affective being – which is ‘being’ itself – altruistically ‘self’-immolates in toto ... hence any feeling of either condescension or smugness you are reading into my words can only be a projection of your own feelings. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the reply. This is fun! In fact, I am rather having a ball here at my keyboard with you Richard. But the challenge is wearing off. RICHARD: Hmm ... and what ‘challenge’ would that be? So far this mailing list has attracted cult-busters, guru-busters, disciple-busters, clone-busters, method-busters – and even a myth-destroyer (albeit a one-poster though) – so perhaps you could declare your hand and establish yourself in the anti-peace hall of fame as ... um ... a prose-buster, perhaps? Be that as it may ... as whatever it is is ‘wearing off’ it would appear that yet another dump-and-run cynic is soon to be departing for more gullible pastures. And thus does all the misery and mayhem continue unabated.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (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 |
