Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 53


January 06 2006

CO-RESPONDENT: Have the actualists solved the riddle of nature vs. nurture?

RICHARD: As I was born and raised on a farm there never was a nature versus nurture riddle to solve ... the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were.

CO-RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience.

RESPONDENT: You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves.

RICHARD: Indeed so ... you are obviously referring to something like this:

• [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*.
Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Yet when they come back and question your theories ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as they would not be calling them theories, now would they?

RESPONDENT: [Yet when they come back and question your theories], you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’.

RICHARD: No, that is not the last card in the deck – it is the first one – as well you know. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without *verifying it for themselves*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone.

RICHARD: No, it is carved (to use your terminology) in the PCE ... here it is again from that passage of mine you obviously referred to:

• [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... *not me or my words*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: They can question your theories till the cows come home ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling them theories.

RESPONDENT: ... but you have laid down the laws of the universe ...

RICHARD: No, it is the PCE which evidences what you are labelling as ‘the laws of the universe’ ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: ... this universe according to your understanding of it ...

RICHARD: No, this universe according to the direct experience of it in a PCE.

RESPONDENT: ... or what you like to call ‘experiential’ ...

RICHARD: No, the direct experience in a PCE is not what I like to call experiential ... it is experiential. Vis.:

• ‘experiential: of, pertaining to, or derived from experience or observation’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: ... and now your words are to be carved in stone ...

RICHARD: No, that that passage of mine you obviously referred to is quite explicit:

• [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words *then offer confirmation ... and affirmation* in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’ ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would have the entire deck of cards (to keep with your analogy).

RESPONDENT: ... which trumps everyone else’s so-called direct experience.

RICHARD: No, the PCE is global in its spread. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). *The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age*. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’.

RESPONDENT: You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: I believe that is call dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that is not called dualism.

RESPONDENT: ... perhaps you should rename the obviously erroneous name for your millions of words, actualism ...

RICHARD: No, the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’.

RESPONDENT: ... into dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: ... or Richardism.

RICHARD: No, that too would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

Ain’t life grand!

January 07 2006

RESPONDENT: You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: I believe that is call dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that is not called dualism.

RESPONDENT: ... perhaps you should rename the obviously erroneous name for your millions of words, actualism ...

RICHARD: No, the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’.

RESPONDENT: ... into dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: ... or Richardism.

RICHARD: No, that too would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: Your rearranging, cutting & pasting, cutting in half, pasting 1/2, cutting off, pasting on, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc etc etc ... has reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication. There is nothing of reality, actuality, whatever name you’d like to give it, to respond to in your below fantasy conversation. You have demonstrated yet again that you are a quack, a joke, a joker, a jokester, a con-man, a con-artist, an artless con, a lie, a liar, a fraud, a fake, a phoney, a poseur, a pretender with pretension beyond pretence. Enjoy your simulation of reality, actuality, freedom, liberation, whatever name that is currently in fashion. Good day sir.

RICHARD: The original from which the quoted exchange at the bottom of this page was obtained can be found at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909818883. It will be seen that it has not been rearranged, cut & pasted, cut in half, pasted 1/2, cut off, pasted on, deconstructed or reconstructed (etceteras cannot be commented on) ... let alone having reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication.

The advantage computer archives have over going by memory are that they are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... (c) undeniable.

January 12 2006

RESPONDENT No. 107: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience.

RESPONDENT: You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves.

RICHARD: Indeed so ... you are obviously referring to something like this:

[Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Yet when they come back and question your theories ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as they would not be calling them theories, now would they?

RESPONDENT: Exactly my point.

RICHARD: No, it is not your point at all, that they would not be calling them theories had they come back from verifying it for themselves, let alone exactly that. What *is* exactly your point – if that be even remotely an appropriate word for what you are on about – is that the ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of your fantasy-world then throws out ‘his’ last card (that ‘his’ words, being experiential, are as if carved in stone). Vis.:

 • [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your theories, you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: According to you, unless they come back from ‘verifying it for themselves’ and agree with you, they would be wrong ... and they will continue to be wrong until they agree with you.

RICHARD: No, that is according to you ... according to me they would not be calling them theories had they come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote]. Here, see for yourself (it is written in plain English):

• [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your theories ...
• [Richard]: ‘If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as *they would not be calling them theories*, now would they? [emphasis added].

Maybe if I were to re-present what you initially wrote thisaway it might become clear:

 • [example only]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations ...’. [end example].

Do you see that without the words [quote] ‘your theories’ [endquote] in what you initially wrote you really have nothing to say? For example:

 • [example only]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations, you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone’. [end example].

Now I ask you: were they to have come back from verifying my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations for themselves then why on earth would they be questioning them (such as to warrant your assertion about my words being as if carved in stone) when I make it abundantly clear that it is a pure conscious experience (PCE) which is of vital importance (as in lodestone/ guiding light) and not my words? Here is another example:

• [Co-respondent]: ‘I appreciate your pointer back to my own experience [a PCE].
• [Richard]: ‘You are welcome ... after all it is your own experience which is of vital importance, and not my descriptions and explanations (which can be either inadequate or misconstrued), as you then intimately know for yourself where to go and what to do.
Ain’t life grand!’

And even more specific to your fantasy-world ‘Richard’ (whose words are as if carved in stone):

• [Richard]: ‘Nothing I have to say is carved in stone tablets.
• [Co-respondent]: ‘That’s good to hear.
• [Richard]: ‘There are those who do not hear it’.

*

RESPONDENT: [Yet when they come back and question your theories], you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’.

RICHARD: No, that is not the last card in the deck – it is the first one – as well you know. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without *verifying it for themselves*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone.

RICHARD: No, it is carved (to use your terminology) in the PCE ... here it is again from that passage of mine you obviously referred to: [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... *not me or my words*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: You must be referring to the PCE or pure consciousness experience that you have recently redefined as being, well, not so pure after all.

RICHARD: No, I am referring to the same pure consciousness experience (PCE) I have referred to all along – where identity is in total abeyance – as I recently reaffirmed in unambiguous terms. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is the identity in total abeyance or not in a PCE?
• [Richard]: ‘Unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE but an ASC ... for instance: [quote] ‘... in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, *resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC)* ... complete with a super-self’. [emphasis added].

And again:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Either it is a PCE un-contaminated by an identity, be it in an ever-so-slight degree or to any degree, or it is not.
• [Richard]: ‘Aye ... unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE’. (...) Where identity is casting an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced it is not, or is no longer, a PCE’.

RESPONDENT: So a not so pure consciousness experience is to be ones lodestone or guiding light?

RICHARD: No, it is the pure consciousness experience I have referred to all along – where identity is in total abeyance – which is one’s lodestone or guiding light.

RESPONDENT: And what is one supposed to do with a memory?

RICHARD: Verify the facticity of what is written with it, of course. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: What can one do with a memory?

RICHARD: Have it be one’s lodestone or guiding light, obviously ... not me or my words. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then *it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words*. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Use it for inspiration?

RICHARD: Use it for (a) verifying the facticity of what is written ... and (b) one’s lodestone or guiding light.

RESPONDENT: For a goal to get a passing moment from the past back?

RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘passing moment’ [endquote] would that be you are referring to? Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... what is so actual/ factual, and thus irrefutable, about my direct experience that it is never not this moment here in this actual world – as contrasted to it being but a fleeting moment among many such moments in the real world – is the very actuality, and thus factuality, of the eternity of time itself (as contrasted to time, as in past/ present/ future, as a convention) ... as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

*

RESPONDENT: They can question your theories till the cows come home ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling them theories.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps when they have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote], they may be calling your theories ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? As what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential – as in coming out of direct experience – it is in no way theoretical.

RESPONDENT: ... (which you insist on calling facts) ...

RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential – as in coming out of direct experience – and thus is in no way theoretical.

RESPONDENT: ... trash, or useless concepts.

RICHARD: No, when they have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling what is coming out of direct experience trash or useless concepts.

*

RESPONDENT: ... but you have laid down the laws of the universe ...

RICHARD: No, it is the PCE which evidences what you are labelling as ‘the laws of the universe’ ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: And do you or do you not have this PCE which evidences the law of the universe which you have laid out for your fellow human?

RICHARD: I do not have PCE’s, period. For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s) it would probably make it more difficult for him to understand what you are saying about detachment.
• [Richard]: ‘May I ask? Given that you are self-acknowledged as being prone to conceptualising, could you conceptualise being free and then further conceptualise just what you would say to a person whose best effort at a dialogue (on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition) is a weak ‘if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s)’?
Because only an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can have a PCE ... the identity that inhabited this body (the ‘he’ who had the PCE) is extinct.
I do not have PCE’s ... let alone be attached to them’.

*

RESPONDENT: ... this universe according to your understanding of it ...

RICHARD: No, this universe according to the direct experience of it in a PCE.

RESPONDENT: Do you or do you not have PCE’s?

RICHARD: I do not have PCE’s.

*

RESPONDENT: ... or what you like to call ‘experiential’ ...

RICHARD: No, the direct experience in a PCE is not what I like to call experiential ... it is experiential. Vis.: [quote] ‘experiential: of, pertaining to, or derived from experience or observation’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: ‘Direct experience’ mediated by what knowledge?

RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘direct’ means in that context:

• ‘direct: existing or occurring without intermediaries or intervention; immediate, uninterrupted’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here is what ‘intermediary’ can mean:

• ‘intermediary: mediatory; serving as a means of mediation or interaction’. (Oxford Dictionary).

To ask what knowledge is mediating, in an experience which is occurring without mediation, just does not make sense ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question?

RESPONDENT: By what software?

RICHARD: To ask what software is mediating, in an experience which is occurring without mediation, just does not make sense ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question?

RESPONDENT: Cameras record images but they know not that they record images, nor do they frame these images in words or ‘experiences’.

RICHARD: As the word ‘experience’ refers to a sentient creature participating personally in events or activities then what a camera is or is not capable of is irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: Seismic sensors record vibrations yet they know not they are recorders nor what the information they have recorded means.

RICHARD: As seismic sensors are not sentient creatures then what they are or are not capable of is irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: Tape recorders record sounds yet know not that they have heard a thing nor what it is that they have heard ... etc.

RICHARD: As tape recorders are not sentient creatures then what they are or are not capable of is irrelevant.

*

RESPONDENT: ... and now your words are to be carved in stone ...

RICHARD: No, that that passage of mine you obviously referred to is quite explicit: [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words *then offer confirmation ... and affirmation* in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: It is quite explicit that one must agree with your words ...

RICHARD: No, what is quite explicit is that unless people verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual ... and, as I like my fellow human beings, I do not wish this fate upon anyone.

RESPONDENT: ... derived from your own not quite so pure consciousness experience ...

RICHARD: No, what I write concerning life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) ... there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring.

RESPONDENT: ... or they would be wrong ...

RICHARD: No, they would be missing out on the actual.

RESPONDENT: ... and you right ...

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, you might be inclined to rethink whatever it is you are wanting to convey?

RESPONDENT: ... and it will forever be that way ...

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, it is beside whatever point it is you are wanting to convey whether it will forever be that way or not.

RESPONDENT: ... hence, your words are as if carved in stone.

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, there is no such [quote] ‘hence’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• ‘hence: for this reason, therefore’. (Oxford Dictionary).

*

RESPONDENT: ... because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’ ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would have the entire deck of cards (to keep with your analogy).

RESPONDENT: ... which trumps everyone else’s so-called direct experience.

RICHARD: No, the PCE is global in its spread. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). *The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age*. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: A PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light even though ‘it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity’?

RICHARD: No, not when it [quote] ‘devolves into an ASC’ [endquote] as it would no longer be a PCE

*

RESPONDENT: I believe that is call dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that is not called dualism.

RESPONDENT: ... perhaps you should rename the obviously erroneous name for your millions of words, actualism ...

RICHARD: No, the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

RESPONDENT: Most people, except a few scientists, metaphysicians, or others who can exploit this particular bit of knowledge to make a living or need to boast of having some insight into matters esoteric, have no interest in the particular ‘experience’ that matter is not passive.

RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate you being so willing to give that off the cuff demonstration of the way your mind works (the ability to move from a belief through taking words as being the thing described to conjecturing both about people in general and in particular without so much as blinking an eye is quite a remarkable feat) would it be too much to ask just exactly what it is you are talking about?

Just to refresh your memory: you began by (correctly) saying ‘you ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves’.

*

RICHARD: ... [the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.]. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Spiritualism is materialistic ...

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:

• ‘spiritualism: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality; any philosophical or religious doctrine stressing the importance of spiritual as opp. to material things. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘materialistic: pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism [the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications]. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus what you wrote (‘spiritualism is materialistic’) would look something like this when spelled-out in full:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter is characterised by the doctrine that nothing exists except matter’ [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that spirit is the only reality is characterised by the doctrine that nothing exists except matter’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: ... & vice-verse.

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say

• ‘spiritualistic: of or pertaining to spiritualism’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the converse of ‘spiritualism is materialistic’ (‘materialism is spiritualistic’) would look something like this when spelled-out in full:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that nothing exists except matter is of, or pertains to, the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter’ [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that nothing exists except matter is of, or pertains to, the doctrine that spirit is the only reality’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: How you can separate the two is only for purposes of your own agenda ...

RICHARD: How you can conflate the two is beyond comprehension.

RESPONDENT: ... which would be the spread, contagion & recognition of your own point of view.

RICHARD: As I am not separating the two – spiritualism was distinct from materialism long before I was born – your speculation about my agenda is entirely without substance.

*

RESPONDENT: ... into dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: ... or Richardism.

RICHARD: No, that too would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: And life is grand because one thinks one has won a debate?

RICHARD: No, life is grand because it is the PCE which would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I often use the phrase ‘ain’t life grand!’ (great, pre-eminent, principal; from Latin ‘grandis’: full-grown, abundant) but only where something very significant about life’s beneficence has been demonstrated ... for example: [quote] ‘... it is your own experience which is of vital importance, and not my descriptions and explanations (which can be either inadequate or misconstrued), as you then intimately know for yourself where to go and what to do. Ain’t life grand!’ [endquote]. I was exclaiming that life is grand in that it provided you with your own experience to be guided by rather than just my words ...’.

Apart from that ... since when has correcting another’s misapprehension/ misunderstanding/ misreading/ misconception regarding what one experiences, been a debate? And even if it were a debate (which it is not) how on earth can the other ever win such a thing?

Quite frankly, you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to make out that you know better than me just what my life is like here in this actual world.

January 13 2006

RESPONDENT: Hey Richard ... now why don’t you tell us why you really took a 7 week hiatus from this virtual loony bin? In this day & age, computer problems tend to be resolved before 2 lunar cycles.

RICHARD:

RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘We all want to know. Why were you gone and what brought you back to the site? (...) The why in my previous question was more in the way of asking ‘what were you doing?’.
• [Richard]: ‘Just for starters: I ceased writing, on Wednesday, the second of November, in order have an uninterrupted two-three days in which to put together a different version of the actualism screensaver (version ActualFreedomSS1.2), for inclusion in the DVD’s that were, by then, about to be released by The Actual Freedom Trust, and I ran into some technical difficulties – not the least of which was a DVD burner/ reader causing the computer to freeze/ crash – and by the time all that was sorted out, what with one thing or another, something like ten days to a fortnight had passed by. (...) I had not intended to be off-line for a while – other than the two-three days already mentioned – and it was as much a case of days becoming weeks as anything else’.

As it turned out that the DVD burner/ reader required being replaced under warranty (after first searching for, and installing, the latest drivers; after then searching for, and flashing it, with the latest firmware, after then swapping the ribbon-cable around to a different IE channel) it did indeed take something like ten days to a fortnight to resolve the computer problem. One of the other technical difficulties, referred to in the above quote, lay in getting the screensaver software to replay sound files ... eventually that problem was resolved (after first downloading and installing the latest version to no avail; after then installing it on another computer to no avail also) by a trial and error process which led to the discovery that it all had to do with the bit-rate sampling (the screensaver software was written before High Definition became available). In regards to the next five weeks: as I am not about to provide a day-to-day description of what occupied me suffice is it to say for now that, amongst other things [such as interacting in-person with my fellow human being as I do have a life apart from writing to this mailing list], I was doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project which may, or may not, be one day be released for publication under the aegis of The Actual Freedom Trust. If nothing else such research makes me better-informed. (Editor’s note: The screensaver is no longer available due to its incompatibility with Windows 8)

RESPONDENT: Don’t be so coy ... spill your guts.

As I am not being coy your peremptory admonition is entirely gratuitous.

You specifically asked me to tell you and your co-respondent (with whom you were speculating about speculative reasons for a speculated moodiness) why I really took a 7 week hiatus from writing to this mailing list, as in this day and age computer problems tend to be resolved before 59.06 days, so I obliged with the relatively detailed explanation above.

The main reason why I am not about to provide a day-to-day description of what occupied me for the remaining five weeks (other than my normal activities such as watching television/ cruising the internet, swimming/ boating, dining out/ interacting with others, and so forth) is contained in the phrase [quote] ‘it was as much a case of days becoming weeks as anything else’ [endquote] ... to wit: I actually cannot recall just what I did, other than the norm, on just what day as there are no reference points, such as the dated contents of e-mails, to refresh my memory with.

For instance: I do recall having a delightful late-night chat on the fore-deck of a yacht, under a velvety-smooth sky full of twinkling points of light and a waning moon, with a yachtsman whose yacht I skippered for them (having the local knowledge they lacked), through waters notorious for shifting sand-bars and mud-flats, to a safe mooring ... yet I cannot recall what night it was nor what I did, other than the norm, either the day before or the day after.

RESPONDENT: The clones cannot wait to drop a few more hard earned dollars, yen, euros or gold on your latest get free quick scheme.

RICHARD: As the proposed project, being at such a preliminary stage, might very well never see the light of day (and thus may never be released for publication) your presumptuous assertion is entirely impertinent.

RESPONDENT: And here I thought Grace had dumped your supposedly free ass ...

RICHARD: As you consider that thought to be important enough to type it out, and click ‘send’, let me see if I can comprehend how your thinking operates:

• Richard does not write to this mailing list (for seven weeks) therefore his companion is no longer living with him.

Is that it? Have I understood your thought process correctly?

RESPONDENT: ... and in return you revoked her virtually free status ... like you did to Irene.

RICHARD: As I am on record as declining to be a probity policeman both your hypothesis and your contention are without substance.

January 13 2006

CO-RESPONDENT: Have you ever actually went back and reread your correspondence with Richard? Recently I printed out mine and reread it carefully. It was stunning how many times I clearly did not understand what he was saying fully or how many times I simply did not ‘conclude’ a query but rather left certain aspects of it very ‘loose’ and ‘untied’.

RESPONDENT No. 28: I don’t need to re-read my correspondence with R/P/V. I took time thinking about the subject then and writing accurately. Just because it wasn’t concluded successfully (as in properly regurgitated) doesn’t mean there was any lack of understanding.

RICHARD:

• [No. 28]: ‘I really really tried to understand the purported difference between an ASC and a PCE, but guess what, dey’s da same’. (Sunday, 25/12/2005 3:00 AM AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘I have never understood the distinction between ego and soul, as presented in the AF glossary. Soul is apparently the spiritual-seeking part of the makeup ... I don’t see how it is distinguished from ego, at least in my case. Really’. (Friday, 19/03/2004 1:56 PM AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘... this sounds just like the awakening/ enlightenment as described by the non-dualist camp: ‘The universe is experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human’. [From A Précis Of Actual Freedom]. All you have to do is replace universe with Self or Consciousness or whatever and voila’. (Friday, 23/12/2005 2:40 AM AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘... the AF site uses this expression a lot: ‘I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being’. If that isn’t pure advaita, I don’t know what is’. (Thursday, 18/03/2004 1:53 PM AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘It is my opinion that capital-C Consciousness and capital-A Actual are in fact the same thing. But only if one doesn’t get wrapped around the axles with certain terminology’. (Friday, 7/05/2004 10:02 PM AEST).

• [No. 28]: ‘Richard, I haven’t figured out, nor expect to. Best guess is that he’s a closet advaitist sage, but is hung up on the spiritual tag that some associate with it’. (Thursday, 18/03/2004 1:53 PM AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘I re-cognised in the AF writing something fundamentally important, and attempted to locate its convergence with what I’d suspected to be true, but that effort failed. I grew quite frustrated with the twisty word play, and the fail-safe device of branding with the big ‘S’ (for spiritual). But hey, it’s their gig (...). Where I am now is kinda stuck in the advaita corner ...’. (Thursday, 18/03/2004 AEDST).

• [No. 28]: ‘I’ve stumbled across actual freedom in my web meanderings (can’t remember the actual path, might have been via some U.G. gleanings) and it hit a major chord. It was clear that this was the refinement of a very similar process I’ve been following for the last several years’. (Wednesday, 2/01/2002 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: And now you all know why Richard does not meet with his fellow humans whom he likes so much and values so highly ...

RICHARD: As I do interact in-person with my fellow human being your hypothesis is without substance.

RESPONDENT: You had said previously that you do not meet with people interested in this sort of a thing (i.e. – No.18) ... that you do not socialise, that you do not do dinner parties.

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to what you have to say a little further below:

• [Respondent]: ‘It is one thing to go by memory & another to query a computer database’. [endquote].

It is indeed one thing to go by memory (rather than the archives) ... memory is notoriously selective, on occasion, and your words above are such an occasion.

RESPONDENT: If you have since changed your tune, I stand (or sit) corrected.

RICHARD: As what you have gone on memory by is not my tune then in order to either stand or sit corrected it is your tune which needs changing.

*

RESPONDENT: ... because he needs a computer to dig up old relevant or irrelevant quotes, to mount his offence & defence.

RICHARD: I am doing no different, on-line, than in my face-to-face interactions – I often point out, for the sake of clarity in communication, what has been previously spoken – as I would be doing my fellow human being no favour to not draw to their attention what they have overlooked and/or ignored ... for what is the point of having a discussion, be it either verbal or written, on these matters if said discussion is not factually-based? It is a fact that actualism is not, repeat not, nondualism (aka advaita) ... never has been and never will be.

RESPONDENT: It is one thing to go by memory & another to query a computer database.

RICHARD: Aye, computer archives are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... and (c) undeniable.

RESPONDENT: You are fond of saying that matter is not passive ...

RICHARD: I report/ describe/ explain that, here in this actual world, matter is not merely passive ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, actualism is experiencing that matter is not merely passive ... what does it mean?
• [Richard]: ‘Another way of saying it is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you have a stone in your hand (matter), it is passive right?
• [Richard]: ‘Only in the real-world.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘[Merriam-Webster Dictionary]: passive: not acting or operating; inert’. [endquote]. The stone in the hand does not act or operate (at the moment you are holding in the hand), right?
• [Richard]: ‘In the real-world ... yes; in actuality ... no.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘How is it not passive?
• [Richard]: ‘In actuality matter is vibrant, potent ... literally everything material is intrinsically active, vigorous. This fundamental dynamism, this elemental efficacy, is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything – as matter itself, being of infinite perpetuance/ eternal perdurability, is anything but inoperative (passive) or inactive (inert).
And wherever/ whenever this perennial matter is sentient the potential exists for it to be conscious of its own essential nature’.

RESPONDENT: ...yet you hold any & all correspondents to their decaying words from yesteryear ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... a classic example of what going by memory can do to comprehension and understanding (of what ‘not merely passive’ means) if there ever was.

RESPONDENT: ... no matter how irrelevant or out of context.

RICHARD: As the context is just sitting there in plain view, at the top of this page, rendering the quotes in question entirely relevant, your latest hypothesis is also without substance ... so much so that perhaps this may be an apt occasion to re-post the following:

• [Richard]: ‘Has it not dawned upon you by now that none of what you have had to say about an actual freedom from the human condition has been even worth the time and bandwidth you use to compose and send it ... not one word of it?
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes sir. I have no argument with that’. (Thursday, 1/04/2004 11:07 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Your rearranging, cutting & pasting, cutting in half, pasting 1/2, cutting off, pasting on, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc etc etc ... has reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication.

RICHARD: The original from which the quoted exchange [just above] was obtained can be found at the following URL: (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909818883). It will be seen that it has not been rearranged, cut & pasted, cut in half, pasted 1/2, cut off, pasted on, deconstructed or reconstructed (etceteras cannot be commented on) ... let alone having reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication.

RESPONDENT: That 2 year old link you have above is not what you were responding to.

RICHARD: I never said it was ... what I was responding to was both the e-mail you posted at 12:12 AM, on Saturday, 31/12/2005 AEDST and your follow-up e-mail which you posted at 1:19 PM (AEDST) on the same day as a reply to my response posted at 8:54 AM (AEDST).

RESPONDENT: I will not even bother to go find the link that you were responding to ...

RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your plaint, when all is said and done.

RESPONDENT: ... but it was within the last few weeks, not the last few years. Thanks for making it even easier to prove my point that you are a serial cut & paster, rearranger, mis-re-presenter, etc etc.

RICHARD: As you have neither proved anything nor have a point to do so with there is nothing to be thankful for.

RESPONDENT: You construct fantasy conversations out of internet archives.

RICHARD: I did no such thing: I responded in the first instance to your initial e-mail (which began with your baseless ‘And now you all know why Richard does not meet ...’ hypothesis further above) 4 hours and 22 minutes after it came into my mail-box and in the second instance to your follow-up e-mail (which began with your selective memory ‘You had said previously that you do not meet ...’ assertion further above) 3 days 23 hours 48 minutes after it came into my mail-box ... thus in neither instance did I access the internet archives.

The only thing I obtained from ‘Topica’ was their URL for that quote ... all of the mailing list e-mails are automatically stored, after they come into my mail-box, on my hard-drive (and back-up storage) where they are able to be searched in a matter of seconds.

RESPONDENT: You are slipping up big guy.

RICHARD: No, if anything is slipping up it is your memory ... the advantage computer archives have over going by memory are that they are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... and (c) undeniable.

January 17 2006

RESPONDENT: The clones cannot wait to drop a few more hard earned dollars, yen, euros or gold on your latest get free quick scheme.

RICHARD: As the proposed project, being at such a preliminary stage, might very well never see the light of day (and thus may never be released for publication) your presumptuous assertion is entirely impertinent.

RESPONDENT: It is hardly impertinent ...

RICHARD: The following is what I wrote (as part of my response to your request regarding what I did over the seven weeks I was not writing to this mailing list):

• [Richard]: ‘... suffice is it to say for now that, amongst other things, I was doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project which may, or may not, be one day be released for publication under the aegis of The Actual Freedom Trust. If nothing else such research makes me better-informed’. [endquote].

And here is what I mean by the word ‘presumptuous’ in the context of your [quote] ‘latest get free quick scheme’ [endquote] assertion:

• ‘presumptuous: characterised by presumption [the taking upon oneself of more than one’s position etc. warrants; overconfident opinion or conduct, arrogance] or undue confidence; forward, impertinent’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Now I ask you: where would I go to for information (which if nothing else makes me better-informed) about what you have characterised as a [quote] ‘get free quick scheme’ [endquote] ... namely: how to become actually free from the human condition? Did it not give you pause to think, before reaching for the keyboard, that whatever it was I was researching one thing was for sure: information on how to become actually free from the human condition it most certainly was not.

As briefly as possible (as I have no interest in becoming side-tracked): what I was mainly searching for, over about three weeks, were the facts upon which the currently-popular ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis was (purportedly) based ... and the reason why it took that long was because I could not find any (being based upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics it is not all that surprising, with the benefit of hindsight, that there be none).

Thus, as your presumptuous assertion most certainly does not pertain to the matter in hand it is indeed entirely irrelevant; out of place; inappropriate, incongruous; absurd ... in a word: impertinent.

*

RESPONDENT: And here I thought Grace had dumped your supposedly free ass ...

RICHARD: As you consider that thought to be important enough to type it out, and click ‘send’, let me see if I can comprehend how your thinking operates: Richard does not write to this mailing list (for seven weeks) therefore his companion is no longer living with him.

Is that it? Have I understood your thought process correctly?

RESPONDENT: Did Grace finally come to her senses and dump you or not?

RICHARD: The problem with a loaded question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas something like this can be:

• [example only]: ‘And here I thought, for no other reason than your seven-week hiatus from this mailing list, that your companion was no longer living with you. Did she stop living with you, during those seven weeks, or not?’ [end example].

No, the reason why I did not write to this mailing list was that I was engaged in the matters already set-out for you before you asked that question – such as (1) putting together a different version of the actualism screensaver (2) attending to a DVD burner/reader causing the computer to freeze/ crash (3) getting the screensaver software to replay sound files (4) a matter of days then becoming weeks more than anything else (5) doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project (6) interacting in-person with my fellow human being – and not because my companion was no longer living with me. (Editor’s note: The screensaver is no longer available due to its incompatibility with Windows 8)

May I ask? Just what is the connection you make, between not writing to a mailing list and a live-in companion no longer living with you, such as to occasion you to persist with that thought even after my provision of a relatively detailed account of what I was doing in that seven-week period?

*

RESPONDENT: ... and in return you revoked her virtually free status ... like you did to Irene.

RICHARD: As I am on record as declining to be a probity policeman both your hypothesis and your contention are without substance.

RESPONDENT: You are most certainly a probity cop when it suits your agenda.

RICHARD: No, I most certainly do not determine and/or assess how a person is experiencing each moment of being alive ... and for a patently obvious reason: such a thing is a sheer impossibility.

RESPONDENT: Your previous companion Irene, got her virtually free license revoked upon the demise of your relationship. Twasn’t that true?

RICHARD: No, my previous companion changed her determination/ assessment of how each moment of being alive was to be experienced, after she stopped living with me, into it entailing her being free of [quote] ‘the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general’ [endquote] ... rather than her living in [quote] ‘something resembling that intimate place in some familiar time that I had visited and walked around in more than once before in various peak experiences’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: It is written somewhere in your voluminous petty archives ... I will not search for it.

RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your memory you are going by, when all is said and done, whereas computer archives are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... and (c) undeniable.

RESPONDENT: If you deny it, you lie only to yourself ...

RICHARD: Before going any further, let me see if I can comprehend how your mind works:

• If Richard denies what No. 53 remembers (even though computer archives are accurate, date-marked, and undeniable) Richard will be lying only to himself ...

Is that it? Have I understood your thought process correctly?


CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Twelve)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity