|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RESPONDENT: Richard, you may or may not find this interesting. This is Alan Watts describing an LSD experience: [begin quote] ‘(...) But the strange part of this apparent sensation of my own senses was that I did not appear to be inspecting them from outside or from a distance, as if they were /objects/. I can say only that the awareness of grain or structure in the senses seemed to be awareness of awareness, of myself from inside myself. Because of this, it followed that the distance or separation between myself and my senses, on the one hand, and the external world, on the other, seemed to disappear. I was no longer a detached observer, a little man inside my own head, /having/ sensations. I was the sensations, so much so that there was nothing left of me, the observing ego, except the series of sensations which happened – not to me, but just happened – moment by moment, one after another. To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. [end quote]. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? RICHARD: Why does it sound awfully familiar to you? RESPONDENT: Why wouldn’t it? RICHARD: Just for starters ... because Mr. Alan Watts is describing a spiritual experience (the above quote you provided comes from an essay in ‘This is It and Other Essays on Zen and Spiritual Experience’) and clearly refers to the awareness of grain or structure in the senses as being an awareness of [quote] ‘myself from *inside* myself’ [emphasis added] ... RESPONDENT: I don’t know if this was a strategic oversight on your part but, in the section I quoted, he described it as ‘awareness of awareness’ ... RICHARD: It was not an oversight ... let alone a strategic one (whatever that means): the second awareness he refers to there is [quote] ‘inspecting’ [endquote] his senses from inside himself, and not from outside or from a distance, and the first awareness is of that inspection (of grain or structure in his senses) ... or, as I put it, the awareness of grain or structure in the senses as being an awareness of [quote] ‘myself from *inside* myself’ [emphasis added] as he clearly says, in the sentences immediately preceding the one you started the quote (above) with, that the shapes, colours, and textures, of his outside world are also states of his nervous system, of him, and that in knowing them he knows himself. Viz.:
Plus he definitely goes on to say, in the part you quoted, that he was that grain or structure/ had become that grain or structure (the very sensations). RESPONDENT: ... which is virtually identical to how you describe apperception ... ‘the mind’s awareness of itself’. RICHARD: Ha ... I can now make a guess as to why you would be familiar with a term such as [quote] ‘a strategic oversight’ [endquote]. * RESPONDENT: ... I wonder whether you were aware of having virtually duplicated (word for word in parts) what Watts wrote all those years ago, or whether you did it without being aware of it. RICHARD: The quote of mine you provided is from an on-line version of what I wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’ circa 1995-97 ... and, by way of explanation, I will first draw your attention to the following: [quote]: ‘... [‘Richard’s Journal’ is] pieced together from recollection and undated jotted notes and scraps of writings from over the years so as to add some measure of sequence to the story ...’. [endquote]. What would have happened is that somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’ I must have come across the text in question and made an (un-referenced/ un-attributed) note of it in the midst of myriads of other notes of mine ... because not having a photographic memory there is no way it could have been cryptomnesia and/or unconscious plagiarism. RESPONDENT: Putting aside for a moment the logistics of how those words found their way into your writings ... let me see if understand your bottom line aright ... When Alan Watts says ‘To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’ he is having an entirely different experience from the one that you describe thus: ‘To live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. Yes? RICHARD: Yes, only an identity could *become* the sensations it was previously having (this flesh and blood body is already living/ always has lived life *as* these sensations). RESPONDENT: No? RICHARD: Put simply: where there is no identity whatsoever there is no-one to have been separated (aka dualistic) such as to become unified (aka non-dualistic) ... here in this actual world neither duality nor non-duality have any existence.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 74): Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in. RESPONDENT No. 107: Richard, if you ever need help getting that last nail in, don’t you be a martyr now, just ask! RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your alacrity (within 34 minutes flat) in providing a real-life verification, with this latest cheap shot of yours, that I am not mistaken about often being the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, and so on and so forth, the whole point of my response is to bring to attention something far more indicative, and reliably so as well, of character/disposition than prone-to-error impressions and/or erroneous conclusions gleaned from reading into my words things which are simply not there ... to wit: that were it to actually be the case that Richard was [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist. Put succinctly: you would have to take your snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so. RESPONDENT: If I may ask, Richard? What is it about an actual freedom from the human condition that makes you attempt to humiliate your correspondent (unnecessarily/ gratuitously) after making your point? RESPONDENT No. 68: It is not lost on you, that it is the correspondent who makes the fool of themselves ... time and time again? I can only think of a few correspondents that have not made themselves look like fools in their communication with Richard (and to save any insinuations, no I do not consider myself one of those ‘few’). As Richard has on more than one occasion pointed out that being straightforward is him communicating in a honest and authentic manner, it would seem your question is already answered. The fact that all the people who have a ‘problem’ with R’s claims are the same one’s that have a problem with his style or communication provides the real clue (and considering human nature it is obvious why this would be the case). It seems to be a big waste of time slagging on R’s style. One can either make use of his experience to become free or one can not. It really is that simple and anything else is either a delaying tactic of one’s self (something that each person does at some point with the actualism process) or a silly waste of one’s time. RESPONDENT: To someone who is convinced that (a) Richard is honest in his assessment of his own condition; (b) Richard is correct in his assessment of his own condition; (c) Richard’s condition is the best one in human history to emulate ... then yes, it would be a waste of time to wonder why he apparently tries to humiliate people. I am not one of those people. What matters to me is not whether I (or you, or anyone else) appear foolish in dialogue with Richard. What I’m interested in is why he does what he does, per example above. Meaning that ... Richard made his valid point in the first paragraph ... But then he chose to go on and put the boot in ... And I’d like to simply know why? Why would someone who has no malice would choose to do that, when it was not at all necessary for or related to the point he was making in refutation of being a ‘prick’. (Indeed, one might argue that it refutes his refutation). RICHARD: As I have sent off my response to your initial e-mail (twice now) – the first at 1:07 PM
today (Wed 15/02/2006) and a duplicate copy at 4:00 PM – I would suggest you cease
shooting from the lip until it arrives after its sojourn in whatever cyber-space pipeline it is currently caught-up in. Suffice is
it to say for now that the valid point I made in my first paragraph was in response to my first co-respondent’s impression; I
did not put the boot in with the succinct point I made to my second co-respondent; I was not making a refutation of allegedly
being an unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating, ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean
and/or an inadequate and/or a spiteful person (I was specifically referring to the cheap shot one-liner about saviourhood/
martyrdom); your latest arraignment against that phantom ‘Richard’, who has no existence outside of your intuitive/
imaginative facility, is based solely upon what seems to be so/ what is apparently so to you RESPONDENT: It [your response] is still there ... so while we’re waiting for it to free itself, allow me to ask a few questions that can be easily answered with a series of simple yes-es or no-s at the top of the message: When you said ‘Put succinctly: you would have to take your snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so’ ... 1. Did you intend to hurt, embarrass or otherwise discomfit No. 107 in any way whatsoever? 2. Do you care whether or not your words had that effect? RICHARD: I will send another duplicate copy then – maybe it will arrive sooner than the other two (...). Suffice is it to say for now that hurting/ embarrassing or in any other way discomforting my fellow human being is not (and never has been nor ever will be) my intention and of course I care whether or not they choose to have my words bring about such an effect ... if I did not care about how my fellow human being experiences this moment of being alive (the only moment they are ever actually alive) neither The Actual Freedom Trust website nor The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would exist in the first place. RESPONDENT: Just so there is no misunderstanding ... according to you, the following words were not intended to hurt, embarrass or discomfit your correspondent in any way whatsoever. RICHARD: Indeed not ... hurting/ embarrassing or in any other way discomforting my fellow human being is not (and never has been nor ever will be) my intention. RESPONDENT: Presumably they can be regarded as a good example of what issues forth from an effortlessly benevolent, benign, kindly, friendly disposition ... according to you? RICHARD: Given the context – a cheap shot one-liner about saviourhood/ martyrdom – those words are a particularly good example of the benevolence and benignity of this actual world in action ... I like my fellow human, no matter what mischief they may get up to, and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: The words in question are: Richard (to No. 107) ‘Put succinctly: you would have to take your snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Aye, that was the point I was making for my co-respondent to mull over if they be so inclined
(if what both you and your erstwhile interlocutor read into my words were indeed so RESPONDENT: Assuming they were actually a product of benevolence ... which is a bit of a stretch as far as I’m concerned, but let’s do it for the sake of argument ... what was the actual information content of your message? RICHARD: The actual information content of my response was that my co-respondent would have to take their snappy one-liners elsewhere in order to make a fool of themself in public with. RESPONDENT: What information were you trying to convey to No. 107 that hadn’t already been made plainly obvious in the preceding text? RICHARD: The information I conveyed which was not already plain in my spelled-out version of my previous response to another was that in order to make a fool of themself in public, with their snappy one-liners, my co-respondent would have to take them elsewhere. RESPONDENT: IOW, what WAS your intention, if not to be a prick? RICHARD: My intention was to make the point, for my co-respondent to mull over if they be so inclined, that they would have to take their snappy one-liners elsewhere in order to make a fool of themself in public with. * RICHARD: Here are a couple of questions for you: 1. Do you intend to continue reading into my words things which are simply not there? RESPONDENT: That is known as ‘begging the question’. RICHARD: It is nothing of the sort ... as I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that all those many and various things you feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer me to be, or to be doing, most certainly have no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility it is a question which strikes right at the very heart of the subject to hand ... to wit: your latest attempt at character assassination/ disposition demolition. RESPONDENT: I might just as well ask you: when are you going to stop being a prick to your correspondents? RICHARD: Why would you do that when you have already asked me what is known as the fallacy of many questions – as in the modern-day ‘have you stopped beating your spouse yet’ version of the classic ‘have you lost your horns’ – and which is popularly known as a loaded question. Viz.:
If I might ask? Are you, perchance, an engineer by profession * RICHARD: [Here are a couple of questions for you]: 2. Do you not care about continuing to feel foolish RESPONDENT: If I occasionally come off feeling foolish for doubting your intentions and/or sanity and/or ability to accurately assess your own condition, or for puzzling about your behaviour as it appears to me, it is a reasonable price to pay for being, thereafter, more confident in my assessment of you. RICHARD: That is not the question I asked ... as you had clearly said that Richard [quote] ‘*apparently* tries to humiliate people [emphasis added] and that his [quote] ‘communications *seem* intended to inflict suffering of some kind on his correspondent’ [emphasis added] I specifically enquired as to whether you did not care about continuing to feel foolish on occasion by typing out and sending those things (and the conclusions drawn thereof plus the queries arising out of the grievance aroused by deriving such conclusions from what you read into my words which is simply not there). Why on earth would someone – anyone at all – choose to feel grievance about something – anything at all – which they clearly indicate to be only apparently so/ seemingly so (let alone type them out and send them)? If that is an example of what sanity is I am well pleased not to be sane.
RESPONDENT: On further reflection, Richard, I don’t see much point in thinking about you ... RICHARD: Except that you are not thinking about me ... you are instead thinking about a non-easeful and non-friendly prick who is defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, and etcetera (see further below). RESPONDENT: ...[I don’t see much point in thinking about you] or your claims any longer. Whatever it is you’ve discovered ... RICHARD: There is no need to be coy ... you know quite well what it is. For example:
RESPONDENT: ... [Whatever it is you’ve discovered] I’m sure it is great fun for you ... RICHARD: As what you are sure is great fun has an obvious (to you) brokenness in it somewhere your insincerity is ... um ... is almost palpable. RESPONDENT: ... [I’m sure it is great fun for you] but there is also an obvious (to me) brokenness in there somewhere ... and it is not something I want. RICHARD: Here is what you went on to say (in that e-mail of yours already part-quoted above) a year ago to the day:
RESPONDENT: Selflessness, absence of malice and sorrow, should (I think, and remember from various times in life, not just PCE’s) result in an easeful and friendly manner that isn’t defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, etc. It should be an obvious improvement that everyone wants to emulate ... but instead you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on account of you having something to offer. RICHARD: And here is the very next paragraph (from that e-mail you wrote a year ago to the day):
RESPONDENT: Whatever you’ve got, enjoy it, but keep it. RICHARD: As what you are telling me to keep and enjoy has an obvious (to you) brokenness in it somewhere – which apparent brokenness presumably gives rise to that non-easeful and non-friendly prick you keep on seeing who is defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, and etcetera – would it be a fair assessment to say there is a marked absence of [quote] ‘genuine caring’ [endquote] in that throwaway line of yours? RESPONDENT: I’ve seen enough. RICHARD: It can be quite amazing, at times, to see just how deep shallowness extends. RESPONDENT: Over and out. RICHARD: Reading you loud and clear, Agent 86, loud and clear.
RESPONDENT: One thing about actualism that has never been explained to my satisfaction is why thought is classified as actual, whereas feeling is not. RICHARD: Put succinctly: thought operates here in this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – whereas feelings do not. RESPONDENT: Actualists say that thought is simply the human brain in operation. RICHARD: They only say that to counter the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical notion, which some peoples espouse, that thought is not of the human brain. RESPONDENT: Why shouldn’t feeling have the same ontological status? RICHARD: Simply because actualism is experiential and not ontological ... ‘of or pertaining to ontology [the science or study of being; that part of metaphysics which relates to the nature or essence of being or existence]; metaphysical’ (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Why should the thought of the number 42 be considered actual, while the feeling of hunger is not? RICHARD: For no other reason than because the thought of the number 42 operates here in this actual world – as evidenced in a PCE – whereas the feeling of hunger does not. RESPONDENT: In both cases, the only actuality is the human brain in operation. RICHARD: Nope ... in the latter case the affective faculty in its entirety/the identity in toto is also in operation. RESPONDENT: As I see it, the thought of the number 42 is in no way more substantial, physical or actual than the feeling of hunger (for example). RICHARD: Even so, the thought of the number 42 operates here in this actual world – as evidenced in a PCE – whereas the feeling of hunger (for example) does not. It is all quite prosaic. RESPONDENT: To my mind, these statements about what exists and in what sense
they exist are metaphysical RICHARD: Whereas these statements, about what exists and in what sense they exist, are actually reports/ descriptions/ explanations coming directly out of actuality. RESPONDENT: Actualists do not agree [that they are metaphysical statements]; they insist it’s just the way things are. RICHARD: This actualist will only [quote] ‘insist’ [endquote] when repeatedly told that his reports/ descriptions/ explanations, coming directly out of actuality, are metaphysical statements, for example, or any other way of dismissing and/or downgrading the validity of said reports/ descriptions/ explanations. RESPONDENT: The fact that actualism is experiential from start to finish does NOT mean that the statements that arise from that experience are not metaphysical statements. RICHARD: What issues forth from this keyboard, in regards life here in this actual world, comes immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as this form of perpetual matter ... there is this which is happening and the words write themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and are not some nebulous [quote] ‘metaphysical statements’ [endquote] such as you would have be the case. Just so that there is no misunderstanding: nothing coming from here regarding life in this actual world is a standpoint either ... and neither is it an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, a postulation, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways one may come up with of overlooking a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. RESPONDENT: As I see it, they simply are ... whether they’re acknowledged as such or not. RICHARD: Hmm ... exercising some of that blind self-assertion you wrote so eloquently about
RESPONDENT: One thing about actualism that has never been explained to my satisfaction is why thought is classified as actual, whereas feeling is not. RICHARD: Put succinctly: thought operates here in this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – whereas feelings do not. RESPONDENT: Actualists say that thought is simply the human brain in operation. RICHARD: They only say that to counter the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical notion, which some peoples espouse, that thought is not of the human brain. RESPONDENT: Why shouldn’t feeling have the same ontological status? RICHARD: Simply because actualism is experiential and not ontological ... ‘of or pertaining to ontology [the science or study of being; that part of metaphysics which relates to the nature or essence of being or existence]; metaphysical’ (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Why should the thought of the number 42 be considered actual, while the feeling of hunger is not? RICHARD: For no other reason than because the thought of the number 42 operates here in this actual world – as evidenced in a PCE – whereas the feeling of hunger does not. RESPONDENT: In both cases, the only actuality is the human brain in operation. RICHARD: Nope ... in the latter case the affective faculty in its entirety/the identity in toto is also in operation. RESPONDENT: I did say ‘the only actuality’ so I question your answer here. Whatever thinking and feeling is going on, the only actuality (in your terms) is the neuro-chemical activity in the brain (etc.). RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my answer:
RESPONDENT: In other words, an actual brain in the process of thinking has the same ontological status as an actual brain in the process of feeling ... does it not? RICHARD: As I am not an ontologist I did wonder at your characterisation of a prosaic reason as being an astonishing one
CO-RESPONDENT: Only an ego needs to defend its words. VINEETO: I got news for you – I am not enlightened and only enlightened being are without ego. (…) CO-RESPONDENT: This is simply not true because Richard says he is without an ‘I’ (ego) or a ‘me’ and he certainly does not claim to be enlightened. RESPONDENT: Vineeto, given that No. 23 informs us that he has suffered over this to the point of feeling sick, are you prepared to finally acknowledge (11 days and many emails later) that your statement was incorrect, and that his was correct? It would be really nice if you could put it in simple and unambiguous terms like ‘yes, he was correct’ or ‘no, he was not correct’. And then, see how your answer compares with what you actually said to him. * VINEETO: After all these years of being subscribed to two mailing lists
Richard has been writing to, do you really still not know the difference between the extinction of the soul – an actual freedom
– and the death of the ego – enlightenment? RESPONDENT: [rest of the obfuscating rubbish snipped, as it should never have happened in the first place] Finally, do you care (affectively or otherwise) that this (i.e. your) style of discourse has caused him unnecessary distress that could have been avoided with a simple acknowledgement that he had a fair point? RICHARD: As a suggestion only: look at what Vineeto is responding to and you might find that the cliché ‘context is everything’ is applicable. Viz.: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913246078 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Invoking the feelings one party chooses to activate in an attempt to induce a response in the other is passé. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication the following is a detailed example of what being virtually free is and how it came about: <snip> You will notice that nowhere is it mentioned that a virtual freedom automatically precludes one from inadvertently making sweeping generalisations RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a red herring for starters. The issue No. 110 and I are talking about is not the ‘sweeping generalisation’ itself, but the refusal to acknowledge a simple and obvious exception to it. What I was saying (about you being an exception) was correct. Vineeto repeatedly (and right to the moment in fact) refuses to acknowledge that I was correct, but instead invokes one of my own supporting arguments as evidence AGAINST the validity what I am saying... and actually portrays it as ‘straightening out No. 60’s line of reasoning’ because he ‘just doesn’t get it’? Never mind the harmless generalisations, please tell me: is THAT kind of behaviour consistent with what you describe as virtual freedom? RICHARD: As Vineeto has already acknowledged
RICHARD: As a suggestion only: look at what Vineeto is responding to and you might find that the
cliché ‘context is everything’ is applicable. Viz.: RESPONDENT: I looked (indeed, I was reading along as it happened). Seems to me that a simple ‘yes, but...’ would have done the trick. RICHARD: Shall we try it on for size, then, and see how it fits? Viz.:
Now that you see it in sequence does it still seem to you that it would have done the trick? Look, all Vineeto did was answer in kind, to a hackneyed debating device which is rife in religio-spiritual circles, so as to convey the rather pedestrian fact that, as 6.0+ billion peoples have egos, virtually every man, woman and child on the planet fall into that category. In other words, its usage added nothing to the discussion ... here is an example of how the exchange would have looked had that worn-out device been updated so as to take into account actualist phraseology:
This current illustration you are busily squeezing the last few acrid drops out of is way, way past being a trivial one ... so much so that the word piddling might best fit the bill.
RESPONDENT: As ‘context is everything’ according to Richard, here is the context in which Richard’s ‘without further comment’ comment was made: RICHARD: You are obviously referring to this (the only occasion I have ever used that cliché in nearly a decade of writing):
P.S.: Invoking the feelings one party chooses to activate in an attempt to induce a response in the other is passé. (Saturday, 26/08/2006 8:04 AM AEST). Apparently it would have been even more clear to have added the words ‘in this case’ at the end of my sentence (after the words ‘is applicable’) as there is no way I would ever say what you have made me out to be saying. * RESPONDENT: (...) The issue No. 110 and I are talking about is not the ‘sweeping generalisation’ itself, but the refusal to acknowledge a simple and obvious exception to it. What I was saying (about you being an exception) was correct. Vineeto repeatedly (and right to the moment in fact) refuses to acknowledge that I was correct, but instead invokes one of my own supporting arguments as evidence AGAINST the validity what I am saying... and actually portrays it as ‘straightening out No. 60’s line of reasoning’ because he ‘just doesn’t get it’? Never mind the harmless generalisations, please tell me: is THAT kind of behaviour consistent with what you describe as virtual freedom? RICHARD: As Vineeto has already acknowledged RESPONDENT: As your reason for you passing without further comment is invalid, do you still intend to pass without further comment? RICHARD: As my reason for passing is not – repeat not – invalid I do indeed still intend to pass on this, and all your other posts regarding same, without any further comment. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: You used-up the last of your credibility the previous time you were subscribed to this list and I, for one, am no longer going to pander to your tantrums (your word). •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: (...) The issue No. 110 and I are talking about is not the ‘sweeping generalisation’ itself, but the refusal to acknowledge a simple and obvious exception to it. What I was saying (about you being an exception) was correct. Vineeto repeatedly (and right to the moment in fact) refuses to acknowledge that I was correct, but instead invokes one of my own supporting arguments as evidence AGAINST the validity what I am saying... and actually portrays it as ‘straightening out No. 60’s line of reasoning’ because he ‘just doesn’t get it’? Never mind the harmless generalisations, please tell me: is THAT kind of behaviour consistent with what you describe as virtual freedom? RICHARD: As Vineeto has already acknowledged RESPONDENT: As your reason for you passing without further comment is invalid, do you still intend to pass without further comment? RICHARD: As my reason for passing is not – repeat not – invalid I do indeed still intend to pass on this, and all your other posts regarding same, without any further comment. P.S.: You used-up the last of your credibility the previous time you were subscribed to this list and I, for one, am no longer going to pander to your tantrums (your word). RESPONDENT: Nor even respond to the pixels, eh? RICHARD: As I already have addressed ‘the pixels’ the snide nature of your query (inasmuch it insinuates I have not) simply demonstrates the point.
RESPONDENT: (...) The issue No. 110 and I are talking about is not the ‘sweeping generalisation’ itself, but the refusal to acknowledge a simple and obvious exception to it. What I was saying (about you being an exception) was correct. Vineeto repeatedly (and right to the moment in fact) refuses to acknowledge that I was correct, but instead invokes one of my own supporting arguments as evidence AGAINST the validity what I am saying... and actually portrays it as ‘straightening out No. 60’s line of reasoning’ because he ‘just doesn’t get it’? Never mind the harmless generalisations, please tell me: is THAT kind of behaviour consistent with what you describe as virtual freedom? RICHARD: As Vineeto has already acknowledged RESPONDENT: As your reason for you passing without further comment is invalid, do you still intend to pass without further comment? RICHARD: As my reason for passing is not – repeat not – invalid I do indeed still intend to pass on this, and all your other posts regarding same, without any further comment. P.S.: You used-up the last of your credibility the previous time you were subscribed to this list and I, for one, am no longer going to pander to your tantrums (your word). RESPONDENT: Nor even respond to the pixels, eh? RICHARD: As I already have addressed ‘the pixels’ the snide nature of your query (inasmuch it insinuates I have not) simply demonstrates the point. RESPONDENT: But you haven’t. RICHARD: I have indeed already addressed ‘the pixels’ (in quite meticulous detail and at some considerable length to boot).
RESPONDENT: (...) The issue No. 110 and I are talking about is not the ‘sweeping generalisation’ itself, but the refusal to acknowledge a simple and obvious exception to it. What I was saying (about you being an exception) was correct. Vineeto repeatedly (and right to the moment in fact) refuses to acknowledge that I was correct, but instead invokes one of my own supporting arguments as evidence AGAINST the validity what I am saying... and actually portrays it as ‘straightening out No. 60’s line of reasoning’ because he ‘just doesn’t get it’? Never mind the harmless generalisations, please tell me: is THAT kind of behaviour consistent with what you describe as virtual freedom? RICHARD: As Vineeto has already acknowledged RESPONDENT: As your reason for you passing without further comment is invalid, do you still intend to pass without further comment? RICHARD: As my reason for passing is not – repeat not – invalid I do indeed still intend to pass on this, and all your other posts regarding same, without any further comment. P.S.: You used-up the last of your credibility the previous time you were subscribed to this list and I, for one, am no longer going to pander to your tantrums (your word). RESPONDENT: Nor even respond to the pixels, eh? RICHARD: As I already have addressed ‘the pixels’; the snide nature of your query (inasmuch it insinuates I have not) simply demonstrates the point. RESPONDENT: But you haven’t. RICHARD: I have indeed already addressed ‘the pixels’ (in quite meticulous detail and at some considerable length to boot). RESPONDENT: The fact that you think you have is noted. RICHARD: Ha ... and the fact that you think I have not is unavoidably noticeable. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 4
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 |
