|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 74
RICHARD: In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look. RESPONDENT No. 90: What did these psychic footprints ‘look’ like? RICHARD: They looked more or less like the footsteps to found in the metaphorical term ‘follow in another’s footsteps’. RESPONDENT No. 90: Can you explain to me what you mean by psychic footprints without recourse to idiom, simile, metaphor or figure of speech? What exactly is a psychic footprint? What is it comprised of? How and under what conditions are they left? How are they detected? How can you be sure they were left behind by someone else and not imagined or created? RESPONDENT: I am also interested in this question. RICHARD: The questions you go on to ask (psychic communication) – and the facility you refer to (psychical premonitions) – is not what is being referred to above (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable). RESPONDENT: Oh. I thought the term ‘psychic’ was common in both topics and maybe they have a common ground. RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader all I can go by is what thoughts you choose to type-out and send ... and the questions you went on to ask (psychic communication) – and the facility you referred to (psychical premonitions) – are not what is being referred to above (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable). RESPONDENT: What kind of metaphysical knowledge is ‘directly attainable’ via this field of consciousness? RICHARD: In regards to what is being referred to above ... that no enlightened being/awakened one had ever explored the furthest reaches of ‘Being’ itself (let alone having gone beyond it). RESPONDENT: What is the validity of this knowledge? RICHARD: It has all the validity necessary for me to know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history. * RESPONDENT: What exactly is psychic communication? We all know it exists in the real world, but what is it? Is it an electromagnetic wave? Is it an imaginative feeling? There is not much space devoted on the AF website to the phenomenon known as the psychic web. What is the medium in which this web is formed? How can psychic connections happen at a distance in space and time? RICHARD: You must have missed the following exchange a little over five weeks ago:
RESPONDENT: I did miss it. You didn’t answer the co-respondent’s question as to how something non-actual can have, as-it-were, an effect in the physical world so as to wake up another person at night. RICHARD: The something that is not actual being discussed – the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations – does not operate in the physical world ... psychic communication occurs only in the world of the psyche. RESPONDENT: These analogies [‘a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air’] are illustrative but not clarifying. RICHARD: I will put it this way, then: do you comprehend that an identity’s
anger, for instance, can be affectively felt by another identity from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite
often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and that the same applies to love (for another instance) or
virtually any other strongly-felt feeling? If so, then by experientially going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy and thus creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘you’ are ‘your’ feelings and ‘your’ feelings are ‘you’. It is that vortex – which is essentially ‘you’ at the core of ‘your’ being – that is the (affective) force known as a psychic force ... it is not for nothing that I say psychic currents are the most effective power plays. Vis.:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: Okay, let me phrase my questions more precisely: 1. Can the psychic vibes/currents be detected by non-psychic entity (for example a electro-magnetic detection device or a barometer)? As far as I understand, no. 2. Can the psychic vibes/currents be detected by a living flesh and blood body in which the identity is extinct? As far as I understand, no. In that case, you must be unable to detect the anger of another person if he is in the same room and there are no visible/audible signs of his anger? RICHARD: That is correct (nor their love, either, for another example) ... it is all so peaceful here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: 3. Can the psychic vibes outlast the death of the body? For example, is it possible to feel that the former (now-dead) occupants of a house were extremely distressed in their last hours? RICHARD: It is possible for another identity to feel the now-dead other identity’s terminal distress ... yes (some more so than others and some not at all). RESPONDENT: 4. Is it useful to have receptivity for the psychic vibes in order to make better judgements about the world? RICHARD: Speaking personally I operate and function far, far better sans both the affective faculty (and thus affective vibes) and its epiphenomenal psychic facility (and thus psychic energies) ... so much so that any notion of increasing their effect holds no interest for me whatsoever. RESPONDENT: I say this because you do agree that there can be valid information in the vibes (but that recognizing the validity of the information is ‘another matter’). Can there not be research into increasing the accuracy of the psychic reception? RICHARD: For what purpose ... so as to justify identity staying existent, perchance? * RESPONDENT: Is there valid information contained in the psychic medium, for example, that someone’s loved one is in grave physical danger? RICHARD: There can indeed be valid information communicated psychically ... separating the grain from the chaff is another matter, though. RESPONDENT: I have known one person who woke up in the middle of the night having an a undefinable premonition, and she did not have any actual information to support such a fear-drenched state, but it did happen that her son died in an accident that night at that very hour. RICHARD: The problem with psychical premonitions is that, when tested exhaustively under the scientific method the results are about 50-50 (the same as guesswork) thus they are not a reliable means of communication. RESPONDENT: Not really. RICHARD: Au contraire, they are really not a reliable means of communication. RESPONDENT: In my example, 50-50 guesswork that something bad is happening to a loved one is a great deal more information than oblivion to such a possibility (as in a normal day). One may try to call up one’s loved ones and try to call up a doctor in case something is wrong. In other words, a 50% probability about an extremely unlikely event is a lot of information. RICHARD: As I am not a gambler I do not profess to know very much about odds ... what I do know is that a 50% probability (such as in tossing a coin) does not necessarily mean that a guessed event will happen on every second occasion (a coin may come down ‘tails’ 49 times or more in a row, for instance, before it comes down ‘heads’). Indeed, the 50-50 odds requires hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sequences before empirical validation can occur that it is actually so ... I recall reading somewhere, although I am vague about the details, that it is the advent of computers which have finally enabled enough ‘tosses’ of a coin to be done sequentially so as to finally prove it (other than mathematically that is). Transferred to your example it could mean calling-up one’s loved ones/a doctor so many times as to occasion them to finally say ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’.
RESPONDENT: Richard, do you see that your conversational style is confrontational? RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: That a discussion quickly becomes a debate with requests for evidence, proofs, repetitious put-downs, requests for withdrawal of an accusation or allegation etc. RICHARD: Since coming on-line in 1997 I have asked for a withdrawal of an accusation, allegation, etcetera, on four occasions. Vis.:
Here is the second occasion:
Here is the third occasion:
And here is the fourth occasion (just recently):
If those four instances, in a period spanning eight years, constitutes a style that is confrontational in your book then all I can say is ‘guilty as charged M’Lud’. As for requests for evidence, proofs: am I to take it that, according to you, anyone can say whatever about anything without substantiating it? RESPONDENT: Do you think that is a sensible way to discuss things? RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying is not a sensible way to discuss things then the word ‘sensible’ may as well be expunged from the lexicon. RESPONDENT: Or is it that you want to set the other person right, by verbal thrashing. RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying represents verbal thrashing, where you come from, then I am well-pleased not to be there.
RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘6. Peace-on-earth can become apparent to anyone at
all irregardless of gender, age or race because the perfection of the infinitude of this spatial and temporal universe is already
always here at this place in infinite space ... now at this moment in eternal time’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htm RICHARD: Both words mean the same thing. Vis.:
RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least). RESPONDENT No. 106: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent? RICHARD: First and foremost: [now snipped]. Second [now snipped]. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of. RESPONDENT: Richard, from dictionary.com: ‘abeyance: the condition of being temporarily set aside; suspension’. [endquote]. From the AF Library section on PCE: ‘This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever’. [endquote]. I find it surprising that now you report that the identity does have an ‘ever so slight influence’ even in a PCE. RICHARD: I did not say it [quote] ‘does’ [endquote] have an ever-so-slight influence ... I
specifically said that, by being thus latent
Maybe it would have been more clear to have added the qualifier ‘on occasion’. For example:
RESPONDENT: Well the question then is: 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:
Here is another:
RESPONDENT: And your last sentence above is confusing: An identity is not ‘aware’. It is a merely a poisoning facade over unmediated perception. RICHARD: I am using the word ‘aware’ in the following sense:
Thus the latter part of that last sentence could have been written like this:
Or:
Or:
Or:
Or:
Or:
I will take this opportunity to add that an as-fully-informed-as-possible identity is vital to the whole process as only an identity, and no-one else, can set its host free. For instance:
Another way of putting it is that identity has a job to do. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: And also, do you mean to say that in a PCE, an identity is still there to take stock of the experience, to compare it with others (‘and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of.’). RICHARD: No, I do not mean that at all ... I meant it in the same way as is clearly expressed in both my ‘First and foremost ...’ section and my ‘Second ...’ section. Vis.:
And:
Having thus already written in that qualifier twice before it did not seem necessary to repeat it a third time.
RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least). RESPONDENT No. 106: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent? RICHARD: First and foremost: [now snipped]. Second [now snipped]. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of. RESPONDENT: Richard, from dictionary.com: ‘abeyance: the condition of being temporarily set aside; suspension’. [endquote]. From the AF Library section on PCE: ‘This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever’. [endquote]. I find it surprising that now you report that the identity does have an ‘ever so slight influence’ even in a PCE. RICHARD: I did not say it [quote] ‘does’ [endquote] have an ever-so-slight influence ... I
specifically said that, by being thus latent RESPONDENT: I am only too happy to re-phrase: If the identity can exert an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced even in a PCE (and this ‘can’ can become ‘does’ on occasion), then *on that occasion* when it actually does so, the PCE is no longer pure. RICHARD: If I may point out? The words [quote] ‘even in a PCE’ [endquote] are your words and not mine. 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. RESPONDENT: It is double-talk to say that the identity is in abeyance but still it *can* (or *does on occasion*) have an ever-so-slight influence in a PCE. RICHARD: It would indeed be double-talk to say that identity is in abeyance but can, on occasion, have an ever-so-slight influence [quote] ‘in a PCE’ [endquote]. * RESPONDENT: Well the question then is: 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 ... RESPONDENT: Ok, so it would not be a PCE be when the identity is in abeyance but is exerting an ever-so-slight influence on the experience. Correct? RICHARD: Where identity is casting an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced it is not, or is no longer, a PCE. RESPONDENT: If correct, then please clarify in what way (other than the obvious one of being temporary) is experiencing a PCE, in which the identity is in total abeyance, and not having even an ever-so-slight influence, different from actual freedom? RICHARD: The very fact that identity is in abeyance – a ‘dormant condition liable to revival’ (Oxford Dictionary) – during a PCE, and not extinct, renders it a potentially unstable condition, liable to degradation and/or dissolution at any moment, and bound to eventually cease happening anyway ... as such it can in no way be said to be identical in every respect, to an actual freedom from the human condition, but only virtually so. Furthermore, being potentially unstable a PCE is, by that very factor, subject to variation and fluctuation (wherein it momentarily ceases to be a PCE) from time-to-time. Moreover, the comprehension that it is, after all, a temporary condition casts a (barely perceptible) pall over the experience. RESPONDENT: Is it that one has to be on guard not to let passion and calenture (or any other affective feelings) take over? RICHARD: All it takes is the habitual attentiveness engendered by being aware of how this moment of being alive is experienced – and that awareness is the very enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this moment (the only moment of ever being alive) – inasmuch any diminishment of the quality of that experiencing is patently obvious (simply by virtue of a lessening of that enjoyment and appreciation). RESPONDENT: Would you say such alertness is effortless? RICHARD: No, the alertness of being on guard implies effort ... whereas enjoyment and appreciation is a breeze.
RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good. RESPONDENT: Just as an example, Richard? I was feeling good till today morning. When I came to office today at 9.30am, I came to know that I have been dismissed due to a false complaint of a co-worker. I am not feeling good, in fact I am feeling shaken and insecure and thinking hard as to how to take care of my family. I am not vengeful or spiteful towards the complainant. For the life of me I can’t see how this sudden state of insecurity or of worry about my financial future is ‘silly’. I am considering it a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Hence, I am feeling as-is (worried, insecure and nervous). Any comments? RICHARD: Just for starters:
Now, you also report [quote] ‘thinking hard’ [endquote] ... in what way is feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous going to enable you to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement the considered activity which such a situation, as being dismissed in such circumstances as being falsely complained about, quite obviously requires? In other words would not feeling good, as you were prior to today morning, be much more conducive to intelligence operating in such an optimum manner? If so, then what is standing in the way of feeling good again, as you were prior to today morning, is nothing else other than your shaken/ insecure/ worried/ nervous consideration that feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous is a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings?
RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good. RESPONDENT: Just as an example, Richard? I was feeling good till today morning. When I came to office today at 9.30am, I came to know that I have been dismissed due to a false complaint of a co-worker. I am not feeling good, in fact I am feeling shaken and insecure and thinking hard as to how to take care of my family. I am not vengeful or spiteful towards the complainant. For the life of me I can’t see how this sudden state of insecurity or of worry about my financial future is ‘silly’. I am considering it a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Hence, I am feeling as-is (worried, insecure and nervous). Any comments? RICHARD: Just for starters:
Now, you also report [quote] ‘thinking hard’ [endquote] ... in what way is feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous going to enable you to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement the considered activity which such a situation, as being dismissed in such circumstances as being falsely complained about, quite obviously requires? In other words would not feeling good, as you were prior to today morning, be much more conducive to intelligence operating in such an optimum manner? If so, then what is standing in the way of feeling good again, as you were prior to today morning, is nothing else other than your shaken/ insecure/ worried/ nervous consideration that feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous is a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings? RESPONDENT: Thanks. Just for information, the situation I described is a hypothetical one (not an actual one) ... RICHARD: Your prefatory [quote] ‘just as an example’ [endquote] does make that clear ... my
in-kind For example, one fine afternoon some time ago someone whose son had come of age, and who had just left the family home to take up a job in a city situated many an hours drive way, came to see me: she was visibly agitated, fretful, and soon advised me she was apprehensive, anxious, worried about him driving all that way, so I asked her to explain to me in just what way those feelings of hers could possibly work as a preventative for any potential vehicular crash. And so the discussion moved on, through the many and various aspects of the human condition such feelings
bring to the surface, but to no avail until she happened to mention, en passant, that she would not be able to feel at ease until
he had arrived safely (she had extracted a promise from him to call her as soon as he arrived) whereupon, after launching into a
graphic description of the frenetic pace of around-the-clock city traffic, as contrasted to the laid-back village tempo, I
suggested that her worrying days were far from over, that she had better ready herself for the long haul, maybe even get in a
supply of anxiety supplements from the local snake-oil emporiums That did the trick. RESPONDENT: ... but your comments are as valid. I agree with you on all counts. Being bounced around / being overwhelmed with / being guided by feelings is a hindrance to an intelligent appraisal of the situation and of working towards a solution to a crisis. RICHARD: Indeed ... and it is the very circularity, the self-perpetuating nature, of worriedly deciding that feeling worried is justifiable which demonstrates how recycled worriment actively cripples intelligence.
CO-RESPONDENT (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:
And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:
Finally, here is my response to that reply:
If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. CO-RESPONDENT: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. CO-RESPONDENT: If you are not amenable to the explanations, nobody can ever explain. RICHARD: I am clearly referring to you about your explanation – or rather the marked absence of same – and your futile attempt to shift the focus off yourself by recourse to a generalisation about peoples in general regarding a hypothetical lack of amenability is both a waste of your time typing it out and the bandwidth used to send it. I will say it again: if you cannot explain it – that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – in the January 2004 exchange you cited it never happened. It is your call. CO-RESPONDENT: My ‘call’ is that you are talking in pixels ... RICHARD: I am referring to the text of mine reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper. CO-RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do? RICHARD: He corrects your misrepresentation, of course, as he is not [quote] ‘talking in pixels’ [endquote] but is clearly referring to the text of his, reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper, which exchange you characterised as being [quote] ‘a particularly shitful episode’ [endquote] ... presumably because of the picture you see (in lieu of taking my words at face value). CO-RESPONDENT: Goes straight to the ‘pixels’ again. RICHARD: Golly ... next you will be telling me that I speak in sound waves and not words. CO-RESPONDENT: Nice demonstration of a pure intent not to understand. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I took particular note of what you had to say in your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]. Vis.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Look at the actual words close up, and the overall picture dissolves, just as a newspaper photograph of a human face dissolves into black and grey dots under a magnifying glass. But is the picture not ‘there’? Are there only dots? (...) See, there’s no picture here, nothing but black and grey dots. Hey, whaddya know, he’s right, look, see for yourself, nothing but black and grey dots here ...’. [endquote]. CO-RESPONDENT: ... No. 87 and I are talking in pictures. RICHARD: As I do not send [quote] ‘pictures’ [endquote] then what you and your contemporary identity see, when my as-in-print words appear on your respective monitors, has nowt to do with what I type out. CO-RESPONDENT: You can’t see the picture by looking at the individual pixels. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try looking at the as-in-print words rather than the pixels (or ink-dots were they printed-out) themselves. CO-RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do ... he goes straight to the pixels again. RICHARD: That is just preposterousness masquerading as an explanation: I clearly and unambiguously say look at the words rather than the pixels ... and, so as to forestall an obvious rejoinder, I will re-post the following:
CO-RESPONDENT: You can squint at the dots all you like ... RICHARD: I neither squint nor look at dots ... I look at what the words, when taken literally, actually convey. CO-RESPONDENT: ... you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing ... RICHARD: I am looking at the words I wrote (the identical words I speak when communicating with my fellow human being in-person) in the exchange you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... and the thing you are seeing has no existence outside of your intuitive/imaginative facility. CO-RESPONDENT: ... [you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing,] and No. 87’s seeing, and lord knows how many have seen before us. RICHARD: Do you really expect a person sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto – which includes its intuitive/imaginative facility – to be able to see the picture you, your contemporary identity, and some unnamed/uncounted other identities, see (instead of taking my words at face value)? CO-RESPONDENT: The way you’re approaching this is silly. RICHARD: The way I am approaching this is to ask for your explanation as to how the as-in-print words,
in that January 2004 exchange you cited, is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... if to
ask you to explain, with a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, is a
[quote] ‘silly’ [endquote] approach then obviously sensible, rational, down-to-earth discussion is not a feature in your
current game of ego CO-RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in
question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds
with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/
that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you
saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent) ... RICHARD: I am not finding what my co-respondent is doing hard to comprehend ... I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (that the devil is not in the detail) presented to me on many an occasion. RESPONDENT: No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. RICHARD: It is not an analogy ... my co-respondent is literally saying that. Vis.:
I was not behaving like a pedantic prick throughout; I was not playing Perry Mason for my own amusement; I was not closed to new information or ideas; I was not teasing; I was not frustrating; I was not deflecting; I was not diverting; I was not thwarting; I was not trying to maintain a spotless record; I was not side-tracking the flow of conversation; I was not smug and meticulously defensive. My co-respondent on that occasion, self-acknowledged to be a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me which had no basis in fact whatsoever (what I share with my fellow human being is experiential and not scientifical) and, despite at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their ill-conceived position ... yet all the while wanting me to instead discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms. RESPONDENT: He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc. RICHARD: My co-respondent is not referring to the words I wrote ... they are clearly referring to what I [quote] ‘seemed’ [endquote] to be doing; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘saw’ [endquote]; they are clearly referring to the [quote] ‘impressions’ [endquote] they had; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘infer’ [endquote]. Anything but, in other words, taking what I have to say at face value: as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, to instead [quote] ‘read into’ [endquote] my words all manner of things which are simply not there can only be an exercise in futility ... and to adamantly defend those intuitive imaginings only serves to (a) compound the situation and (b) waste time and bandwidth and (c) fritter away a vital opportunity. RESPONDENT: He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression ... RICHARD: I will stop you right there: your usage of that (definite article) determiner presupposes it has already been determined that there is aggression and it is just a matter of advising me where to look to find it ... whereas a truly [quote] ‘impartial observer’ [endquote] would phrase it something like this:
Put succinctly: your prejudice RESPONDENT: ... it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer. RICHARD: And what impression does the conversation in question (January 2004) convey to that impartial observer? RESPONDENT: And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being. RICHARD: As I said at the beginning: I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (an argument which rests upon no evidence whatsoever but relies solely upon intuition and imagination) presented to me on many an occasion. This is one of those occasions. If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? Have you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Are you thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to? Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity? Just curious.
CORRESPONDENT No. 74 (Part Seven) 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 |
