Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 74


February 02 2006

(...)

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]. 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 ...

RESPONDENT: I am not overly concerned about that particular conversation, but yes, I have read that conversation.

RICHARD: Have you read all of it – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end?

And the reason I ask is none other than that of expecting you to have taken your own advice, as endorsed by my co-respondent as being it in a nutshell, to look at [quote] ‘the entire conversation as a whole’ [endquote].

*

RICHARD: 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?

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that knowing another’s agenda, where they are coming from, where they were heading to justifies aggressive behaviour?

RICHARD: Your prejudice is showing again.

*

RICHARD: 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?

RESPONDENT: That is besides the point under discussion right now ...

RICHARD: The point under discussion is seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] is it not? Have you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Did you follow-up every URL they posted? Did you access every book reference they quoted? Did you look for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Do you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

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.

And the same applies for Peter and Vineeto, by the way, but they are not currently the target of vilification.

RESPONDENT: ... [the point under discussion right now]: that of your aggressive style of communication.

RICHARD: Your prejudice is showing again.

February 03 2006

(...)

RICHARD: Also, are you aware that they [my co-respondent at the time of the exchange in question] reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

RESPONDENT: That is besides the point under discussion right now ...

RICHARD: The point under discussion is seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] is it not? Have you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Did you follow-up every URL they posted? Did you access every book reference they quoted? Did you look for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Do you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being ...

RESPONDENT: I presume you want to say that I do not ‘actually care about my human being’ whereas you do. Do you have any evidence to back up your above claim about me?

RICHARD: Unless you are now either actually free from the human condition or currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no way you can be actually caring .

RESPONDENT: Where have you perceived my uncaring attitude towards my fellow human beings? Just curious.

RICHARD: I never said anything about you being (affectively) uncaring ... I distinctly said that the difference between you and me is that I *actually* care.

*

RICHARD: ... [I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication] ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: I and others on this list understand the above more than you might give us credit for, but ...

RICHARD: If I might interject (before you go on with your modifier)? Do you and those others on this list you refer to understand the above (that latter half of my sentence) now that I have re-inserted the first half you snipped off?

RESPONDENT: ... [but] is it inconceivable that the *style* in which you do it puts people off?

RICHARD: It is not inconceivable that the way sentences form themselves at this keyboard might be off-putting for some peoples ... many years of experience has shown, however, that such peoples were not ever on in the first place.

RESPONDENT: Any serious (as in sincere) person who comes to AF is impressed, (as I still am) with the breadth of topics under discussion and the fresh approach to reducing and eliminating human misery, but more often than not, conversations with you follow the same pattern where the other person quickly tires/gets-frustrated and leaves/despairs of getting any clarity in the matter.

RICHARD: Hmm ... by way of example, then, I will ask you again whether you have actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? And whether you have familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Whether you are 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? Whether you have read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Whether you followed-up every URL they posted? Whether you accessed every book reference they quoted? Whether you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Whether you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

And the reason why I ask is because if you have or had done so you would know for yourself why such people quickly tire, get frustrated, and leave, for they will not find what they are looking for here (the oft-repeated assertion, from my co-respondent at the time, that actualism was re-branded Zen Buddhism should be a dead giveaway as to why).

RESPONDENT: In most conversations I have had with you, I have had to sometimes shake off my impression that the discussion we were having was becoming more and more pedantic and restart without any such bias, and I am pleased with the results. I have learnt much from you.

RICHARD: I always find it cute when clarity in communication is taken to be pedantry.

RESPONDENT: But maybe others are not that patient.

RICHARD: Or maybe, just maybe, they have a vested interest in ambiguity in communication?

RESPONDENT: Since people who visit this website and mailing list are within the human condition, is it too much to suggest that your conversational style is mostly counter-productive ...

RICHARD: Yes, it is indeed too much to suggest ... and had you actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end; and had you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange; and had you thus been cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to; and had you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list; and had you followed-up every URL they posted; and had you accessed every book reference they quoted; and had you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list); and had you kept all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to, you would never have suggested such a thing in the first place.

For a person seeking to advise another in regards seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] it should be startlingly obvious by now that some extensive swotting is definitely in order.

February 09 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, I have had long email conversations with you about lust and sexuality.

RICHARD: Aye ... and here is the crux of it:

• [Richard]: ‘If you were to re-read the ‘first and foremost’ part of my response it may become more clear ... here is the crux of it: [quote]: ‘... [in this actual world/ the sensate world] it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) is null and void’. To put that another way: the pristine perfection of the peerless purity of this actual world is impeccable (nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in) ... innocence is entirely new to human history’.

RESPONDENT: This question [regarding sexual touch] has been brewing in me for the past few weeks: I will put this question in many ways: If a woman caresses you on your forearm, will your penis get erect?

RICHARD: As the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) is null and void all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if you are making sex where come these erections, out of the blue?
• [Richard]: ‘No, engorgement of the genitals comes from tactile stimulation’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Don’t you ever get an erection (...) If you watch a pornographic movie, for example?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I know that the very act of listening [to music] has an effect on the brain but do you experience anything else besides?
• [Richard]: ‘No, not at all (...).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Non-affective stimulation of some kind?
• [Richard]: ‘No stimulation at all ... just the same as watching voluptuous movies (sexually-explicit x-rated videos), for example, or a succulent feast being prepared in living colour in a cooking programme on lifestyle television, for another.
The affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void’.

Put specifically: as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void tactile stimulation of a forearm is not tumefacient.

RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, will your penis get erect?

RICHARD: What part of the word ‘no’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Don’t you ever get an erection (...) If you watch a pornographic movie, for example?
• [Richard]: ‘No ...’.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t the penis getting erect a physical manifestation of sexual desire ...

RICHARD: What part of the words ‘all appetitive desires are non-existent’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Don’t you ever get an erection (...) If you watch a pornographic movie, for example?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent’.

RESPONDENT: ... and of the readiness and of wanting to penetrate a woman’s vagina?

RICHARD: If what you are asking is whether genital tumescence is indicative of both a willingness and the readiness to engage in heterosexual intercourse then ... yes.

RESPONDENT: Doesn’t the penis getting erect co-occur with increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and increased vasodilatation?

RICHARD: In the sequence asked ... unknown, no, and yes (as I understand it the release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, enables erectile tissue to engorge).

RESPONDENT: Can you claim that you enjoy a sexual intercourse without your nerves participating in it, (participation in the sense of the nerves getting tense and then relaxing after orgasm)?

RICHARD: I do not ever claim anything ... all my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of life here in this actual world are exactly that (reports/ descriptions/ explanations of what actually happens).

RESPONDENT: Does your breathing remain calm throughout the sexual act?

RICHARD: The rate of respiration, as in any physical activity, is directly proportional to the degree of vigour involved.

February 10 2006

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]:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909456484

And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909449803

Finally, here is my response to that reply:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909452231

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.

(...)

RESPONDENT: ... in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: ... 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.

CO-RESPONDENT: I happen to know that No. 74 appreciates all of this.

RICHARD: How on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a prick, a prick that is not a caring human being, a prick that is aggressive, a prick that is arrogant by nature?

RESPONDENT: I appreciate very much the fact that you correspond with us on issues of great mutual interest. I appreciate very much what you have to say (not how you say it), I appreciate very much the hard work and time and money you put in to address the many questions that come to you ... yet I did not find it easy to appreciate your way of communicating, your conversational style, your (apparent) inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, and so on and so forth.

RICHARD: Whereabouts in the conversation in question – anywhere at all in that exchange spanning 34 e-mails – is it [quote] ‘apparent’ [endquote] to you that there is an inability on my part to get my co-respondent’s point of view?

And, for the sake of clarity in communication, my co-respondent’s point of view was that:

01. Richard is disparaging most scientists.
02. Richard said most scientists chose to ignore facts.
03. It is a fact that Richard is scientifically naïve.
04. Richard’s physics is muddle headed and he does not know what he is talking about.
05. Richard’s utterances are flawed pseudo-science.
06. Richard has a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works.
07. Richard’s pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote.
08. Richard’s scientific ignorance was demonstrated for all to see in his co-respondent’s refutation of his nonsense.
09. Richard is just like a dog kicking dirt to cover up his own stinking shit only he prefers to kick a mound of verbiage.
10. Richard has spouted so much scientific drivel it is hard for his co-respondent to keep up with it all.
11. Richard demonstrates cowardice in the defence of his own scientific nonsense.
12. Richard is regressing.
13. The truth is Richard will not defend his utterances because he cannot.
14. Richard’s repeated question is pointless.
15. Richard asserts all manner of findings based on pure consciousness experience (PCE) evidence.
16. Richard asserts a steady state universe.
17. Richard makes assertions about Mr. Albert Einstein and Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical models based on his own narrow worldview.
18. Richard is basically saying he can assert whatever he likes without the need for scientific grounding.
19. Richard is a purveyor of science fiction.
20. Richard is creating the impression that he has scientific knowledge when in actuality he does not.
21. Richard is creating the impression that he has grounds to critique Mr. Albert Einstein and Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical models when in actuality he does not.
22. Richard’s pedantry cannot help him in regards his assertion of a steady state universe.
23. Richard is quite right to point out that his co-respondent has not demonstrated their hypothesis.
24. Richard is a distorting, dirty propagandist.
25. Richard demonstrates his co-respondent’s hypothesis better than they ever could with his own actions and very loud words.
26. Richard manufactured a statement, and attributed to his co-respondent, which is vastly different to the statement in question.
27. Richard must have a particularly strange form of self-aggrandisement at work if he is satisfied by a Stalinesque manufactured admission.
28. Richard is a bigger dickhead than his co-respondent originally thought.
29. Richard’s co-respondent made NO such acknowledgement (that they had not demonstrated their hypothesis).
30. Richard edited what his co-respondent had said to suit himself.
31. It is unbelievable that Richard would resort to such a deliberate distortion (point of view No. 30) and then be satisfied with that.
32. Richard is a propagandist.
33. That Richard is a propagandist is really surprising to his co-respondent because they never believed he was capable of that kind of dishonesty.
34. Whatever else Richard’s co-respondent thought of him they really believed he at least had honest intentions.

RESPONDENT: I am coming more and more to realize, however, that your style is almost a requirement if the cherished beliefs are to be relentlessly exposed and the common wisdom thoroughly dissected to be the hogwash that it is.

RICHARD: How come you can call common wisdom [quote] ‘hogwash’ [endquote], right after informing me about my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, without even so much as batting an eyelid whilst you do so?

And while you are at it ... how come my co-respondent (above) can use similar words, such as muddle headed, buffoonery, drivel, nonsense, and so on, without you being [quote] ‘overly concerned about that particular conversation’ [endquote]?

Is it a case of one rule for Richard (in that he makes apparent his inability to get the other person’s point of view) and another rule for you and them (in that yours and their point of view does not make apparent yours and their inability to comprehend clarity in communication when it is staring you and them in the face)?

RESPONDENT: The fact that you are exact, precise, cross-reference another’s mails, use the dictionary definitions of words, carry a conversation through to an end (which may be construed as not letting the other one go without concluding that he is mistaken and that you are pushing people into a corner) can be considered a power-play or can be considered a thoroughness in examining the issue at hand without concern for hurt-feelings, loss-of-face, etc.

RICHARD: Why should anything thing I write be [quote] ‘considered’ [endquote] to be motivated by something other than what it actually is (that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication, for no other reason whatsoever than I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later)?

RESPONDENT: I retract my words. I no longer consider you a ‘prick’. It is indeed a privilege for me to have the chance to converse with you. I do mean it.

RICHARD: Okay ... I will re-phrase my question, then: how on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a person that is not a caring human being, a person that is aggressive, a person that is arrogant by nature?

February 11 2006

RICHARD (to Co-Respondent): How on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a prick, a prick that is not a caring human being, a prick that is aggressive, a prick that is arrogant by nature?

RESPONDENT: I appreciate very much the fact that you correspond with us on issues of great mutual interest. I appreciate very much what you have to say (not how you say it), I appreciate very much the hard work and time and money you put in to address the many questions that come to you ... yet I did not find it easy to appreciate your way of communicating, your conversational style, your (apparent) inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, and so on and so forth.

RICHARD: Whereabouts in the conversation in question – anywhere at all in that exchange spanning 34 e-mails – is it [quote] ‘apparent’ [endquote] to you that there is an inability on my part to get my co-respondent’s point of view? And, for the sake of clarity in communication, my co-respondent’s point of view was that ...

RESPONDENT: All the statements below involve you.

RICHARD: No, none of the statements below involve me ... they all involve my co-respondent’s point of view (as in what they feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer me to be and to be doing).

RESPONDENT: That is not the crux of the matter.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... my co-respondent specifically made it (their view of me) the crux of the matter. Here is how they began (from the e-mail of theirs which started the thread):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Let’s ramp up the brouhaha a little more shall we? (...) Richard carries on as if he is some modern day Christopher Columbus discovering the New World and that we are fools to doubt any of his utterances. Richard would also have us believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world. (...) Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed’. (Wednesday, 31/12/03 3:01 PM AEDST).

Do you see that it is their point of view being clearly expressed, so as to ramp up the brouhaha which they and several others simultaneously subscribed to the list to make, with the words ‘Richard carries on as if ...’ and the words ‘Richard would also have us believe ...’ and the words ‘Here’s Richard disparaging ...’ and the words ‘I’d like to know which planet Richard visits ...’ in the above quote?

RESPONDENT: The basic subject of the conversation was rather the special relativity theory.

RICHARD: Here is the text of mine from which my co-respondent extracted that one-line quote of mine above (highlighted for convenience):

• [Mark]: ‘I have not had any real idea on how to approach them [instincts]. My reason for this being that if we are born with instincts intact right from our first moment and, given that we are a clean slate so to speak, then, said instincts must be encoded in the DNA ... or what?
• [Richard]: ‘As deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material which is especially found in the chromosomes of nearly all living organisms, is the carrier of genetic information it would seem to be so that instincts are encoded therein. I say this with the proviso that I am seeking an explanation ‘after the act’ for what happened at the base of the skull where it meets the top of the brain-stem, and I would rather look to the latest scientific probes so as to establish an empirically-grounded account rather than any other hypothesis, as practical science must be factually based. *Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set*. After all, they are fallible, ego-ridden and soul-bound human beings trapped in the human condition like everybody else, and are seeking to find a way through all this mess, that we humans are born into, via the scientific method’.

I was clearly responding to a speculative query about deoxyribonucleic acid being the carrier for the instincts and the scientists being referred to were microbiologists, biochemists, neurobiologists and their ilk ... I specifically go on, in that e-mail, to provide quotes by and referring to Mr. Darryl Reanney (a molecular biologist), Mr. Paul MacLean (a brain biologist), and Mr. Joseph LeDoux (a neurobiologist).

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 01. Richard is disparaging most scientists.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?

RICHARD: No ... see for yourself:

• [Richard]: ‘... I would rather look to the latest scientific probes so as to establish an empirically-grounded account rather than any other hypothesis, as practical science must be factually based. Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set ...’ [endquote].

I am simply stating it as it is ... even a cursory glance at the material available in the area of instinctual behaviour shows that facts are indeed few and far between – the ability to conduct brain probes/ brain scans is relatively recent – and that today’s proposition is soon to be discarded for tomorrow’s.

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 02. Richard said most scientists chose to ignore facts.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?

RICHARD: No, that is outright mendacity ... I clearly state that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, and never anywhere ever say they choose to ignore facts.

This is an apt a place as any to re-post the following:

• [Richard]: ‘If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question ...
• [Respondent]: ‘... yes, I have read that conversation’.

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 03. It is a fact that Richard is scientifically naïve.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that so?

RICHARD: Although but a layperson when it comes to matters of science I am well aware that fundamental to the scientific method is empirical observation of a phenomenon/ phenomena => formulation of an hypothesis to explain same => utilisation of that hypothesis to make predictions => experimental tests of those predictions, properly performed, by independent testers ... whereas my co-respondent, self-represented as being a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me – that in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have others believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world – which had no observational basis at all (what I share with my fellow human, being experiential, is not at all scientifical) nor any textural evidence whatsoever to support it and, despite being given cogent reasons and at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their un-informed and ill-conceived way of ramping up the brouhaha.

There is no way I am going to discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms with someone who will not, or can not, put into practice the rigour rightly expected of the scientific profession.

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]:

04. Richard’s physics is muddle headed and he does not know what he is talking about.
05. Richard’s utterances are flawed pseudo-science.
06. Richard has a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works.
07. Richard’s pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote.
08. Richard’s scientific ignorance was demonstrated for all to see in his co-respondent’s refutation of his nonsense.
09. Richard is just like a dog kicking dirt to cover up his own stinking shit only he prefers to kick a mound of verbiage.
10. Richard has spouted so much scientific drivel it is hard for his co-respondent to keep up with it all.
11. Richard demonstrates cowardice in the defence of his own scientific nonsense.
12. Richard is regressing.
13. The truth is Richard will not defend his utterances because he cannot.
14. Richard’s repeated question is pointless.
15. Richard asserts all manner of findings based on pure consciousness experience (PCE) evidence.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that true?

RICHARD: No, I do not assert anything ... what I do is provide unambiguous reports of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, articulate clarifications of misunderstandings, an exceedingly simple do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record and, as already mentioned many, many times, an invitation to my fellow human being to ascertain for themselves – experientially – that what I have to say is in accord with actuality.

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]: 16. Richard asserts a steady state universe.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that true?

RICHARD: No, the steady-state postulation is an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle (which holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in it and at every time) inasmuch it was argued that, for the universe to look the same at all times, there could be no beginning or no end.

RESPONDENT: ‘Steady state Universe’ is a well-defined term in which the universe is not considered to have had a beginning or an end.

RICHARD: Aye, yet a postulate which is an extension of a principle (which proposition is itself an extension of another principle) is in no way the same thing as the direct experience of infinitude ... as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

*

RICHARD: ... [my co-respondent’s point of view was that]:

17. Richard makes assertions about Mr. Albert Einstein and Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical models based on his own narrow worldview.
18. Richard is basically saying he can assert whatever he likes without the need for scientific grounding.
19. Richard is a purveyor of science fiction.
20. Richard is creating the impression that he has scientific knowledge when in actuality he does not.
21. Richard is creating the impression that he has grounds to critique Mr. Albert Einstein and Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical models when in actuality he does not.

RESPONDENT: That impression is justified, in my opinion.

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and justify it, then.

(...)

RESPONDENT: I am coming more and more to realize, however, that your style is almost a requirement if the cherished beliefs are to be relentlessly exposed and the common wisdom thoroughly dissected to be the hogwash that it is.

RICHARD: How come you can call common wisdom [quote] ‘hogwash’ [endquote], right after informing me about my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, without even so much as batting an eyelid whilst you do so?

RESPONDENT: To ‘get’ the other person’s point of view does not mean you do not consider the common wisdom as hogwash. To ‘get’ another’s point of view is to understand what he is trying to say, not to agree to it.

RICHARD: Hmm ... you may find the following to be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘When in a recent email I was trying to explain that the brain is co-creator of the world, and I was using the example of looking at a tree, you seemed you did no wanted to understand.
• [Richard]: ‘If you were to re-read that exchange (at the above URL for example) you will see that I do understand what you were trying to explain ... just because I do not agree with what you say does not mean that I do not understand what you are saying.
I even provided practical reasons why what you were saying was invalid – which you have chosen to ignore also – and they show that I understand’.

Put succinctly: just because I do not agree with any of my co-respondent’s 34 points of view (further above) it does not mean I am unable to comprehend what they are saying (as in me having an apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view).

*

RICHARD: And while you are at it ... how come my co-respondent (above) can use similar words, such as muddle headed, buffoonery, drivel, nonsense, and so on, without you being [quote] ‘overly concerned about that particular conversation’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: Are you trying to justify your behaviour by how the other person behaves?

RICHARD: I am responding to you saying that you did not find it easy to appreciate what is, in your point of view, my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times ... how you can consider that response to be me justifying, by how my co-respondent behaved, some as-yet unnamed behaviour of mine has got me stumped.

My co-respondent’s main point of view throughout their entire interaction on this mailing list was that actualism is re-branded Zen Buddhism ... how come that does not make apparent their inability to comprehend clarity in communication when it is staring them in the face?

*

RICHARD: Is it a case of one rule for Richard (in that he makes apparent his inability to get the other person’s point of view) and another rule for you and them (in that yours and their point of view does not make apparent yours and their inability to comprehend clarity in communication when it is staring you and them in the face)?

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, the rules (or rather, expectations) are different for a person who claims to be actually free (and so cannot, by definition, exhibit any aggression, malice and sorrow) and a normal person (whose outbursts of unreason and passion can be understood, given his condition).

RICHARD: This has nothing to do with aggression, malice, sorrow, passionate outbursts, and so on, as all I am responding to is you saying that you did not find it easy to appreciate what is, in your point of view, my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times ... thus is it, or is it not, a case of one rule for Richard (in that he makes apparent his inability to get the other person’s point of view) and another rule for you and them (in that yours and their point of view does not make apparent yours and their inability to comprehend clarity in communication when it is staring you and them in the face)?

*

RESPONDENT: The fact that you are exact, precise, cross-reference another’s mails, use the dictionary definitions of words, carry a conversation through to an end (which may be construed as not letting the other one go without concluding that he is mistaken and that you are pushing people into a corner) can be considered a power-play or can be considered a thoroughness in examining the issue at hand without concern for hurt-feelings, loss-of-face, etc.

RICHARD: Why should anything I write be [quote] ‘considered’ [endquote] to be motivated by something other than what it actually is (that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication, for no other reason whatsoever than I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later)?

RESPONDENT: What it ‘actually is’ is unknown to me.

RICHARD: Then why even consider for a moment that exactness, precision, cross-referencing, and so forth, is a power-play (for instance)?

RESPONDENT: I have no clue to what actually goes on in your mind.

RICHARD: Then why consider even for a moment that exactness, precision, cross-referencing, and so forth, is anything devious at all?

RESPONDENT: But I can say now that my impression of you being an aggressive prick was not justified.

RICHARD: Okay ... is there any point in having/ holding any impression/ consideration whatsoever about what motivates my writing, then?

*

RESPONDENT: I retract my words. I no longer consider you a ‘prick’. It is indeed a privilege for me to have the chance to converse with you. I do mean it.

RICHARD: Okay ... I will re-phrase my question, then: how on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written by a person that is not a caring human being, a person that is aggressive, a person that is arrogant by nature?

RESPONDENT: See?

RICHARD: See ... what?

RESPONDENT: Do you mean to say that I should go over my correspondence with a fine-toothed comb and retract each and every phrase which conveyed my impression of you being a prick, even though I have said that I no longer hold to that view?

RICHARD: No ... the whole point of me responding to these impressions/ points of view/ considerations is contained in what I wrote a little over a week ago:

• [Respondent]: ‘... 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’.

Quite frankly, there are far more important matters to discuss than the things some peoples choose to read into my words no matter how exact, precise, referential, and so forth, they become ... things like pedantry (for instance) or a failure on my part to understand yet another point of view (for example) or even (believe it or not) me trying to act like a computer.

RESPONDENT: The above is a typical example of needless pedantry ...

RICHARD: If peoples did not have a predilection for reading things into my words which are simply not there I would have no need for exactness, precision, cross-referencing, and so forth ... I wrote far more loosely when I first came on-line (and also in ‘Richard’s Journal’) and it was only interaction with the many and various malcontents and misfits (by and large mainly religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists), in those early years, which has occasioned me to hone my writing skills so as to obviate, as far as possible, having to re-visit same again and again until all the looseness was tightened up.

I have written about something similar before:

• [Richard]: ‘A curious thing I have noticed, ever since I started writing on the internet, is that my writing has become increasingly peppered with qualifiers, conditioners, caveats, codicils, and footnotes (...) Thus where I used to say ‘contrary to popular belief it is possible to be happy and harmless all the time’ (for example) nowadays it looks like this: [Richard]: ‘... perhaps this is also an apt moment to explain that nowhere do I say that either the human animal or the other animals cannot be (relatively) happy from time-to-time or (relatively) harmless from time-to-time – and even for extended periods – but that the survival passions, and the feeling-being they automatically form themselves into, not only preclude both total happiness and harmlessness and happiness all-the-time and harmlessness all-the-time but occlude the direct experience of the meaning of life as a living actuality each moment again’.

RESPONDENT: ... [The above is a typical example] of failing to understand the other person’s point of view ...

RICHARD: Has it not dawned upon you yet that others’ points of view, impressions, considerations, and so on, about me or of me mean nothing to me? I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that whatever it is they feel/ intuit/ imagine/ infer me to be, or to be doing, it has no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility.

RESPONDENT: ... and trying to act like a computer.

RICHARD: I will say this much: the more you try to dig yourself out of the hole you made, by attempting to duck-shove the onus for your points of view/ impressions/ considerations onto me, the deeper into it you get yourself ... as I intimately know (via first-hand experience) that I am not, repeat not, trying to act like a computer your throwaway line is nothing but ... um ... a load of hogwash.

What is the point of typing out worthless stuff and nonsense ... let alone clicking ‘send’?

February 16 2006

(...)

CO-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 ...

RESPONDENT: I presume you were collecting your own writings.

RICHARD: Yes, on many an occasion I would jot down various things on bits of paper.

*

RICHARD: ... into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’ I must have come across the text in question ...

RESPONDENT: I presume you are referring to Alan Watts’ words.

RICHARD: Yes, although I cannot remember the particular instance as I mainly read books and articles, and so on, by spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened peoples (for obvious reasons).

*

RICHARD: ... and made an (un-referenced/ un-attributed) note of it in the midst of myriads of other notes of mine ...

RESPONDENT: That is called plagiarism. Were you collecting others’ words as well?

RICHARD: What would have happened (as I cannot remember that particular instance I can only assume) is that it must have been an occasion where I was demonstrating to my companion at the time just what, specifically, the difference was between spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment and that which lay beyond by highlighting the relevant wording itself and substituting what words I would use instead ... and I say this because I can clearly recall doing the same with some text in a book by Mr. Nisargadatta Maharaj, in a book by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, and in at least two books by Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (all of which I burned, in 1992, along with the four copies of an 80,000 word manuscript I had typed out on an old-fashioned typewriter, as I had crossed-out and written-into the pages of those books themselves).

In case that is not clear enough: my companion at the time would, on occasion, come to me with a book and ask me to explain just how a particular passage was not what I was talking about so I would cross-out certain key-words, in a paragraph or two, and write in my own ... just as I do to this very day with my ‘example only’/ ‘end example’ way of demonstrating something via a rearrangement and substitution of certain words and/or phrases.

I can recall a verbal instance (for example) of doing just that, whilst sitting on a balcony one fine afternoon circa 1997, when Vineeto handed me a book by Ms. Bernadette Roberts and asked how it was that what I was saying was any different to some passages she had bookmarked ... to which I responded by saying that, were I to have put it that way, I would say this, instead of that, and that rather than this, and so forth and so on.

*

RICHARD: ... because not having a photographic memory there is no way it could have been cryptomnesia and/or unconscious plagiarism.

RESPONDENT: I fail to understand your logic here.

RICHARD: That could very well be because it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with what would have actually happened: I freely acknowledge that I must have consciously used that paragraph, which Mr. Alan Watts wrote, somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings of mine into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’, to demonstrate just what, specifically, the difference was between a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and an altered state of consciousness (ASC) by highlighting the wording itself and substituting what words I would have used had I written about it in that way.

The allusion to a photographic memory is my understanding of the phenomenon of cryptomnesia (and/or unconscious plagiarism).

February 18 2006

RESPONDENT No. 60 (to Richard): ... 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.

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT: My momma always told me it takes two to argue.

RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of?

CO-RESPONDENT: Yeah ... don’t pick on crazy people.

RICHARD: While I appreciate your honesty (in acknowledging both what you are doing and what that is motivated by) you are targeting the wrong person. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am not insane ...’.

And this:

• [Richard]: ‘As I was insane for 11 years – and sane for the preceding 34 years – I can report from direct experience that there is a third alternative’.

And again:

• [Richard]: ‘There is, of course, a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity is but an extreme form of sanity) ...’.

CO-RESPONDENT: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating.

RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced.

RESPONDENT: No mad man would agree that he is mad, non?

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (so as to refresh your memory as to just what particular type of crazy person my co-respondent, in all their sincerity, has chosen to pick on):

• [Co-Respondent to No. 60]: ‘The man [Richard] is a textbook sociopath’. (Wednesday, 1/02/2006 12:43 PM AEDST).

That term (popularly known as ‘psychopath’) properly refers to a person with an ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ who, according to the DSM-IV, is someone who has a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others – as indicated by three, or more, of seven specific criteria – and for whom there is evidence of ‘Conduct Disorder’ (a repetitive and persistent pattern of behaviour, in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three, or more, of fifteen particular criteria).

Now, whilst copyright regulations preclude me from publicly listing those twenty-two criteria, it would not have taken anyone with access to the internet very long at all to determine for themself that, as it is patently obvious that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to my co-respondent to be happening most certainly has no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility, their sincerity is indeed entirely misplaced ... yet it would not be at all surprising if it turns out that you did not do such an elementary thing as that before reaching for your keyboard to type out your latest load of hogwash.

It is truly fascinating to sit here, at this computer, and watch the human condition parade itself daily across this screen.

February 18 2006

RESPONDENT No. 60 (to Richard): ... 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.

(...)

CO-RESPONDENT: My momma always told me it takes two to argue.

RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of?

CO-RESPONDENT: Yeah ... don’t pick on crazy people.

RICHARD: While I appreciate your honesty (in acknowledging both what you are doing and what that is motivated by) you are targeting the wrong person. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am not insane ...’.

And this:

• [Richard]: ‘As I was insane for 11 years – and sane for the preceding 34 years – I can report from direct experience that there is a third alternative’.

And again:

• [Richard]: ‘There is, of course, a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity is but an extreme form of sanity) ...’.

CO-RESPONDENT: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating.

RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced.

RESPONDENT: No mad man would agree that he is mad, non?

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (so as to refresh your memory as to just what particular type of crazy person my co-respondent, in all their sincerity, has chosen to pick on):

• [Co-Respondent to No. 60]: ‘The man [Richard] is a textbook sociopath’. (Wednesday, 1/02/2006 12:43 PM AEDST).

That term (popularly known as ‘psychopath’) properly refers to a person with an ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ who, according to the DSM-IV, is someone who has a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others – as indicated by three, or more, of seven specific criteria – and for whom there is evidence of ‘Conduct Disorder’ (a repetitive and persistent pattern of behaviour, in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three, or more, of fifteen particular criteria).

Now, whilst copyright regulations preclude me from publicly listing those twenty-two criteria, it would not have taken anyone with access to the internet very long at all to determine for themself that, as it is patently obvious that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to my co-respondent to be happening most certainly has no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility, their sincerity is indeed entirely misplaced ... yet it would not be at all surprising if it turns out that you did not do such an elementary thing as that before reaching for your keyboard to type out your latest load of hogwash.

RESPONDENT: Do you talk like this in live interactions as well?

RICHARD: Were I to be having a verbal discussion with someone who, having previously sought to advise me in regards seeing both [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] and about looking at [quote] ‘the entire conversation as a whole’ [endquote], asked me whether it was true that no mad man would agree he is mad immediately after me having just said, to someone else present (in response to them having just informed me, in the context of their mother having spoken of the inadvisability of picking on crazy people, that in all their sincerity it seemed to them my mental balance was deteriorating), that as I intimately knew via first-hand experience what seemed to them to be happening had no existence outside of their intuitive/ imaginative facility their sincerity was entirely misplaced, then I would indeed talk like I wrote further above as that interlocutor’s contribution, to what had the potential of being a stimulating dialogue, rather than the dismissive intellectual argument it started out as, amounts to being nothing but yet another lot of worthless stuff and nonsense in that they obviously took no notice whatsoever of me having also just said that I was not insane and, as I had been insane for 11 years – and sane for the 34 years before that – I could report from direct experience that there is a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity being, of course, but an extreme form of sanity).

February 18 2006

(...)

RICHARD: (...) elementary thing as that before reaching for your keyboard to type out your latest load of hogwash.

RESPONDENT: Do you talk like this in live interactions as well?

CO-RESPONDENT: No. 74 ... I am baffled? You who is not free of the human condition, do not display any malice ... while this Richard guy who says he is free of the human condition (and therefore free of malice), cannot stop the steady stream of derogatory comments and malice emanating from his keyboard. So why are you bothering with such an obviously contradictory man and his musings?

RESPONDENT: In a way it is a little scary to discover that perfection, as one expects it, does not exist in the world. I don’t know if Richard’s admonitions are meant as helpful chidings for ‘recalcitrant egos’ or whether he is just another power player.

RICHARD: I deliberately chose a word not normally part of my lexicon so as to act as a mnemonic – for what has already been discussed at length about the utter waste of both time and bandwidth it is to talk about what another feels/ intuits/ imagines/ infers Richard to be or to be doing – as it is the very word you used. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am coming more and more to realize, however, that your style is almost a requirement if the cherished beliefs are to be relentlessly exposed and the common wisdom thoroughly dissected to be the hogwash that it is.
• [Richard]: ‘How come you can call common wisdom [quote] ‘hogwash’ [endquote], right after informing me about my apparent inability to get the other person’s point of view at times, without even so much as batting an eyelid whilst you do so?
• [Respondent]: ‘To ‘get’ the other person’s point of view does not mean you do not consider the common wisdom as hogwash. To ‘get’ another’s point of view is to understand what he is trying to say, not to agree to it’. (Friday, 10/02/2006 6:15 PM AEDST).

Is it not common wisdom that [quote] ‘no mad man would agree that he is mad’ [endquote]? How come you can call common wisdom hogwash but when Richard does you all-of-a-sudden profess to not knowing whether it is an admonition or a chiding or (and here we go again) a power play on his part? Is it a case of one rule for you and another for Richard? Or is the case that when you use that word you are, in fact, admonishing and/or chiding and/or power-playing (and thus assume that Richard is too)? And if that be the case would that not be why it is scary for you to discover that the perfection you expect does not exist in the world?

Meanwhile, back at the query itself: what was the point of asking your common-wisdom question, anyway?

March 22 2006

RICK: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: I have already explained what understanding my (above) reply was based upon. Vis.:

• [Richard to Rick]: ‘Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress)’.

Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself’.

RESPONDENT: Richard replies: No. Which is in contradiction of the current scientific knowledge.

RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no scientific knowledge, be it current or otherwise, relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress.

RESPONDENT: (And I can provide references from reputed journals).

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and provide them, then.

March 23 2006

RICK: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: It is an inconsequential mistake, but thanks for pointing it out.

RICHARD: Given that you specifically said [quote] ‘just so that we are clear’ [endquote] it is anything but inconsequential.

*

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: I have already explained what understanding my (above) reply was based upon.

RESPONDENT: Can you now revise your understanding ...

RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of rewriting history.

RESPONDENT: ... or is your understanding set in stone?

RICHARD: Metaphorically speaking (it is actually set in bytes and print) ... yes.

RESPONDENT: The question is not what effect exercise has upon a body free of the identity/soul in toto, but whether exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general) for a normal human being.

RICHARD: Hmm ... by your own acknowledgement you did not even know who asked the question yet now, a scant 45 minutes later, you know that it was not a personal question relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress but a question about whether exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general) for a normal human being.

For your information, that question arose because my co-respondent had read about me riding a bicycle.

*

RESPONDENT: Richard replies: No. Which is in contradiction of the current scientific knowledge.

RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no scientific knowledge, be it current or otherwise, relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress.

RESPONDENT: As nobody but you brought in the topic of how exercise relates to a life after the extirpation ...

RICHARD: No, it was my co-respondent who (having read about me riding a bicycle) brought up the topic ... not me.

RESPONDENT: ... and as science has nil knowledge about such a condition, your ascertainment is quite valid but irrelevant.

RICHARD: If you say so, then it is so (for you, that is): given your error about who asked the question I would rather keep my own counsel on the matter.

*

RESPONDENT: (And I can provide references from reputed journals).

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and provide them, then.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear: you are asking me to provide references from reputed journals to the effect that exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general)?

RICHARD: I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote], that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body, as all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments which, being based as they are upon statistical associations, are not scientific.

March 23 2006

(...)

RESPONDENT: (And I can provide references [to the current scientific knowledge] from reputed journals).

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and provide them, then.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear: you are asking me to provide references from reputed journals to the effect that exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general)?

RICHARD: I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote], that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body, as all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments which, being based as they are upon statistical associations, are not scientific.

RESPONDENT: Just one non-epidemiological study (which I found within a minute of searching on google): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract

RICHARD: All what could be found at that URL was a 10 week/32 subject epidemiological trial.

March 24 2006

(...)

RESPONDENT: (And I can provide references [to the current scientific knowledge] from reputed journals).

RICHARD: Please ... go ahead and provide them, then.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear: you are asking me to provide references from reputed journals to the effect that exercise (in general) is good for the body (in general)?

RICHARD: I am inviting you to go ahead and provide [quote] ‘scientific knowledge’ [endquote], that a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) is good for a particular body, as all I have read so far is epidemiological assessments which, being based as they are upon statistical associations, are not scientific.

RESPONDENT: Just one non-epidemiological study (which I found within a minute of searching on google): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract

RICHARD: All what could be found at that URL was a 10 week/32 subject epidemiological trial.

RESPONDENT: No, this was a control group trial, not a statistical epidemiological trial.

RICHARD: I have just now re-visited that page and see that it is classified as a randomised controlled trial – a trial with a control group and an intervention group – and obviously have to get my terminology correct as I have read more than a few abstracts of that ilk.

March 28 2006

RICK: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: So as to bring the discussion back to the point ... would your etceteras include a person with a diagnosis of major or minor depression or dysthymia? If not, and given that the debilitating effect a depressive identity has on the body can be alleviated with medicative measures, would it not be the case that what is good for the body is an absence of depression (if not the depressor himself/ herself)?

Speaking of which: that progenitor of melancholia – ‘melancholia = depression [a pathological state of excessive melancholy]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.

April 04 2006

RICK: Richard, you wrote:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise?’
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’.

RESPONDENT: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?

RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: (And it is a generic question, he is not asking is R.E. good for a diseased person, a stressed person, for Richard’s body etc. etc.).

RICHARD: So as to bring the discussion back to the point ... would your etceteras include a person with a diagnosis of major or minor depression or dysthymia?

RESPONDENT: Heh. I see what you mean. As long as people are stressed/ depressed, artificial activity only evades the real issue.

RICHARD: Exactly.

Given that this is a mailing list set up for the particular purpose of facilitating the already always existing meaning of life/ peace-on-earth to be apparent – and not for the promotion/ promulgation of regimens of artificial activity (or dietary regimes or any other popular neo-puritanical topics) – is it any wonder that a query such as that at the top of this page would be responded to in the way it was (and not in a conventional way)?

The following is crystal clear ... unambiguous to the nth degree:

• [Richard]: ‘The words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place. There is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world. There are no celibacy or obedience requirements. There are no dietary demands *or daily regimes of exercise*. No one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. There are no prescribed books to study ... upwards of maybe two [in the year 2000] million words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page. There are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure. There are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all’. [emphasis added].

Moreover, and in view of the fact the person who asked me that question had read about me riding a bicycle (and wanted to know whether I did so for the exercise), the following is just as unequivocal:

• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I do not drive ... I dropped my driver’s license into the pot-belly stove eighteen years ago. I walk ... for longer distances I have a bicycle.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Wonderful! Very nice!
• [Richard]: ‘Not really ... I was still a bit idealistic back then – and with the faculty to believe and imagine still intact – I fondly imagined that I could minimise my contribution to the pollution of the atmosphere by dispensing with a ‘gas-guzzler’. I also believed that by being so demonstrative about such a gesture that it would somehow lead to the prevention of oil-wars (...) But something beneficial did come out of it all ... I had become accustomed to being car-less over the years and did not miss that convenience at all. Consequently, now that I am on a pension, *I am spared the expense incurred* and can afford to eat out at a restaurant each day’. [emphasis added].

As is this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Are you free from slumber? You must sleep and that was why you had to go out on your bicycle to buy that mattress [as described in an article in ‘Richard’s Journal’].
• [Richard]: ‘I sleep maybe three-four hours a day ... and I did not have to bicycle; *it was a delightful day and I chose to ride* instead of taking a taxi. I did not have to buy a mattress for it was simply a matter of choosing a particular creature-comfort from the many available’.

How any of that can be misconstrued has got me beat.

Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 2


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