|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 78
RESPONDENT: Richard, I visited your taped dialogues section on your homepage, but could only access the transcribed versions. How could I get any of the actual *taped* dialogues, as I prefer listening to reading? RICHARD: The quality of the recordings those transcripts came from is so poor as to be barely legible ... the conversations were recorded via the in-built microphone of a $25 cassette machine sitting on a coffee-table in the middle of a room during an ad hoc experiment conducted immediately prior to going public on the internet in 1997 and for the sole purpose of gathering some material quickly as all what was available, then, for on-line reading were the first rough drafts of a collection of miscellaneous articles eventually strung-together and published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’. In other words, they were never intended for public listening. What I would suggest, as you prefer listening to reading, is to run the transcripts through a text-to-speech programme.
RICHARD: (...) not only did I experience no feelings/ emotions/ passions whatsoever, neither was there any receival of an adrenaline arousal at all (as expressed in, for example, phrasing such as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and ‘an adrenaline junkie’ and so on). Neither was there any cortisol-induced heightened awareness either – each and every thing specifically looked at, here in this actual world, is already seen in detail – and, as time does not move in actuality, neither did time all-of-a-sudden stand still either. Incidentally (in regards adrenaline injections): whenever I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw, these days, I make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is to set-off a psychotropic episode (lasting up to 5-6 hours). As does caffeine (a chemical cousin to cocaine). RESPONDENT: If this is true ... RICHARD: It is indeed true that ... (a) I did not experience any feelings/emotions/passions whatsoever (in the two daily-life situations previously described in detail) ... and (b) I did not receive any adrenaline arousal at all (as expressed in your ‘the arousal they received (from ep. injections)’ phrasing) ... and (c) there was no cortisol-induced heightened awareness either ... and (d) each and every thing specifically looked at, here in this actual world, is indeed already seen in detail ... and (e) time did not all-of-a-sudden stand still either (as time does not move in actuality) ... and (f) the effect of a dental injection of procaine containing adrenaline did set off a psychotropic episode (lasting up to 5-6 hours) ... and (g) so too does caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine. All these 7 points have been variously verified by others, on many an occasion, either by close observation of me (and I have, of course, been subject to the most detailed scrutiny possible by many peoples in all manner of situations and circumstances for more than a decade now) or via their own experience during a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: ... [If this is true] than what happens when you eat meat? RICHARD: If I may point out? This is what I am responding to:
Is there not a presumption implicit to this latest query of yours that there is essentially no difference between taking adrenaline orally (into the digestive system) and taking it intravenously (directly into the blood-stream) ... plus further assuming that there is sufficient quantity of adrenaline in a typical serving of muscle-meat to have an effect anyway? Did Mr. Schacter conduct laboratory tests upon subjects ingesting adrenaline orally? Are you aware that, apart from the obvious humane concerns, the main concern by the meat-packing industry in regards to the muscle-meat of animals subject to stress is the rate of pH decline (due to the effect of a lactic acid and water build-up prior to slaughter not being dispersed as carbon dioxide and water, because of the lack of oxygen in a dead creature, as would normally happen when glucose is converted to energy)? For example:
I have not, of course, conducted an exhaustive research yet even so I have been unable to find any documented evidence that there is any adrenaline, in sufficient quantity to have a adrenaline-typical arousal effect, in muscle-meat ... all I could find were (undocumented) assertions from vegetarian/ vegan sources that this be the case. RESPONDENT: Meat that certainly has some degree of said hormones, because epinephrine is flowing constantly in animals, particularly strong when they are being killed. RICHARD: If you could provide a reliable, documented, source for this it would be most appreciated as
all I could find was a ‘Med-Line’ abstract RESPONDENT: And the last time I checked, epinephrine is not destroyed upon cooking. RICHARD: If you could provide the source which you last checked it would be appreciated ... but even more so would be a source which shows that orally ingested adrenaline survives intact the entire digestive process (specifically the salivary enzymes, the stomach acids and enzymes, the intestinal secretions, the bile duct juices and the pancreatic acids) and especially including its safe passage through the liver so as to enter the blood-stream in the same manner as an intravenous injection. RESPONDENT: So you would have an adverse reaction to epinephrine when you know you are getting it ... RICHARD: I did not know I was getting adrenaline in the procaine mixture injected by the dentist in question: it was the ensuing psychotropic episode which led to ... (a) the dentist informing me of this fact (and, I might add, being most curious about was happening) ... and (b) henceforth administering a procaine mixture sans adrenaline (with no resultant effect). Further to the point: a psychotropic episode is not, repeat not, an adrenaline-typical reaction (otherwise referred to by you as ‘arousals’ and, further below in this e-mail, as ‘spikes’ and by others as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and so forth). RESPONDENT: ... [you would have an adverse reaction to epinephrine when you know you are getting it], but not when you do not know you are ingesting it? RICHARD: You would have to be living on another planet in order to be able to assume I never knew about the topic of adrenaline in meat ... especially so as I live in a seaside village (Byron Bay) which is notorious virtually world-wide for its over-representation of health quacks and nutrition ninnies. RESPONDENT: This reeks of a belief to me. RICHARD: You can, of course, have it reek of whatever you like ... such reeking, however, will not miraculously transform it into fact no matter how tightly you pinch your nostrils and/or screw-up your visage in disgust. * RICHARD: (...) it is your (borrowed) explanation regarding the condition of this body which you are avoiding the correction of that is the issue ... to wit: asserting that the metabolic pathways utilised by normal human beings are still operational in a body actually free from the human condition. Have you ever considered what the phrase ‘peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for this flesh and blood body’ would mean if it did not include the absence of, not only the instinctually-sourced feelings/identity, but the chemicals they/it persuade the body to produce which results in behaviour both personally insalubrious and socially reprehensible? RESPONDENT: I certainly have, but ... RICHARD: If I may interject? What implications/ramifications did your considerations, as to what the phrase ‘peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for this flesh and blood body’ would mean if it did not include the absence of, not only the instinctually-sourced feelings/identity, but the chemicals they/it persuade the body to produce which results in behaviour both personally insalubrious and socially reprehensible, make obvious? I am, of course, particularly referring to my already-mentioned observation (now snipped) that it would mean one need not root out the (deemed to be not-instinctual) passions after all in order to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, and thus ensure peace and harmony. And the reason why I ask (again) is this: if, as you state, there indeed does not need to be instinctually-sourced feelings for there to be a need for adrenaline – as in the typical freeze-fight-flight type of situations and circumstances being discussed – then what is your solution for all the ills of humankind? RESPONDENT: ... [I certainly have, but] as I have stated so many times before, there does not need to be instinctually-sourced feelings for there to be a need for epinephrine. RICHARD: You may state it as many times as you wish ... such repetitive assertions, however, will not miraculously turn it into a fact that the metabolic pathways utilised by normal human beings are still operational in a body actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: All epinephrine is is a signal for increased energy production – if you need more energy, you will tell your cells this by the hormone known as epinephrine. RICHARD: Aye ... I got it loud and clear, the first time around, that this is what happens in normal human beings. RESPONDENT: In fact, it is even debatable whether or not a human heart can even function in the absence of epinephrine. RICHARD: As I have no interest in debating such an issue you will have to take it up with others who are more interested in discussing ever-increasing minutiae in lieu of addressing the substance of the issue ... to wit: what I know, via self-observation, that there was no heavy breathing/no perturbation whatsoever – no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on, (such as, for instance, no hair standing on end) – as compared with your assertions that this flesh and blood body is still producing adrenaline anyway because that is what you know, via text-book learning, about normal human beings. RESPONDENT: Face it Richard, you may not experience ‘spikes’ in your levels of epinephrine, but you use it all the same to preform bodily functions. RICHARD: Hmm ... as the word ‘spikes’ is, presumably, another way of saying [quote] ‘arousals’ [endquote] I will insert it in your earlier sentence. For example:
Are you saying that you agree there was no spike received (as contrasted, for example, to the spike received upon having an injection of procaine, at a dentist’s surgery, containing a small percentage of adrenaline ... which spike can itself be compared with no such spike being received, these days, upon having an injection of procaine containing no adrenaline at all)? Please note that I am talking out of experience and not theory. RESPONDENT: Otherwise, get medical assay tests done to provide evidence to the contrary ... RICHARD: Oh? Yet another person insisting I be a laboratory guinea-pig for them (even though I say again and again that actualism is experiential and not scientifical), eh? RESPONDENT: ... because if someone tells me they can walk on water I will not believe it until I see it. RICHARD: I am not asking you (or anyone) to belief it (or anything) as I like my fellow human being and would not want them to live in a belief-induced fantasy world ... all the while fondly feeling that it be this actual world which I, and others, speak of. This is the evidence I proffer (from the home-page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site):
RICHARD: Death is a fact of life/of being born – over 54,000,000 people die each year – and yet, just because of a topical news item, all-of-a-sudden life is not fun? Further to the point ... RESPONDENT No. 53: If I may interject, before you go on with your pointless point ... RICHARD: There is nothing ‘pointless’ about drawing attention to the fact that each and every human being on this planet is but a missed heart-beat or two away from death each and every moment again – that death is an irrefutable fact to be faced else the purpose of being born be not fulfilled – nor is there anything ‘pointless’ about further drawing attention to the opportunistic nature of cynically cashing-in on the (newsworthy) misfortune of others for the sake of promoting your No. 53-knows-better-than-Richard grasp of the human condition ... as was evidenced where you wrote on this very same topic, less than three and a half hours after posting this, that you [quote] ‘could care less about the suffering of the billions that are out of my view and life’ [endquote] and that you agree inasmuch that [quote] ‘we certainly should enjoy and have fun during our short times here’ [endquote]. Thus this entire charade was nothing but an exploitative beat-up from the very beginning ... a charade, I might add, which began with a needless doctoring of both my words and the post they were written in, for I never sent any e-mail entitled ‘RE: jamais vu’ (lowercase), as all the e-mails I posted under such a title had the words capitalised. Viz.: Re: Jamais Vu. Nowhere in the archives is there a post to be found with both words in lowercase ... furthermore, I never wrote ‘life is too much fun to take it seriously’ in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: Jamais Vu’ (capitalised), either. More to the point, I never wrote ‘life is too much fun to take it seriously’ in any e-mail at all. What I did write was ‘life is much too much fun to be serious’ ... in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: Feelings’ (capitalised). Why you would take an e-mail, change its title to simulate that of another thread, snip-out what I did write and type in a poorly-remembered version of what I wrote elsewhere, so as to have it be a vehicle for your insincere posturing on the current-time suffering of others, defies sensible comprehension. (...) RESPONDENT No. 53: [snip link to a February 2004 e-mail] So No. 78, is it fair to say that Richard did in actuality and factuality write the above line [‘life is too much fun to take it seriously’] contrary to his claims that he did not? RESPONDENT: That is certainly fair to say. I remember Richard saying that he would admit any mistake he made when it was clear and evident, But I don’t see him stepping up with any explanations now. RICHARD: If it is an explanation you want then you need look no further than the original sequence I have re-posted further above where I (apparently incorrectly) assumed it would be obvious, from the sentence which immediately followed, that I was referring to any of my current posts on the subject of sincere/ serious ... your co-respondent had to search back to the third of February last year, into an e-mail entitled ‘Re: One Last Shot At This’ (and not ‘RE: jamais vu’ as they tried to make out), in order to find an instance of me using that particular phrasing. Furthermore, you are being side-tracked by an elaborate hall of mirrors which your co-respondent has erected
in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that they will stop at nothing – up to and including outright confabulation If I were to be answering each and every commentitious allegation – with all the referenced detail required
to prove false such made-up-on-the-spot/ off-the-cuff drivel If you cannot see for yourself such blatantly devious deceit, and have to instead ask me to explain it to
you, then you are on the wrong mailing list in the first place as this list is for peoples with some remnants of common-sense left The main ingredient being, of course, sincerity
RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like very much not to react with ‘arousals’ brought on by epinephrine when confronted with certain situations. RICHARD: What are the symptoms (aka characteristic signs) of those ‘arousals’ and what ‘certain situations’ are you referring to? RESPONDENT: Getting excited in such a manner seems to sap me of energy. RICHARD: Again, other than ‘getting excited’ what symptoms are present which occasion you to attribute those arousals to be ‘brought on by epinephrine’ (and not something else)? Or, to put that differently, what are adrenaline-typical characteristics? RESPONDENT: So the state you describe is certainly alluring. RICHARD: It is not a ‘state’ – there are no states of being in actuality – it is a condition which ensues when the instinctual passions/identity in toto are no longer extant ... no ‘being’ at all (as in extirpated, eliminated, extinct). RESPONDENT: Just for the record, does your heart rate EVER change? If you don’t know, it is certainly quite simple to find this out. RICHARD: I see that I have provided the following information:
Moreover my second wife, a qualified nursing-sister, would of-times check me for pulse rate, and so forth, on differing occasions when I would report no such sensations as are typical of adrenaline/cortisol arousals, as she was puzzled as to why all the normal characteristics of such chemically-induced arousals were not present in typical fright-freeze-fight-flee situations ... so I am well-aware of what is happening for this heart, these lungs, this skin, these hair follicles, and so on, in any situation in which these things are specifically taken notice of. Only yesterday afternoon, for instance, both during and for a short while after sawing and carrying and stacking wood, there was some shortness of breath and an accompanying beading of perspiration along with a slight increase in heart-beat ... and at least three factors need to be taken into consideration ... (a) it is full summer where I currently reside (an area described as being ‘sub-tropical’) ... (b) I live an indolent life-style (way past merely ‘sedentary’) ... and (c) I use tobacco regularly (such as to evoke surprise from medical practitioners in regards blood-pressure being un-changed). Incidentally, and not having come down in the last shower, I will draw your attention to the following:
It is your call.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like very much not to react with ‘arousals’ brought on by epinephrine when confronted with certain situations. RICHARD: What are the symptoms (aka characteristic signs) of those ‘arousals’ and what ‘certain situations’ are you referring to? RESPONDENT: Signs = sweaty palms, increased heart rate (unrelated to increase in activity), and shakiness in extreme cases. Situations range from could include intimate encounters with beautiful women, making the key move in a chess game, taking tests and witnessing severe injuries. Just some recent examples, but many more situations can provoke a release of epinephrine. RICHARD: Given that you say ‘shakiness in extreme cases’ would it not be appropriate to describe those situational signs as being associated with, for example (and in the order given above), apprehension/ anxiety, trepidation/ angst, nervousness/tenseness, and horror/ dread? Please note I am asking – your own appraisal would be more apposite – and here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of affective feelings which stem from the instinctual passion of fear, in an approximate order of magnitude, to provide a starting point: disquiet, disquietude, inquietude, uneasiness, nervousness, nervous tension, apprehension, apprehensiveness, sheepishness, shyness, timidity, timidness, timorousness, butterflies in the stomach, embarrassment, anxiousness, fretfulness, funk, jitters, blue funk, quailing, quaking, quavering, heebie-jeebies, appalment, worry, worriment, insecurity, anxiety, angst, alarm, agitation, shakiness, palpitation, perturbation, trepidation, fright, affright, being scared, being frightened, being afraid, being spooked, fearfulness, awe, foreboding, panic, terror, horror, horrification, petrifaction, dread. * RESPONDENT: Getting excited in such a manner seems to sap me of energy. RICHARD: Again, other than ‘getting excited’ what symptoms are present which occasion you to attribute those arousals to be ‘brought on by epinephrine’ (and not something else)? RESPONDENT: The marked characteristic would be that the symptoms arise in the absence of the actual demand for extra caloric energy. RICHARD: And do the same, or similar, symptoms arise when there is an actual demand for extra calorific energy (as in a typical freeze-fight-flight situation)? * RESPONDENT: In review, I would say that I would be better off without reactions that unnecessarily increase metabolic rates, but I certainly would not do without reactions that necessarily increase metabolic rates, as in the example of exercise. RICHARD: Again (and so as to keep with what started this thread) would you be better off without such reactions in a typical freeze-fight-flight situation. Just so that it is clear: I was not referring to ‘the example of exercise’ ... it was my reference to (two) examples of typical freeze-fight-flight situations, and the marked absence of any adrenaline-typical/cortisol-typical reaction, which occasioned you to join in this discussion.
RESPONDENT No. 56: You’re still well and truly in the Matrix. RICHARD: Am I to take it you are well and truly out of the ‘Matrix’ (whatever that is)? RESPONDENT: Have you seen the movie referred to, Richard? RICHARD: I did not know it was a movie being referred to – I have just now accessed a web site about same and it turns out to be of the sci-fi genre – as the (capitalised) word ‘Matrix’ has been used by more than a few feministic religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicists, as being an appropriate designation for That (by whatever name) which is creating/maintaining the universe. For an example of why it is deemed appropriate:
RESPONDENT: If so your thoughts on it would be appreciated. RICHARD: As I have not seen the movie ‘The Matrix’ (I rarely, if ever, watch/read science fiction) I have nothing to say about it ... other than it is a bit of a hoot that my co-respondent would liken life in this actual world to being as if in a sci-fi movie.
RESPONDENT No. 83: Another issue, related to this one [the issue of filial/tribal duty], is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society? RICHARD: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/water into the belly, and a roof over the head/clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’. RESPONDENT: Can it be that No. 83 wants to educate people to better enable them to contribute to humanity’s ease and quality of life? RICHARD: I responded to an explicit question as asked – whether a career as a science teacher is part of an instinctual duty to fulfil societal needs – couched in a related framework of both filial and tribal duty (born out of the instinctual passion of nurture, the religio-spiritual feeling of compassion, and particular cultural mores) plus a stated interest in obliterating same and my context-specific response (no, a career as a science teacher is not necessarily part of an instinctual duty to fulfil societal needs) and my pragmatic explication of the very least one needs to ‘earn a living’ for (the basic necessities of life) and how those essential requirements are chiefly obtained these days (via modern-day serfdom) and, in a footnote, why they cannot be obtained directly (the era of the hunter-gatherer is virtually over because of enforced exclusive property-rights claims) is to that query and that query alone. RESPONDENT: Many contributions of physics have been quite beneficial to humanity, including our current medium of communication. RICHARD: Many contributions from all of the professions have been quite beneficial to humankind. RESPONDENT: I would call this motive [wanting to educate people to better enable them to contribute to humanity’s ease and quality of life] altruistic. RICHARD: The motive expressly mentioned was the prosaic [quote] ‘because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California’ [endquote] ... not a want ‘to educate people to better enable them to contribute to humanity’s ease and quality of life’. RESPONDENT: There is certainly more reason for action than preservation of ONE organism, and I assume Richard agrees with this. RICHARD: The query was about [quote] ‘my choice of career’ [endquote] ... and not a ‘reason for action’. RESPONDENT: If I understand his [Richard’s] writings, he writes to others not with the motivation of putting ‘food/water into the belly, and a roof over the head/clothes on the back’, but of providing people with a means to achieve a better quality and greater ease of living. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
In other words: my writing to my fellow human is not a career choice. RESPONDENT: Richard, please correct me if I have misjudged your motivations. RICHARD: The actual intimacy of being a flesh and blood body only (sans instinctual passions/identity in toto) occasions fellowship regard – I like my fellow human and prefer only the best for them – and has nothing to do with altruism (either in the virtuous sense or the zoological/biological sense) as there is no such thing in actuality. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It is sensible not to be wasteful, you suggest otherwise Richard? RICHARD: As to not be wasteful is to be frugal, and as to suggest otherwise is to not advocate frugality, your query might be better addressed to a moralist, an ethicist, or a principlist.
RESPONDENT: It is sensible not to be wasteful, you suggest otherwise Richard? RICHARD: As to not be wasteful is to be frugal, and as to suggest otherwise is to not advocate frugality, your query might be better addressed to a moralist, an ethicist, or a principlist. RESPONDENT: You are going to have to reword your response and actually address what was being said by me in order for me to understand your reply. RICHARD: You first made a statement – ‘it is sensible not to be wasteful’ – then asked me if I suggested otherwise ... essentially any respondent, to such an assertion-prefaced query, has two choices were they to make an alternate proposal:
Or to phrase it the way you did:.
RESPONDENT: Your reply makes no sense at all in its current grammatical organisation ... RICHARD: As I am not a grammarian all I can say is that (a) the split infinitive ‘as to not be’ came about as a result of staying with your ‘not to be’ phrasing so as to not put words in your mouth and (b) because this is correspondence, and not an essay, a thesis, or a treatise, I often split infinitives ... just as I do verbally. RESPONDENT: ... [Your reply makes no sense at all in its current grammatical organisation], and I see no relevance to any morals or ethics anywhere in my query. RICHARD: What about to principles, then? Before you respond it may be helpful to know that, having been a parent myself many years ago (when there was a full suite of feelings/an identity in situ in this flesh and blood body), I would oft-times importune my then children not to be wasteful ... and, as presumably your progenitors were no different in this respect, it would also be to your advantage to bear in mind that the socialisation process (aka cultural conditioning) starts at an early age. A society’s values – its cultural mores – are imbibed with the mother’s milk, so to speak, and are constantly reinforced, and added to thereupon up to the present day, with insistent regularity until one can barely think for oneself.
RESPONDENT: Why are you guys (Peter and Richard) charging money for online journals? RICHARD: It is the legal entity officially registered as ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ which holds the copyright to all the actualism writings – which includes both of the journals currently available – thus it is the directors of the Trust, both current and future, who decide which material is to be available, and in what format, and whether or not to charge for them ... there are some vague notions, for instance, of eventually making a CD/DVD for sale. As to why ... any monies received go towards defraying the costs of both maintaining the Trust and publishing
– which costs have been, and are, mostly met out of the pockets of three suburbanites
RESPONDENT: Richard, have you ever thought of offering different translations of your website, for non-English speaking folk? RICHARD: I do not have a website ... any notion of offering different translations of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (currently weighing in around 170 MB’s and growing daily) would be a matter for the directors, either current or future, of The Actual Freedom Trust to consider. I have never personally entertained any such notion. RESPONDENT: I would certainly like to see your writings available to anyone who can read (in whatever language). RICHARD: I would suggest accessing the following URL: www.zompist.com/numbers.shtml It is a webpage which lists the numbers 1-10 in 5,000 non-English languages ... and, as those few numbers alone constitutes a 1.1 MB file, I will leave it to you to do the maths.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to bring your attention to the following:
[quote] ‘Of course I could go with her to the protest rally for it is not against any principle that I hold. I readily concede
that demonstrations can ‘get things done’. That is not my point ... my point is the unwholesome atmosphere inhering at these
rallies that reinforces the identity. The insalubrious ambience is always thick with ‘vibes’ that are palpable and factually
unpleasant; be they going under the name of hate or love. Apparently she gets a ‘high’ from this, as further discussion with
her elucidates the actual reason – the secretive motivation – for her attraction to these events. She admits, rather
shame-facedly, that the ‘high’ makes her feel ‘alive’; by which she indicates that her daily life is dull, boring. She
finds it thrilling to be at a confrontation; the adrenaline ‘buzz’ of a perceived imminent danger is irresistible to an
addict. She does not appreciate the implied suggestion that she might very well be a ‘junkie’ herself, however.’ [from www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-feelings.htm]. RICHARD: If you could point out where I said that the insalubrious vibes inhering at protest rallies are factually unpleasant to me I would be only too happy to answer your query. RESPONDENT: It is quite important to me that you answer this inquiry with a well-reasoned, well-worded reply. I would much appreciate it. RICHARD: If you could frame your inquiry in a well-reasoned, well-worded way it may very well attract an answer in kind ... in the meanwhile I can do no better, by way of explanation, than to offer the paragraphs immediately preceding the one before the quote you provided:
RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to bring your attention
to the following: [quote] ‘Of course I could go with her to the protest rally for it is not against any principle that I hold. I
readily concede that demonstrations can ‘get things done’. That is not my point ... my point is the unwholesome atmosphere
inhering at these rallies that reinforces the identity. The insalubrious ambience is always thick with ‘vibes’ RICHARD: If you could point out where I said that the insalubrious vibes inhering at protest rallies are factually unpleasant to me I would be only too happy to answer your query. RESPONDENT: I cannot, I only assumed you were referring to yourself. Who exactly were those vibes at that place factually unpleasant for? RICHARD: Specifically ... the person whom I was discussing the matter with; generally ... anyone and everyone who attended that rally. RESPONDENT: This is an excellent topic, and one I constantly drilled ‘Spiritual Teachers’ on. The answers I always received were unsatisfactory, explaining to me that I need be a victim of circumstances. (ex. bad vibrations here, watch out! ... RICHARD: Ha ... as I understood it, from previous correspondence, you were not taught Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) by quacks. Viz.:
Vibes – both the good and the bad vibrations – are central to Mr. Satya Goenka’s teaching ... for just one instance (from the web site you provided a link to previously):
RESPONDENT: ... (ex. bad vibrations here, watch out! (quite silly, like a haunted house)). RICHARD: Oh? Am I to take it, then, that you sat for hours ‘doing’ the Vipassana Bhavana Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west completely dismissive of that which is central to it? RESPONDENT: Your writings make much more sense to me, but this time I can only make guesses on how you find these ‘vibes’ to be factually unpleasant. RICHARD: Both by observation of, and by asking, my fellow human (plus, of course, an intellectual memory of once being the same). Viz.:
All vibes are factually unpleasant – both the good and the bad vibrations – inasmuch they reinforce the identity and thus perpetuate all the misery and mayhem, which epitomises the human condition, forever and a day ... and it cannot get much more unpleasant than that.
RESPONDENT: Richard, when you were virtually free, you said that you: [quote]
‘I did whatever to induce PCE’s on a daily basis so as to gain maximum benefit from living the nearest approximation to an
actual freedom that was possible ... maybe two to three times a day’.
[../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb12a.htm#meditated] RICHARD: Oh, it was crystal clear at the outset, from the earliest pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s), that something definitive was to happen, and that it is not a case of PCE’s becoming longer and longer until one of them became permanent (as in not ever ending), as it is intrinsic to the nature of the PCE that whilst this is yours for the asking – for it is both your birthright and destiny – it comes at a price ... that which you hold most dear. Of course, after the (definitive) event it is immediately obvious there never was such a price – that which was held most dear has no existence in actuality – yet until that momentous event is precipitated, by that which is held so dear giving it permission to occur, it is all very real ... as is evidenced by what gets acted-out physically. Incidentally, there is no set date for such an event ... and, moreover, unless permission is given it will never take place.
RESPONDENT No. 93: If I had come upon your site 25 years ago I would have walked away with no interest. RICHARD: In which case I suggest you do the same now. RESPONDENT: The universe is constantly changing, it is a continuous flux of situations and circumstances – so why do you suggest that Respondent No. 93 take the same disinterested stance in Actualism as she did 25 years ago (with retreat being the ultimate result)? RICHARD: There is no [quote] ‘did’ [endquote] ... here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘if’:
RESPONDENT: This body did not even exist 25 years ago, and thus had no possibility of reading at all. Would you suggest that I preclude my learning of AF by staying with a state that I was in 25 years ago? RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT No. 93: If I had come upon your site 25 years ago I would have walked away with no interest. RICHARD: In which case I suggest you do the same now. RESPONDENT: The universe is constantly changing, it is a continuous flux of situations and circumstances – so why do you suggest that Respondent No. 93 take the same disinterested stance in Actualism as she did 25 years ago (with retreat being the ultimate result)? RICHARD: There is no [quote] ‘did’ [endquote] ... here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘if’: ‘if: (...) given the hypothesis or proviso that, in the event that’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Well then, in the event that Respondent No. 93 would have walked away from AF with no interest in the past, why do you suggest she do the same now or in the future. RICHARD: The reason why I suggested my co-respondent do now what they would have done prior to being cognisant of what Ms. Bernadette Roberts has to report (walked away with no interest) is simply because there is nothing – absolutely nothing – of that nature to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: It is of my preference that everyone learn of AF, whether they had past interest or not. RICHARD: Hmm ... what about when there is neither past *nor* present interest in an actual freedom from the human condition?
RESPONDENT: Richard has defeated the Archons. [snip quotes from the ‘Metahistory Quest’ web site]. RICHARD: Nope ... not only are there no Archons The battle for supremacy between the divine and the diabolical has its existence only in the real-world (the world of the human psyche). Continued on Direct Route: No. 6
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 |
