|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 87
RESPONDENT: Haven’t you guys figured it out yet? You are Richard’s fall guys. He’s having a ball batting you around with his convoluted replies. He doesn’t give a brass razoo how befuddled you get trying to work them out, just as long as you keep at it, ‘cause without you he’s literally dead. You’re being used as fodder to show off his literal [sic] prowess and snare you into the web he weaves to cement his cyber immortality. Don’t waste your time feeding this wolf. He’s a word junky, let him starve. RICHARD: By my count there are at least ten porkies in those six sentences. RESPONDENT: Upon reflection I should have said ‘I thank actuality for this’. RICHARD: Ha ... would that be Mr. or Ms. Actuality you are thanking? RESPONDENT: Because the marvel of life has nothing to do with AF or actualism, they are just more concepts. RICHARD: How on earth can either an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘AF’) or the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (aka ‘actualism’) be concepts? RESPONDENT: There is no alternative, there is only actuality. Go live it. RICHARD: Now here is a truly remarkable thing: nowhere in any of the 211 e-mails you have written to
this mailing list have you ever mentioned having recalled/ having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – on the contrary
you expressly deny such total purity is possible In short: that actuality you advocate living is a conceptual actuality.
RESPONDENT: Haven’t you guys figured it out yet? You are Richard’s fall guys. He’s having a ball batting you around with his convoluted replies. He doesn’t give a brass razoo how befuddled you get trying to work them out, just as long as you keep at it, ‘cause without you he’s literally dead. You’re being used as fodder to show off his literal [sic] prowess and snare you into the web he weaves to cement his cyber immortality. Don’t waste your time feeding this wolf. He’s a word junky, let him starve. RICHARD: By my count there are at least ten porkies in those six sentences. RESPONDENT: Upon reflection I should have said ‘I thank actuality for this’. RICHARD: Ha ... would that be Mr. or Ms. Actuality you are thanking? RESPONDENT: Because the marvel of life has nothing to do with AF or actualism, they are just more concepts. RICHARD: How on earth can either an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘AF’) or the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (aka ‘actualism’) be concepts? RESPONDENT: There is no alternative, there is only actuality. Go live it. RICHARD: Now here is a truly remarkable thing: nowhere in any of the 211 e-mails you have written to
this mailing list have you ever mentioned having recalled/ having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – on the contrary
you expressly deny such total purity is possible RESPONDENT: Dream on. RICHARD: This is what that phrase can mean:
Here is your first assertion:
Here is your second assertion:
Here is your third assertion:
Here is your fourth assertion:
Here is your fifth assertion:
Here is your sixth assertion:
Here is your seventh assertion:
Here is your eighth assertion:
Here is your ninth assertion:
Here is your tenth assertion:
There is no way it be improbable or unrealistic that all the above be porkies ... your mendacity knows no bounds. Furthermore, there is also no way it be improbable or unrealistic that neither an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘AF’) nor the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (aka ‘actualism’) are concepts. Moreover, there again is no way it be improbable or unrealistic that the ‘actuality’ you advocate living is not a conceptual actuality ... not only you have both expressly denied that the total purity of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is possible and publicly aired your ignorance of what pure sensation really entails but you have had the following to report as well:
Which was followed by this the next day:
As feelings are alive and well then, whatever it is you are experiencing, one thing is for sure ... it ain’t actuality (the world of the senses).
RESPONDENT: Haven’t you guys figured it out yet? You are Richard’s fall guys. He’s having a ball batting you around with his convoluted replies. He doesn’t give a brass razoo how befuddled you get trying to work them out, just as long as you keep at it, ‘cause without you he’s literally dead. You’re being used as fodder to show off his literal [sic] prowess and snare you into the web he weaves to cement his cyber immortality. Don’t waste your time feeding this wolf. He’s a word junky, let him starve. RICHARD: By my count there are at least ten porkies in those six sentences. RESPONDENT: Upon reflection I should have said ‘I thank actuality for this’. RICHARD: Ha ... would that be Mr. or Ms. Actuality you are thanking? RESPONDENT: Because the marvel of life has nothing to do with AF or actualism, they are just more concepts. RICHARD: How on earth can either an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘AF’) or the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (aka ‘actualism’) be concepts? RESPONDENT: There is no alternative, there is only actuality. Go live it. RICHARD: Now here is a truly remarkable thing: nowhere in any of the 211 e-mails you have written to this mailing list have you ever mentioned having recalled/having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – on the contrary you expressly deny such total purity is possible and air your ignorance of what pure sensation really entails in public – and yet you speak as if intimately knowledgeable about actuality ... the world of the senses. In short: that actuality you advocate living is a conceptual actuality. RESPONDENT: Dream on. RICHARD: This is what that phrase can mean: ‘dream on (informal): used in the imperative to indicate that a statement or suggestion is improbable or unrealistic’. (American Heritag Dictionary). (...) There is no way it be improbable or unrealistic that all the above be porkies ... your mendacity knows no bounds. Furthermore, there is also no way it be improbable or unrealistic that neither an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘AF’) nor the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (aka ‘actualism’) are concepts. Moreover, there again is no way it be improbable or unrealistic that the ‘actuality’ you advocate living is not a conceptual actuality ... not only you have both expressly denied that the total purity of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is possible and publicly aired your ignorance of what pure sensation really entails but you have had the following to report as well:
Which was followed by this the next day:
As feelings are alive and well then, whatever it is you are experiencing, one thing is for sure ... it ain’t actuality (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Dream on. RICHARD: There is plenty more where those came from ... for instance:
RESPONDENT No. 111: Richard, why do you say you are free of malice ... RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto, it is impossible for any emotional/passional feelings whatsoever to occur. RESPONDENT No. 111: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off? RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or otherwise –
and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses:
[Co-Respondent]: ‘You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and
listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning?’ ... RESPONDENT: Out of all the correspondent’s who have expressed their doubts about your freedom from malice by ‘how’ you write and not ‘what’ you write, why you choose this particular excerpt to give evidence of a classic example of it making no difference ‘how’ Richard might couch his responses, beats me. RICHARD: First of all, my co-respondent is not expressing their doubts, as you quaintly put it, but are straight-out telling me in no uncertain terms that I am [quote] ‘a pure fallacy’ [endquote]. And the reason why I provided that particular example is because of it being so blatant even Blind Freddie could see it ... to wit: just listening to what I have to report/describe/explain makes them feel sick. RESPONDENT: The guy is simply expressing what he thinks and feels about you! RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the way it is phrased:
Then to this:
Thus there is no [quote] ‘thinks and feels’ [endquote] about it in my co-respondent’s mind ... if (note ‘if’) it were to be, as you disingenuously say, a simple expression of what another thinks and feels about me it would look something like this:
Or like this:
To which I may very well have responded with words to the effect that whatever it is a person might think or feel about me it makes no difference whatsoever to what I actually am. RESPONDENT: Why on earth it evokes the following paranoid interpretation is a mystery! RICHARD: As the following is not, as you imaginatively put it, a paranoid interpretation there is nothing mysterious about it. * RICHARD: ... [Richard]: ‘Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance)
when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be
taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings? ...’ RESPONDENT: Just where in that excerpt do you get that your correspondent was telling you that you are to be ‘guided’ by his feelings or that his feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what you are? RICHARD: As I intimately know I am not even a sod, a guru (cyber or otherwise), or a fallacy – let alone a malicious sod, a repulsive guru, a pure fallacy – then it can only be those feelings my co-respondent informed me of which are making them insist that I sit up and take notice of their statements about me. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Why play dumb all of a sudden ... RICHARD: As I am not playing dumb then whatever you were to have followed that assumption with it would be a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: ... [Why play dumb all of a sudden] and forget your own adage ... RICHARD: As I do not have an adage to either forget or remember your non-sequitur query is doubly irrelevant. RESPONDENT: ... [Why play dumb all of a sudden and forget your own adage]: your correspondent is his feelings and his feelings are him .. RICHARD: As you are obviously referring to my oft-repeated observation of how it is for maybe 6.0 billion identities – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – this is as apt a place as any to point out that the identity writing to me is making themself feel sick by the very fact of reading what I have to report/describe/explain. RESPONDENT: ... (IOW the buck stopped with him)? RICHARD: Yet for my co-respondent the buck does not stop with them ... they are taking no responsibility at all for the self-induced effect my reports/descriptions/explanations are having upon them. RESPONDENT: Or do I detect a cunning agenda? RICHARD: No ... you are fantasising a cunning agenda. RESPONDENT: A ploy to herald in – for the umpteenth time – another pompous (albeit irrelevant) pontification ... RICHARD: Ha ... I did not become bereft of the imaginative/intuitive facility only to be run by your fantasies when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being. Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you imagining all manner of devious things about their nature, character and disposition. * RICHARD: ... [quote] ‘I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche
(which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious
... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being. Look, it is
this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other
people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you
may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom’. RESPONDENT: If you could find the relevant excerpts that prove this, it would be most appreciated since from everything I have read here it has always been quite the opposite. RICHARD: As there are umpteen examples in the archived e-mails on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site of one-eyed peoples ... um ... pompously pontificating about an actual freedom from the human condition not being new to human experience/human history (for just one example) there is no need for me to find the relevant excerpts which prove that. RESPONDENT: BTW shouldn’t that read we let our own interpretations and feelings get up our own noses ... RICHARD: Not necessarily ... some peoples take umbrage at the very fact of having their pet hero’s highly revered state of being be exposed for what it is (an institutionalised insanity). RESPONDENT: ... or do you secretly ‘hope’ your words have the ‘power’ to ‘get up peoples noses’ ... RICHARD: No, I know perfectly well that it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which some peoples take umbrage at. RESPONDENT: ... or to ‘guide’ ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... and be the ‘arbiter’ of what another is? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Something like Dickie the Dictator calling the kettle black eh? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: We’ll sort out those idiosyncrasies yet eh what ... RICHARD: ‘Tis your own – and another’s – fantasies/fabrications you are busily sorting out. RESPONDENT: ... just a small matter of De Nile ... RICHARD: The reason why I deny saying that I am the [quote] ‘1st, last & only’ [endquote] person ever to be actually free of the human condition is quite prosaic ... to wit: I never have said such a thing. RESPONDENT: ... must have pissed your kids off no end ... and still does :-) RICHARD: As it is your fantasy about another’s fabrications you can, of course, have it still be doing whatever you want it to. * RESPONDENT: [Addendum] There’s also a matter of ‘how’ one says something and ‘what’ one says being inextricably linked so why the dissociation? RICHARD: Here is what I wrote:
As there is no such dissociation there your (academic) query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Not sure yet what to key in for a search on the many ways people have expressed their concerns about ‘how’ Richard writes here. RICHARD: You could always try browsing through the ‘Anti-Peace Hall Of Fame’ RESPONDENT: Also noticed that each time it’s mentioned he gets more punchy like a hard-nosed street kid. RICHARD: As what you notice and what is actually occurring are two distinctly different things you would be well-advised to focus upon the latter. RESPONDENT: Step on in everyone, its a circus in here, bring your popcorn. Good to see ya No. 53. crunch crunch. RICHARD: And thus do you go spiralling off into the night – as myopic as you came – trailing your detritus behind you.
CO-RESPONDENT: I just finished reading the letter No. 53 sent which was originally from Irene his [Richard’s] ex, very revealing stuff. RICHARD: Aye, it is indeed very revealing stuff ... you would have read this, for instance: ‘To me
freedom means to be free from the human conditioning (i.e. the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being
human and of nature in general). That what I had called ‘virtual freedom’. [endquote]. That was written in October 1998 ...
yet this is how she described it in November 1996: ‘In my freedom my daily state of ‘being’ is virtually comparable to the
ambience of the peak experience RESPONDENT: BTW when you knock down drag out what someone said 2, 5, 10 years ago! just be thankful there’s only 10 years of your own (albeit re-edited) bullshit on record for us to call you on ... RICHARD: First of all, I only dragged out (to use your phraseology) what someone wrote ten years ago because another co-respondent (see above) dragged out what someone wrote eight years ago. Second, I only knocked down (to use your phraseology) what someone wrote eight years ago because that other co-respondent was utilising same to knock down what I write. Third, none of my correspondence is re-edited (apart from being made anonymous and typos, etcetera, being corrected) when it is archived ... what you see here is what appears on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Lastly, you do realise, do you not, that unless you provide an instance, written by me, of what you characterise as [quote] ‘bullshit’ [endquote] your throwaway comment en passant will forever remain yet another example of empty rhetoric? RESPONDENT: ... and not the lies and fabrications you yourself indulged in pre-internet days to the point of trying to convince others you were ‘The Parousia’ (Jesus Christ!) even! RICHARD: Hmm ... when an identity is so deluded as to be the manifestation of the (latest and greatest) saviour of humanity they are neither lying nor fabricating but telling it how they experience it. RESPONDENT: Makes Irene look positively tame. RICHARD: Au contraire ... her matriarchal manifestation was (supposedly) superior to any patriarchal manifestation which preceded it. RESPONDENT: No wonder you burnt your crap, pity we aren’t free to do the same. RICHARD: Ha ... you are free to burn your [quote] ‘crap’ [endquote] any time you like. RESPONDENT: You were and still are one sick bugger mate, shows in your dirty work. RICHARD: Golly, all I did was point out the obvious, on a mailing list specifically set-up to discuss
such matters, after first providing an earlier quote to contrast with a later quote ... how that not only constitutes [quote] ‘dirty
work’ [endquote] but be also grounds for the characterisation [quote] ‘one sick bugger’ [endquote] simply defies commonsense
CO-RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection. CO-RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy. RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection. CO-RESPONDENT: (...) why is happiness inherent to perfection? RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties
(being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection (the incomparable/ peerless/ matchless infinitude and/or
absoluteness this actual universe is) and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can
only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity (and innocuity). (...) CO-RESPONDENT: I still don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: I am not, of course, referring to affective happiness (a feeling of being happy) but to an actual happiness which, being sans any affective content whatsoever, is unconditional (not dependent upon events). CO-RESPONDENT: Are you simply saying that the make-up of the universe is such that if experienced by a human sans identity, that human experiences felicity? RICHARD: That is one way of putting it ... I would rather say that, by virtue of the very perfection
(and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity
in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and
eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/
innocuously). (...) CO-RESPONDENT: I’m still missing why felicity ‘can only’ result from the make-up of the universe. [Richard]: ‘... both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ...’ [endquote]. [Richard]: ‘... by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity (and innocuity). Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously)’ [endquote]. My response to all of these is: Why? You appear to be repeating that felicity can only result without explaining why. RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds ... to wit: here in this actual (the world of the senses). CO-RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. CO-RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body is either abeyant (in a PCE) or extinct (upon an actual freedom from the human condition). CO-RESPONDENT: I’m talking about sensual pleasure not the affective faculties. RICHARD: In which case your earlier question (about which I assumed that, as a matter of course, you
meant the hedonic pleasure/pain centre RESPONDENT: What makes no sense is your avoidance of No. 110’s key issue which is essentially, how can ‘sensual pleasure’ be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: As my correspondent’s key issue (as is plain to see further above) is why felicity is inherent to the pristine purity of the perfection which the infinitude/ absoluteness this actual universe is then what makes no sense is (a) your straw-man primary premise (as to what that key issue essentially is) ... and (b) your straw-man secondary premise (that there is an avoidance of that straw-man key issue) ... and (c) your straw-man conclusion (that a straw-man avoidance of that straw-man key issue makes no sense). * CO-RESPONDENT: Sensual pleasure results from the brain’s pleasure faculties. RICHARD: Are you referring to what is known as the sensorium? Viz.: ‘sensorium: the seat of sensation in the brain of humans and animals; the percipient centre to which sensory impulses are transmitted by the nerves; the whole sensory apparatus (including the sensory nerves); formerly also, the brain regarded as centre of consciousness and nervous energy’. (Oxford Dictionary). CO-RESPONDENT: If that part of the brain was damaged there would be no pleasure in the actual world – regardless of its perfection or infinitude. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the sensorium completely ceased to function there would be no
experiencing, period (just as when in a coma, anaesthetised, knocked unconscious, or in any other way rendered comatose) ... yet
the universe would keep on keeping on all the while. RESPONDENT: It’s obvious the query is not about ‘the sensorium’ ... RICHARD: As my co-respondent made it quite clear they were not talking about the hedonic pleasure/pain
centre – as in the pleasure/pain principle spirituality makes quite an issue of but never does eliminate RESPONDENT: ... [It’s obvious the query is not about ‘the sensorium’] so either you are having a major struggle explaining your oxymoronic anhedonic pleasure ... RICHARD: Here is what that word can mean:
As anhedonic (sensate only) pleasure – just as anhedonic (sensate only) pain is – is what any flesh and blood body (sensately) experiences 24/7 there is neither anything incongruous/ self-contradictory nor struggling (be it major or otherwise) about my explanation. RESPONDENT: ... [It’s obvious the query is not about ‘the sensorium’ so either you are having a major struggle explaining your oxymoronic anhedonic pleasure] or you really don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: ‘Tis fascinating how someone – anyone – who is so consistently wrong about what I have to report/ describe/ explain can come back again and again with yet more of the same. RESPONDENT: Which is it? RICHARD: As it is not at all obvious that my correspondent’s query is not about the (anhedonic) sensorium then your either/or assumptive question is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: What is the point in taking the key word ‘pleasure’ out of the context in which is being used here i.e.; ‘sensual pleasure’? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (from much further above):
Would you not agree that sensual (anhedonic) pleasure
Thus the apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) experiencing sensual (anhedonic) pleasure ... indeed that apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensual (anhedonic) pain is happening. Ain’t life grand!
CO-RESPONDENT: I just finished reading the letter No. 53 sent which was originally from Irene his [Richard’s] ex, very revealing stuff. RICHARD: Aye, it is indeed very revealing stuff ... you would have read this, for instance: ‘To me
freedom means to be free from the human conditioning (i.e. the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being
human and of nature in general). That what I had called ‘virtual freedom’. [endquote]. That was written in October 1998 ...
yet this is how she described it in November 1996: ‘In my freedom my daily state of ‘being’ is virtually comparable to the
ambience of the peak experience CO-RESPONDENT: I myself had already seen through the crap propagated here ... RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that unless you provide an instance, written by me, of what you
characterise as [quote] ‘crap’ [endquote] your throwaway comment en passant will forever remain yet another example of empty
rhetoric? RESPONDENT: You do realise don’t you that no one is ‘obliged’ to provide an instance written by you or anyone else which characterises what they see as ‘crap’ here? RICHARD: Possible translation: Oi! I claim the right to say anything I damn’ well please about Richard, et al, regardless of facts. RESPONDENT: What you call throw away comments and empty rhetoric is another’s freedom to come to their own conclusions regarding the issues being discussed here. RICHARD: Possible translation: I also claim the freedom to say anything I damn’ well please about Richard, et al, regardless of facts. RESPONDENT: Freedom also means being uncontrolled and un-manipulated by your ‘demands’ that explanations be given as to why one does not perceive/ experience/ interpret/ agree to see life your way. RICHARD: Possible translation: But I particularly claim the anarchical freedom to say anything I damn’ well please about Richard regardless of facts. RESPONDENT: Why the greed? Isn’t it enough you get to share brief moments of other peoples lives here? That’s all you get. Not everyone needs it ‘said’ or cast in stone, that’s your gig. RICHARD: Possible translation: My gig is to say anything I damn’ well please about Richard (which includes, of course, insinuating avarice) regardless of facts.
CO-RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. CO-RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body is either abeyant (in a PCE) or extinct (upon an actual freedom from the human condition). CO-RESPONDENT: I’m talking about sensual pleasure not the affective faculties. RICHARD: In which case your earlier question (about which I assumed that, as a matter of course, you
meant the hedonic pleasure/pain centre) makes no sense
If (note ‘if’) there were no sensation at all – no cutaneal, olfactory, aural, ocular, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensing whatsoever – how on earth can any experiencing happen? CO-RESPONDENT: Sensual pleasure results from the brain’s pleasure faculties. RICHARD: Are you referring to what is known as the sensorium? Viz.: ‘sensorium: the seat of sensation in the brain of humans and animals; the percipient centre to which sensory impulses are transmitted by the nerves; the whole sensory apparatus (including the sensory nerves); formerly also, the brain regarded as centre of consciousness and nervous energy’. (Oxford Dictionary). CO-RESPONDENT: If that part of the brain was damaged there would be no pleasure in the actual world – regardless of its perfection or infinitude. RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the sensorium completely ceased to function there would be no experiencing, period (just as when in a coma, anaesthetised, knocked unconscious, or in any other way rendered comatose) ... yet the universe would keep on keeping on all the while. CO-RESPONDENT: You claim happiness is inherent to perfection ... RICHARD: I do not [quote] ‘claim’ [endquote] happiness is inherent to perfection ... it is a report of my direct experiencing (which can be verified in a PCE), night and day, for the last 13+ years. CO-RESPONDENT: ... though you haven’t said why. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I have provided an explanation many times over. CO-RESPONDENT: Do perfection and infinitude lead to sensual pleasure? RICHARD: I am none too sure just what to make of that query ... if anything leads to sensual pleasure it is, of course, sentience. * CO-RESPONDENT: I’m afraid that No. 87 had my position and question correct ... RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication here it is (stripped of its compulsive curlicues): [No. 48]: ‘... [Respondent’s key issue] is essentially, how can ‘sensual pleasure’ be experienced anhedonically. It’s obvious the query is not about ‘the sensorium’ ...’. [endquote]. CO-RESPONDENT: ... so I don’t know where I lead you to believe it was otherwise. RICHARD: I have re-inserted the entire exchange (further above) which pertains to the ‘sensual pleasure’ issue you introduced ... if you could demonstrate how your position and question is, essentially, how can sensual pleasure be experienced anhedonically, and that it is not about the sensorium, it would be most appreciated as anhedonic (sensate only) pleasure, just the same as anhedonic (sensate only) pain, can only ever be experienced sensorially. RESPONDENT: In case you haven’t noticed duh, normal human beings do not discern the difference between sensate pleasure and happiness. To them sensate pleasure is a feeling (...) RICHARD: Yet this is what my co-respondent wrote (from further above):
And:
RESPONDENT: Man are you slow or what? RICHARD: I am, of course, the latter ... which are you?
RESPONDENT: Does a dog have a ‘who’ it feels it is or does it just feel? RICHARD: Dogs just feel ... there is some evidence that chimpanzees are ‘self’-conscious (but not monkeys) and, possibly, dolphins. RESPONDENT: If thought continues to operate even more sensibly without a thinker then why not emotions? RICHARD: Thought can only operate sensibly without both the thinker (the ego-self) and the feeler (the soul-self/ spirit-self) – as evidenced by the nonsensical thought spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment generates by the bucket-load – and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, then the extirpation of the one is, simultaneously, the ending of the other. Incidentally, as all babies are born feeling (but not thinking), the thinker essentially arises out of the feeler (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) and is not just a product of thought. RESPONDENT: Are there instinctual thoughts just as there are instinctual emotions? RICHARD: Not per se ... no (an instinctive reflex, such as the startle response, can trigger associated thought on occasion).
RESPONDENT: Does a dog have a ‘who’ it feels it is or does it just feel? RICHARD: Dogs just feel ... there is some evidence that chimpanzees are ‘self’-conscious (but not monkeys) and, possibly, dolphins. RESPONDENT: I thought so. So the ability to feel emotion is possible without it morphing into a feeler is that correct? RICHARD: Animals in general have, just as a human baby has, a feeling of ‘being’ – an intuitive feeling of being an amorphous affective presence/ an inchoate feeler-intuiter – but only humans, probably chimpanzees, and possibly dolphins, are ‘self’-conscious (conscious of being that rudimentary feeling/ intuitive presence). Basically, when placed in front of a mirror a chimpanzee is soon aware it is looking at itself (whereas for a canary it is always another canary) and acts accordingly. * RESPONDENT: If thought continues to operate even more sensibly without a thinker then why not emotions? RICHARD: Thought can only operate sensibly without both the thinker (the ego-self) and the feeler (the soul-self/ spirit-self) – as evidenced by the nonsensical thought spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment generates by the bucket-load – and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, then the extirpation of the one is, simultaneously, the ending of the other. Incidentally, as all babies are born feeling (but not thinking), the thinker essentially arises out of the feeler (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) and is not just a product of thought. RESPONDENT: So would a dog have a sense of being that never morphs into a ‘my’ being and rudimentary thoughts that arise from ‘me-less’ feelings but never morph into a ‘my’ thoughts? RICHARD: A dog would have a feeling of ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence/ an inchoate feeler-intuiter) which never becomes ‘self’-conscious and intuitive cognitions that arise from unselfconscious feelings but which never become ‘self’-possessive cognitive intuitions (let alone thoughts). RESPONDENT: I ask because I have an arthritic dog and if he has no ‘poor me’ suffering then unlike a human being it is simply a matter of keeping him pain free with medications right? RICHARD: Animals in general experience both physical pain and emotional distress – and keeping an
animal as pain-free and emotionally-content as possible (watered, fed, sheltered, medicated) is what is known as humane treatment
– and although a dog has a range of social feelings (such as, for instance, pining) associated with being a pack animal they
never develop into the ‘Alas poor Yorick’ variety * RESPONDENT: Are there instinctual thoughts just as there are instinctual emotions? RICHARD: Not per se ... no (an instinctive reflex, such as the startle response, can trigger associated thought on occasion). RESPONDENT: Very helpful, particularly this: [quote] ‘the thinker essentially arises out of the feeler (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) and is not just a product of thought’ [endquote]. In observing the processes of falling asleep I have discovered that first thinking become progressively more graphic, then the graphics become emotionally charged. When and only when they become emotionally meaningful do they become more vivid and therefore entertaining like a fascinating movie and with this combination of an emotional story loving mind and the body resting on the bed a smooth gear shift of attention takes place and before long one sleeps. Hypnotists most probably use the same diversion tactic, the winding back till images are loaded with feeling. RICHARD: For what it is worth: that falling asleep state is called the hypnagogic (pre-dormient) state – as contrasted to hypnopompic (post-dormient) state – and Mr. Emanuel Swedenborg, for example, as evidenced in his ‘Journal of Dreams’ (1743-44) was an exemplar of the hypnagogic state. RESPONDENT: Suffice to say that I am now fully aware that in sleep all images are emotionally conducted, and when they stop being so the brain re-awakens. But because of the prominence of conscious thought in the waking state is combined with bodily sensations, seeing the primary impact of emotions is more difficult. It is still easier to mistake thought and not emotions as the primary mover when awake. RICHARD: Yes ... and even judges, magistrates, and the ilk, whilst supposedly impartial rarely, if ever, are guided in their deliberations solely by judicious thought.
RESPONDENT: (...) Richard had totally lost all motivation to do anything once apperception kicked in ... RICHARD: As Richard wrote 35 articles, totalling over 117,000 words, detailing his discovery for his fellow human being – which necessitated both purchasing a computer and learning from scratch how to operate same – between apperception kicking in (to use your phraseology), in late 1992, and going public on-line, in mid-1997, you would be well-advised to consult a dictionary before reaching for your keyboard. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: On the rare occasions when he [Richard] does deign to cut the crap its all forward ho we go, as we continue this much needed exploration of the nature of the human condition. RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to occasions such as my response to your recent query about dogs and ‘self’-consciousness – to which you replied [quote] ‘very helpful’ [endquote] – the reason for any infrequency in your movement forward has obviously escaped your notice ... to wit: it is on the rare occasions when you [quote] ‘deign to cut the crap’ [endquote] that it is all forward ho you go. I would suggest you print-out the following and stick it to your computer monitor with double-sided tape:
(...) RICHARD: I would suggest you print-out the following and stick it to your computer monitor with
double-sided tape: [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point
out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. RESPONDENT: You mean like mommy Bin Laden started it first? RICHARD: No, not at all ... but that frank admission as to the manner in which you see yourself/ view your role saves having to second-guess what motivates you to write to this mailing list the way you do and just what your intentions are. For what it is worth (there is probably little point, now, in attempting to reason with you) what I mean by ‘what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive’ is perhaps best exemplified by the following:
Is it any wonder it be a rare occurrence that it is all forward ho you go, as you continue your much needed exploration of the nature of the human condition, when out-and-out lies such as the above constitutes the bulk of your e-mails? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, and in regards to your [quote] ‘very helpful’ [endquote] reply to my response to your recent query about dogs and ‘self’-consciousness, here is what a dictionary has to say:
Do you not see that it is those very words, which you chose to write, which determined my response (as in occasioning my presumption that you were referring to responses such as that one for it to be all forward ho you go as you continue your much needed exploration of the nature of the human condition)?
(...) RICHARD: I would suggest you print-out the following and stick it to your computer monitor with
double-sided tape: [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point
out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. RESPONDENT: You mean like mommy Bin Laden started it first? RICHARD: No, not at all ... but that frank admission as to the manner in which you see yourself/ view your role saves having to second-guess what motivates you to write to this mailing list the way you do and just what your intentions are. RESPONDENT: There never was or will be anything to second guess about my motivations here. RICHARD: Likening yourself to a notorious terrorist/ a celebrated mujahid (the allusion to maternity eludes me) does illustrate just what motivates you, though, and just what your intentions are ... you do not have the slightest interest in what this mailing list was set up for (else you would not react in that way to such a straightforward suggestion). RESPONDENT: I simply write, up front and out-in-the-open (in your words frank admissions) about how I see your interactions with your fellow human beings ... RICHARD: Thank you for reminding me ... I keep forgetting it is all about you.
RICHARD: I would suggest you print-out the following and stick it to your computer monitor with
double-sided tape: [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point
out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive (...)’. RESPONDENT: You mean like mommy Bin Laden started it first? RICHARD: No, not at all ... but that frank admission as to the manner in which you see yourself/ view your role saves having to second-guess what motivates you to write to this mailing list the way you do and just what your intentions are. RESPONDENT: There never was or will be anything to second guess about my motivations here. RICHARD: Likening yourself to a notorious terrorist/ a celebrated mujahid (the allusion to maternity eludes me) does illustrate just what motivates you, though, and just what your intentions are ... you do not have the slightest interest in what this mailing list was set up for (else you would not react in that way to such a straightforward suggestion). RESPONDENT: I simply write, up front and out-in-the-open (in your words frank admissions) about how I see your interactions with your fellow human beings ... RICHARD: Thank you for reminding me ... I keep forgetting it is all about you. RESPONDENT: And the lack of significance in what you choose to write ... RICHARD: As any and all [quote] ‘lack of significance’ [endquote] you see in what issues forth from this keyboard is, as you have frankly admitted, how you see my interactions then all you have done there is affirm that it is indeed all about you. RESPONDENT: ... [And the lack of significance in what you choose to write] determines the reply ‘you’ receive. RICHARD: Ha ... I may have been able to fool two accredited psychiatrists during face-to-face
examinations in their rooms (one of which was over a three-year period) – plus a duly-qualified psychologist during
person-to-person visitations in my own home (over the same three-year period) – but your gimlet internet eye RESPONDENT: ... [And the lack of significance in what you choose to write determines the reply ‘you’ receive]. None. RICHARD: Yet as you have replied with not only seventeen words but some considerable copying and pasting into the bargain then all you have achieved by doing so is to reaffirm that it is indeed all about you.
RESPONDENT: Richard reckons feeling beings ‘can’ sense each other’s feelings ‘psychically’ (I don’t) so what’s happening there? (...) CO-RESPONDENT: (...) I did not know that Richard/ Actualists believe(?!) that feelings can be transmitted ‘psychically’!! RICHARD: Your co-respondent clearly said [quote] ‘Richard reckons’ [endquote] and yet you say
[quote] ‘Richard/ Actualists believe(?!)’ [endquote] ... as such it is a fascinating insight into how a factoid
For more information on this topic copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: vibes site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/ Then tap ‘enter’ (or left-click ‘send’) ... you should get about 44 hits. RESPONDENT: For Richard’s ‘even more’ recent discussions (and other’s) on this subject I would also suggest checking out: psychic footprints site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/ with or without Richard’s name at the end and any other key words you find there as you read. RICHARD: As [quote] ‘this subject’ [endquote] is feeling beings feeling other feeling beings’ feelings *affectively* then the keyword vibes is entirely apt.
RESPONDENT: Err... I hope you’ve got a day or 10 free because Richard is revving up, and pretty soon he’s gonna force feed your words ‘do no harm’ SLOWLY, one by one, back down your throat. Don’t say I didn’t warn you :-) RICHARD: Ha ... so you are not just a pretty face after all, eh? It is one thing to intellectually endorse a solipsistic point and quite another thing to really be solipsistic ... especially as an on-going experiencing. I can clearly recall a period in 1984, whilst living in the Himalayas and plumbing the depths and extremities of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, of being in what I then described (having never heard of the word) as a state of extreme subjectivity. It was a truly alarming experience (the affective faculty was, of course, still in situ at the time) to have no possible objective corroboration of whatever/ whoever is being sensed, felt out, and/or thought about as to ask another for such corroboration is an exercise in futility ... inasmuch there is no other (in the solipsistic state one is creating everyone and everything hence any ‘corroboration’ is also one’s creation). Even the clichéd ‘please pinch me I must be dreaming’ is to no avail as nothing and nobody have any independent existence. I have lost count of just how many wannabe mystics – non-dual dilettantes – have sat on my verandah or in my living room solemnly confiding in me, whilst waving a hand airily all about to include everything and everybody, that ‘this is all an illusion’ ... only to then look at me with rapidly-increasing incredulity when I ask them, in (pseudo) matched solemnity, why they are informing one of their illusions that he is that (one of their illusions). I have even asked that of one of my fellow human beings by e-mail (archived in Mailing List ‘B’). Apart from all that ... as much of the material on the web-site You see, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain for I like my fellow human and would rather see their suffering end sooner than later. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 5
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 |
