|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 14
RICHARD: So far so good ... fairly standard solipsistic fare (solipsism RESPONDENT: Objective reality is pure solipsism. RICHARD: Wow! I mean ...? I am speechless! I am ...? I am without speech! I ...? Speech fails me! ...? Wow!
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): Spiritual Enlightenment has been around for some thousands of years ...
and there is still no peace on earth. RESPONDENT: This is a rather sweeping indictment. There is indeed Peace on earth and it is here as me now. RICHARD: It is not only sweeping ... it is a far reaching and incisively cutting indictment ... I was referring to global peace as well you know. Do you not realise that over 160,000,000 million people have been killed in wars alone this century? Do you not grasp the fact that nigh on 200 wars have occurred since the dropping of the atom bomb in 1945? And you talk about a solution that has been hawked around for thousands of years ... realising oneself to be ‘it’. Those peoples who have realised this have lead a gullible humankind, that is desperately searching for answers, selfishly astray for centuries. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that has eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed master attests to this. All the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered master’s teaching offers its mute testimony. All the Saints and the Sages; all the Masters and the Messiahs; all the Saviours and the Avatars; all the Gurus and the God-men have not been able to bring about their much-touted global Peace On Earth. This has been the sorry lot of humankind since time immemorial. The ‘Teachers’ – and their ‘Teachings’ – have been at fault all along, for they still had an identity. In a valiant effort to right the wrongs that beset oneself and all of humankind, one can dissolve the ego and realise oneself as ‘it’ ... that which is sacred and holy. However, upon closer inspection one finds that one has jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. ‘I’ still exist – now disguised as a timeless and eternal ‘being’ – and continue to wreak ‘my’ havoc upon an unsuspecting public ... albeit now a blissful ‘being’ emanating Love Agapé and Divine Compassion to all and sundry. However, all is not lost: just as the ego can dissolve, so too can the soul disappear. In my experience I have found that the identity is made up of two parts: the ego and the soul. ‘I’, as an ‘identity’, as a ‘being’, must become extinct. Then, and only then, is there a chance for global peace. With ‘I’ in ‘my’ entirety extinguished, the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows all creatures with at birth vanishes ... along with the malice and sorrow engendered. One is then spontaneously happy and harmless; one is automatically blithe and benevolent; one is candidly carefree and considerate. Thus, for the one who dares to go all the way, individual peace on earth for the remainder of one’s life is immediate and actual. This is the actual peace-on-earth – not an hallucination – and, as such, could possibly spread from one to another ... if one and the other are vitally interested. RESPONDENT: Although teachers pointing to the truth have been around, not many are interested in hearing what they say. This lack of interest is not the fault of teachers. We have no interest in exposing our misconceptions to the light of truth and escape in any way possible. RICHARD: No way do I buy this ... philosophical wisdom, psychological knowledge and spiritual enlightenment have had their day and are proving themselves to be inadequate to meet the requirements of this modern era. For thousands of years – maybe tens of thousands of years – humankind has known of no alternative manner of living life on this verdant planet. The passing parade of philosophers and preachers, masters and sages – geniuses and thinkers of all description – have failed abysmally to deliver their oft-promised ‘Peace On Earth’. RESPONDENT: If they themselves are at Peace, they have failed not. The only success is what one accomplishes for themselves. RICHARD: So you advocate arrant selfishness? Is this why they gather disciples by the multitude ... who they know will slaughter disciples of other Masters and Sages? * RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): In fact, instead of their much-vaunted love and virtue, they have left
in their wake much hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which beggars description. Millions of well-meaning followers have
diligently put their Teachings into practice, prostrating and belittling themselves like all get-out in a hopeful attempt to live
the unliveable. Yet no-one, it seems, dares to question the Teachings themselves; instead the humiliated penitents obligingly
blame themselves for failing to achieve release from the human condition. To seek freedom via profound and lofty thought or
sublime and exalted feelings is to blindly perpetuate all the horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time
immemorial. The time has come to put to an end, once and for all, the blight that has encumbered this fair earth for far too long.
It behoves one to question all of the received ‘wisdom’ of the centuries, all of the revealed ‘truths’ ... all of the
half-baked inanities that pass for understanding. Then, and only then, there is a fair chance that one can come to an actual
freedom – a freedom the nature of which has never been before in human experience. RESPONDENT: Your questions must be only of your self. There must be no waiting. The only Peace created is that you create in yourself. RICHARD: I was not aware that I was asking any ‘questions’ ... it looks to me like I am making statements of fact. Nor did I talk about ‘waiting’ ... and thirdly: there is an actual peace that already exists here in this actual world. Any ‘created peace’ is fatally flawed ... flawed by the self – or Self – who creates it. Any imitation of the actual is bound to fail. * RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the
lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the ‘Unknown’, stopped short of the final
goal – the ‘Unknowable’. RESPONDENT: There can no blame outside one’s own. You have failed to understand the message if you continue to wait for ‘it’ to work for you. RICHARD: I was working on the – obviously wrong – assumption that you might have noticed at least some of my writings. Apparently my assumption is just that ... an assumption. So, to fill you in I will provide a very brief personal history to explain: I entered into an on-going Altered State Of Consciousness on Sunday, the sixteenth of September 1981, becoming ‘Enlightened’ in the Eastern spiritual sense of the term. Spiritual Enlightenment has been around for some thousands of years ... and there is still no peace on earth. I spent the next eleven years endeavouring to discover why it did not work ... why it did not deliver the global Peace On Earth it seemed to promise ... and why it was not for everyone. Accordingly I sought to go beyond Spiritual Enlightenment into a condition I had glimpsed on many an occasion during those eleven years. On Friday, the thirtieth of October 1992, I succeeded and landed in actuality ... as distinct from either ‘reality’ or the ‘Greater Reality’. Nowadays I know, intimately, why an Altered State Of Consciousness does not deliver the goods, for it is but a delusion ... and, of course, I now know what does. I am not an ‘Enlightened Master’ sitting in an exalted position, driven by a ‘Divine Sense Of Mission’ to bring ‘Truth and Love’ to the world ... and what a relief that is. I am a fellow human being, albeit neither ‘normal’ nor ‘divine’, living in a condition of perfection and purity offering my discoveries to whomsoever is vitally interested in peace-on-earth. Thus you will see why I am not ‘waiting’; you will see that I do understand ‘the message’ because I lived it – and I found it wanting – and you will see why I lay ‘blame’. Because it is possible to be actually free of the Human Condition, as this body, in this life-time, here on earth. If those ‘Great Sages’ had had the intestinal fortitude to face their own extinction, there would already be global peace. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, for example, was around two and a half thousand years ago ... if he had had the gumption to take the ‘final step’ then maybe nobody would have been killed in wars this century. Maybe the atom bomb would not have been dropped. After all, two and a half thousand years is long enough for a genuine peace to spread from person to person. That is why I wrote (above):
* RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were
unwilling to relinquish the ‘Self’ ... and an ego-less ‘Self’ is still an entity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour
and the glory of the Altered State Of Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have
– feet of clay RESPONDENT: The experience of God’s Love is being God’s Love for all God is. God is All. Agapé exists, but it is not received, it is realised. It does not come to you, it comes from you. RICHARD: Which is why it fails again and again to deliver global peace. It comes from a lost and lonely and frightened and very, very cunning entity that has a parasitical existence within the human breast. God – any of the twelve hundred-odd gods throughout history – have all been a creation of the inner self projecting itself into being a grand Self that exists for all eternity. God’s love is – as you unwittingly reveal – self love. There is a name for it: Narcissism. It is all about self-aggrandisement. * RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): There is no ‘Peace On Earth’ ... nor has there ever been; there
has only ever been a truce from time to time between warring parties. To call these periods ‘peacetime’ is to misuse the word
and make it mean something it does not. RESPONDENT: Peace on Earth exist here, now, as me. All you will ever see is yourself. What is lacking is your own lack as Love. RICHARD: What I am lacking is that insidious and pernicious ‘me’ that lurked around inside this body for all those years causing untold anguish and animosity. I am so pleased that ‘I’ committed psychological and psychic self-immolation. The world is a far, far better place because of ‘my’ demise. Thus, the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension altogether. There is no good or evil here where I live. I live in a veritable paradise ... this very earth I live on is so vastly superior to any fabled Arcadian Utopia that it would be impossible to believe if I was not living it twenty four hours a day ... and for the last five years. It is so perfectly pure and clear here that there is no need for Love or Compassion or Bliss or Euphoria or Ecstasy or Truth or Goodness or Beauty or Oneness or Unity or Wholeness or ... or any of those baubles. They all pale into pathetic insignificance ... and I lived them for eleven years. Now there is a chance for global peace.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 27): The trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity is that they
do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.
Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the West have been raised to believe in. Eastern
philosophy sounds so convincing to the Western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian conditioning actually
sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the East. It is sobering to realise
that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking
Divine Immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. ‘That which is sacred, holy’, for example, is simply the Eastern
term for ‘God’; thus any order designated [quote] ‘absolute order’ [end quote] translates easily as ‘The Kingdom of God
on earth as it is in Heaven’ ... in Western terminology. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description,
lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of
what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous. If it were not for the
appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing. RESPONDENT: Your observation in this paragraph is rather presumptuous. RICHARD: May I ask this question? Just in what way have I overstepped the bounds of proprietary? Is it because my words are heretical and iconoclastic? If so, then it is your belief system that is being offended ... and it is your personal boundaries that are being overstepped. The nature of democratic rights allows for uncensored freedom of speech ... why do you set yourself up as the arbiter of good taste? RESPONDENT: Your experience is not necessarily indicative of the experience of the devout and faithful amongst India’s population. RICHARD: It is indeed indicative ... and it was hideous. I was in Delhi in 1984 when Ms. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own bodyguards ... which was a religious and spiritually inspired killing. This set off a rampage of terror and violence that closed down the city for three days. I was there – with a nine year old daughter – and saw with my own eyes what the devout and faithful amongst India’s population did. It was out-and-out war ... the army had to be called in. The atmosphere – and the carnage I personally witnessed – was identical to my experience in a war-torn foreign country in 1966 when I was a serving soldier in a declared war-zone. RESPONDENT: One might make the same observation of Tibet and its people, but all indications are that the Tibetans, even those forced out of their homeland, remain happy and satisfied with their way of life. RICHARD: I also spent three months in the Himalayas about one hundred kilometres from the Tibetan/Nepalese border. I had ample time to interact with and converse deeply with many, many Tibetan refugees. I can assure you that they were far from being happy and satisfied with their way of life. RESPONDENT: One most choose their qualifiers carefully when making a statement as broad as you have. RICHARD: I do indeed choose my ‘qualifiers’ very, very carefully. I may be a lot of things
... but I am not silly. And to forestall any further charge of ‘broad statements’, I have also read extensively –
being an avid reader I have devoured thousands of books in fifty-odd years – and watched many television documentaries. I do not
live in an ivory tower; I am not detached; I am not indifferent to the plight of my fellow human beings ... and I do not suffer
from dissociation. RESPONDENT: The real suffering arises when people are drawn away from their self generated contentment and lead into relying on certain standards of external environment for happiness. RICHARD: You say: ‘real suffering arises when ...’. May I ask – just out of curiosity – what is unreal suffering then? Every single man woman and child on this planet suffers from malice and sorrow – which is born out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows all sentient beings with. This is a fact ... this is real suffering. Which is why most peoples seek some form of ‘self generated contentment’ and rely upon ‘certain standards of external environment’ for happiness. However, such happiness is spasmodic, intermittent, random, unreliable and ultimately unsatisfying. Which is why people seek the ultimate satisfaction and fulfilment, that they are assured by Saints and Sages, lies in accessing the divine love and compassion that lies within. This has been going on for century after century ... and there is still no peace on earth. A recent estimate that I read about demonstrates that only .000001 of the population throughout recorded history have ever become enlightened. Hardly an encouraging success rate, to my mind. Maybe – just maybe – it is because it is extremely difficult to be deluded enough live in an hallucination permanently.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have followed your posts from the time I joined this list. I find your talents as a wordsmith very entertaining, however, and as I hoped to point out with my previous comments, you make assumptions that are much more dangerous than the words of the saints and sages you vilify. RICHARD: I do not make assumptions ... I point out facts and actuality. And why do you see these facts
– this actuality – as being dangerous? Correct me if I am wrong here, but are you not the solipsistic person who is creating
everyone and everything? Never mind, you would make a good engineer RESPONDENT: The first, and most prominent assumption is that humans are incapable of choosing their own actions. RICHARD: If, as you say, ‘I have followed your posts from the time I joined this list’, then you will be well aware of what I wrote but a scant five days ago: ‘Nobody, but nobody, can set you free but yourself’. I wrote that in the following context:
There may very well be more to my talents than that of a mere wordsmith. RESPONDENT: No saint, no sage, no Christ has ever done anything to anyone. The individuals who engage in violence do so of their own volition and though they may wish to feign being under the influence of a teacher, it was never, will never be, the case. There is no responsibility for any action other than your own. RICHARD: I beg to differ. The Saints and Sages – including your Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene – radiated Love Agapé and Divine Compassion to all and sundry. I call this ‘doing something to someone’ ... don’t you? Having seduced the long-suffering would-be disciple with hallowed succour and solace, they invariably demand obedience and surrender. The hapless victim has no choice but to give up their will ... remember the scriptural directive: ‘Not my will, but Thy Will, Oh Lord’. In Christianity, for example, people are led to believe that they have free will ... but if they do not choose for Mr. God then straight to hell they go. Now, I know this is simplistic ... but what a choice! The Saints and the Sages; the Masters and Messiahs; the Avatars and Saviours; the Gurus and God-men all have a lot to answer for ... starting with the 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone. RESPONDENT: In our own hope to remove our responsibility for our actions, we are all too eager to accept the pitifully untrue belief system that it was the ‘will’ of Jim Jones, Jesus Christ, Satan, Halley-Bop comet, K, Buddha, that hypnotised the hapless disciples into following. RICHARD: All belief systems are ‘pitifully untrue’. What belief system can be true – true as in factual – when the very nature of belief is explicated in the very [etymological] meaning of the word itself: ‘fervently wish to be true’? One can be as fervent and as fanatical about any half-baked inanity as one can possibly be ... but it does not make it a fact. As for being ‘hypnotised’ ... some people are so mesmerised by their own effulgence that they turn narcissism into a divine virtue and try to tell me that they are ‘it’. Now, I know that by ‘it’ one means God – by whatever name – so such a person is saying: ‘I am God’. Such delusions of grandeur are known as megalomania. I have noticed, in all your posts to this list, that you are urging us to join you in your delusion and realise that we too are ... ‘it’. In Hinduism this is known as ‘You are That’; in Judaism something similar to this is known as ‘I am That I am’; in Buddhism it is more generalised as ‘You are all Buddhas’; in Christianity, such a delusion is permitted for one person only: ‘I and The Father are One’ ... I guess that you do not hold much truck with Christianity. There is nothing new in this what you have discovered ... it is more of the ‘Tried and True’ that has endured down through the centuries. As there is still as much suffering now as then, it is obvious that it is the ‘Tried and Failed’. A salubrious approach would be to discard all this twaddle dressed up as sagacity so as to be receptive to something totally different ... something that has never been done before. RESPONDENT: The self-sufficient sage shall see the saint, the cowardly fool shall see only another opportunity to hide their insecurity by first erroneously assigning their will to the saint, and then deriding him for not delivering their salvation. RICHARD: Yeah, well I guess you have to come up with some reason why you are unable to bring about global peace ... even with being omniscient and omnipotent and all that. In Australia there is an apt expression: ‘You’re about as useful as the teats on a bull’. What do you do in your spare time ... when you are not loving all the suffering in the world, I mean? RESPONDENT: Your story is very enjoyable, and I am grateful that you honour me with re-posting it. RICHARD: I am glad that you enjoyed it ... but your gratitude is wasted for there is no self – or Self – here to be fed by such fawning flattery. Also, I was not honouring you ... but you know that already by now, don’t you.
RESPONDENT: Be well Richard. RICHARD: You be well too.
RESPONDENT: When being with Zen teacher I was once surprised to have teacher tell me ‘ego is not eliminated, it is expanded’. This expansion is such that ‘I’ moves beyond that which can be defined to that which defines. RICHARD: Which is egoism taken to an extreme ... it amounts to self-aggrandisement on a massive scale. The once-puny ego now ‘defines’, eh? Defines what? Everything? The all? The ‘what is’? Why is it that ‘what is’ needs a definer? Does that not imply that one is now being in charge of everything ... one is ruling the world? No wonder this otherwise perfect world we all live on is in such a mess that it is.
RESPONDENT: When being with Zen teacher I was once surprised to have teacher tell me ‘ego is not eliminated, it is expanded’. This expansion is such that ‘I’ moves beyond that which can be defined to that which defines. RICHARD: Which is egoism taken to an extreme ... it amounts to self-aggrandisement on a massive scale. The once-puny ego now ‘defines’, eh? Defines what? Everything? The all? The ‘what is’? Why is it that ‘what is’ needs a definer? Does that not imply that one is now being in charge of everything ... one is ruling the world? No wonder this otherwise perfect world we all live on is in such a mess that it is. RESPONDENT: Yes, I can, based on your description, understand your apprehension of my post. Although, if my understanding is concurrent with yours, I am moved to communicate that this possible perspective is not that of the post. RICHARD: What other perspective can there be? It is abundantly clear that Mr. Zen Teacher was saying that ego – ‘I’ – can become a god, by whatever name, because what else is ‘beyond that which can be defined’? Is your understanding actually concurrent with mine? Because I have been remarkably consistent with insisting that only if ‘I’, in any way, shape or form, ceases to exist can there be peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: The posit that ego becomes the describer does not necessarily suggest that this makes the descriptions viable or error free. RICHARD: Has god all of a sudden stopped being infallible? RESPONDENT: It also eliminates the possibility of actual self aggrandisement by putting that which may be aggrandised beyond (not above) the reach of description. RICHARD: Oh yes ... ‘The Truth’ is ineffable. I have heard about that. RESPONDENT: Its point is to emphasise the futility in any attempt to describe reality in any manner, be it aggrandising or demeaning. RICHARD: It is rather difficult to describe an hallucination, I know ... but there are many who have tried. Usually they say that they are ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Spaceless and Timeless’, ‘of the world but not in the world’, and so on (or is it ‘in the world but not of it’ ... I always get this one mixed up because it is such a meaningless statement). RESPONDENT: Though you may have a personal difficulty with the thoughts here, I hardly think that they are the cause of any world wide difficulty. RICHARD: Whilst not having one iota of personal difficulty with your thoughts, I do consider them to be a world-wide difficulty indeed. The carnage caused by religious wars – for a starter – would qualify as a ‘world-wide difficulty’ would you not agree? RESPONDENT: I respectfully offer, it may better serve our mutual effort for Peace to more closely examine those thoughts that are prematurely accusatory and intentionally alienating than those that are aimed, although perhaps not accurately but always benevolently, toward describing our underlying unity. RICHARD: My thoughts are not ‘prematurely accusatory’ ... they are premeditated and well-informed statements of fact. Also, they are not intentionally alienating ... defensiveness on the part of the recipient is a by-product of the fact speaking for itself. And whilst you are aiming to preserve your ego – and expand it like all get-out – I do not see even a smidgen of ‘our underlying unity’ . Also, despite your best efforts to appear ‘always benevolent’ , your expanded ego shines through your posts in all its glory. However, we are fellow human beings and there is always the chance that you may come to your senses and realise that the wisdom of the East is not worth the rice-paper it is written on. They have an appalling track-record in the humanitarian stakes in spite of the fact of their claim to have had ‘The Truth’ for thousands of years. Now, while I know that the West has not done much better, at least the standard of living is somewhat higher and ‘Human Rights’ do get given some credence. It behoves us to understand what is going on, because Western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural ... as the Eastern mystical thought that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people is becoming more and more widespread. RESPONDENT: I am honoured that you gave attention to my post. RICHARD: I sincerely doubt it ... but you already know that, don’t you?
RESPONDENT: I am honoured that you gave attention to my post. RICHARD: I sincerely doubt it ... but you already know that, don’t you? RESPONDENT: Be well Richard. RICHARD: You just do not get it, do you? I am already always well, so your papal-like blessings do not do one single thing for me. But then again, they do nothing for anyone else either, whether they are well or unwell. I guess writing them and saying them goes towards making you feel benevolent though. RESPONDENT: I Love you dearly. RICHARD: And herein lies the problem ... you probably really do. Hence all the trouble in the real world: people attempt to cover-up their hatred – for oneself and others – by becoming a loving self.
RESPONDENT No. 20: Would you say that belief systems are always muddled? RESPONDENT: This would be rather self-defeating would it not? If all belief systems are muddled, then of course the belief system claiming this would be muddled and therefore of limited value in determining the ‘muddledness’ of every belief system. RICHARD: This paragraph evinced two replies, viz.:
Are you so sure, No. 31, that this is a ‘good point’? No. 20, is this actually ‘quite so’? No. 14 has been getting away with this ploy in many posts ... when pressed to justify his belief about something he counters with the presumption that the other person’s question – be it factual or not – is nothing but their belief. This is so similar to that clever under-graduate sophistry so prevalent in Universities when students start ‘thinking for themselves’ that I am astounded that someone would contemplate using it on this List (where the participants are purportedly conducting an honest and genuine discussion about an investigation into life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in this world as it is with people as they are). To wit:
So, perhaps it is worthwhile pursuing the question: ‘are all belief systems muddled?’ after all. For No. 14’s position vis a vis the Human Condition reminds of a discussion I once had with a man who made a living running one of those New-Age ‘Avatar’ courses for gullible sophisticates whose current belief system is not working for them and are desirous of substituting another which might work better. When I asked him the value of swapping one belief for another – and would people not be better served by seeing through any belief for the delusion that it was and being here in actuality – he replied that everything was a belief. So I pointed out the sun in the sky ... he said he believed it was there. When I indicated a tree ... one could only believe it existed. And when I referred to the grass of the lawn we were standing on he forestalled my further questioning ... all is believed to be existing. When I asked him about himself as a flesh and blood male standing talking with me – as another flesh and blood male – this he also dismissed as ‘I believe I am a man’. When I invited him to drop his trousers and examine some irrefutable evidence of maleness he declined ... the conversation deteriorated somewhat about here. Especially when I managed to stop rolling around on the imputed grass and gathered the strength to ask him to redefine the words ‘Factual’ and ‘Actual’ ... along with ‘Tangible’, ‘Sensible’, ‘Palpable’, ‘Obvious’, Apparent, ‘Manifest’, ‘Unmistakable’, ‘Tactile’, ‘Sensual’, ‘Sensation’ and a few dozen others of a like nature. Now, No. 14 is a self-confessed solipsist and therefore everything he says about anything at all is intrinsically consistent with whatever there is ... within his ‘I Am It’ philosophy. (Mr. Leo Tolstoy went through a period of solipsism and wrote at length about his experience which I personally found edifying when I experienced a period of extreme subjectivity whilst living in the Himalayas in 1984).Thus, one wonders who it is that he thinks that he writes to on this List ... because the recipients do not actually exist in solipsism. This post you are now reading has no facticity and No. 31 and No. 20 and Richard are nothing but fragments of his imagination ... we have no inherent existence. Therefore, what is he doing by – in effect – talking to himself (and this he is, be there no doubt about that, because he often says that he is ‘glad to be around as you’)? The faintest of clues may very well be emerging in that he has just recently allowed that schizophrenia is actual ... although ‘possibly not internally consistent’. I guess we will never know and I have communicated in the past and whenever the going gets rigorous he answers with either a ‘Be well Richard’ or a ‘I love you dearly Richard’ and packs up his notebooks and goes home. A pity in a way ... maybe he could have helped by explaining away those (shudder) sensate words. Etymologically, belief means: ‘fervently wish to be true’, and actual means: ‘already occurring; existing as factually true’.
RESPONDENT: If all belief systems are muddled, then of course the belief system claiming this would be muddled and therefore of limited value in determining the ‘muddledness’ of every belief system. RICHARD: No. 14 has been getting away this ploy in many posts ... when pressed to justify his belief about something he counters with the presumption that the other person’s question – be it factual or not – is nothing but their belief. RESPONDENT: How would one question the existence (factuality) of existence? RICHARD: There is no question about the facticity of the actual existence of the physical world of people, things and events. These eyes see it; these ears hear it; this nose smells it; this tongue tastes it and this skin touches it twenty four hours a day. Thus there is no question about it as it is that obvious ... actuality is self-evident. RESPONDENT: Why is it you say ‘nothing but’ when describing belief? RICHARD: Because that is the tone you use when you dismiss a person’s question – whether it be factual or not – by calling it a belief. It is a put-down on your part and is apparently effective ... look how No. 31 and No. 20 backed off so quickly. RESPONDENT: What is it you believe about beliefs? RICHARD: Come now ... that ploy will not work with me. Talk about flogging a dead horse ... this was not even a good try! * RICHARD: No. 14 is a self-confessed solipsist and therefore everything he says about anything at all is intrinsically consistent with whatever there is ... within his ‘I Am It’ philosophy. RESPONDENT: If I may, I would rather – ‘it is’. That ‘I Am’ at all is an unnecessary, though often used, belief. RICHARD: You may indeed. Obviously this is an unannounced update on your previous stance as spelled out when you first came onto this List where you wrote: ‘You are It!’ (or else silly me assumed that when applied to yourself that this would read: ‘I am It!’) * RICHARD: Mr. Leo Tolstoy went through a period of solipsism and wrote at length about his experience which I personally found edifying when I experienced a period of extreme subjectivity whilst living in the Himalayas in 1984. Thus, one wonders who it is that No. 14 thinks that he writes to on this List. RESPONDENT: What is to suggest that there is a belief that anyone is being written to? RICHARD: Oh, probably because of the way that when you write something and someone responds you inevitably respond to them in return. It does rather convey the impression that there is actually someone else on the other end whom you tacitly acknowledge whilst maintaining the belief that they do not exist. RESPONDENT: There is writing, should this not be enough ? RICHARD: Now what an obviously slippery answer that is. Can you not do better than that? RESPONDENT: That there is anything subjective, say nothing of the unnecessary and histrionic pronouncement of ‘extreme subjectivity’, is not suggested here. RICHARD: Oh, but it has been ‘suggested’ in the past. You did write ‘there is no objective anything’ on the same day that you wrote that phrase that led me to foolishly assume that you have an ‘I am It’ philosophy. Obviously this is another unannounced update on your world-view. * RICHARD: The recipients do not actually exist in solipsism. This post you are now reading has no facticity and No. 31 and No. 20 and Richard are nothing but fragments of No. 14’s imagination. RESPONDENT: A very interesting post to this point, Richard. The mistake is in believing that anything is the figment of No. 14’s imagination. RICHARD: You never give up, do you? I tell you again, this ploy does not work on me. RESPONDENT: I know not what No. 14 is, nor do I know what imagination is. RICHARD: So, are you saying that the truly wise person does not know anything? RESPONDENT: What exists is existence (experience). RICHARD: So when other people say the words ‘look at that marvellous sunset’ to the flesh and blood body called No. 14, for example, and No. 14 responds by saying something like ‘Yes, isn’t it beautiful’ ... is this what you call experience? Is experience the hearing of those words and the looking at the sunset and the feeling of the beauty and then the saying of those words? Is this what ‘existence (experience)’ is? * RICHARD: We have no inherent existence in solipsism. Therefore, what is he doing by – in effect – talking to himself (and this he is, be there no doubt about that, because he often says that he is ‘glad to be around as you’)? The faintest of clues may very well be emerging in that he has just recently allowed that schizophrenia is actual ... although ‘possibly not internally consistent’. I guess we will never know. RESPONDENT: Ahh! A wonderful admission! And most truly the only assertion I hope to make, if it is you are suggesting that ‘know’ is to mean ‘we will never have it explained to us’. RICHARD: Yep ... you cannot explain it to us as we do not exist. * RICHARD: No. 14 and I have communicated in the past and whenever the going gets rigorous he answers with either a ‘Be well Richard’ or a ‘I love you dearly Richard’ and packs up his notebooks and goes home. A pity in a way ... maybe he could have helped by explaining away those (shudder) sensate words. Etymologically, belief means: ‘fervently wish to be true’, and actual means: ‘already occurring; existing as factually true’. RESPONDENT: So then, believing that this word means this word, which in turn must needs mean some other word is supposed to establish something other than the utter futility of believing that any-thing can be established as fact? RICHARD: Really ... it is such a waste of time trying this ploy on me again and again. RESPONDENT: OH! It does seem, Richard, that such an arrangement establishes the actuality of beliefs, in so much that a belief must needs be already occurring in order for this arrangement to be considered factually true. RICHARD: Not so ... a fact is obvious and stands on its own merit. It does not require any belief to compare it against so as to know it to be a fact. Allow me to demonstrate, using the phrase ‘fervently wish to be true’ as an example:
[Editor’s note: meaning that ‘chewing-gum wheelbarrows to be scotch-mist’ refers to the same thing as ‘fervently wish to be true’ does]. Thus words are a convention that all and sundry form an agreement about so as to refer to common human experience. Nowhere in all this does belief have to come into play ... only the honest acknowledgment of the obvious objective verification provided by other flesh and blood people’s actual existence. Plus acknowledging that this physical world is actually here and not the figment of some god’s imagination ... Brahma dreaming worlds and all that Eastern mystical stuff. But, of course, you have not fallen for that puerile fairy-story now have you? RESPONDENT: Eager and prepared to engage. I have brought my lunch, left my books behind, and feel perfectly at home where I sit. Your reply if you please. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... let ‘er rip, Boris ... full steam ahead and damn’ the torpedoes!
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 2): In order to see ugliness in the actions of others one must look out through their own ugly nature. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I can state unequivocally that I do not have an ugly nature ... nor a beautiful nature. Yet I see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive) and I unhesitatingly call that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Do you, No. 14, see these things too (for if you do not, then you are in denial of what is happening all over the world)? RESPONDENT: Know this; if you return their attitude you have indeed plummeted to the very station of being they have accused you of. RICHARD: It seems that you are writing about ‘their attitude’ in disparaging terms, so it would appear that you do see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Thus would you say that you have an ‘ugly nature’? All this leaves me musing. Does God have an ‘ugly nature’ then ... or is God’s nature that of serious denial?
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 2): In order to see ugliness in the actions of others one must look out through their own ugly nature. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I can state unequivocally that I do not have an ugly nature ... nor a beautiful nature. Yet I see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive) and I unhesitatingly call that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Do you, No. 14, see these things too (for if you do not, then you are in denial of what is happening all over the world)? RESPONDENT: ‘No. 14’, eh? Very interesting. RICHARD: Oh ... should I have addressed you as ‘Something Else’ then? Just what is the accepted protocol when writing to ‘It!’ ? RESPONDENT: Is it, Richard, that this question is intended to be rhetorical? RICHARD: No, it is not rhetorical ... it is a very sincere question that strikes at the very heart of your ‘I am It!’ philosophy. RESPONDENT: It seems you have provided little room for an answer. RICHARD: No, it is your ‘I am It!’ philosophy that puts you in a tight corner ... like all philosophies (belief systems) it has blatantly unliveable aspects to it. RESPONDENT: Chances are, Richard, the answer from here, if you were seriously interested and if I understand your question, would be both yes, these things have been seen. RICHARD: You say ‘have been seen’? Are they being seen now? Currently? RESPONDENT: And yes, you would probably think me in serious denial of what you assert is happening in the world. RICHARD: Firstly: I do not ‘think’ you to be in serious denial ... I know that you are. All your writing is permeated by denial (and your use of the word ‘think’ is used here in the same way you tried to use ‘believe’ on me before ... that ploy does not work on me). Secondly: I am not ‘asserting’ what is happening in the world ... it is indeed happening. And you know it is. * RESPONDENT: Know this; if you return their attitude you have indeed plummeted to the very station of being they have accused you of. RICHARD: It seems that you are writing about ‘their attitude’ in disparaging terms, so it would appear that you do see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ . Thus would you say that you have an ‘ugly nature’? RESPONDENT: It would not be mine to assert a me having an ugly nature, Richard. RICHARD: Why ‘assert’? A simple yes will do. RESPONDENT: There is no doubt, however, that ugly nature has been here. RICHARD: Ah, so you do not have an ‘ugly nature’ now, eh? Therefore you do not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ anywhere? Then No. 2 is not being physically harmed? Is it but a dream that he is having? RESPONDENT: Awareness (Universe, God, corn flake, now, or if it is that ‘material’ is most comfortable for you) is what it is doing (being). RICHARD: Yes, (after wading through all your gobbledegook), what you mean is that god is physically harming god ... and no one is genuinely being ugly. Good one, Admiral Nelson. * RICHARD: All this leaves me musing. Does God have an ‘ugly nature’ then ... or is God’s nature that of serious denial? RESPONDENT: Ahh, yes, yes, very good! To this I can respond! RICHARD: Do you mean that all the above was not a response? What was it? Oh, I know ... prevaricating and obfuscating. RESPONDENT: If ugliness exists, Richard. RICHARD: It does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed God is an ugly nature! RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: By the same token, if serious denial exists. RICHARD: By the same token ... serious denial does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed, God is serious denial. RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: Wonderful Richard! Wonderful! Good line you have initiated here. RICHARD: What was so good about it? You had to slip and slither your way through it ... all the way. How can you live with such duplicity?
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 2): In order to see ugliness in the actions of others one must look out through their own ugly nature. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I can state unequivocally that I do not have an ugly nature ... nor a beautiful nature. Yet I see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive) and I unhesitatingly call that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Do you, No. 14, see these things too (for if you do not, then you are in denial of what is happening all over the world)? RESPONDENT: ‘No. 14’, eh? Very interesting. RICHARD: Oh ... should I have addressed you as ‘Something Else’ then? Just what is the accepted protocol when writing to ‘It!’ ? RESPONDENT: Speak as you wish, Richard. The interest was in that you think No. 14 is a ‘you’. ‘It’, eh? Very interesting. RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ that there is ... I know there is because you told me so in a previous E-Mail. Is this not why you had to twice use that non-committal phrase ‘very interesting’? So, in what way is it ‘very interesting’ that Richard knows that there is a ‘you’ lurking behind that borrowed Eastern mystical belief system and all that dissembling? As for this ‘It!’ business; it was you who told me that ... several weeks ago too. Do you have another unannounced up-date to make? RESPONDENT: Is it, Richard, that this question is intended to be rhetorical? RICHARD: No, it is not rhetorical ... it is a very sincere question that strikes at the very heart of your ‘I am It!’ philosophy. RESPONDENT: I have missed the strike, Richard, but it is interesting that you think that. RICHARD: Once again ‘interesting’ ... what a pathetic two-way communication this is. And of course you missed ... you are too deeply immersed in the beloved solipsism of the East to come up for air even when someone points it out. It is the Eastern mystical belief system that is at fault, not you ... you just bought it – hook, line and sinker – that is all. It is never too late to regain your intelligence. RESPONDENT: It seems you have provided little room for an answer. RICHARD: No, it is your ‘I am It!’ philosophy that puts you in a tight corner ... like all philosophies (belief systems) it has blatantly unliveable aspects to it. RESPONDENT: Ahh, very well then, thank you for pointing this out. RICHARD: I never need thanks ... flattery flows off me like water from a duck’s back. Especially empty flattery. If you were to come to your senses ... then I would sit up and take notice. RESPONDENT: Chances are, Richard, the answer from here, if you were seriously interested and if I understand your question, would be both yes, these things have been seen. RICHARD: You say ‘have been seen’ ? Are they being seen now? Currently? RESPONDENT: No, not at this moment, but thank you for being interested. RICHARD: I am interested because you are a fellow human being. Also, when I visited your web-site, I saw some intelligence shining through – unlike in your E-Mails – and I consider that all is not lost. So, let us see if your intelligence can be awakened by this: If, as you say, there is no ‘ugly nature’ in you at this moment then you must not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ anywhere at all in the world. You simply do not see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive)? Is this correct? RESPONDENT: And yes, you would probably think me in serious denial of what you assert is happening in the world. RICHARD: Firstly: I do not ‘think’ you to be in serious denial ... I know that you are. All your writing is permeated by denial (and, your use of the word ‘think’ is used here in the same way you tried to use ‘believe’ on me before ... that ploy does not work on me). RESPONDENT: Gracious Richard, most sincerely, there is no scheme to hoist a ploy on you. RICHARD: I guess there is no ‘scheme’ ... maybe it is just an unconscious – and slick – debating trick you have learned to use on those who are novices at the game of detecting dissimulation and equivocation. But I am sure that you will not be using it in the future now that it has been pointed out to you so many times ... will you? RESPONDENT: It is interesting, however, that you think that. RICHARD: Whoops ... there you go again. Both ‘interesting’ and ‘you think’ ... and in one short sentence, too. RESPONDENT: If you would, what do you see as the motivation in such an endeavour? RICHARD: To fend off anyone who comes close to the bone, of course. * RICHARD: Secondly: I am not ‘asserting’ what is happening in the world ... it is indeed happening. And you know it is. RESPONDENT: If you are more comfortable believing you know what is known, there is Joy for your comfort. RICHARD: Whoops ... there you go again. Do you see it in action? And what a pointless sentence it is anyway. RESPONDENT: Know this; if you return their attitude you have indeed plummeted to the very station of being they have accused you of. RICHARD: It seems that you are writing about ‘their attitude’ in disparaging terms, so it would appear that you do see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Thus would you say that you have an ‘ugly nature’? RESPONDENT: It would not be mine to assert a me having an ugly nature, Richard. RICHARD: Why ‘assert’? A simple yes will do. RESPONDENT: It is most respectfully offered that in response to the inquiry, a simple yes does not suffice, Richard. RICHARD: No, I guess not ... you have too much to lose. Your whole organisation, for starters. RESPONDENT: There is no doubt, however, that ugly nature has been here. RICHARD: Ah, so you do not have an ‘ugly nature’ now, eh? Therefore you do not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ anywhere? Then No. 2 is not being physically harmed? Is it but a dream that he is having? RESPONDENT: Awareness (Universe, God, corn flake, now, or if it is that ‘material’ is most comfortable for you) is what it is doing (being). RICHARD: Yes, (after wading through all your gobbledegook), what you mean is that god is physically harming god ... and no one is genuinely being ugly. Good one, Admiral Nelson. RESPONDENT: Is it necessary that ‘no one is genuinely being ugly’ follow ‘god is physically harming god’? If I may, I would not consider these assertions to be mutually exclusive. RICHARD: Oh? Have I misunderstood, then? If so, that is good ... are you now saying that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ does exist (all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (and this list is by no means exhaustive) and that your ‘god-which-is-you’ does know about it? Are you at last allowing that there may be some objective reality to the world of people, things and events? So, is No. 2 being physically harmed? Is it not just a dream that he is having after all? RESPONDENT: Forgive me please, but I am not understanding why you say ‘Admirable Nelson’? I bid you, if this is important to you that this phrase be understood, please assist me grasp what is meant. RICHARD: ‘Admiral’ Nelson, actually, not ‘Admirable’ Nelson (although he is certainly admired). He was that English chappie – quite famous in British history – who turned a blind eye to his superior’s orders. He won his battle as a result and was lauded for his action. Of course, if he had lost he would have been keel-hauled ... nobody likes losers. Thus the ‘turning a blind eye’ has come to mean that one will muddle through somehow and all will turn out fine. I meant in the way of ‘I do not want to see what is actually going on in the world as it will upset my carefully constructed mind-set’. * RICHARD: All this leaves me musing. Does God have an ‘ugly nature’ then ... or is God’s nature that of serious denial? RESPONDENT: Ahh, yes, yes, very good! To this I can respond! RICHARD: Do you mean that all the above was not a response? What was it? Oh, I know ... prevaricating and obfuscating. RESPONDENT: If ugliness exists, Richard. RICHARD: It does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed God is an ugly nature! RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, it is, without reservation, meant as it is stated. RICHARD: Not so fast ... your use of the word ‘if’ in ‘if ugliness exists’ conditions your agreement. You therefore do not mean anything at all ... it is all bombast and blather. RESPONDENT: By the same token, if serious denial exists. RICHARD: By the same token ... serious denial does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed, God is serious denial. RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, it is, without reservation, meant as it is stated. RICHARD: Not so fast ... your use of the word ‘if’ in ‘if serious denial exists’ conditions your agreement. You therefore do not mean anything at all ... it is all bombast and blather. (This is great ... have we found a new and easy way to write E-Mails by just endlessly repeating ourselves?) RESPONDENT: Wonderful Richard! Wonderful! Good line you have initiated here. RICHARD: What was so good about it? You had to slip and slither your way through it ... all the way. How can you live with such duplicity? RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, this communication is Enjoyed Greatly. RICHARD: There is the use of that ‘belief’ ploy-that-is-not-a-ploy again. RESPONDENT: I have enjoyed your writing skills since the list was joined. There is no compulsion here to slip and slither, but thank you for being concerned. RICHARD: If there is no compulsion – as you say – then why do you do it? RESPONDENT: Your response is Joyfully anticipated. RICHARD: How can you live with such mendacity?
CORRESPONDENT No. 14 (Part Two) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
