Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 40

Some Of The Topics Covered

Mr. Ken Wilber – Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s language – benevolence – silly Dharma’s fundamental Dharma – instinctual passions – ‘theory of mind’ – ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence – human conditioning – love/hate – caring – anthropocentricism – human ingenuity and inventiveness – elephants – commonsense – nothing can be gained from meeting me face-to-face – friendship – interacting with people with ‘manic depression’ – your propensity to see plots where there is none – honesty and facts sit so well together – not a skerrick of imagination – you will find that I have been considerate all along

June 29 1999:

RESPONDENT: Every word you say is a bright gem in the darkness, thank you Richard. Now I understand why there can be no new identity for ego me, no new birth just total annihilation, total self immolation, no more limited beliefs in always conditional love, compassion, truth. As you wrote: ‘peace-on-earth ... is already here and now ... it has always been here and always will be’ ... ego me has been standing in its way! And as I read your words ... ‘if each and every human being freed themselves from the human condition, there would be global peace on earth. Instead we have had 160,000,000 peoples killed by their fellow human beings in wars in this century alone’ ... and all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides, where is the intelligence in that? There is none so we have no choice ... you wrote: ‘peace-on-earth is something that one has to want like one has never wanted anything before. One has to want it with all of one’s being ... one will never become free of the human condition by sitting around in a deck-chair on the patio sipping a drink and waiting for the grace of god to descend whilst pretending not to be goal-driven. If one does not have the goal peace-on-earth as a number one priority in one’s life – wherein everything else (husband/wife, children, business, house, car, personal possessions etc.) – becomes secondary, then another 160,000,000 will be killed in wars by their fellow human beings next century’. Please don’t stop helping us inquire, you are the only member on the list that makes continuous sense, though I do very much appreciate the contributions of everyone else too. I wait with baited breath for every no nonsense dialogue you post. I would like to ask you many questions, but the time is not now. I have need of deep introspection and solitude at times. When I return to the list in a month or two, it is my fervent wish to share in your insightful dialogues. I also salute your audacity ... ‘I did not do anything. And the ‘I’ that self-immolated is not here to take credit ... ‘he’ is extinct. For me to be able to be here now at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity’. Thank you from the depths of my heart Richard. I will post this again to the list when I return. From No. 40, getting off her backside too.

RICHARD: Okay ... then I will hold my response until you return.

October 02 1999:

RESPONDENT: And Lord help us. All this verbal brute bullying is but unconstructive criticism. I communicate with my dog better than this, argumentative, accusing, pontificating, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending, snide, hammering repetitious bullying. This is not relating to your fellow human being without malice and sorrow at all. Rather you perpetuate it, monstrously! I used to think you had something important to share. I realise now I am no longer deluded. I can learn nothing in dialog with you, except how to perpetuate repulsion, that is what your whole manner evokes. Your ‘belief’ in your harmlessness is just that a ‘belief’, for it reflects in none of your words.

RICHARD: I am somewhat bemused at your moral indignation, as expressed in this post, because you are the same person who felt it worthwhile to inform this Mailing List of what Mr. Ken Wilber had to say on the subject by posting his entire treatise. Some excerpts are as follows:

• [quote]: ‘The great yogis, saints and sages accomplished so much precisely because they were not timid little toadies (...) one of the many reasons we have trouble with the notion of ‘ego-less’ is that people want their ego-less sages to fulfil all their fantasies of ‘saintly’ or ‘spiritual’, which usually means dead from the neck down ... gently smiling all the time (...) think of the great yogis, saints and sages – from Moses to Christ to Padmasambhava. They were not feeble-mannered milquetoasts [a person who is timid and unforthcoming], but fierce movers and shakers – from bullwhips in the Temple to subduing entire countries. They rattled the world on its own terms, not in some pie-in-the-sky piety; many of them instigated massive social revolutions that have continued for thousands of years (...) the sage who lives life offends us. We want out, we want to ascend, we want to escape, and the sage who engages life with gusto, lives it to the hilt, grabs each wave of life and surfs it to the end – this deeply, profoundly disturbs us, frightens us, because it means that we, too, might have to engage life, with gusto, on all levels, and not merely escape it in a cloud of luminous ether ... we do not want to surf the waves of life, we want the waves to go away. We want vapour-ware spirituality. The integral sage, the nondual sage, is here to show us otherwise’ [endquote]. (Message 01795 of Archive 99/05)

Now I am no saint nor sage – I have no religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever – and in no way am I comparing myself to any of them by saying that I do find it odd that you take offence to the way I write ... to the point of telling me that I am ‘argumentative, accusing, insulting, belittling, sarcastic, judgemental, condescending and snide’ and that my writing is ‘hammering repetitious bullying’.

But let us not take Mr. Ken Wilber’s approach as the final word on the subject ... as this Mailing List is set-up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world, it would be more pertinent to what is being examined to see how he wrote and spoke. In August 1998; Hans and Radhika Herzberger of the Rishi Valley Study Centre wrote:

• [quote]: ‘Like an Old Testament prophet, Krishnamurti warned of abominations and appalling calamities; he pointed out ignominious, inhuman, nauseating, outrageous and pernicious conditions; he admonished cancerous, crooked, cruel, childish, false and irresponsible actions; he censured bestial, brutal, monstrous, treacherous and unnatural practices; he rejected barbarous, corrupt, oppressive, rotten, ruthless, stupid and immoral institutions; he rebuked disgraceful, disgusting, evil, foul and savage enormities; and he deplored filthy, ignoble, infantile, phoney, tragic, warped and wretched knavery that he observed in daily life. [These] words are taken from Krishnamurti’s working vocabulary. He regularly applied these epithets, and hundreds more like them, to the actions, practices, character traits, and social institutions that came under his moral criticism’. [endquote].

I will not copy and paste here as their Web Page specifically warns that ‘these materials have been edited in ways that suit the special purposes of this series and may not be copied or quoted in their present form in any other publications’. Therefore I will provide the URL so that anyone can read for themselves: www.kfa.org/RV-wp-9moralpassion.html

Needless to say, it does not take long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows:

• degenerate, self-gratification, petty, self-serving, rubbish, parasitical, scoundrel, childish, loony, gaga, psychopathic, silly, tommyrot, shoddy, bilge, self-righteous, mess, blasted, wicked, debased, charlatan, shabby, dismal, arrogant, dull-witted, warmonger, self-conceited, nauseating, quack, deluded, lunatic, puerile, stupid, worthless, self-seeking, immature, garbage, bigoted, avaricious, self-righteous, absurd, decrepit, lazy, rigid, self-centred, putrid, rotten, monstrous, bizarre, nasty, nonsense, self-absorbed, licentious, knavery, venomous, self-indulgence, vicious, self-justification, tawdry, self-aggrandisement, psychotic, self-worship, monotonous, self-interest, grotesque, self-glorification, shallow, subservient, pernicious, perverted, self-concerned, narrow, phoney, withered, self-assertive, impoverished, irresponsible, lies, deplorable, egocentric, treacherous, travesty, hollow, infantile, hideous, foul, fanatic, farce, crippled, cruelty, cynical, abomination, selfish, egotistic. slothful, self-important, bankrupt, appalling, trivial, sloppy, cunning, demented, mediocre, senile, irrational, sham, callous, wretched, useless, sterile, trash, superficial, ugly, aberration, deformed, disgust, sordid, decayed, warped, stupor, slavish, barren, barbarous, stinks, atrophied and sluggish.

At this point I might ask: which ‘Lord’ are you beseeching to help you?

October 03 1999:

RICHARD: I am somewhat bemused at your moral indignation, as expressed in this post, because you are the same person who felt it worthwhile to inform this Mailing List of what Mr. Ken Wilber had to say on the subject by posting his entire treatise. Some excerpts are as follows <SNIP>.

RESPONDENT: STILL living in the past Richard?

RICHARD: No ... just like this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space I only exist now as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. However, there is a fully functioning memory that this physical brain makes full use of so as to learn from the lessons of history.

RESPONDENT: Still dragging everyone into that fruitless illusory escape route of yours?

RICHARD: I cannot ‘drag’ anyone anywhere – and would not wish to anyway – as only you live your life. I can only suggest ... what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them. It is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction that they may or may not do.

RESPONDENT: Ken Wilbur’s words remain strong and inspiring, but I do not find such in yours at all.

RICHARD: Then may I suggest that you read them ... and just delete mine?

RESPONDENT: Just a cold strange alienating communication you enjoy engaging in ...

RICHARD: I certainly enjoy discussing life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are with my fellow human beings ... but to say that my communication is ‘cold, strange and alienating’ is your experience and not mine. So therefore, I do not enjoy ‘cold, strange and alienating communication’ at all (outside of your mind that is).

RESPONDENT: ... even backing yourself up by taking K’s words out of context ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? I took nothing ‘out of context’ at all ... indeed I specifically wrote: ‘I will not copy and paste here as the Web Page specifically warns that ‘these materials have been edited in ways that suit the special purposes of this series and may not be copied or quoted in their present form in any other publications’. Therefore I will provide the URL so that anyone can read for themselves: www.kfa.org/RV-wp-9moralpassion.html

I did not come down in the last shower.

RESPONDENT: ... in a bid to justify your unsuccessful emulation of him.

RICHARD: I have no desire whatsoever to emulate Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... I set my sights further than being yet another embodiment of that ‘supreme intelligence’ all those years ago, when I first began my journey into ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche), so I am not likely to fall back into that position now.

RESPONDENT: There remains an underlying tone of warmth towards others in the words surrounding K’s ‘occasional harsh ones.

RICHARD: Of course ... he was, after all is said and done, full of love and compassion.

RESPONDENT: But your words ceaselessly scorn, deride and speak ill of your fellow man.

RICHARD: Oh no, I speak ill of my fellow woman, too. Given that 6.0 billion peoples alive today are nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom and thus perpetuating all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides ... would you have me praise them?

RESPONDENT: You constantly attack and counter attack.

RICHARD: I do not suffer fools gladly ... if someone is so foolish as to think that by entering into a discussion with me with an adversarial attitude – and thus turning it into a debate and then an argument – to defend the status-quo so that their ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can stay intact ... they will find themselves being progressively driven into a corner of their own making. I am relentless where it comes to dismantling the Human Condition. 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone ... that is where ‘attack and counter attack’ have substantive meaning.

I write trenchantly, saliently ... honestly.

RESPONDENT: I think you know that your manner does not invite open active intelligent investigation ...

RICHARD: No, I do not know this at all ... there are other peoples that I talk with who find it such a relief to be able to have such an ‘open active intelligent investigation’ with their fellow human being that they come back for more. So I am sure that you will excuse me in that I do not take your experience as being representative of all peoples.

RESPONDENT: ... for you remain at war with your identity ...

RICHARD: Thus spake No. 40 ... who knows me better than I do.

RESPONDENT: ... and others for perhaps examined and consciously chosen purposes which therefore belie everything you say.

RICHARD: You will need to provide some examples or in some other way flesh this out as I cannot see how your diagnosis leads you to your prognosis.

RESPONDENT: K’s harsh words are as rare as your words of kindness.

RICHARD: I have never taken a count so as to be able to provide evidence either way ... and as it is your proposition it is up to you to go through all his words and then through mine so as to statistically substantiate your statement. Until you do ... I will just take this for the rhetoric that it is and ignore it completely.

RESPONDENT: Though you say you are an expression of the kindliness of the Universe???

RICHARD: I prefer the word ‘benevolent’ (‘well-wishing’) as it cannot be misconstrued. Some people would attribute an affective component to the word ‘kindliness’ ... and then, indeed find me devoid of what they are looking for. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul became extinct, the entire affective faculty vanished ... which means all the feelings (the emotions and passions and calentures). Which may explain why you detect no ‘warmth’ in me ... you may very well be looking for love and/or compassion.

I have no love nor compassion for you whatsoever for I have no malice and sorrow that needs such counterparts.

*

RICHARD: At this point I might ask: which ‘Lord’ are you beseeching to help you?

RESPONDENT: There really is no point in asking?

RICHARD: Oh yes indeed ... I genuinely wished to know which ‘Lord’ you revered the most. And I see from your ‘Dharma Verse’ that you provided (below) that it is none other than Mr. Gotama the Sakyan ... otherwise known as ‘Lord Buddha’ or ‘Lord Gautama’.

RESPONDENT: Besides I have already told you, I am no longer deluded by your delusions and am too aware that I can learn nothing by perpetuating those futile dialog battles you still obviously relish.

RICHARD: As I never asked you to be deluded by what you now experience as my delusions in the first place, then the rest of what you say here has nowt to do with me. For you they will, apparently, continue to remain ‘futile dialogue battles’. Speaking personally, nothing I do is futile.

RESPONDENT: Please ... take care of yourself Richard! Love ...

RICHARD: I lived that ‘Tried and True’ remedy of love for eleven years and found it wanting. Now, whilst love seems to promise to take care of you it does not, has never done and never will. It is the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... is not 5,000 years of recorded history’s documentation of love’s failure enough evidence for you?

Or are you not interested in learning from the lessons of history?

RESPONDENT: The Dharma’s fundamental Dharma has no Dharma; the Dharma of no Dharma is Dharma too; now that the Dharma of no Dharma is understood has there ever been a Dharma?

RICHARD: No, there has not ‘ever been a Dharma’ ... the ‘Dharma’ has only ever existed in passionate human imagination (fuelled by the instinctually-driven desire for a specious ‘after-life’ immortality). As for the rest of that verse ... it is nothing but intellectual masturbation. The next verse reads: The Dharma’s fundamental Dharma which is Dharma too has no Dharma; The Dharma of no Dharma which is Dharma too has no Dharma too; now that the Dharma of no Dharma which is Dharma too is understood has there ever been a Dharma? It is all designed to stop thought’s dualistic logic (for those who do not understand infinite regress) and propel one into the affective realm’s ‘Isness’ .

It is all a bit silly when viewed sensibly, eh?

(Editor’ Note: There is, of course, no ‘Second Verse’ ... but no ‘Dharma-Expert’ on the Mailing List noticed).

Continued on in The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 10

Continued on from The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 10

July 03 2000:

RESPONDENT: Thanks everyone, I’ve only just found time to read all the different points of view on the instincts thread, very helpful. Its a topic occupying my mind night and day at the moment and seems to be connected to another burning question; what is the cause of our capacity for violence? What is the nature of this destructive, insensitive, aggressive disturbance in the human condition. Has the human condition (not the human vehicle which is a marvellous thing in itself) really become as physically destructive and mentally useless as the dinosaurs, a massive failure that we may one day gather here to extinguish intentionally? Was Homo Sapiens’ consciousness an inevitable development, just another one of infinities alternatives, but an experiment revealing a painful ineffectiveness? Are we discovering that for all our precious so called awareness and intelligence have we remained blind nature, a faithful reflection of that instinctive aggressive thrust, reflected in all forms? What must the human body become to survive, as an asset, not a liability, to its natural surroundings? Richard, since I know the instincts, and the elimination of them, are of vital interest to you, would you be so kind as to answer a few questions, about them. What is your definition of blind nature?

RICHARD: Nature is blind in that it does not care two hoots about you or me or him or her ... it is the survival of the species that is nature’s goal (and any species will do as far as nature is concerned). Whereas, human beings (like species recognises like species) care about each other and wish the best for one and all ... as is explained by the ‘theory of mind’. Which means: I care about you and me and him and her ... therefore I chose not to be run by blind nature.

RESPONDENT: How does blind nature reveal the peace on earth that is already here, to you, when raw nature ‘appears’ so violent.

RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve the amazing faculty of intelligence (the cognitive ability to recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons). This contemplative ability is what sets the human animal apart from all other animals: thought, thoughts and thinking are vital for both individual and communal well-being in that only the human animal can investigate its own instinctual passions with the view to enabling both personal and collective salubrity ... no other animal can do this.

The human animal is nature in action – nature is nothing more yet nothing less than carbon-based life-forms – and the process of evolution is such that the species most fitted to their environment prosper and those no longer fitted languish. This process of nature is such that if the human animal does not mutate – which mutation is a process of nature – there is a fair chance that the human species will kill itself off after many more abysmal trials and tribulations.

Which means that, even though the carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature to so far evolve intelligence, if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time. Nature has all the time in the universe to personify perfection – as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE) – and that is eternal time.

Whereas each human being has perhaps seventy-eighty odd years.

RESPONDENT: If the Self is an instinctive creation, could you send in your understanding of that please?

RICHARD: Yes ... all sentient beings have, to some extent or another, deeply embedded instinctual survival passions that are intrinsic to their very nature. This is easily observable in the ‘higher-order’ animals ... and for the sake of simplicity and consistency I identify these common and basic passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. It is a fact of life that basic bodily survival is a kill or be killed situation ... a sentient creature has no choice but to live with a ‘what can I eat/what can eat me’ attitude. It is the fittest that survive: yet ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that the strongest or most muscular always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (those who adapt) get to pass on their genes. The most ‘on the ball’ – adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily and so on – can defeat the strongest or most muscular from time-to-time ... as is evidenced by the long, slow evolution of intelligence in a rather puny animal devoid of claws, fangs, venom, hooves, horns, fur, feathers and so on.

All peoples alive today are the end result of the ‘success story’ of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression (the savage side) and nurture and desire (the tender side) coupled with an adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily intelligence ... if it were not for these survival instincts we would not be here having this discussion. Yet these very survival instincts are the biggest threat to human survival today: the greatest danger these days is no longer the ‘wild animals’ or ‘savage beasts’ of yore ... it is fellow human beings. This is because the biological imperative – the instinctual survival passions – still rule the roost and are the root cause of all the ills of humankind. These instinctual passions form a rudimentary self – an emotional entity – situated in the reptilian brain at the top of the brain-stem, in all animals. An awareness of being this self (self-consciousness) is evidenced in only a few animals ... in the chimpanzee, for an example, but not the monkey. The human animal, with the unique ability to know its impending demise has taken the awareness of being this rudimentary self and blown it up all out of proportion into a feeling identity, an affective ‘being’ ... no animal has a ‘me’ as a soul in the heart.

Let alone an ‘I’ as an ego in the head.

RESPONDENT: But if the self is rotten to the core, does that make nature rotten to the core too?

RICHARD: This expression is apt only because, still run by the survival instincts to survive at any cost, the bodily survival traits have come to include the survival of this affective, animal self as well ... now a consciously feeling entity aware of the body’s mortality. This affective ‘self’, whilst not being actual, is passionately real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘feeler’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – ‘me’ as soul – which is ‘being’ itself) and a real ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed feverish imagination at work ... calenture. ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death (of ‘my’ body) if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival.

Thus the genetically inherited passions give rise to malice and sorrow which are intrinsically connected and constitute the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ (the savage instincts) to their nature and a ‘light side’ (the tender instincts). The battle betwixt ‘good and evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun.

However, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality.

That is how real ‘I’ am ... which is why both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die a real death (but not physically into the grave) to find out the actuality.

RESPONDENT: There is something I am unable to see. So I have been unable to ascertain whether the Self is an instinctive creation in all conscious animals, or instilled in the human brain during childhood at the urgings of parents and society.

RICHARD: There is much more to one’s background than conditioning ... one begins to comprehend that all the different types of socialisation (peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and societal conditioning in general) are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over innumerable aeons to seek to curb the instinctual animal passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. They have not ... they have gone deep only into the human conditioning. When they tip upon the instinctual passions – which are both savage (fear and aggression) and tender (nurture and desire) – they grab for the tender (the ‘good’ side) and blow them up all out of proportion as an antidote, as compensating pacifiers ... and the investigation ceases. It takes nerves of steel to don such an aqua-lung and plunge deep in the stygian depths of the human psyche ... it is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee. This is because below or behind the conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which necessitated the controls (conditioning) in the first place.

Thus the conditioning can prevent the investigation of the human condition itself.

RESPONDENT: P.S.: Dear Mailing-List, you only know me as No. 40 so I will stick to that to avoid confusion, but Richard knows my family name on his Actual Freedom list [No. 10].

Continued on in The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 10

Continued on from The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 10

August 03 2000:

RESPONDENT: Thanks everyone, I’ve only just found time to read all the different points of view on the instincts thread, very helpful. Its a topic occupying my mind night and day at the moment and seems to be connected to another burning question; what is the cause of our capacity for violence? What is the nature of this destructive, insensitive, aggressive disturbance in the human condition. Has the human condition (not the human vehicle which is a marvellous thing in itself) really become as physically destructive and mentally useless as the dinosaurs, a massive failure that we may one day gather here to extinguish intentionally? Was Homo Sapiens’ consciousness an inevitable development, just another one of infinities alternatives, but an experiment revealing a painful ineffectiveness? Are we discovering that for all our precious so called awareness and intelligence have we remained blind nature, a faithful reflection of that instinctive aggressive thrust, reflected in all forms? What must the human body become to survive, as an asset, not a liability, to its natural surroundings? Richard, since I know the instincts, and the elimination of them, are of vital interest to you, would you be so kind as to answer a few questions, about them. What is your definition of blind nature?

RICHARD: Nature is blind in that it does not care two hoots about you or me or him or her ... it is the survival of the species that is nature’s goal (and any species will do as far as nature is concerned). Whereas, human beings (like species recognises like species) care about each other and wish the best for one and all ... as is explained by the ‘theory of mind’. Which means: I care about you and me and him and her ... therefore I chose not to be run by blind nature.

RESPONDENT: Now I’m confused (but I’m hoping to think my way out of it). So you are saying that this ability to ‘care about each other and wish the best for one and all’ are or are not the basic instinctual passions of nurture and desire, fear and aggression, which reflect blind nature’s survival instincts at work?

RICHARD: I particularly point to the ‘theory of mind’ ... which is ‘self and other’ cognitive awareness in action and not the instinctual passions in operation.

RESPONDENT: Is this caring about each other is still ‘the emotion-backed feverish imagination at work’, and not the impeccable intelligent consideration of pure conscious experience?

RICHARD: No, not at all ... plus the pure consciousness experience (PCE) shows one the way to bring to an end all the misery and mayhem whereas it is the ‘theory of mind’ (like recognises like) that automatically and involuntarily causes me to care about you and him and her and so on.

The word ‘caring’ does not necessarily have to mean an affective activity: etymologically the word ‘care’ comes from the Old English ‘caru’ meaning ‘charge’ or ‘oversight’ (‘charge’ as in the Latin ‘carricare’ from ‘carrus’ meaning ‘wagon’ – thus ‘carry’ – and ‘oversight’ as in ‘overseeing’) and basically means ‘an object or matter of consideration’ as in ‘a thing to be done or seen to’ or ‘protective overview’ or ‘guardianship’. The only way to make it a particular emotion or deeper feeling is by linking it with the Gothic and Germanic word ‘kara’ meaning ‘grief’ or ‘lament’ (as derived from ‘karar’ meaning ‘bed of sickness’). In popular use it appears to mean worrying about the other. The word ‘consideration’ is from the Latin ‘considerare’ meaning ‘examine’ (perhaps from the Latin ‘sider’ or ‘sidus’ meaning ‘constellation’ or ‘star’) and basically means ‘the action or fact of examining and taking into account of anything as a reason or motive with regard for the circumstances of another’.

In popular use, however, it generally means ‘don’t hurt my feelings’.

RESPONDENT: Now if the love/hate affective faculty must be eliminated, in order to ‘actually be’ intelligently considerate, doesn’t that reveal that hidden latent within nature, was a not so blind aspect, which the basic instincts were blocking from expression? And do we then step into a deeper actuality of nature which is no longer at the mercy of that blind aspect that does not care two hoots and into an aspect of not so blind nature that does care intelligently?

RICHARD: Perhaps it may make sense if I put it this way: it has taken countless aeons of carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the cognitive ability to recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism.

This infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is far, far more than merely intelligent.

RESPONDENT: In other words are you saying that the intelligence of humankind ‘the cognitive ability to recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons’ can move out of the selfish emotional Self, causing a mutation within humankind and an evolution of blind nature’s survival at any cost impetus, thereby bringing into actuality an un-emotional impeccable concern, (is unconditional love an echo of this) which would alter every wide ranging human activity on the planet and affect all its substances and life forms?

RICHARD: Yes (given that in saying ‘yes’ I do mean ‘human intelligence’) ... but ‘unconditional love’ is not ‘an echo of this’ at all as it is sourced in and fuelled by the instinctual passions.

RESPONDENT: Will humanity one day say that life is now free to take the forms it does on this planet because humanity moved out of a dangerous state of consciousness into pure conscious experience, whereas once upon a time it could not because human consciousness was not free of instincts which went awry almost annihilating all life except the mineral (which was still altered by the human state).

RICHARD: I am only talking about intelligent sentient beings and not ‘life’ per se.

RESPONDENT: Are we back to square one metaphysics, Bohm K and Buddha, life is dependent on consciousness?

RICHARD: No ... well, I am not, anyway.

RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness allows life and states of consciousness destroy life?

RICHARD: Not ‘life’ ... I am only talking about one’s fellow human beings.

*

RESPONDENT: How does blind nature reveal the peace on earth that is already here, to you, when raw nature ‘appears’ so violent.

RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve the amazing faculty of intelligence (the cognitive ability to recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons). This contemplative ability is what sets the human animal apart from all other animals: thought, thoughts and thinking are vital for both individual and communal well-being in that only the human animal can investigate its own instinctual passions with the view to enabling both personal and collective salubrity ... no other animal can do this. The human animal is nature in action – nature is nothing more yet nothing less than carbon-based life-forms – and the process of evolution is such that the species most fitted to their environment prosper and those no longer fitted languish. This process of nature is such that if the human animal does not mutate – which mutation is a process of nature – there is a fair chance that the human species will kill itself off after many more abysmal trials and tribulations. Which means that, even though the carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature to so far evolve intelligence, if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time. Nature has all the time in the universe to personify perfection – as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE) – and that is eternal time. Whereas each human being has perhaps seventy-eighty odd years.

RESPONDENT: Thanks for your efforts Richard. But I’m having difficulty understanding the relevance of the above 3 paragraphs to the question ‘How does blind nature reveal – to you – the peace on earth that is already here when raw nature ‘appears’ so violent?

RICHARD: Via the human intelligence which evolved because those who adapt to the ever-changing environment got to pass on their genes (the most ‘on the ball’ – adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily and so on – can defeat the strongest or most muscular from time-to-time as is evidenced by the long, slow evolution of intelligence in a rather puny animal devoid of claws, fangs, venom, hooves, horns, fur, feathers and so on).

RESPONDENT: Unless those paragraphs are preparatory to ‘Nature has all the time in the universe to personify perfection – as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE) – and that is eternal time’.

RICHARD: They are also ‘preparatory’... although I endeavour to make each paragraph in an initial article complete in itself the consecutive paragraphs do make cumulative sense.

RESPONDENT: But in that sentence you seem to be saying that that personified perfection (and does that include the perfection of the whole Planet, regardless of its blind survival instinct?) ...

RICHARD: No ... in one human being. The ‘Planet’, not being sentient, is not and never will be intelligent.

RESPONDENT: ... is not already evident, except as observed in a human brain experiencing pure consciousness, which seems to be as nebulous a mental experience as any metaphysical spirituality.

RICHARD: But a PCE is not ‘as nebulous a mental experience as any metaphysical spirituality’ because it is a sensate experience wherein the physical world of this body and that body and the mountains and the streams; the trees and the flowers; the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum are directly experienced as the actuality they indubitably are.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying the PCE is an ‘actual’ sensate experience? Yes still confused.

RICHARD: If I may suggest? The confusion is because it is impossible to marry what Richard is saying to the channelled teachings of a bodiless spirit known as ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) whose wisdom is 180 degrees opposite to that which will enable peace-on-earth

*

RESPONDENT: If the Self is an instinctive creation, could you send in your understanding of that please?

RICHARD: Yes ... all sentient beings have, to some extent or another, deeply embedded instinctual survival passions that are intrinsic to their very nature. This is easily observable in the ‘higher-order’ animals ... and for the sake of simplicity and consistency I identify these common and basic passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. It is a fact of life that basic bodily survival is a kill or be killed situation ... a sentient creature has no choice but to live with a ‘what can I eat/what can eat me’ attitude. It is the fittest that survive: yet ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that the strongest or most muscular always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (those who adapt) get to pass on their genes. The most ‘on the ball’ – adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily and so on – can defeat the strongest or most muscular from time-to-time ... as is evidenced by the long, slow evolution of intelligence in a rather puny animal devoid of claws, fangs, venom, hooves, horns, fur, feathers and so on.

RESPONDENT: If survival of the fittest is nature’s dominant characteristic, why does quality of life matter to us more?

RICHARD: Because, being intelligent, one can take it personally and with effect: it is a far, far better experience being happy and harmless, any day of the week, than the debilitating feeling of being sorrowful and malicious. The ‘theory of mind’ indicates this to be true for one’s fellow human beings as well.

RESPONDENT: Why have millions of these on the ball success story of a species committed suicide?

RICHARD: Maybe their intelligence, being crippled by the instinctual passions, caused them to believe in the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ (wherein some god or goddess has created or is creating all this misery and mayhem)? There are multitudinous reasons ... but, generally speaking, someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide has despair, born of meaninglessness and futility, triggering their slide.

RESPONDENT: Could quality of life be the driving force and not survival of the fittest at whatever cost?

RICHARD: I see no evidence in nature for your hypothesis – nature is indiscriminate when it comes to who languishes and who survives – and any sentient creature who does not have the cognitive ability to recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons is at the mercy of the elements.

It is heartening to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made, in the last century alone, in terms of material well-being compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting this planet. Long gone are the days of the hunter-gatherer; days wherein the human race was subject to the vagaries of the wild for their physical survival. Long gone are the times when humans had to eke out an animal-like existence; full bellies in a time of plenty, and starvation in a famine. Nowadays, when famine strikes one part of the world, aid in the form of basic provisions comes in from other areas experiencing plenty.

I could go on and on about human ingenuity and inventiveness for it is amazing what has been achieved already despite the perversity of the human condition which dogs every well-meant enterprise.

*

RICHARD: All peoples alive today are the end result of the ‘success story’ of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression (the savage side) and nurture and desire (the tender side) coupled with an adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily or sly intelligence ... if it were not for these survival instincts we would not be here having this discussion. Yet these very survival instincts are the biggest threat to human survival today: the greatest danger these days is no longer the ‘wild animals’ or ‘savage beasts’ of yore ... it is fellow human beings. This is because the biological imperative – the instinctual survival passions – still rule the roost and are the root cause of all the ills of humankind. These instinctual passions form a rudimentary self – an emotional entity – situated in the reptilian brain at the top of the brain-stem, in all animals. An awareness of being this self (self-consciousness) is evidenced in only a few animals ... in the chimpanzee, for an example, but not the monkey. The human animal, with the unique ability to know its impending demise has taken the awareness of being this rudimentary self and blown it up all out of proportion into a feeling identity, an affective ‘being’ ... no animal has a ‘me’ as a soul in the heart. Let alone an ‘I’ as an ego in the head.

RESPONDENT: But this can only be speculated because unless you are actually using the brain of another species you cannot know with 100% certainty that they are unaware of a sense of me as soul or I as ego, owning this bone or pack of females proudly, or that there is no innate (genetic) knowledge or brain memory of their species inevitable demises.

RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that animals can think in an adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily or slyly intelligent way like human beings? Because only the combination of passionate and devious thought can concoct fantasies such as ‘me’ as soul surviving physical death ... thus it is not ‘speculation’ at all because it is obvious that animals simply cannot think ... be it either emotionally or clearly.

RESPONDENT: Elephants have graveyards for example.

RICHARD: Okay then, if you can produce an elephant – or any other animal – that can conceive in, or exercise the mind with, or form, or have in the mind, an hypothesis, a theory, a supposition, a plan, a design, a notion, an idea, or can conceive of mentally as in meditate on, turn over in the mind, ponder, contemplate, deliberate or reflect on and come to the understanding – in a positive active way and form connected objectives – or otherwise have the capacity to cogitate and conjecture and choose mentally (as in form a clear mental impression of something actual) then I will acknowledge that you are correct and I am in error and that elephants – or any other animal – can think deviously and duplicitously and thus, having the ability to know their impending demise, have therefore taken the awareness of being this rudimentary self and blown it up all out of proportion into a feeling identity, an affective ‘being’ as a ‘me’ as a soul in the heart who will survive physical death in some spurious timeless and spaceless and formless afterlife ... and also into an ‘I’ as an ego in the head who is preventing the ‘Self-Realisation’ of this divine immortality by clinging to physical life.

Until then, commonsense observation seems far more accurate than building hypotheses on how elephants die.

*

RESPONDENT: But if the self is rotten to the core, does that make nature rotten to the core too?

RICHARD: This expression is apt only because, still run by the survival instincts to survive at any cost, the bodily survival traits have come to include the survival of this affective, animal self as well ... now a consciously feeling entity aware of the body’s mortality. This affective ‘self’, whilst not being actual, is passionately real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘feeler’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – ‘me’ as soul – which is ‘being’ itself) and a real ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego) is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed feverish imagination at work ... calenture. ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death (of ‘my’ body) if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival.

RESPONDENT: Does this mean nature blew it, that the peace on earth that you say is already here made a mistake mixing instincts with a thinking emotional brain and peace has not been here since?

RICHARD: There no concrete evidence whatsoever that there ever has been any sentient beings experiencing peace-on-earth ... where do you get this ‘not been here since’ notion from?

*

RICHARD: Thus the genetically inherited passions give rise to malice and sorrow which are intrinsically connected and constitute the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ (the savage instincts) to their nature and a ‘light side’ (the tender instincts). The battle betwixt ‘good and evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. However, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. That is how real ‘I’ am ... which is why both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die a real death (but not physically into the grave) to find out the actuality.

RESPONDENT: There is something I am unable to see. So I have been unable to ascertain whether the Self is an instinctive creation in all conscious animals, or instilled in the human brain during childhood at the urgings of parents and society.

RICHARD: There is much more to one’s background than conditioning ... one begins to comprehend that all the different types of socialisation (peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and societal conditioning in general) are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over innumerable aeons to seek to curb the instinctual animal passions. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. They have not ... they have gone deep only into the human conditioning. When they tip upon the instinctual passions – which are both savage (fear and aggression) and tender (nurture and desire) – they grab for the tender (the ‘good’ side) and blow them up all out of proportion as an antidote, as compensating pacifiers ... and the investigation ceases. It takes nerves of steel to don such an aqua-lung and plunge deep in the stygian depths of the human psyche ... it is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee. This is because below or behind the conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which necessitated the controls (conditioning) in the first place. Thus the conditioning can prevent the investigation of the human condition itself.

RESPONDENT: Yes I can see this dilemma.

RICHARD: Good.

December 05 2000:

RESPONDENT No. 27: I don’t recall talking to No. 40, but Richard and I had a few verbal exchanges on actuality. Apparently, we did not see ‘actuality’ actually the same, though I forget what we actually saw, but I would be surprised if he doesn’t still have an actual computer record of what was actually said by everyone, even if his interpretations tended to distort whatever was actually said.

RESPONDENT: You seem to have came across the same distortions and limitations I did. Yes it was disappointing to discover Richard mental clarity was not infinite and had its shut off point, just like the rest of us poor impassioned human beings nursing our bosoms. LOL. At the moment he’s pussyfooting and trying desperately to hide his distaste and frustration at one of his fellow list members who refuses to be brow beaten into seeing actualism Richard’s way. The list member (who has just recently created a new website called actualfreedom.com and seeks to link it with Richards actualfreedom.com.au in a bid to spread the good word) is on his way up to Byron Bay with a friend to meet Richard for a chat and pristine cup of coffee at the pub for the 4th or so time. But Richard is so pissed off he plans to deny this recalcitrant disciple his esteemed audience. It seems Richard sees no point in retaining friendships with those who do not see life HIS WAY (so much for his actual intimacy??). The list member has been told his answering machine will be on and no one will be home. Which just goes to show that friendship in Richards – oh so perfect world – is still conditional and dependent on his actualism being ‘accepted’. And so the plot thickens. (Message #01200 of Archive 00/11: Subject: ‘Richards Methods’).

RICHARD: It would appear that the failure to recognise a trope when it is writ large results in tripe. Needless to say, none of this misinformation above (or is it disinformation) which you pen to this Mailing List, for whatever obscure reason it is that you would do such a thing anyway, has any connection whatsoever with what is actually happening ... maybe it is your disappointment about ‘Richard’s mental clarity’ which has emotionally flooded your cognitive ability to accurately discern facts and makes you see only ‘distortions and limitations’ instead?

For starters, the person whom you are referring to as ‘this recalcitrant disciple’ is a disciple of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (aka a ‘friend of Osho’) who first approached me on the internet nearly two years ago (February 1999) under the guise of being a ‘creative writer’ wanting to publicise ‘Richard’ (‘do you think it would be a good thing for ‘Richard’ to be more widely known?’). I declined, giving reasons, and then stating clearly and succinctly [Richard]: ‘I value my privacy very highly and have no desire for a public profile.’ [endquote]. (Message #363 Mon, Jan 25, 1999 and Message #393 Tue, Feb 2, 1999; ‘Subject: Re: ‘Simplifying Richard’).

This ‘friend of Osho’ (aka a disciple of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain) was remarkably persistent ... there followed a series of E-Mails wherein I made my position crystal clear ... for example [Richard]: ‘... as I have remarked before, I do value my privacy highly and have no desire for a public profile. Consequently I am not liberal with handing out my telephone number, street address or last name to people ...’ [endquote]. (Fri, 19 Feb. 1999; Subject: Re: Can We Meet?). This response was because again the guise of being a journalist wishing to interview me vis-à-vis an actual freedom was being presented ... for example: [quote]: ‘... my motivation for meeting you would be to flesh out my experience of you, in order to be able to write an article about Actual Freedom. My intention would be to publish such an article’ [endquote]. (Wed, 17 Feb. 1999; Subject: Re: Can We Meet?).

And again I made my position crystal clear ... for example: [Richard]: ‘... nothing can be gained from meeting me face-to-face other than the verification that there is a flesh and blood body that writes these words – hence I turn down all requests for a photograph. Nothing is obtained from a personal talk that cannot be gained from reading the interactive exchange of words on the Internet’. (Tue, 2 Mar. 1999; Subject: Re: Can We Meet?).

All that (and more) was all nearly two years ago ... if you have been even superficially following the current exchange on the other Mailing List you will find my words (above) of February and March 1999 very, very familiar and thus see that my current words are not ‘pussyfooting and desperately hiding distaste and frustration’ at all ... let alone ‘brow-beating’. I am simply saying the same thing over and again: I wish to preserve my chosen lifestyle as-it-is and share my discovery on the internet because an actual freedom is epitomised by being conveyed by words alone ... and is the ability to fully live a normal lifestyle.

Second, where you say that this person has set-up a web page in ‘a bid to spread the good word’ you are apparently oblivious to the actuality ... it has been set-up to downplay what I am saying, only under the same name (‘actual freedom’). That this ploy has sucked you in goes to show that the association of similar domain names (‘actualfreedom.com’ and ‘actualfreedom.com.au’) has the effect of misleading the undiscerning ... to the point that this ‘friend of Osho’ can then state that ‘Actual Freedom’=‘Actual Truth’ (aka ‘The Truth’ aka ‘God’ aka ‘Whatever Name’). It is somewhat akin to the propensity Hinduism has, for instance, of absorbing all potentially conflicting alternatives under its all-embracing umbrella.

Third, where you say that ‘Richard sees no point in retaining friendships with those who do not see life HIS WAY’ you are apparently also oblivious to the fact than an actual intimacy experiences every body equally ... an actual intimacy plays no favourites and brooks no exclusive friendship. This includes racial and biological kith and kin ... no body is special as every body is special.

Fourth, where you say ‘(so much for his actual intimacy??)’ ... I am conscious of the fact that I am writing to a fellow human being, and not to words appearing on a screen, who has publicly informed everyone on the Mailing List (including yourself) of their medical condition. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘I have major depression; and probably it is of the bipolar variety; at this stage somewhere around the bipolar II range on the bipolar spectrum disorder characterisation. I take medication for that and it works well ... and at times toward the depressed end of the swing of my genetic pendulum I go into silence and inactivity for varying lengths of time’. (Message #1410 ‘Second question from the defence’; Fri 11/24/000).

I have intimate experience, over many years, of interacting with people who have been suffering from varying degrees of this particularly distressing disorder (popularly known as ‘manic depression’) ... and in my experience (and verified via their own feedback) the most helpful way of interacting is by (a) being sensible and practical at all times and (b) enabling or facilitating the ability to make their own decisions based upon sound physical reasons. It is important, vital, to not pander to flights of fancy and being always down-to-earth and matter-of-fact in any, oft-times fluctuating, instances.

Fifth, where you say that this person ‘has been told his answering machine will be on and no one will be home’ is where you go for a trip on the trope ... and in a big way: the ‘friend of Osho’ would not read, or would only partly read, my responses to all the attempts in order to downplay what I am saying into being yet another version of the ‘Tried and True’. The ‘answering machine’ analogy only came towards the end of a long series of back and forth E-Mails wherein I was told repeatedly by this ‘friend of Osho’ that he had no interest in reading my words at all. And, as all that he would get from seeing me in person – or ringing me on the telephone – would be me saying nothing different from what my words in the E-Mails and on the Web Page were saying, I put it that all that he would get by ringing me, in other words, would be an answering machine responding with the same-same as what is already in words on the web ... except that the printed words say it a lot better than I do as I tend to waffle on a lot in voice.

Lastly, as this person’s point of view forced him to only see an ‘enlightened master’ (by whatever name) in this flesh and blood body called Richard, I explicitly said ‘there is no person answering to that description at this address’. How you can translate that into Richard saying that ‘his answering machine will be on and no one will be home’ I do not know ... maybe it is your propensity to see plots where there is none (‘and so the plot thickens’).

However, it may very well turn out that your plot has thinned a little having read all this.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: I have no interest in further tying up this Mailing List’s time and/or bandwidth with responding to trivial and inaccurate gossip posted under the pretext of being a report of an event on another Mailing List. I am no great fan of cross-posting so it is entirely in your hands as to whether you aspire, to not only desist from using this Mailing List’s time and bandwidth with something that belongs on another Mailing List, but to cease making yourself look even more foolish in public than you already do. I am retired and on a pension; I have 24/7 internet access; I have all the time in the world; I am free to do whatever I wish; I copy and paste with alacrity; I can continue to clarify this over E-Mail after E-Mail until even the most one-eyed person will develop a chink in their cognitive dissonance ... as I have all the relevant correspondence dated and archived on Hard-Disc and CD-Rom and cross-linked to Mailing List archives in the public domain.

Put simply: honesty and facts sit so well together.

December 06 2000:

RESPONDENT: Tripping on a tight rope huh? LOL.

RICHARD: Not at all ... the title reads: ‘Tripping On A Trope’. I would have considered it to be clear to you, that failing to comprehend a metaphor by slickly turning it into something else, would only indicate the mental age and environmental background of the person who would do such a thing to their co-respondent. Look at what you wrote, for instance, only a few minutes ago to another respondent:

• [Respondent]: ‘How predictable. Now you have turned a metaphor into a national issue. Is that how they condition children to think in Iran? (...) Just the sort of response one would expect from 16 year old street kid. You are not only incapable of comprehending what I meant, but I seriously doubt you are capable of comprehending much of what is discussed on this list at all!’.

However, I guess you value the ‘Laughing Out Loud’ or ‘Lots Of Laughter’ (‘LOL’) which your own sophistry triggers, eh?

RESPONDENT: But Richard! you said you do have not a skerrick of imagination! Bullshit.

RICHARD: It does not take even ‘a skerrick of imagination’ to utilise correspondences, corollaries, similes, analogies, metaphors, tropes ... I can also write poetry. Among many other jobs, my main working career was as a practicing artist.

Just as the painting paints itself, these words write themselves.

RESPONDENT: I have already made it quite clear (between your monologues) that your bratty self righteousness only makes you look like a perfect blithering example of how actualism absolutely fails to communicate actual intimacy with one’s fellow man.

RICHARD: What you have made clear is that what you feel to be ‘bratty self righteousness’ is the very emotion that is making my words appear to you as being what you feel is ‘a perfect blithering example’ of the failure of my description of an actual freedom from the human condition to be communicated. There are other people who do not have this disability and are able to read what I have to say with both eyes.

Put simply: you are not the only person on this planet.

RESPONDENT: So why on earth you are still trying to dialogue with me?

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? If you will cease your futile attempts to communicate what your feelings make you see when reading Richard’s words (under the guise of reporting on what Richard is actually doing), you will find that I will never, ever be ‘still trying to dialogue with you’. Alternatively, cease reading my words at all ... either just click ‘delete’ when you see a header with my name on it or unsubscribe from that other Mailing List.

Nobody is twisting your arm up behind your back but you.

RESPONDENT: Why bother when I have already told you the kind of conversation you want to conduct might be swift with the spoken word, but e-mails! Forget it.

RICHARD: Yet I have been conducting conversations with ‘the spoken word’ for twenty years now ... and only one person ever comprehended completely in all that time. Whereas more than one person has grasped it via the printed word over the three or so years I have been on the internet ... the computer generates all the information in an instant whereas I tend to skip important detail when speaking.

Thus I would rather be guided by what is actually happening, than your knee-jerk emotional response, on this very important point.

RESPONDENT: Besides you seem to have a narrow comprehension about what others are actually saying and often read into their words what you imagine.

RICHARD: If this is the case then why did you pass up three opportunities to correct what you see as being my ‘narrow comprehension’ back when you were saying that the words of wisdom of a disembodied entity known as ‘Seth’ (a god going under the name ‘All That Is’) comes closer to what you see as being ‘Richard’s natural amoral stance’ than the words of the only person who has ever comprehended completely what I am on about with ‘the spoken word’ over a twenty year period? In other words: you are telling me to conduct my communication with the spoken word (it might be swifter, you say) ... yet when I did so, and that person wrote describing their experience, you stepped in and stated that the words of wisdom of a disembodied entity known as ‘Seth’ (a god going under the name ‘All That Is’) were closer to what you see as being ‘Richard’s natural amoral stance’ than that person’s words to what I am actually communicating.

I cannot help but look askance at your rationale.

RESPONDENT: Which then requires re-clarifying far more than is normally necessary.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I am only too happy to clarify and re-clarify until my fellow human being either comprehends or goes away (there are those who do). I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them.

RESPONDENT: Its like trying to have a dialog with an autistic child.

RICHARD: Oh? How much experience do you have in dialoguing with ‘an autistic child’? I only ask because some one I personally know very well, from over many, many years interaction, has a child with that affliction ... your expertise may be of assistance.

RESPONDENT: So what’s new Richard?

RICHARD: Being just here, right now, at this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space is ‘what’s new’ ... as it already always is.

RESPONDENT: All you are displaying is the same old blind human condition.

RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. Given your documented inaccuracies in other areas I will keep my own counsel on the matter.

RESPONDENT: Why come grovelling back to my little corner of the sandbox?

RICHARD: This is a loaded question (as in ‘have you stopped beating your husband/wife yet’). I am neither ‘grovelling’ nor anywhere near your ‘sand box’. If you do not wish to have me write to you ... then just get on with living your life the way you see fit.

RESPONDENT: I thought I made it quite clear that I don’t have time for your tedious pedantic misconstruing.

RICHARD: If you will not write trivial and inaccurate gossip about what you feel to be is the ‘tedious pedantic misconstruing’ that is happening on another Mailing List you will never, ever hear from me.

RESPONDENT: You say nothing is a mystery to you, that you already have all the answers to my nonsensical enquiries. So why not dismiss my words for the rubbish you so obviously think they are?

RICHARD: I just did (in case you had not noticed) in the previous E-Mail ... and point-by-point into the bargain.

RESPONDENT: Still trying to renovate and redecorate the self teacher?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Save yourself the trouble Richard, go dictate to someone else.

RICHARD: I can assure you it is no ‘trouble’ at all writing to you ... I have been challenged by experts.

December 06 2000:

RESPONDENT: Just to ensure there is no misunderstanding. The below quote is not written by myself and I wonder whether the writer approves of Richard sending it from his private mailing list to this public one. It might be worth noting everyone, than when you respond to Richard he puts a copy of it along with his contrived responses, on his website which is available to the public, unlike private mailing lists, which one must subscribe to in order to read the archives. Which is where his list member’s quote was taken from. Richard quoted: <snip>

RICHARD: First, the archives of the Mailing List in question are in the public domain ... anyone can subscribe; anyone can access them; it is all computer automated; no human vets subscription and/or access; it is an un-moderated list. Second, in this particular instance, where the respondent’s name is included at their request (unlike all the other made-anonymous copies of my correspondence on public mailing lists) the person in question has given full permission. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘It looks very nice Richard. I like it. You have my approval to make the public link (...) I am happy for my words to be part of the way that will help people to create a better world; by appearing on the actual freedom site(s)’.

In fact I only did the public linking at their particular request in the first place (it is the words that matter and not the writer’s name) ... and they were disappointed that the public linking did not appear on the Home Page under their name ... but on a [quote] ‘subordinate page’ [endquote] instead. Also, I did not – and will not – either put their name or indicate their gender when I re-quoted it in this current thread, on this, another public Mailing List ... nor ever will.

You will find that I have been considerate all along.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: I mean it when I say that I have no interest in further tying up this Mailing List’s time and/or bandwidth with responding to trivia and inaccuracies regarding an event on another Mailing List. I would sincerely suggest that you consider desisting, not only from using this Mailing List’s time and bandwidth with something that belongs on another Mailing List, but to also contemplate ceasing to make yourself look even more foolish in public than you already do.

Put briefly: if you stop writing these inaccuracies I will have nothing to respond to.


RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity