|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 2 (please make sure “java-scripting” is enabled in order for the tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to open; left-click on the image to hold).
Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 74 Re: AF website mirror RICHARD (to Srid): (...) in view of the fact that you have been, and still are, soliciting donations for your modified version of The Actual Freedom Trust website (at userstyles.org/styles/4664), a ‘Terms And Conditions’ text, similar to the ubiquitous example presented further above, has now been added onto the ‘Disclaimer’ on the website as the words contained therein [quote] ‘may not ... modify, sell ... or exploit in any way ...’ [endquote] should cover your parasitical profit-at-others-expense type of activity as well. RESPONDENT: The style is available for free, and the donation is entirely optional. I find No.1’s style to be easier on the eyes, but that is a personal preference. As far as I know Srid, it is a fantastical claim that his activity is for profit, rather than a contribution to those people (like me) who genuinely find his style useful. I did not send any money to him, but expressed my appreciation. RICHARD: As the word ‘donation’ (in contrast to, say, the word ‘fee’) is self-explanatory then the latter half of your first sentence serves as a decoy (the key-word in the text you have chosen to respond to is ‘soliciting’ and not ‘donations’); your second sentence is irrelevant to what you are responding to; your third sentence is a red-herring (focussing solely on the initial word of an expressive phrase and wresting it from its embedded meaning); and your last sentence merely reinforces your first sentence via a personal anecdote. RESPONDENT: userstyles.org asks, at the time an account is opened, to specify a paypal email address IF the contributor wants people to be invited to send him money for his /stylistic/ contribution. Srid must have specified one, and I personally see nothing wrong in that. RICHARD: What you personally see, whilst interesting enough in itself, is beside the point: by your own admission the
soliciting of donations is a deliberate act; it is irrefutable that the monies sought are for the unrequested/ unwanted/ unauthorised re-design of
other peoples’ design whilst leaving their legally registered imprimatur intact (just try doing that to other peoples’ signed paintings,
drawings, prints and etcetera); and it is evidently not peculiar to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust that such cowboy activity * RICHARD: For your information: the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust have, over the years, expended tens of thousands of scarce dollars of their own moneys (plus tens of thousands of unpaid hours) to create, maintain, and provide the millions of words currently available for free on the internet – it is only in recent years that the sale of non-essential items have been sufficient to barely cover the basic ongoing costs of the enterprise – and to have someone professing an interest in what is on offer seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism. RESPONDENT: If that is your take on this, ‘human condition in all its crass opportunism’, then I suggest you ask Srid how much he earns annually, and how much he has earned from the 37 or so down-loads (and optional donations) that his style has effected. My guess: he has earned NIL dollars from the latter, and that he expects nothing else but to be of use. RICHARD: Your first sentence, whilst earnest, completely disregards what the key-word ‘seek’ in that paragraph clearly refers to (intention not result); the first half of your second sentence merely reinforces that ignoration via personal conjecture; and the latter half belies your own admission earlier that the soliciting of donations is a deliberate act (as in expects something else than just be of use). RESPONDENT: Suppose Google becomes a paid service tomorrow (as many search engine software is, even at present). Would it be ‘parasitical’ and ‘human condition in action in all its crass opportunism’ on its part to use the internet’s content and provide an additional service? No. It is simply an additional service, and in Srid’s case, the service is offered for free. RICHARD: Your first sentence presumes it is a valid comparison to make (an unrequested/ unwanted/ unauthorised
re-painting of an artist’s signed painting is not, by any stretch of the word, a service); your second and third sentence (a rhetorical Q&A
device) is the inevitable conclusion such an (invalid) presumption determines; the first half of your last sentence merely reinforces that foregone
conclusion; and the latter half is a non-sequitur Here are the exact words from the web page in question:
All the millions of words on The Actual Freedom Trust web site actually are for free – nobody is being told to even show
their appreciation (let alone be told to show it by sending a monetary donation) – yet you draw no such distinction, despite the obvious
intention and evident expectation so readily displayed, when you use the word ‘free’ in your non-sequitur RESPONDENT: Many of the software that is used by you to create/ maintain the website is the work of free software enthusiasts (the TCP/IP stack is just one which has taken many contributions from public domain code, especially the BSD networking code). Is your offering products for sale on your website therefore ‘parasitical’ as regards that free software work? Of course not. RICHARD: As you are again answering your own question (twice now in two successive paragraphs) then what you are presenting are known as ‘faits accomplis’ (=accomplished facts) and, wherever such turn out to not be what they purportedly are, they can sometimes be indicative of somebody defending the indefensible. The fact that The Actual Freedom Trust is offering products for sale which are created solely by the authors (as in generated only of their own initiative) – somehow equates in your mind to someone ripping-off The Actual Freedom Trust web site in its entirety, re-designing it to their own liking, and then telling people to show their appreciation for this unauthorised and thus unlawful activity by sending them a monetary donation. The more you argue the case the more it seems like a hacker mentality (as in the ‘free software movement’) than anything else. If so, it has crossed the divide between software itself and what is created via software (as in the divide between the painter’s tools of craft, for instance, and the painter’s painting). Regards, Richard.
Re: AF website mirror RICHARD: (...) and to have someone professing an interest in what is on offer seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism. RESPONDENT: I have found that in general, Hanlon’s Razor is a good strategy when guessing at others’ intentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor RICHARD: Yet there was no guessing required ... the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are responding, came solely from the words displayed for all to see on the web page referred to. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: To assume malice (or crass opportunism, or profiteering) where none is present is a classic example of the human condition in action as well. RICHARD: Ha ... adopting No. 5’s debating technique just does not work with me. RESPONDENT: What’s up, Richard? RICHARD: What is up is, of course, the fact of having someone who, while professing an interest in what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is seeking a monetary gain off the back of the very same philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge which that interest has been generated per favour of. My observation, that it is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism, has nowt to do with assuming any thing at all (let alone malice) as it is self-evident by that very action. RESPONDENT: Why didn’t you contact Srid individually before accusing him in public? RICHARD: If you try asking yourself the obvious question first (why were the directors not contacted before making a rip-off public) you may very well find queries like that no longer arise. This is not a kid’s game, No. 74, and the person you are defending is out there playing with the big boys and girls, now, where grown-up rules apply. For example, under section 1204 of the 1998 DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) penalties range up to a $500,000 fine, or up to five years imprisonment, for a first offence and up to a $1,000,000 fine, or up to 10 years imprisonment, for subsequent offences. RESPONDENT: Just curious. Is that an instance of actual caring? RICHARD: As what you are saying is, in effect, that contacting someone individually is an instance of actual caring, whereas contacting someone publicly is not, then I will just have to leave you to mull that one over in private. Ain’t life grand! Regards, Richard.
Re: AF website mirror RICHARD: (...) and to have someone professing an interest in what is on offer seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism. RESPONDENT: I have found that in general, Hanlon’s Razor is a good strategy when guessing at others’ intentions. [snip link]. RICHARD: Yet there was no guessing required ... the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are responding, came solely from the words displayed for all to see on the web page referred to. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: OK, I will paraphrase another of my recent emails on this subject: – I have re-read Richard’s email, and in a single sentence, he mentions two phrases which are very strongly presumptuous of intent: ‘seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution’ [and] ‘classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism’. Now the human condition is a condition of self-centeredness and malice of sorrow and greed and desire (in other words: intents), and is not a condition of earning money and having a donations button (in other words: acts). It is putting in this phrase (‘human condition’) that proves: Richard /is/ assuming intent. – RICHARD: Given your parenthesised ‘in other words: intents’ defining, of what the term ‘human condition’ refers to, it is no wonder you say that it is putting in this phrase which proves Richard is assuming intent (as no other conclusion is possible under that kind of argument). A re-read of my words will show that I am drawing attention to what generally passes unnoticed simply because of the ubiquity of the human condition. Indeed, in the sixteen months since Sunday the 6th of January, 2008, not one person writing to this discussion list has ever commented on the incongruity of fellow human beings being told to show appreciation, by sending a donation, to someone who re-designed a website which is available totally for free. And especially not the 37 or so down-loaders ... such a thing is so common it passes right over everyone’s heads. RESPONDENT: The first sentence (of yours) is fine enough, since Srid was (at least prima facie) seeking donations (even though he has now clarified that that was not the intent). RICHARD: Not being a mind-reader I cannot possibly know another’s thoughts; what I can know is another’s words and deeds and when I read the words
and then click on the link provided, further below, only to arrive at a webpage on which I am told to show my appreciation by sending a monetary donation, via either of two clickable buttons, I do not need to know that person’s thoughts in order to comprehend what the intention is in providing those clickable buttons. Perhaps an everyday example is in order: sometimes, when walking along the footpath in the central business district, I see a person playing music who also has an upturned hat, with a number of coins in it, set upon the footpath just in front of them. Now, I can listen to the music for free, if I were so inclined, as no fee is charged yet the coins in the upturned hat inform me that the intent to play music for all and sundry is not, repeat not, a philanthropic intent (else why the upturned hat with coins in it). Simple, non? Now, you can say it has been clarified that seeking donations was not the intent yet as long as those two clickable buttons, and the words telling people to show their appreciation by sending a monetary donation, remain in situ it makes mockery of any such clarification. Just as a matter of interest: did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not to be found in any dictionary? RESPONDENT: The second sentence is what makes it clear that it is not only the act of the donations which is under the spotlight, but the intent behind it, otherwise why mention the ‘human condition in ...’. RICHARD: No ... by using the word crass I am meaning grossly insensitive The only reason I finished the paragraph thataway was to draw attention to something so obvious to me that it was almost beyond comprehension that nobody had ever mentioned it. But, then again, unawareness is typical of the human condition. * RESPONDENT: Why didn’t you contact Srid individually before accusing him in public? RICHARD: If you try asking yourself the obvious question first (why were the directors not contacted before making a rip-off public) you may very well find queries like that no longer arise. RESPONDENT: That is certainly his mistake. RICHARD: Aye ... it was the weekend, here, when Message No. 5084 I scrolled back up so as to read it properly ... it was immediately obvious that this re-design business had gone too far and that, in hindsight, it should have been nipped in the bud last year. So I notified all the directors and a suggestion was made to get together for an extraordinary director’s meeting (ordinary meetings, supposedly monthly, are often months apart). At the meeting it was decided that, rather than have a repeat of the previous email exchange (where draft copies have to be circulated around for comments, changes, additions, deletions, and so forth, before sending), I would take the rather unusual step of subscribing to this list and attending to the matter personally. RESPONDENT: This is what I advised Srid, in private, and his response is included:
RICHARD: Okay ... although, as Vineeto had forwarded to me a copy of her reply to that email to her, I am already aware that the ex post facto request for permission was suggested by you (that information was included in the email to Vineeto). * RESPONDENT: Just curious. Is that an instance of actual caring? RICHARD: As what you are saying is, in effect, that contacting someone individually is an instance of actual caring, whereas contacting someone publicly is not, then I will just have to leave you to mull that one over in private. RESPONDENT: I hold that accusing someone of ignoble intent in public, before verifying that intent first by private communication (when such communication is possible), is not sensible and caring. RICHARD: Somehow you still do not see that your whole focus is fixed on this issue of guessing at intent and/or intention which you have introduced into what is otherwise a very simple matter. Look, here is what you wrote the first time around:
I have already demonstrated, in the previous email, how there was no guessing required (inasmuch the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are still responding, came solely from the very words displayed on the web page referred to. RESPONDENT: Would you agree with me on the above (whether or not you agree with me on whether you accused Srid of ignoble intent in this affair)? RICHARD: As there was no guessing involved (nor any accusing for that matter) there is, quite evidently, no guess to verify. It really is that simple. Regards, Richard
Re: Email deletion RICHARD: Srid, in regards to the font settings: Vineeto has unlocked the font in all the Library Articles (including the Glossary) and has published them online already. All the introduction pages are also unlocked and online. She is currently busy with the FAQ’s and CRO’s ... then the next to be done is Selected Correspondence. Eventually, the entire web site (there are 1700+ pages to do). More later. P.S.: We tried-out the 120% line-spacing; on the larger/largest size-setting, in the web browser, it was not needed at all (in fact it made for too much separation). But ... thanks for the suggestion (I would not have thought of trying it) anyway. RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, A suggestion, if I may: On the main page (www.actualfreedom.com.au), and on the page (../directorscorrespondence/index.htm), and perhaps on other pages as well, hovering the mouse over a link has the jarring effect of changing the font of the link and redistributing the text. This seems to be a recent development. May I appeal to the webmasters to consider reverting this change? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, A quick note whilst I am still online. Yep, it can be fixed ... I will talk to Vineeto about it. That hovering feature has always been there: it would appear that it only started doing what you report when the view-size is enlarged in the web-browser. One of those unintended consequences. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, Richard.
Re: No. 4 RESPONDENT: Richard, you’ve made your point, at least for me. As for No. 5 RICHARD: G’day No. 2, Thank you for your input. However, I am not making a point as I do not have one to make. This is just pointless blah. Nor am I illustrating anything. This is just mindless blah. Neither is there any intent (as in ‘buckle down’, for instance). This is just brainless blah. As a suggestion only: don’t expect anything (as in ‘genuinely surprised’, for example). This is just thoughtless blah. I’ll probably drop it soon. I just wanted to experience what it is like, for once in my life, so as to see just what it is that others all around the internet get out of it. So far, I haven’t felt anything ... it’s all rather vacuous, in fact. Can’t say I’d recommend it, actually. Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. Regards, Richard.
Re: AF website mirror RICHARD: ( ... ) and to have someone professing an interest in what is on offer seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism. RESPONDENT: I have found that in general, Hanlon’s Razor is a good strategy when guessing at others’ intentions. [snip link]. RICHARD: Yet there was no guessing required ... the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are responding, came solely from the words displayed for all to see on the web page referred to. Viz.:
(...) A re-read of my words will show that I am drawing attention to what generally passes unnoticed simply because of the ubiquity of the human condition. Indeed, in the sixteen months since Sunday the 6th of January, 2008, not one person writing to this discussion list has ever commented on the incongruity of fellow human beings being told to show appreciation, by sending a donation, to someone who re-designed a website which is available totally for free. And especially not the 37 or so down-loaders ... such a thing is so common it passes right over everyone’s heads. (...) ... by using the word crass I am meaning grossly insensitive (as in unaware of/ not noticing/ oblivious to/ ignorant of) and by the word opportunism I am meaning the seizing of opportunities when they occur. The only reason I finished the paragraph thataway was to draw attention to something so obvious to me that it was almost beyond comprehension that nobody had ever mentioned it. But, then again, unawareness is typical of the human condition. RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for the clarification. It is always a pleasure to read your correspondence, even though it is perplexing to begin with at times. As all terms used have now been amply clarified, I (and presumably others on this list) have only one further question: Is asking for a donation (or even a fee) for a Srid-like stylistic contribution (with the caveats as I suggested to Srid) reprehensible? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, It has nothing to do with reprehensibility ... it is all about acting with full awareness. If (note ‘if’) anyone professing an interest in what is on offer for free were to proceed with some-such similar activity, whilst fully conscious of that incongruity (as already explained), then that is their business. What I am drawing attention to is the marked contrast between how an actually free person/ virtually free persons act, in this instance for an example, and how a person/ several dozen persons not actually/ not virtually free act. Please, I am not blaming anyone, in that section you are responding to, as a re-read will show that I am clearly pointing the finger at the human condition itself .... as in my ‘a classic example of the human condition in action’ phrasing. If anything it is the human condition which is reprehensible (so to speak). But (and this is a big ‘but’) we humans, with our amazing ability to be both conscious and (simultaneously) be aware of being conscious, can extricate ourselves from the human condition we are born into. Provided we act with full awareness, that is, else we remain forever as we are. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, had the website been an ordinary website (set up for, say, stamp collecting) and, thus, this discussion list had been about stamps, there is no way that paragraph would have been written.
Re: Questions To Richard RICHARD: No, I do not intend to tape/ chronicle/ publish/ disseminate these forthcoming sessions ... just as the personal conversations which are currently taking place with an outstanding fellow human being, well-known to this forum, are not being recorded either. RESPONDENT: Hi Richard. Nevertheless, I (and perhaps most others on this list) look forward to your and the well-known-correspondent’s reports/ reminiscences on the meeting, if and when either of you is inclined to share them. RICHARD: G’day No. 2, Of course ... the well-known correspondent is free to say whatever he deems appropriate about
me Suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that I had the pleasure of spending five and half hours, yesterday afternoon, in the
company of a remarkably sincere fellow human being (who was visibly moved to be the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence Today we will be going boating on the nearby river – I have in mind a picnic-style luncheon at the confluence of two tributaries some distance upstream (an isolated and very picturesque lagoon thus formed completely enclosed by dense rainforest trees) – and tomorrow the two of us will be travelling some distance by bus to spend the day with Peter and Vineeto in differently picturesque surroundings. The itinerary for the few remaining days thereafter remains open as yet but may very well include meeting some other
actualists (fellow travellers). It does bode well in regards to what I had characterised as being [quote] ‘all experimental at this stage’ Thank you for your obvious interest ... it makes for a most refreshing contrast to the sourpuss cynicism of ... um ... of the
conjoined twins (Messages 7952 I also look forward to making your acquaintance (preferably sooner rather than later). Regards Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, You write:
Can you elaborate on the ‘stage fright’ aspect, as this seems to have been the push-off point for your ex-wife. What do /you/ think happened? Was it that she was not ready to be publicly associated with actual freedom? A ‘stage fright’ would mean nervousness about preservation of one’s social persona. Was she concerned about how others would perceive her and would, thus, would consider her, erm, fallen? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, Ha ... that word is quite apt (as in ‘fallen back to normal’). To explain: from November 1995 to December 1996 she was in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being condition I chose to call a virtual freedom (not to be confused with a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom). In that condition inducing PCE’s is a lot simpler: once one has the knack they can be brought about on an almost daily basis; sometimes two-three times a day (in my experience). In the latter months of that 95-96 virtual freedom period my second wife obtained that knack: she could induce a PCE just by looking at those ‘Magic Eye’ pictures (those pictures where a two-dimensional image becomes three-dimensional simply by looking at them as if looking-through the picture) for instance. To say I was pleased is to understate it: here was a living, breathing, walking, talking example of what is possible per favour my reports/ descriptions/ explanations (words are words be they spoken or written). Then in the December of 1996 she all-of-a-sudden brought it to an abrupt halt; I can clearly remember when she told me of her decision; we were sitting at an out-door table of a coffee shop (known as the DOCS Café actually), under the shade of a large umbrella, when she informed me she was no longer going to be doing it my way, as it was too much hard work, and henceforth she would be doing it her way. As this made no sense whatsoever – being out from control, and in a different way of being, having PCE’s on an almost daily basis (sometimes two-three times a day), cannot by any stretch of the words be characterised as ‘too much hard work’, I just sat there looking at her quizzically. (What was going through my mind, if that quizzical alertness were to have been in the form of words, was something in the nature of ‘Uh-oh, so it’s all over, eh’?). She could not meet my eyes; she could not explain; she could not come up with anything other than to repeat ‘I’m going to do it my way’. As I have had this kind of behaviour with many a person before (where they would be initially interested, in what I was saying, only to all-of-a-sudden swing to the opposite upon have realised the full impact of what is involved and/or having had an utterly frightening experience as to just what it entails) I simply shrugged my shoulders and replied ‘Sure, what is your way, then?’ As she was no longer out from control, nor in a different way of being, her way could be best summarised as the ‘group-therapy’ way and her first step in that direction would be for her to expand our ménage a deux into being a ménage a trois. She explained that she had come as far as she could in the one-on-one male-female dynamic and that a new dynamic, especially the female-female aspect, could bring up issues in her, for her to look at, which her being solely with me would never arise. So as to keep this as succinct as possible: fast-forward to her seeing her readily identifiable words in print, and her name in pixels, a scant six months later. Her out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is but a distant memory (having fallen back to a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom); all manner of issues have surged forth due to the two-women-one-man dynamic; more and more people are coming into her living room to meet Richard; she is unable to live up to what she wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’; and the inefficacy of her group-dynamic/ group-therapy way is exposed for all to see. Hence what she called ‘stage fright’ (and others can verify she said those exact words) yet it was not the common or garden variety of stage fright but the frightening to the nth degree type, which is a fear so vast as to be best be called dread, as the only way to stand beside Richard in front of all these peoples is to be out from control and in a different way of being. A way of being at the inevitable end of which lies only extinction. Regards, Richard. P.S.: Please note that she could be any woman – it is nothing peculiar to her – as the example of my third wife evidences (not to mention my first wife in regards to an imminent ego-death). This is not a matter of gossip or airing dirty linen in public but vital knowledge, for anyone contemplating going all the way, to be as fully informed of in advance as is possible. And were I to have been born female I would be saying ‘Please note that he could be any man – it is nothing peculiar to him – as the example of my third husband evidences (not to mention my first husband in regards to an imminent ego-death)’.
Re: Richard I have a question RESPONDENT: Hi Richard You write:
Would you say that this experience of yours could have been a hallucinatory state which you interpreted according to the fundamental thrust of your seeking, as is common in dream-emergent states? I realize that the last part (after the ellipses in the above sentence of yours) is a metaphor, but I cannot help but think that the ‘I’ is such an inchoate and slippery entity (or void) that to actually see its essence and non-existence in the way you mention could have been due to your persistent desire to look for it in a particular way over an extended period of time, fuelled partly by a memorable insight already in place that there is no ‘me’ or emotional ‘being’ in actuality. In other words, I suspect that your realization (in my words), that the ‘I’ am the felt illusory center of the eddy of feelings and passions, might have been already there in some embryonic form, which embryonic realization then enabled you to see it and recognize it with your own eyes (as it were) on that fateful day. RICHARD: G’day No. 2, So as to put it into perspective: it was a response to being asked how to learn and discover the essence of who ‘I’ am, and not who ‘I’ am in general (social-self + ego-self + soul/ spirit-self), and my anecdotal reply refers to what took place the sixth year (1987) of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. Prior to the penetration deep into ‘myself’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) there had been no pre-existing model, not even embryonic, of such a nature to have insinuated itself into that gorgeous exposure of ‘my’ glorious essence. Indeed, the only pre-existing model (per favour my second wife in the period before that penetration) was in the nature of a dot in the centre of a circle; the dot represented essence and the circle was representative of (self-protective) egoic activity. Because you specifically mention ‘a memorable insight already in place that there is no ‘me’ or emotional ‘being’ in actuality’ it must be stressed that the penetration did not reveal that at all; what lay exposed (as in completely unprotected) was the essence of ‘me’ in all ‘my’ glory ... beautiful, radiant, resplendent and unquestionably worthy of the utmost adoration, worship and veneration. (Hence my lustrous pearl analogy; the eddy analogy is for void, in contrast to thing, as the essence of who ‘I’ am is formless). Kings and Emperors and Sages and Seers alike tremble at the rare honour bestowed only on a graced few, to prostrate before that sacred effulgence, upon choice revelation of its almighty presence. For instance:
Regards, Richard. P.S.: I had to chuckle where you asked whether it could have been a hallucinatory state as the entire phenomenon is nothing but a massive hallucination – a magnipotent delusion – from the very beginning to its absolute end.
Subject: Re: A Long-Awaited Public Announcement RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, RICHARD: Put differently, why are the subsequent crop of so-called enlightened/ awakened beings of the just-add-water-and-stir variety? RESPONDENT: This made me pause. It is worth pondering. Are you saying there is a mysterious reason for no more potent (as contrasted with just-add-water-and-stir variety) Godmen/ Godwomen? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, No, the reason for there being no more potent embodiments of the divine/the diabolical is not at all a mysterious matter (as in inexplicable) but, as the impotency of the subsequent crop of wannabe saviours of humanity has a mystical cause (located as it is in the apotheosised field of consciousness popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment), it might as well be a mystery, to all intents and purposes, for the layperson. RESPONDENT: Is that reason have anything to do with your (as claimed) being actually free, even though very few people know about you as of now? RICHARD: No, it is not by being actually free of the human condition per se but, rather, because of what the grandiose identity/ the aggrandised affections indwelling via having possessed this flesh and blood body did, in 1992, to bring that about/ to have that happen/ to occasion that to occur ... to wit: the extinction of ‘Being’ itself (otherwise known as ‘The Ground Of Being’ out of which all gods and goddesses arise). In short, and to paraphrase Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche purely for dramatic effect, that which is referred to as The Absolute is dead ... as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains (nor any ashes for some hoary phoenix to arise from). Or, in a word, extinct. RESPONDENT: Or is that reason simply due to the rise of scientism and scepticism and access to information, as you hinted somewhere with words to that effect (that the gurus will not be able to avoid scrutiny in this age, etc.). RICHARD: No, that incapacity to avoid scrutiny is how the layperson is able to see that all the sages and saints and seers have feet of clay (given they do not have access to the apotheosised field of consciousness popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment). RESPONDENT: And is the phenomenon of near mutiny recently witnessed in the real world by you in the affair of the floating convivium something to do with the Being of your now dead wife playing havoc with the psychic world of the people around you? RICHARD: No, not to do with my second (de jure) wife’s ‘being’ – who died when she died – but due to the simple fact that two persons, whom I know for a fact read all the emails I post to this forum, fell victim to automorphism (a word which, according to the Oxford Dictionary, refers to the ascription of one’s own characteristics to another). Incidentally, it was not a near mutiny ... it was the full-blown phenomenon itself with high drama consisting of surreptitious insurrection and secretive plotting involving outright lies, deceit, betrayal and, most telling of all, the utter failure to carry out the quite expressively conveyed wishes of the (nominal) ship’s captain. Indeed, had it not been for the profound understanding and, thus, unwavering support of the (nominal) ship’s master then any possibility of global peace and harmony in my lifetime would have remained stillborn. And, as a direct result of that profundity, that staunchness, the ship’s master was easily able to join the ship’s captain, where he has resided on his own for seventeen years, before the ship’s bell rang out the witching hour (aka midnight) of that otherwise infamous day. (This is all such fun, couching events in nautical parlance for the historical record, that it be barely credible nobody here is preventing from me doing so). RESPONDENT: I ask, because, later you hint that No. 22’s experiences may be due to that very wife’s Being’s shenanigans to create a (world-wide? psychic?) blockage/ diversion amongst people. RICHARD: No, although the consternation currently rippling through the psychic world may very well have had a contributory effect the primary reason – indeed the sole cause – for the mutiny (which will go down in the annals of history as the only one to occur before the ship even left the drawing board) was the utter panic which ensued, upon having inadvertently had direct access to me as I actually am, pursuant to the revelation that the writer of these millions of words is but an innocent youth and not, as some might say it elsewhere, a randy old man out to parade his conquest of a ... um ... a sex kitten half his age. RESPONDENT: And later No. 22 commenting that ‘There’s a possibility that the Psyche itself will implode/ will be destroyed and as a consequence of that all 6.5 > billion people inhabiting this planet will be set free’? RICHARD: As I have no access whatsoever to the human psyche collectively (aka the Psyche) – and neither can it get at me – I am unable to provide an informed comment. Suffice is it to say, for the record, that whilst entirely possible it be not probable, at least at this stage, that global peace-on-earth (as distinct from global peace and harmony) will come about in the near-future. The phrase ‘too much too fast too soon’ (as in blowing the fuses) should be sufficient explanation. * RICHARD (to No. 22): The very fact I have absolutely no power, or powers, whatsoever means there are no battles to be
fought – be they of the fire-breathing dragon-slaying variety or otherwise – so when you have either destroyed all such phantasmagoria or,
preferably, come to your senses you will find that, with The Absolute having never been, upon the extinction of ‘Being’ itself (aka the
grandiose identity/ the aggrandised affections indwelling via having possessed this flesh and blood body) in 1992, any such ‘Supreme Being’
(God/ Goddess by whatever name) only remained apparently existent per favour an anti-actualism/ pro-spiritualism blockage/ diversion created by my
second (de jure) wife’s ‘presence’ ... as in ‘her’ very ‘being’ (which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: By the way, how did you conclude that the striking event was a consequence of your wife’s ‘Being’ and not simply due to her influence, so to speak? RICHARD: An apperceptive awareness of the nuances in the way or manner in which this flesh and blood body operates and functions – which the awareness of the actualism method seeks to imitate – whilst interacting with fellow human beings is more than sufficient to conclude what the striking event was a consequence of. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: As an (ostensibly) actually free person, how do you deduce the psychic causation in the real world? RICHARD: :-))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((-: Ha ... magically, of course. :-))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((-: Regards, Richard. << o >> ~~~~~~~~~~_/)~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~after~actual~freedom~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Continued on Direct Route: No. 3
Continued from Direct Route: No. 3 Re: Postscript RESPONDENT No. 2: Hi No. 6, I have no intentions yet to resume writing extensively on this mailing list, but I would like to respond to your queries (which responses may be able to answer No. 5’s as well): RESPONDENT No. 6: Greetings, No. 2, Thank you for sharing your concerns and thoughts. * RESPONDENT No. 2: Even though I have bid adieu to this mailing list (I am now a web-only member who reads it occasionally, in his free time), I am obligated to say this to the fellow travellers and seekers and to those who via my blog, or via interactions with me, have come to this mailing list or considered the contents of the AFT website. RESPONDENT No. 6: Why are you obligated to announce that on the mailing list? RESPONDENT No. 2: I thought the reason would be evident. But I will spell it out: Because of my initial recommendation to many who are now members of this list, and because my blog comments (by me) which recommend to join this list. RESPONDENT No. 6: Are you sending a caveat to your fellow travellers and do you feel responsible for them in some way? RESPONDENT No. 2: Yes (and by caveat I assume you mean ‘cautionary note’), and Somewhat (to the extent that I referred many here, and some of them see me as a more experienced traveller). For the historical record, I can no longer unhesitatingly recommend 100% of the contents of the AFT website (and especially the recent developments about the ‘direct route’ etc.). RESPONDENT No. 6: Why are you trying to set the historical record or any such record straight? RESPONDENT No. 2: I consider it important to make public my current viewpoint about AF since I have been rather public about recommending it. RESPONDENT No. 6: Do you perceive any harm coming to your fellow travellers or are you merely expressing your altered view of what is on offer at the AFT website? RESPONDENT No. 2: There is danger on any path. The more radical/ uncharted the journey, the more dangerous it can be potentially. RESPONDENT No. 6: Were you recommending 100% of the contents on the AFT website prior to your recent altering of your view? RESPONDENT No. 2: No, but that might have been the impression (since I did not qualify my references and recommendations to the AFT website or to this list). RESPONDENT No. 6: While you must have your reasons for writing what you wrote in your last two emails to this forum, will you be willing to indulge me on the following questions: RESPONDENT No. 2: Only very briefly. RESPONDENT No. 6: a. Has your recent altering of view come about due to discoveries/ realizations at a personal level – as in something being out of kilter as regards your moment – to -moment experiencing of life? RESPONDENT No. 2: Given the way you have phrased the question: No. RESPONDENT No. 6: b. Are your concerns a direct result of experiencing something in your flesh and body which makes you take such a cautious stance/ re-adjust your view? (and since you have been a very enthusiastic and an earnest practitioner, your reasons of such a re-adjustment and motivation to announce it publicly must be equally compelling, I guess). RESPONDENT No. 2: As everything is experienced in one’s body/ mind, your question is meaningless as worded. Kindly rephrase. RESPONDENT No. 6: c. Is your alteration in view something to do actions/ words/ perceived intentions/ misreadings of one or more people? ( in that case, is it not a case of going by mere words and not experiencing it, in other words letting intellect and understanding, which can be often conditioned, take the lead over experiences of flesh and body). RESPONDENT No. 2: Your question (and the parenthesized loaded question) is too vague and general to be answered as it is. But taking a lead: It has partly (note: partly) to do with a critical consideration of the ‘Announcement’,
and partly to Vineeto’s response to my query RESPONDENT No. 6: Please bear in mind that I am nascent to actualism, and have not read as much as you have hence I am looking to benefit from your ‘discrimination, probing, thought, enquiry, reflection, practice, and experimentation’ as regards writings/ correspondence made available at the AFT website. RESPONDENT No. 2: Given that you are indeed ‘nascent to actualism’ (otherwise your words above would be expressing a false humility), you seem to be rather certain and enthusiastic about what it promises (to the extent that you have found it fit to join the mail out facility as the x’th member) (the mail-out members know the numeric referred to by x, which is indicative of No. 6’s enthusiasm), a facility whose description clearly says that ‘This mail-out facility is only for those ready and willing to join the three of us here in this actual world ... and sooner rather than later.’ RESPONDENT No. 6: Or am I wrong, and you are not yet ‘ready and willing to join ... sooner rather than later’? RESPONDENT No. 2: If you are indeed ‘ready and willing to join ... sooner rather than later’ as well as have a nascent-only understanding of actualism, then may I suggest that you take a significant pause and reflect on your situation? RICHARD: Golly ... and to think that all those aspersions cast (complete with many and various inveigling insinuendos)
stem initially from Vineeto’s articulation of being none too sure whether No. 2’s portrayal of Peter as akin to being a chief disciple, and of
herself as a sannyasin, distinguishable from others of similar ilk by prominent mammae (else why focus attention on them), was either a bad attempt
at humour or a dimly disguised dig. (No. 2’s follow-up post portraying the forum itself as seeming to be for acolytes
This post (above), however, elevates the dénigrement of a person of the feminine gender to entirely new heights of absurdity. Ah, well ... c’est la vie (in India), I guess. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: As No. 2 did not answer No. 17’ query, either, then here it is again for due consideration:
Could it be the fact how it has succeeded, and will now thus continue to succeed, in having an actual peace and harmony come about, perchance? •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom RESPONDENT No. 25: [...]. Let me be clear, because it seems that you are not getting my point – or you are avoiding it, I don’t know which. RICHARD: I have snipped all of my words as they were getting in the way of what you want to say ... to wit: that Richard is either myopic or evasive. Yet, I got your point the moment you posted your first reply (Message No. 10xxx And I also did not avoid your point as I am in full agreement that the collective psyche (that psychic web/ psychic network
connecting all feeling-beings) is paranormal; indeed, nowhere at all on The Actual Freedom Trust website do I ever say otherwise; I even refer to
the ‘James Randi Educational Foundation’, the ‘Indian Sceptic’, the ‘Australian Sceptic’, as well as a now-defunct society in the UK,
which all offer a large amount of money to the first person who can conclusively demonstrate paranormal or supernatural phenomena. (Incidentally,
those references in my writings do not even have to be searched for as they are helpfully copy-pasted into the ‘Selected Correspondence’
section under the headings ‘Psyche RESPONDENT No. 25: The ‘metaphysical’ does not come in with your reference to ‘calorific energy’ or even the ‘quickening.’ RICHARD: I am pleased to know you comprehend that salient fact. RESPONDENT No. 25: Again, I can understand the ‘psychic web’ as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity. RICHARD: Oh? What physical mechanism, as in what scientists know about physics, would or could support the existence and function of what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity? You do realise, do you not, that ‘vibes’ is a colloquial-ism for affective feelings – emotions/ passions – which have no existence in actuality? (If you do not then, next you may well be telling me how emotions/ passions have a physical existence and function, as in what scientists know about physics, and are not as what could or would be normally termed as ‘affective’). Also, if you are ‘way off base’ as to your understanding (as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact, for example)– one can ask where else such a person who allows himself to use a ‘bizarre’ understanding strays unwittingly from the facts. Your current writing is just as ‘affective’ as what one finds on the Mills & Boon bookshelves. It is possible that some romanticists may be able to accept what you can understand, but this closes the door to those that begin with what is known scientifically about physics. If your understanding is correct, then science – as we know it – would have to be radically revised. If we see a radical revision is necessary to physics, then that would open the door to all manner of ‘affective’ phenomena – emotions, passions, feelings, affections, moods, vibes (love/ hate; fear/ courage; anger/ affection; gladness/ sadness), etc. Where does it end? I wrote my above words due to the fact that you stated what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity. Considering that I don’t know of any scientific evidence for what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people, would you mind venturing an hypothesis or theory as to how those ‘vibes’ could have occurred in a purely physical manner? I am happy to rescind my description of the ‘affective’ nature of your current writings if you can provide a convincing case as to how those extraordinary events you can understand as ‘vibes’ can occur in the physical world. Ha ... ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Richard’s modus operandi: A: 1: Spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ [...snip...]. 2: People say: [...snip...]. 3. Say that: [...snip...]. 4: Problem solved. B: 1. Spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ [...snip...]. 2: People say: [...snip...]. 3. Say that: [...snip...]. 4: Problem solved. C: 1. Spout misleading or patently false or confusing nonsense to promote [...snip...]. 2: People say: [...snip...]. 3. Make it even more confusing by [...snip...]. 4: Problem solved. RICHARD: G’day No. 2, I have snipped-out your above attempts to comprehend how things operate in actuality as it is all quite simple here, where flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, when contrasted to what feeling-beings make of it. For instance: A: 1. No. 25 wrote that without scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both its existence and function – this ‘collective psyche’ (that psychic web/ psychic network connecting all feeling-beings) which Richard refers to is what would normally be termed as ‘paranormal’. 2. Richard wrote that he is in full agreement that the collective psyche he refers to – that psychic web/ psychic network connecting all feeling-beings – is indeed paranormal (and further advised that nowhere at all on The Actual Freedom Trust website does he ever say otherwise). 3. You assert, above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ (in your Section A, sub-section No. 1 assertion). 4. What is implicit your assertion is that No. 25 is spouting utter nonsense too. 5. Since he spouted that which you assert is utter nonsense first – and has been most insistent, throughout several emails, that Richard spout it too – then what you characterise as ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ would be better characterised by you, in this instance, as ‘No. 25’s modus operandi’, would it not? 6. Richard wrote that without scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both their existence and function – those ‘vibes’ (the emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings) which No. 25 refers to are what would normally be termed as ‘affective’. 7. You assert, above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ (in your Section A, sub-section No. 1 assertion). 8. What is implicit in your assertion is that the categorisation of ‘vibes’ – those emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings – as being ‘affective’ is utter nonsense. 9. As it is simply not rational to characterise that categorisation (of those emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings as ‘affective’) as to be spouting utter nonsense it is, therefore, quite valid to infer that what you characterise ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ as – as to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ – would be better characterised by you, in this instance, as ‘Respondent’s modus operandi’, would it not? * B: 1. Richard wrote that ‘vibes’ is a colloquialism for affective feelings – emotions/ passions – which have no existence in actuality. 2. You assert, further above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ (in your Section B, sub-section No. 1 assertion). 3. What is implicit in that assertion of yours is that anybody who is having, or can recall having, a PCE (a pure conscious experience) is, according to you, spouting utter nonsense as well. 4. You are on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating you cannot recall ever having had a PCE. 5. Despite having no experiential understanding/no intimate knowledge of a PCE you nevertheless – and thus solely by the exercising of intelligence – categorise an actual freedom from the human condition as being ‘Mahasamadhi’ (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) and ‘Parinirvana’ (on your ‘Remains of the Day’ web log). 6. What is implicit in that intellectual categorisation of yours – that an actual freedom from the human condition is, therefore, an ASC (an altered state of consciousness) – is that all PCE’s are thus really ASC’s. 7. What is further implicit in that intellectual categorisation of yours – that all PCE’s are really ASC’s – is that anybody who is having, or can recall having, a PCE is, according to you, spouting utter nonsense as well. 8. As the primary characteristic of a PCE (the abeyance of the entire affective faculty/ the identity in toto) is quite distinct from the primary characteristic of an ASC (the sublimation of negative affections/ the transcendence of egoic identity) it is, therefore, quite valid to infer that your inability to recall ever having had a PCE is what is crippling your intelligence. 9. As it is simply not rational to categorise PCE’s as being ASC’s then what you characterise ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ as – as to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ – would be better characterised as ‘Respondent’s modus operandi’, would it not? * C: 1. As he did not know of any scientific evidence for what No. 25 could understand as ‘vibes’ (affective feelings) being passed between people, Richard asked whether he (No. 25) would mind venturing an hypothesis or theory as to how those ‘vibes’ (emotions/ passions) could have occurred in a purely physical manner; Richard added that he was happy to rescind his description of the ‘affective’ nature of No. 25’s current writings if he (No. 25) could provide a convincing case as to how those extraordinary events he (No. 25) could understand as ‘vibes’ (those affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions) can occur in the physical world. 2. As there is no scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics)
would or could support both their existence and function – for those ‘vibes’ (the affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions which are
common to all feeling-beings) then one of the two primary characteristics of a PCE (the abeyance of the entire affective faculty) is not
contradicted by science 3. Therefore it is simply not rational to characterise Richard’s modus operandi as being to spout misleading or patently false or confusing nonsense, as in your Section C, sub-section No. 1 assertion, just because Richard wrote that ‘vibes’ – which is a colloquialism for affective feelings (emotions/ passions) – have no existence in actuality (and especially so given a PCE evidences it to be entirely factual and, thus patently, neither misleading nor confusing). 4. One of the fundamental and outstanding features of a PCE – which you are on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating you cannot recall ever having – is that both the entire affective faculty and the identity in toto are but an illusion; similarly, one of the fundamental and outstanding features of an actual freedom from the human condition (about which you have no experiential understanding/ intimate knowledge of whatsoever), is that both the entire affective faculty and the identity in toto were indeed but an illusion. 5. Integral to what Richard wrote overall (in this email you are responding to) is that the term ‘affective faculty’ includes its epiphenomenal psychic facility – an integral factor made explicit via quotes to that very effect in the previous email – regardless of whether any particular feeling-being is (intuitively) sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche or not. 6. Now, when Richard writes/ talks to a fellow human being, to a person who is living the illusion that they really are a
feeling-being/ really do have affections, he pays lip-service to their illusion 7. In this particular instance No. 25 is demurring over which parts of his reality/ reality itself (his illusion/ illusion itself) are real (aka ‘normal’) and which parts of it are not real (aka ‘paranormal’) and is insisting that Richard admit that the parts which to No. 25 are not real (as in ‘paranormal’) are indeed, in reality, not real; as Richard is in full agreement that there is no scientific evidence that ‘paranormal’ phenomena occur in a purely physical manner he thus also unreservedly agrees that ‘paranormal’ phenomena do not occur in the physical world. 8. What Richard does not agree with is No. 25’s point that, because he (No. 25) is not intuitively sensitive to the ‘paranormal’ phenomena in his (No. 25’s) psyche, Richard should also discount the ‘paranormal’ phenomena of some other feeling-beings (who were indeed intuitively sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche) as being invalid in regards to being the reason why, all-of-a-sudden and within the hour of Devika’s/ Irene’s death, they had unrestricted access to the personification of that palpable life-force called ‘pure intent’ – that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself – and, thereby, altruistically enabled/ facilitated access to the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of. 9. As it is simply not rational to discount the ‘paranormal’ phenomena of other feeling-beings (who were indeed intuitively sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche), solely because there is no scientific evidence for its existence and function, Richard provided a practical demonstration to No. 25 (by paraphrasing No. 25’s own words) how pointless it was to discount ‘paranormal’ phenomena via an appeal to scientific evidence because ‘affective’ phenomena – which for him (No. 25) is evidently part of his reality/ reality itself (his illusion/ illusion itself) – can be similarly discounted because there is no scientific evidence for the existence and function of ‘affective’ phenomena either. * As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.
Regards, Richard.
Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom RICHARD: I have snipped-out your above attempts to comprehend how things operate in actuality as it is all quite simple here, where flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, when contrasted to what feeling-beings make of it. RESPONDENT: You can snip all you like, and introduce presumptuous phrases and meaningless new words in between as much as you want. I have figured you out and that’s the end of the matter (for me, that is, and quite a few others). RICHARD: G’day No. 2, As you have never had a person-to-person interaction with me – as in two flesh-and-blood
bodies situated in an interactional physical proximity – then whatever it is which prompts you to say [quote] ‘I have figured you out’
[endquote] comes from what you make of both hearsay tales and the written words on The Actual Freedom Trust website Look, I would be doing my fellow human being no favour to just sit idly by, whilst witnessing all manner of made-up stuff
about a phantom ‘Richard’ being bandied about, without issuing a timely warning, for each and every person involved, to exercise sensible
caution in regards to otherwise uncritically accepting factoids as fact Put simply: as I know for a fact that you have not figured me out at all – not even one little bit of it – I hereby advise you to pause for a moment (if you can) and consider all the consequences of what you have already done so far, both accountably, under your own name, and unaccountably under the various ‘Internet ID’s/ ‘Screen Names’ you have used/ are using on this and other related forums. And where I say ‘the consequences of what you have already done so far’ I mean becoming aware of the effects your words and actions result in. (‘Tis more than passing strange that the very thing you and your ilk all (falsely) accuse me of – of me being (supposedly) oblivious to the effects my words and actions have on others – is the very thing you and your ilk are, and quite evidently too, all guilty of yourselves). To provide but one example: do you have any idea what it is like to have what is generally considered to be private and confidential information made public knowledge such as to jeopardise both your personal security and your physical safety? Do you? If so, where is there evidence of that much-touted ethical code (aka morality) in action? Where is the evidence of that much-prized empathy (aka compassion) in action? Who amongst the three of you has displayed any evidence of ethical behaviour in regards to Richard (and, latterly, in regards to Vineeto)? Who amongst the three of you has displayed any evidence of empathy for Richard (and, latterly, for Vineeto) in regards to the ‘public spectacle’ situation you have placed him (and, latterly, her) in? * Can you not see that ‘Richard & his associates’ have been dragged out into a ‘cyber-space’ village square (so to speak) to be sneered at, derided, ridiculed and publicly deprived of their privacy and privileges by a hyped-up mob of masked/ hooded (anonymous) citizens virtually baying for blood by now? What comes next, do you reckon, the womenfolk being stripped naked (photographically) for public humiliation, perchance? Because that is what traditionally happens, in physical life situations, when a mob whip themselves up into a slathering frenzy of self-righteous indignation. After that comes ostracism, a stripping of assets and all community support, followed by banishment ... being run out of town, exiled to the badlands, and left to fend for themselves. (Unless they be lynched, of course, strung up to dangle as a warning to all others to conform, conform, conform). Do you not see the human condition itself, in action at this very moment, right there on your computer screen? I know I do. * RESPONDENT: If you wish to convince the few left who are still fence-sitters or convinced about your path or goal, you may do so (of course) ... RICHARD: As I am not in the business of convincing anyone – it is the PCE (the direct experience of actuality) which provides the necessary conviction – your ill-informed advice is entirely irrelevant. However, it does provide a fascinating insight into how your mind works (as in your ‘to convince the few left’ phrasing) and what your modus operandi is ... harangue the crowd till they be swayed the sheer oratory of your rhetoric, eh? For what it is worth: it is a complete waste of time, effort and bandwidth as the global spread of peace and harmony – as well as individual peace-on-earth – is not taking place via having to ‘convince the few left’ (to use your phrasing); as it is a matter of consciousness – consciousness, as in, a flesh-and-blood body being conscious, or sentient – it is spreading via common consciousness and, to utilise the words of the well-known correspondent, it has already ‘escaped into the wild’ and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which can now halt its spread. RESPONDENT: ... but please do not address me. RICHARD: Now here is a radical thought for you: cease passing on made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ (hearsay tales) and/or cease making-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ yourself (auto-morphism) and I will have no reason to address you. (After all, it is a simple case of cause and effect). RESPONDENT: I have no interest in communicating (any further after this email) with you as I know you are supremely deluded ... RICHARD: As you are on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating you cannot recall ever having had a PCE you have no experiential understanding/no intimate knowledge of how I am most likely to be operating and functioning such as to intelligently form a fully-considered appraisal ... let alone a judgement of that nature (as in ‘supremely deluded’). The very fact that you categorise an actual freedom from the human condition as being ‘Mahasamadhi’ (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) and ‘Parinirvana’ (on your ‘Remains of the Day’ web log) is evidence that you cannot even distinguish the marked difference betwixt a PCE (with its abeyance of the entire affective faculty/ the identity in toto) and an ASC (with its sublimation of negative affections/ its transcendence of egoic identity). And the very fact you cannot even make that very basic kind of distinguishment undermines any basis whatsoever for making such a judgement as ‘supremely deluded’. RESPONDENT: ... and are probably beyond even professional help. RICHARD: The sheer arrogance – as in, arrogate – of the many and the various dilettantes so readily forming their amateurish and/ or armchair psychiatrical/ psychological diagnoses solely via the written word, never ceases to amaze me in view of the fact that the written word also includes information about me having already received what you describe there as [quote] ‘professional help’ [endquote] wherein it is made abundantly clear that I was examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of which was over a three-year period, with the first year weekly, the second year three-weekly and the third year three-monthly), face-to-face in their rooms, both with and without my companion at the time, as well as by a properly registered psychologist (for the same three-year period and with the same weekly/ three-weekly/ three-monthly scheduling), person-to-person in my own residence, whereby my condition could be assessed in the professionally valuable situational setting of both my home-environment and my lifestyle-choices (as in, for instance, my ménage a trois living arrangement). (Incidentally, that properly registered psychologist publicly presented my ‘case’, as they called it, as being their hour-long address at an annual world-wide convention of professional psychologists, gathered together from around the globe, which was held in a major city in Australia in 1996). You are so way, way out of your depth, No. 2, it is a wonder you can still breathe. Regards, Richard.
RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ 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 |
