Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 25


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 27

January 4 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT: Richard, Would you address specifically the authenticity / inauthenticity of ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), I will refer you to Message No. 12241 which ends as follows. Vis.:

• [Richard]: [...]. Note well, this is a one-off opportunity because, as I enunciated unambiguously in Message No. 11315, there is no way I am going to rebut/ refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination.  Vis.:

#11315
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:22 am
Subject: Re: IF
[...]. Also, for those wanting me to rebut/refute all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination, do you realise I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the stuff peoples are making up and then typing out rebuttals – searching through all my writings, in the process of doing so, for applicable quotes complete with references – and then uploading onto a special ‘Rebuttals Page’ section on The Actual Freedom Trust website?

Do you further realise that this would invite even more stuff being made up about me (once the perpetrators cotton on to the fact that all they have to do is tap out anything they like on whatever forum they choose) as experience has shown that rebuttals – setting the record straight – beget evermore made-up stuff to be rebutted? [...]. Richard to Rick, 21 February 2012

I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

Lastly, if you do not produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then by not doing so you are tacitly admitting, to all and sundry, they do not exist.

So, here is your one-off opportunity ... and you would be well-advised to not waste it’. Richard to Respondent, 31 December 2012b

Put simply, you had your one-off opportunity – and you were well-advised not to waste it – by virtue of which you have unequivocally chosen to tacitly admit, to all and sundry, how your so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] have absolutely no existence outside of your passionate imagination.

Thus this entire charade is now over, finished, kaput.

Regards, Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: It makes no difference which of your 37 sock-puppet aliases you use as the charade is over, finished, kaput, for all of your multiple personalities. Vis.:

#10646
From: [List Owner]
Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:10 am
Subject: Re: setting the record straight
[Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)] wrote: Hi [List Owner] Aside from [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’’s)] situation which needs to be personally resolved, for all other issues the option to vote (polls) wouldn’t go astray on a freedom list. [...].

[List Owner]: Hi [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)], Sure, but we’ll have to ensure it’s one vote per person, not one vote per ID. Currently, of our 111 members, 37 of them are you [...].

Regards, [List Owner]

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

#10647
From: [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)]
Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:30 am
Subject: Re: setting the record straight
[No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)]: Like haha
[List Owner] wrote:
Hi [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)], Sure, but we’ll have to ensure it’s one vote per person, not one vote per ID. Currently, of our 111 members, 37 of them are you [...].

Regards, [List Owner]

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

#10648
From: [List Owner]
Date: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:05 am
Subject: Re: setting the record straight
[No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)] wrote: Like haha
[List Owner]: I wasn’t joking!

:-)

[No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘S’)] wrote: [...].

January 4 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism Posted

RESPONDENT: Richard, Would you address specifically the authenticity / inauthenticity of ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’),

RESPONDENT: Let me stop you there...

RICHARD: No, No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), you had your opportunity and the entire charade is indeed over, finished, kaput.

Regards, Richard.

January 4 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT: Richard, Would you address specifically the authenticity / inauthenticity of ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’),

RESPONDENT: Let me stop you there...

RICHARD: No, No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), you had your opportunity and the entire charade is indeed over, finished, kaput.

RESPONDENT: Richard, How can I prove to you that this is ...

RICHARD: No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), the entire charade is actually over, finished, kaput.

In fact, it is a dead charade. It has passed on. This charade is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late charade. It is a stiff, bereft of life, pushing up the daisies. Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians. It has hopped the twig and shuffled off this mortal coil. It has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

This, is an ex-charade.

Regards, Richard.

January 4 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT: Can any of the moderators help me out ...

RICHARD: There is obviously something which has somehow by-passed normal, regular, everyday comprehension.

For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) although it has been some time since I’ve posted, I have been following these conversations. I am not asking for you to refute ‘each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’’. If you will refer to my original email, I am asking two very specific questions ...’. [endquote].

If you have indeed been ‘following these conversations’ then you will be aware, surely, of the following exchange. Vis.:

• [Richard]: If, as you say, your co-respondent has [quote] ‘some basis’ [endquote] then why is he not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘basis’?

• [Respondent No. 19]: Two normal, well meaning people from two different continents met you at two different times, and they seem to have been less than impressed.

• [Richard]: I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: which two [quote] ‘normal, well meaning people’ [end quote] are you referring to?

For instance, are you referring to the person who only recently unconditionally withdrew (in Message No. 11928) everything he had ever written about me?

If so, then why do you describe him as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when he is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning poltroon who has deceived all of you with his made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 12110).

And are you referring to the person who also deceived you all by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife) so as to thereby conduct, with malice aforethought, the most massive invasion of privacy this forum has ever seen such as to put into jeopardy both my personal security and my physical safety?

If so, then why do you describe her as being a [quote] ‘well meaning’ [endquote] person when she is, quite evidentially, an ill-meaning recreant who has deceived all of you with her made up stuff? (See, for example, Message No. 10780).

Incidentally, I can agree with your [quote] ‘normal’ [endquote] description because to utilise the relative anonymity of the world wide web and malign, libel and defame is quite a normal action/ behaviour/ deed in the real-world.

• [Respondent No. 19]: Whether it is their fault or your fault, it taints what we thought can be a worthy aim.

• [Richard]: Again I am having some difficulty comprehending your answer to my query: how can the outright lies of those two caitiffs even begin to taint what you, all-inclusively, describe as being what [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] thought can be a worthy aim?

• [Respondent No. 19]: This is the spark.

• [Richard]: Oh? So all it takes, then, to create such a ‘spark’ in your mind is the lies and deceits of those two nidderings (albeit reinforced by the lies and deceits of a couple of opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices)?

• [Respondent No. 19]: And the smoke is all those mails after that claiming many things that differed from your original accounts.

• [Richard]: I see. And the fact that I unambiguously and repeatedly pointed out how those [quote] ‘many things’ [endquote] were nothing but made-up stuff, about that phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, means absolutely nothing to you, eh? Furthermore, when I publicly declare myself to be an innocent man (and a war-veteran at that) then it must be me who is lying, I presume?

May I ask? Do you really think I would lie to my fellow human beings about such an easily verifiable thing as the physical death of someone relatively well-known in the small community in which she had lived? (Please bear in mind that, in a modern western society, all births, deaths and marriages are a matter of government record).

Moreover, have you never heard of the Latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (‘false in one, false in all’)? Vis.:

[quote]: ‘A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.

The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration’. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(F)).

For instance, the person who deceived you all, by lying about her identity (as in ghoulishly impersonating my deceased second wife), is surely demonstrating a classic case of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’, eh? Richard to No. 19, 4 January 2013

Thus, when I say the *entire charade* is over, finished, kaput, I am clearly referring to anything and everything that issued forth from the keyboards of those two ill-meaning cowards and their opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices.

So, I will say it again for emphasis, there is no way I am going to rebut/ refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination. Vis.:

#11315
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:22 am
Subject: Re: IF
[...].
Also, for those wanting me to rebut/ refute all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination, do you realise I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the stuff peoples are making up and then typing out rebuttals – searching through all my writings, in the process of doing so, for applicable quotes complete with references – and then uploading onto a special ‘Rebuttals Page’ section on The Actual Freedom Trust website?

Do you further realise that this would invite even more stuff being made up about me (once the perpetrators cotton on to the fact that all they have to do is tap out anything they like on whatever forum they choose) as experience has shown that rebuttals – setting the record straight – beget evermore made-up stuff to be rebutted? [...]. Richard to Rick, 21 February 2012

Again, I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

Regards, Richard.

January 4 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD: [...]. Again, I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

RESPONDENT: Ok, so based upon what you’ve written and the link you provided, I suppose that I can infer that you are stating (although indirectly) that...

RICHARD: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring, or in any other way reading into my words things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

There is no way I am going to be answering in either the negative or the affirmative to any queries regarding each or any one thing of anything at all which issued forth from the keyboards of those two ill-meaning cowards and their opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices – or anything at all having proliferated thereby/ thereof/ there-from by anyone or any means at all – as I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the questions peoples are asking and then typing out responses (searching through all my writings, in the process of doing so, for applicable quotes complete with references), and then uploading them onto a special ‘Responses To Queries’ section on The Actual Freedom Trust website, as this would invite even more queries being formulated (once the questioners cotton on to the fact that all they have to do is tap out any query they like on whatever forum they choose) as experience has shown that responses – answering such queries – beget evermore queries to be responded to.

Regards, Richard.

January 6 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD: [...]. Again, I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

RESPONDENT: Ok, so based upon what you’ve written and the link you provided, I suppose that I can infer that you are stating (although indirectly) that...

RICHARD: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring, or in any other way reading into my words, things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

RESPONDENT: I cannot agree that inferring is ‘folly...’

RICHARD: As I did not say it is a folly to infer I have no idea who it is you cannot agree with that [quote] ‘inferring is ‘folly...’ [endquote].

Perhaps if I were to re-formulate my above words to be more in accord with what you wrote ... to wit:

So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of supposing they can infer that I am stating (although indirectly), via my words, things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

• [Richard]: There is no way I am going to be answering in either the negative or the affirmative to any queries regarding each or any one thing of anything at all which issued forth from the keyboards of those two ill-meaning cowards and their opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices – or anything at all having proliferated thereby/ thereof/ therefrom by anyone or any means at all as I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the questions peoples are asking and then typing out responses (searching through all my writings, in the process of doing so, for applicable quotes complete with references), and then uploading them onto a special ‘Responses To Queries’ section on The Actual Freedom Trust website, as this would invite even more queries being formulated (once the questioners cotton on to the fact that all they have to do is tap out any query they like on whatever forum they choose) as experience has shown that responses – answering such queries – beget evermore queries to be responded to.

RESPONDENT: I think this is the essential point... that your experience shows that ‘answering such queries – beget evermore queries to be responded to’.

RICHARD: Not only that, my experience also shows that refutations/ rebuttals of made-up stuff – setting the record straight – beget evermore made-up stuff to be refuted/rebutted as well.

Put simply: I re-formulated an earlier response of mine from last year because you found a loop-hole in the wording of it. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am not asking for you to refute ‘each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’.’ (...). I am not asking for a refutation or rebuttal. I am simply asking for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ...’.

So I changed ‘each and everyone’ into ‘each or any one thing’ and ‘rebut/ refute’ into ‘in either the negative or the affirmative’.

As I like my fellow human being, no matter what mischief they get up to, I am only too happy to re-formulate something I have written so as to obviate the possibility of them falling into the folly of reading into my words things that are actually not there.

For instance, thanks to the brief re-emergence of the ‘No. 4’/ ‘John Wilde’/ ‘(Sock Puppet ‘PW’)’/ ‘(Sock Puppet ‘PD’)’/ ‘No. 4 (Sock Puppet ‘R’)’ character, I will re-formulate my ‘issued forth from the keyboards of ...’ words to include an ‘and/or the email accounts’ modifier. Vis.:

Thus, when I say the *entire charade* is over, finished, kaput, I am clearly referring to anything and everything that issued forth from the keyboards and/or the email accounts of those two ill-meaning cowards and their opportunistic, and similarly pusillanimous, accomplices.

As I not only say what I mean but also mean what I say it is apposite to draw your attention to what I recently wrote in Message No. 12241. Vis.:

• [Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: Lastly, this stuff you make-up and type out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, will have grave consequences if you persist in telling lies which malign, libel and defame. For instance, the following lies of yours in regards to attempted murder – of which properly dated and time-stamped screenshots have been taken and safely stored – constitute, without any doubt whatsoever, an actionable case. Vis.:

#11xxx
From: [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]
Date: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:29 am
Subject: Re: Richard: stepping aside

[No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: [...]. i don’t see how horrifying your visitors by dragging a terrified woman across the floor from one room to another then sitting one’s large male frame on her small chest and threatening to strangle her by squeezing her throat till shes breathless is NOT out right primal violence ??? THAT is not freedom from any condition. its been done by male apes for millions of years. it is NOT the behaviour of an intelligent ‘kind’ 100% harmless, free-from-aggression, human being ...and thats just one of the many contradictory examples of Richard’s violating behaviour. [...].

How you managed to become a middle-aged codger without comprehending that there are consequences, to such actions/behaviours/deeds as you perform on-line, has got me beat. Also, the fact you have been thus engaged for 13 years (on your own cognisance for 15 years) it clearly amounts to a case of persecution as well. So be it ... proceed at your own peril.

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: cut the crap and address those reports NOW! to wit: ‘that youre a perverted woman bashing ...

• [Richard]: I am stopping you right there solely for the sake of demonstrating something you have quite evidentially overlooked ... namely: there are no [quote] ‘reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a woman-basher (let alone a ‘perverted’ one).

So, here is your opportunity before you go on and make it even worse for yourself than you already have: if you can produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then I will indeed address them, as demanded so emphatically by you, and ... um ... then ‘get tapping NOW!’.

Note well, this is a one-off opportunity because, as I enunciated unambiguously in Message No. 11315, there is no way I am going to rebut/ refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination. [...].

I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter. Lastly, if you do not produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then by not doing so you are tacitly admitting, to all and sundry, they do not exist. So, here is your one-off opportunity ... and you would be well-advised to not waste it. Richard to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’), 31 December 2012

Just so there is no misunderstanding I will provide several standard dictionary definitions. Vis.:

• one-off (adj.): done, made, or happening only once (‘a one-off benefit show’); (n.): something done, made, or happening only once (‘the meeting is a one-off’); a unique or remarkable person (‘he’s a one-off, no one else has his skills’). (Oxford Dictionary).

• one-off (adj.), (Br.): happening, done, or made only once; (n.): something that is not repeated or reproduced. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• one-off (n.), (Brit): a. something that is carried out or made only once; b. (as modifier) a one-off job; also one-shot. (Collins Dictionary).

• exception (n.): a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule (‘he always plays top tunes, and tonight was no exception’; ‘the administrator made an exception in the Colonel’s case and waived the normal visiting hours’). (Oxford Dictionary).

• exception (n.): one that is excepted, especially a case that does not conform to a rule or generalization. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• exception (n.): anything excluded from or not in conformance with a general rule, principle, class, etc. (Collins Dictionary).

• opportunity (n.), (pl., opportunities): a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something (‘increased opportunities for export’; ‘the night drive gave us the opportunity of spotting rhinos’); a chance for employment or promotion (‘career opportunities in our New York headquarters’). (Oxford Dictionary).

• opportunity (n.), (pl., opportunities): 1. a. a favorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances; b. a favorable or suitable occasion or time; 2. a chance for progress or advancement. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• opportunity (n.), (pl. -ties): 1. a favourable, appropriate, or advantageous combination of circumstances; 2. a chance or prospect. (Collins Dictionary).

I have also made it abundantly clear that I will respond, in detail, by return post and/or that this matter will be addressed, by me, in detail by return post. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]:[...].

• [Respondent No. 19]:You will serve your case, if you could rephrase things in a better way, even if Richard doesn’t address them well, others might be able to see your points better.

• [Richard]: You may very well find, upon a re-read of the above, that Richard is indeed addressing your co-respondent’s [quote] ‘things’ [endquote] by making a one-off exception, in regards to not rebutting/ refuting each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’, and is providing a one-off opportunity for him to produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] for me to respond to, in detail, by return post.

Therefore, rather than encouraging your co-respondent to merely [quote] ‘rephrase things in a better way’ [endquote], might I suggest you instead encourage him to take advantage of this one-off opportunity and produce that so-called ‘basis’ and/or ‘fire’ and/or ‘spark’ – his so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’ – for me to address?

And in making this suggestion I will draw your attention to the fact that No. 3, for instance, has already encouraged him (in Message No. 12xxx) to not fritter away this opportunity to set the record straight and to instead produce these so-called ‘reports’ of so-called ‘woman bashing’. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 3 to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: ‘Please do not fritter away this opportunity to set the record straight, kindly produce the evidence as is requested.’ [endquote].

In fact, if more people were to follow No. 3’s lead and also encourage your co-respondent to not fritter away this one-off opportunity to set the record straight then the sooner this matter can be addressed, by me, in detail by return post. Richard to No. 19, 1 January 2013

Yet, despite me making this one-off exception/ providing this one-off opportunity, whereby I will respond, in detail, by return post and/or wherein this matter will be addressed, by me, in detail by return post, neither the person concerned – this forum’s self-sanctified vilifier/ detractor – nor this forum’s partisan moderator would produce those so-called ‘reports’ of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote].

Indeed, that busybody moderator was so obviously reluctant to present the so-called ‘reports’ I was left with little alternative but to talk about them ‘in absentia’ after all. (Message No. 12331).

All this while, of course, the vilifier/ detractor had switched tactics and was posting multiple rabble-rousing demands that yet another issue be addressed – a ‘two-off’ exception (so to speak) – as well/ instead of the issue at hand and this is where [Screen ID ‘AF’] posted his very first email to this forum.

Now, given the experience during the ‘Mother-Of-All-Kerfuffles last year (where many brand-new sock-puppets had all-of-a-sudden shot-up from the under-world with their raucous demands and/or vilifications) I had pre-determined – and had, in fact, alerted Vineeto, in advance, of my intent – that this time around I would apply a general rule of ‘Behave like [No. 5 (any of his Sock Puppets)]; Be Treated as [No. 5 (any of his Sock Puppets)]’ no matter whom it may turn out to be.

(It was only when you finally woke up to the fact that earlier sock-puppetry has rendered it impossible to prove online ID online, and sent a private e-mail to Vineeto asking her to contact me advising of [Screen ID ‘AF’] being a switcheroo of what had previously been recognisable as ‘Respondent’, that sensible discussion could begin).

All of which brings me back to your most perspicuous observation (now much further above) ... to wit:

[Respondent]: ‘I think this is the essential point... that your experience shows that ‘answering such queries – beget evermore queries to be responded to’ [endquote].

Put succinctly: as a ‘two-off’ exception (so to speak) would feed raucous demands for a ‘three-off’, a ‘four-off’, a ‘five-off’, a ‘six-off’, and so on, and so forth, ad infinitum/ad nauseum, you can most assuredly take it for granted that nothing of that sort is going to eventuate.

Besides which, all it takes is for the one-off exception/the one-off opportunity to be fully exploited and the sage wisdom expressed by the latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (‘false in one, false in all’) takes care of the rest. Vis.:

[quote]: ‘A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter.

The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration’. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(F)).

Regards, Richard.

January 7 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’): [...] a range of material was found in a memory stick that Richard had accidentally left behind in a place he stayed in India in 2010. The owner of the guest house handed it over to investigators and some other people whom Richard met during his visit examined the contents of the memory stick. [...].

RICHARD: I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating, for a fact, that no such memory stick was [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] by me, either in the guest house specifically referred to – the hotel Shivalay cottages at Heini, Upper Dharamkot, Himachal Pradesh – or in any other residence, place or location anywhere at all in India, during my March 26th to September 2nd visit, on a regular tourist visa, in 2010.

RESPONDENT: So, would you also state that ‘[No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’)]’, or ‘[No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]’ or anyone else that she alludes to in the quote above... did not have access to any such memory stick? Or simply that you did not ‘accidentally leave it behind?’

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Good questions ... I am glad you asked.

First and foremost, do I strike you as being the type of person to be so casual and/or clueless and/or careless as to have [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] such a memory stick which contains, purportedly, ‘a range of material’ of such a devastating nature as those ill-meaning cowards are making it out to be?

(This entire charade has the hallmarks of some 3rd-rate television soap-opera; as such it is quite entertaining, in and of itself, and so I will couch my response accordingly).

The ‘owner of the guest house’ (i.e. the hotel Shivalay cottages) is a retired Indian Army Officer, of the old-school variety and, thus, a right and proper gentleman, whom I will choose to call Colonel Singh.

I stayed in a cottage of his for somewhat less than four weeks and departed on the 23/06/2010; as the booking for my sojourn there had been pre-arranged via the very welcome services of two up-standing residents of Dharamsala, a well-respected couple whom Colonel Singh personally knew very well, by ... um ... by Someone Urgently Rewriting Both Her Ideas, then it is more than passing strange that any-such memory stick [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] did not get passed right on back to me, personally, well before I flew out of India more than two months later, on 02/09/2010, as at no stage was my forwarding address unknown/ unknowable.

Indeed, one would have expected, at the very least, a courteous telephone call advising me that some-such memory stick [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] had been located and was being held secure in the hotel safe, pending further advice for its safe and prompt dispatch back to me, because Colonel Singh is that kind of man ... a right and proper gentleman, of the ‘Pukka Sahib’ variety, as already mentioned.

As for the good Colonel Singh having duly ‘handed it over to investigators’ ... well, now, it all depends upon just who those ‘investigators’ might be as it is a somewhat vague term; here in Australia a term like that would make one automatically think of the Police Force but, then again, just what is the relationship like betwixt the Indian Army and the Indian Police, eh?

Now, without in any way impugning the Indian Police – no doubt held with all due respect by ordinary standards – it must be said that the Indian Army does not operate by ordinary standards as the Indian Army has a higher calling, than mere police, and thus answers to a Higher Standard ... the Highest Standard in the land, in fact, as there is nothing higher than the Indian Army.

(I am just trying to get into Colonel Singh’s mind, you see, so as to ascertain just what ‘investigators’ he would deem worthy to have ‘handed it over to’ and all indications are of it not being a course of action he would be undertaking, anyway, whatever the provenance might be of any memory stick which may ever come to be in his temporary possession).

So, in regards to ‘some other people’, whom I had met during my visit, having ‘examined the contents’ of any-such memory stick [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote], presumably by now, in some other residence, my mind invariably returns, again and again, to a certain gentleman of the Indian Civil Service – who holds a position somewhat analogous to Sir Humphrey Appleby of the ‘Yes Minister’ television legend – as being the most likely contender as he was quite intrigued, vis-a-vis actualism/ actual freedom and yours truly, by virtue of having being introduced to both by a mutual acquaintance.

Yes, indeed, Sir Humphrey would be interested in examining the contents of some-such memory stick – be it accidentally left behind or, even, be it of a purloined nature – as he was prone to the issuing forth of avuncular advice, of the rational kind, to a trusting thirty-something year-old woman.

As I said earlier, they are good questions, No. 25, and I am glad you asked them.

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: Speaking of giving ‘rational advice’, the text towards the end of Message No. 10780 – starting at the words ‘What concerns me is’ – expresses some puzzlement as to what might have possessed a person, such as what Sir Humphrey is, to have impressed such irrational advice, as is reported there, upon an obviously very frightened woman. Vis.: Richard to No. 24, 26 January 2012

January 7 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism Posted

RICHARD: [...]. Again, I would suggest accessing that URL as there is both a demonstration and further explanation regarding the entire matter.

RESPONDENT: Ok, so based upon what you’ve written and the link you provided, I suppose that I can infer that you are stating (although indirectly) that...

RICHARD: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring, or in any other way reading into my words, things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

RESPONDENT: I cannot agree that inferring is ‘folly...’

RICHARD: As I did not say it is a folly to infer I have no idea who it is you cannot agree with that [quote] ‘inferring is ‘folly...’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Hmm. The words ‘the folly of inferring’ are remarkably similar to ‘inferring is folly,’ no?

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, It is only when you lift my ‘folly of inferring’ words out of their obviously essential contextual setting that they are remarkably similar to ‘inferring is folly’.

RESPONDENT: Even so similar that they mean the same thing.

RICHARD: It is only when you lift my ‘folly of inferring’ words out of their obviously essential contextual setting that they are even so similar that they mean the same thing.

RESPONDENT: Since they mean the same thing... you did indeed state the same meaning as ‘inferring is folly’ when you wrote ‘the folly of inferring...’ (followed by the word ‘or’).

RICHARD: Since they only mean the same thing when you lift my ‘folly of inferring’ words out of their obviously essential contextual setting I did not indeed state the same meaning as ‘inferring is folly’ when I wrote ‘the folly of inferring...’ (followed by the word ‘or’ *and* all the rest of the sentence).

RESPONDENT: If you’ll read what you actually wrote, you will see that I was disagreeing with you, since you used a phrase, ‘the folly of inferring...’ – which means the same thing in spite of slightly different wording as ‘inferring is folly.’

RICHARD: If you will read what I actually wrote you will see that you were able to be disagreeing with me only because you lifted my ‘folly of inferring’ words out of their obviously essential contextual setting ... such as to make them mean the same thing, in spite of slightly different wording, as ‘inferring is folly’.

RESPONDENT: To use your turn of phrase... ‘Since I am not a mind reader...’ how am I supposed to to know that you mean something different than what you actually wrote?

RICHARD: As I did not mean something different than what I actually wrote your usage of my turn of phrase ‘Since I am not a mind reader...’ is a non sequitur.

*

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to re-formulate my above words to be more in accord with what you wrote ... to wit:

• [Rephrasal]: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of supposing they can infer that I am stating (although indirectly), via my words, things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year. [end rephrasal]

RESPONDENT: Now this I do understand as different the ‘the folly of inferring...’

RICHARD: Yet if you had not lifted my ‘folly of inferring’ words out of their obviously essential contextual setting you would have understood the difference the first time around.

Do you realise that the only reason I simply re-formulated those (now much further above) words was to obviate having a syntactic lesson, such as this, and thus get a move on with that one-off exception/ one-off opportunity diversion – a diversion away from the topic to hand (‘It Is Impossible To Marry Actualism And Buddhism’) which began this thread – so as to all the more sooner get back to attending to my half-finished email to Claudiu (in response to his very timely buddhistic practice vis-a-vis the actualism method post in Message No. 12xxx) which is currently just short of totalling 500 posts ago?

And I say ‘very timely’ because of my clearly-stated reason, on the 26th of December, for having temporarily come out of my retirement from writing. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘My current return to writing was prompted solely by the evidential necessity of warning my fellow human beings not to follow in the footsteps of the affers’. (Message No. 12108).

Can you not see why I am so obdurate in regards to not acceding to the clamorous demands that I expand that (already diversionary) one-off exception/ opportunity into a ‘two-off’, so to speak, and a ‘three-off’, a ‘four-off’, a ‘five-off’ a ‘six-off’, and so on, and so forth, ad infinitum/ad nauseam?

RESPONDENT: ... and I appreciate your point as it is indeed folly to infer (and believe) something in your words that is not there.

RICHARD: I am pleased that you can now appreciate what I said the first time around for it is indeed folly to infer, or in any other way read into my words, things that are actually not there.

Here it is again (copy-pasted from the top of this email). Vis.:

• [Richard]: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring, or in any other way reading into my words, things that are actually not there, I will re-formulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

Perhaps it was the comma before my ‘or in any other way reading into’ qualifier which made your eyes stop there and thus take it as saying that inferring per se is folly (that ‘to infer, period, is folly’)? For example:

• [example only]: ‘So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring’. [end example].

Here it is sans that ‘or in any other way reading into’ qualifier:

• [Richard]: So as to save my fellow human beings from falling into the folly of inferring from my words things that are actually not there I will reformulate an earlier response of mine from last year.

Given it was in an over-all context as well, of me tightening-up my wording even further so as to not have the words imply (a speaker or writer implies; a hearer or reader infers) something less than my intention, it was apposite to include that ‘or in any other way reading into’ qualifier.

Regards, Richard.

January 12 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RESPONDENT No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’): [...] a range of material was found in a memory stick that Richard had accidentally left behind in a place he stayed in India in 2010. The owner of the guest house handed it over to investigators and some other people whom Richard met during his visit examined the contents of the memory stick. [...].

RICHARD: I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating, for a fact, that no such memory stick was [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] by me, either in the guest house specifically referred to – the hotel Shivalay cottages at Heini, Upper Dharamkot, Himachal Pradesh – or in any other residence, place or location anywhere at all in India, during my March 26th to September 2nd visit, on a regular tourist visa, in 2010.

RESPONDENT: So, would you also state that ‘[No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’)]’, or ‘[No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]’ or anyone else that she alludes to in the quote above... did not have access to any such memory stick? Or simply that you did not ‘accidentally leave it behind?’

RICHARD: Good questions ... I am glad you asked.

First and foremost, do I strike you as being the type of person to be so casual and/or clueless and/or careless as to have [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] such a memory stick which contains, purportedly, ‘a range of material’ of such a devastating nature as those ill-meaning cowards are making it out to be?

RESPONDENT: Personally, I don’t consider it necessary to be a particular ‘type’ of person who would be ‘so casual and/ or clueless and/or careless’ as to have accidentally left a memory stick with sensitive information behind. Every one errs from time to time whether or not they consider themselves perfect or fallible, so I don’t see how you strike someone as being relevant. When I troubleshoot a networking or computer problem, for example, I can take nothing for granted... and you are asking me to take your ‘personality type’ as unable to make such a mistake, which I find an untenable assumption. [...].

*

RESPONDENT: As a followup question... was there any USB drive/ memory stick that you either a) ‘accidentally lost’ or ‘left behind’ or b) were ‘careless’ with... such that the contents could have been copied, stolen, or otherwised compromised during or after your visit to India in 2010?

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, You do seem to have misunderstood the general thrust of my further above response – both my ‘first and foremost’ paragraph and my detailed account of the good Colonel Singh’s character – inasmuch my intent was to demonstrate just how implausible that entire [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [end quote] b-grade movie-script style story-line really is.

Maybe it comes from having watched too many ‘Bollywood’ flics but, really now, could she not have come up with a scene which not only zings but moves the plot forward seamlessly, at the same time as maintaining character credibility, into the next on-the-edge-of-seat episode than that.

I mean, c’mon, even ‘[No. 4 (Sock Puppet ‘JS’)]’ spun a much better yarn – before stalking off to forge his destiny and leaving [No. 4 (real name)] to face the music on his own – and he was no Assoc. Prof. of Eng. Lit. steering bright-eyed students to their PhD’s.

Golly, I have seen more tenable plot-lines in the few Mills & Boon I have perused – the total number of which I need only the digits of both hands to count – and I am more than a little surprised it need be brought to your attention. (Ha ... were I to ever resurrect my novel-writing notion it would seem, at this stage at least, that some other person volunteering to be co-author – so as to realistically write about any and all feelings engendered therein – might be what is called-for).

Oh, and just in case you might think I was being frivolous, rather than a touch facetious, in my response then, please, rest assured I am entirely sincere in my considered estimation of both that retired Indian Army officer and the Indian Army itself. Maybe it is because of being ex-military myself – even though but a lowly Non-Commissioned Officer compared to his lofty Commissioned Officer status – that there be an immediate grasp of the situation insofar it was not at all credible he would carelessly park such explosive evidence in the hotel safe for a couple of months before casually handing over to, err, ‘investigators’.

All of which brings me to your brief commentary on ‘sensitive information’ (in response to my ‘of such a devastating nature’ observation) and it must be said that sensitive information – as in names, addresses, phone numbers, intimate details of various peoples personal life, *written in confidence*, in private emails, and etcetera – are not of the devastating stuff which, upon exposure, would have the entire ‘global peace-on-earth in our life-times’ enterprise energetically running, yapping and yelping, to some place somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Van Allen Belt. Vis.:

#10xxx
From: [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011
Subject: setting the record straight

• [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]: [...]. If I were to disclose any info, I would do it openly and own it – and if I ever come around to doing that, AFT enterprise and its proponents would run off the planet with their tails between their legs. [...].

So, in regards to your follow-up question: there was no USB drive/ memory stick containing ‘a range of material’ of such a devastating nature that [quote] ‘AFT enterprise and its proponents would run off the planet with their tails between their legs’ [endquote] that I either a) ‘accidentally lost’ or ‘left behind’ or b) was ‘careless’ with, such that those contents could have been copied, stolen, or otherwise compromised during or after my visit to India in 2010.

Besides which, all of this unseemly focus upon the contents of electronic media is a herring so ruby-red in its nature that its sheer effulgence is distracting all attention away from the real source material ... namely: paper documents (and many of them). Vis.:

#10xxx
From: [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]
Date: Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: Mr Moderator tear

• [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)]: [...]. The fact that I have so much information and knowledge about how he operates and functions and many documents ( paper documents) that prove beyond any doubt about [...].

And you cannot say I did not warn you because, when I said this whole memory stick narrative was penned by Someone Urgently Rewriting Both Her Ideas, it was not only a matter of being droll but a clear indication that any attempt to obtain a truthful account from a ‘star witness’ who changes stories mid-stream is ultimately futile.

(So as to forestall the obvious: no, I did not accidentally leave behind a suitcase full of paper documents of some-such similarly devastating nature, either).

*

What I can say with certainty – the certainty which comes from personal knowledge – is factual, amongst all the lies and deceit, is that she has and/or had in her possession my JasJam ‘i-mate’ PocketPC-cum-mobile phone (costing around Rs60-65,000.00) which I loaned to her, as her cell-phone had stopped working, on the clear understanding she returned it, with all emails, photographic images, and etcetera, stored thereon intact, when she flew as planned to Australia back in December 2010.

Speaking of which, and just in case you have bought into all that made-up stuff about a ‘golden shawl’ and a ‘public ceremony’ and all the rest, this is an apt moment to say that as there were only two other people present when that photograph was taken – namely Justine’s wife and her brother – the occasion is more properly described as a ‘family affair’.

Furthermore, as both his wife and his brother-in-law are devout Christians (his brother-in-law is, in fact, a Catholic Priest), and with little to no idea at all as to what an actual freedom from the human condition is to boot, any words of them bestowing ‘high stature and recognition’ upon ‘the sage that the humanity had been waiting for’ are nothing but the product of the passionate imagination of a serial fantasist.

Regards, Richard.

May 25 2013

Re: Is Actualism Safe?

RESPONDENT: G’Day Richard, I am writing this email to give you an opportunity to help clear the way for myself and others to get over or bypass fears related to becoming free from the human condition.

RICHARD: G’day no. 25, Ha ... in effect, you mean give me yet another opportunity (to help clear the way for yourself and others to get over or bypass fears related to becoming free from the human condition) as I have already done so, previously, with the most recent example – and most the relevant (vis-a-vis the changed circumstances) – being on this very forum on the 21st of February last year in Message No. 11299.

Here is how it starts:

#11299
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:27 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom
• [Claudiu]: [...] Your message is frightening enough as it is, to an identity, as the message spells the total extinction of said identity.
• [Richard]: G’day Claudiu, When I read through your recent response to my latest post your above sentence stood out as such an oddity I am sending off this brief note so it will get to you soonest.
I draw your attention to the following (from the original Announcement Page which sat there, in plain view for two whole years, as being the latest words available) and, as you read through it this time around, bear in mind all the way through that word ‘frightening’ you have sent to me, above, because I am going to be asking a ‘reading and comprehension’ query at the end of it. [...]. (Message 11299)

I recommend reading it, in the manner advised, before continuing to read any more of this email.

RESPONDENT: By titling the subject of this email ‘Is Actualism Safe?’ – I intend to bring up certain barriers that have contributed to my feelings of being ‘stuck’ over the years.

RICHARD: I can clearly recall discussing some issue with you one fine afternoon here in Australia where – after having explained the most relevant aspect I mentioned having already written about that very topic on this forum – I registered my astonishment at your admission of having not read all my posts ... even though you were actively engaging in an (aversive) online discussion with me at that time.

RESPONDENT: Due to my last visit with you and Vineeto, many confusions have been cleared up ...

RICHARD: The way in which those ‘many confusions’ were cleared up was, essentially, by verbal reiteration of what is already freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

RESPONDENT: ... and it is obvious that both of you are living a wondrous freedom, yet for me, there remains a feeling of being ‘stuck.’ I want to lay out some of those reason for feeling stuck here and invite you to speak to each item.

1) In your Journal (Appendix Two), you related that you were ‘…accompanied by a sense of dread the likes of which I had never experienced even in a war-zone – made all the more acute because I had not experience fear for four years I was living in a state of Divine Compassion and Love Agape which protected me from malice and the underlying fear). This dread contained the existential angst of discovering that ‘I’ was nothing but a contingent ‘being’ and that ‘I’ would cease to ‘be’.’

RICHARD: Unless you are planning on becoming fully awakened/ enlightened for a number of years prior to discovering that something quite magical lies beyond that summum bonum of the human psyche – previously considered only available post-mortem (e.g., parinirvana and/or mahasamadhi and/or etcetera) – and thus becoming actually free via a tortuous and traumatic route, your feeling of being ‘stuck’ has nowt to do with what the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago went through.

RESPONDENT: You also related a similar experience of acute dread just prior to becoming free in Appendix Three.

As I read your account, your experiences of acute dread (worse than what you encountered in a war-zone) seems to be related somehow to your enlightened state at the time, but I really don’t know. Would you please explain the content and any known causes of such experiences?

RICHARD: As I have already explained both the content and all the known causes many times over on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – other than, that is, in that very Appendix you refer to – I do wonder just what it is you want of me here ... yet even more reiteration?

RESPONDENT: I find it particularly interesting that with more recent experiences of becoming free, for example Peter, Vineeto, and others you’ve related – there was no wall of fear or dread. The process was ‘matter of fact,’ ‘simple,’ ‘easy.’

RICHARD: That is because they all became (newly) free via the well-publicised epoch-changing opening in human consciousness designated as the ‘direct route’ on the ‘A Long-Awaited Public Announcement’ web page on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Here are the very first words on that web page:

• ‘The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in making public knowledge of a direct route at the end of the wide and wondrous path (now both gentrified and rendered secure) to an actual freedom from the human condition – a down-to-earth manumission [from Latin manumittere, lit. ‘send out from one’s hand’, and meaning release from slavery; release from bondage or servitude; set free] hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment ...’.
(Announcement1).

RESPONDENT: How can current actualists bypass such acute experiences of dread on the ‘path’ to freedom?

RICHARD: By tapping into pure intent – nowadays also personified in its feminine aspect (its masculine aspect became personified 30+ months after 1992) – hitherto only accessible via a PCE.

RESPONDENT: Are they [such acute experiences] merely an idiosyncrasy of different personalities, or are they tied to an approach or attitude?

RICHARD: Neither ... they came about because (a) nobody had gone beyond spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment before ... and (b) the direct route (opened by Peter and Richard on the 29th of December, 2009) was yet to be forged back then.

RESPONDENT: Is there a strategy that can be utilized to bypass or minimize such experiences?

RICHARD: Yep ... tapping into pure intent should do the trick nicely.

For instance:

#10876
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Sat Feb 4, 2012 12:16 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom
• [Respondent No.  17] [...] Is the pce necessary? ps: Is the pce necessary for pure intent to come out of this vast stillness?
• [Richard]: G’day No. 17, Prior to 11.25 AM (AEDST) on Saturday, the 14th of November, 2009, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) was indeed necessary for pure intent – that benevolence and benignity of the vast and utter stillness of the universe itself – and the reason why a PCE was essential is reported/ described/ explained both on The Actual Freedom Trust website and in ‘Richard’s Journal’.
[...] what the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced as an ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ was experienced by the feeling-being ‘Peter’, on the 29th of December 2009, as [quote] ‘a sweetness that was palpable’ [endquote] and that ‘he’ was [quote] ‘literally being bathed in this sweetness’ [endquote]. [...].
Other people have reported experiencing that over-arching benevolence and benignity as a palpable sweetness as well.
Pamela, for instance, spoke of it in those terms during the ten minutes or so immediately prior to the pivotal event/the definitive moment when she became actually free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof on the 27th of January 2010.
(On another occasion, about three weeks later, she reported experiencing it as being an ‘infinite tenderness’ of such a magnitude as to render her incoherent upon endeavouring to describe it to Vineeto).
Vineeto [...snip...] has written of it, in a private email, as being ‘an overwhelming sweetness, so overwhelmingly sweet that tears were running down my face. At another time I experienced a tenderness so vast that I was speechless for a good time afterwards’.
I mention these reports so as to demonstrate that what the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced as an ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ may not necessarily be exactly the way others experience it. [...]. (Message 10876)

Incidentally, there is a follow-up email to the above post (partly re-presented further below).

RESPONDENT: 2) This link was shared recently regarding Vineeto’s experience in her early days of practicing actualism. [....au/actualism/vineeto/selected-correspondence/corr-i.htm]. The relevant text is

[Vineeto]: ‘…Two weeks ago, when this bare instinct of survival arose for the first time in its full gamut, I was feeling sick and throwing up, with the stomach like a stone, numbing cramps in the heart area and dizzy in the head. When those physical symptoms reappeared the next day, I wondered where I was going wrong. It seemed an odd and arduous way to end ‘me’ – and I started to look for a way to be happy and healthy while continuing the ending of ‘me’. The question for me was, where did ‘I’ add to the drama, where did ‘I’ interfere or exaggerate? It became obvious that the primitive self, this silly, ancient survival mechanism, is pumping chemicals into every organ, and is actually jeopardizing and endangering my physical well-being – quite the opposite of what it was designed to do in the first place.
A week later I had another strong fear-attack, which I observed fascinated and rather unemotionally. My whole upper torso became numb, blood drained out of my head, heart, chest and arms. There wasn’t enough blood in the brain, so my vision had blind stripes, very curious. It took me a minute to figure out what was happening. I went along with it at first, thrilled and fascinated by the prospect of watching myself, my body, die, but a short while later common sense started to set in. If this was the beginning of a physical heart-attack then this was the wrong way, a ‘dead-end’, as Peter just said. Upon this understanding, the symptoms slowly subsided.
Trying to understand those experiences in hindsight, I would say that on both occasions I had a certain pushy-ness, an almost violent attitude to progress at all costs, no matter what will happen, ‘I’ want freedom now and ‘I’ want to make it happen.
I can see that this urging only increased the fear, making the obstacle bigger than before.’ [endquote].

It seems to me that Vineeto drew the conclusion that to follow these experiences was something of a ‘dead end,’ (although she may have gained valuable experience) yet it was a certain ‘pushy-ness, an almost violent attitude to progress at all costs,’ that caused and amplified these experiences.

Related to this, I remember Peter stating at one time that he allowed himself to get caught up in some sort of ‘hellish’ experience, by which I think he meant visions of imaginary (though felt real) ‘hell-like’ realms – even referring at one point to being ‘ripped asunder.’ [.../actualism/peter/selected-correspondence/corr-psyche.htm].

If I recall correctly, Peter later referred to these experiences, although interesting, as not ultimately fruitful. How can an actualist most easily avoid such experiences?

RICHARD: By tapping into pure intent. Vis.:

#10885
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2012 1:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom
• [Respondent No. 17]: [...] Does the experiencing of the vastness and stillness of the universe bring on the ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ which then brings on the ‘sweetness’? Iow, does ‘experiencing the vastness and stillness’ of the universe come first?
• [Richard]: G’day No. 17, My response (above) was both in the context of your query as to whether a PCE is necessary for pure intent and your follow-up explanation to No. 24 about the last paragraph of ‘Addendum No. 7’ (that to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent).
[...] that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’, which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced and named ‘pure intent’, became [immanently] accessible to some select associates during a specific situational setting called ‘The Second Convivium Gathering’, in late 2009/early 2010, and was variously experienced by them as a ‘palpable sweetness’, for instance, and an ‘infinite tenderness’, for example, and has been more generally described as ‘being bathed in intimacy’.
[...].
Thus to answer your first question: the direct (as in, immediate or unmediated) experiencing of the vast stillness of this physical universe’s infinitude – where the word stillness refers to there being no movement of time whatsoever (as in ‘this moment has no duration’) – is the way in which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago became consciously aware of pure intent because, back in those days, there had not yet been someone of sufficient naïveté to enable that immaculate perfection to become purity personified.
Which means that, these days, when that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) is experienced it is that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ being experienced, by virtue of that immaculate perfection having become manifest in the everyday world as a flesh-and-blood body only, as they are both one and the same thing in essence.
Thus to answer your second question: it is the experiencing of that ‘palpable sweetness’ (for instance) which comes first.
P.S.: As there is now both a male and a female fully here in this actual world, the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of is nowadays entirely equitable.
And this is truly marvellous.
(See the footnote in Message No. 10573 for some details).
And what being ‘entirely equitable’ means is that the various disturbances – as in teething problems – which that handful of daring pioneers thus found themselves subject to, due to it not being equitable back when they availed themselves of it, is no longer likely to happen. (Message 10885).

As that is dated Feb 6, 2012 (and the earlier post Feb 4, 2012) then this quite specific explication has been public knowledge for well over a year now.

RESPONDENT: Also, can you confirm that it is really non-productive to attempt to wear out such dreadful states of mind to the point of causing physical symptoms of illness?

RICHARD: As it is not possible to become actually free of the human condition via the elimination of the affective feelings (as explained in my second footnote to Message No. 12054 for instance) – be it either one-by-one or en masse – any practice of that nature is ‘me’ deflecting attention away from ‘my’ presence.

RESPONDENT: Would you also confirm that you do not see that it is valuable to ‘wear out’ dreadful states of mind – period – unless one is actually already feeling good, and that if one should tip over to feeling badly, then it is best to wait to continue exploration until one is once again feeling good?

RICHARD: As the actualism method is all about tracing back to what it was that occasioned feeling good to ‘tip over’ to feeling bad – and thereby get back to feeling good – the only situation in which it is ‘best to wait’ would be when all avenues to getting back to feeling good have been exhausted to no avail.

Even then it is a matter of ‘sitting it out’, so to speak, as ‘wearing it out’ is, as already mentioned, a case of ‘me’ deflecting attention away from ‘my’ presence.

RESPONDENT: 3) From [...com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ67a.htm] – the relevant portion being…

RESPONDENT: Richard, can you expand on this short-cut path – not via virtual freedom?
RICHARD: G’day Rick. Sure ... first of all, the above conditions are utterly vital – entirely confident/ absolute certainty (PCE) freed of doubt/ absence of choice – else any invocatory destiny will be, at best, fruitless. (At worst ... well, fill in your own nightmare/ your own screaming heebie-jeebies scenario).
Also, bear in mind that every body is but a missed heart-beat or two away from death each and every day and then death is your constant companion; an ever-present reminder that to die without having ever lived fully – as in totally fulfilled, completely satisfied, utterly content – is such a waste of a life.
(I would say to people, all those years ago, that were I to live that which the PCE’s had made apparent – as in an irrevocable permanency – for only five minutes I would then happily die.
For that is how precious an actual freedom from the human condition is).
RESPONDENT: I’d be awfully interested. You haven’t written much about it.

[Richard]: ‘There is a rapid (and sudden) way to actual freedom and a gradual (then sudden) way ... and the rapid (and sudden) way does by-pass self-examination. There are certain dangers inherent:

[Richard]: ‘After living in the condition of virtual freedom for sufficient time to absorb all the ramifications of a blithesome life, it is highly likely that the ultimate condition can happen. ‘I’ do not make it happen, because ‘I’ cannot make it happen. What is more ... ‘I’ am not required to make it happen.
An actual freedom happens of itself only when one is fully ready, and not before. One has to become acclimatised to benignity, benevolence and blitheness, because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared.
To precipitously apprehend the vast stillness of infinitude would be too much, too fast, too soon ... one could go mad with the super-abundance of pleasure that pours forth’. (Page: 150 ‘Richard’s Journal’ ©1997 The Actual Freedom Trust).

The rapid (and sudden) way is certainly possible – given sufficient pure intent – yet even so there needs to be a tidying-up of social mores and habitual patterns ‘after the event’ any way ... an actual freedom does not miraculously remove every little detail. It does make the fine-tuning a breeze, though’.

It seems to me that you currently see things differently than in the above quoted material.

RICHARD: As the ‘above quoted material’ was written prior to the direct route being opened by Peter and Richard on Dec 29, 2009, via a personified pure intent becoming immanently accessible (i.e., not via a PCE), it is no longer necessary to even contemplate any such invocation of a rapid (and sudden) way with all its attendant ‘too much, too fast, too soon’ dangers.

RESPONDENT: Would you speak to why you stated in this quote that ‘one could go mad with the super-abundance o’ as being a very smooth, easy, instantaneous transition?

RICHARD: There does appear to be some missing text in your query (after the word ‘super-abundance’ and before the words ‘as being’).

However, I get the drift of what you are asking – comparing the possibility of going mad ‘with the super-abundance of pleasure that pours forth’ (from the vast stillness which is the ‘everywhere all at once’ source of everything apparent) to that which Peter eloquently describes, on the original Announcement Page which sat there in plain view for two whole years as being the latest words available, as ‘a seamless transition between two worlds’ – inasmuch my ‘too much, too fast, too soon’ words might seem redundant to someone not having read all of my emails posted since that two-year interregnum.

Perhaps if I were to put it thisaway: becoming (newly) free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof – as distinct from being (fully) free of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty – is the minimalist version of an actual freedom.

As such it provides for an appropriate period of accommodation and adjustment and acclimatisation before segueing into the full actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: Have you changed your mind that such a rapid transition would ‘blow the fuses,’ so to speak, and if so, why?

RICHARD: No, not at all; each of that handful of daring pioneers reports a period of accommodation and adjustment and acclimatisation and Vineeto, for instance, has used terms such as ‘too much’ or ‘too over-whelming’ inasmuch from time-to-time she could bear no more of what she has often referred to as ‘an ambrosial immanence’ filling her up.

For example (from Message No. 10929):

• [Richard]: ‘For about three weeks prior to this [an existential event of some considerable significance on the 28th of August 2011] she had been experiencing a near-constant pressure-pain in the nape of the neck, so she knew that something was imminent, as well as experiencing what she referred to as ‘an ambrosial immanence’ filling her up, inasmuch from time-to-time she could bear no more of it (such as to cause her to refrain from interacting intensively for two-three days until it dissipated) due to it being ‘too much’ or ‘too over-whelming’ for her ...’.

RESPONDENT: 4) You have stated that nobody else (other than yourself) need go through the ‘horrific’ adjustment to an actual freedom that took you several years to navigate.

RICHARD: No, not ‘adjustment to an actual freedom’ but, rather, ‘synaptic reconfiguration’. Vis.:

#12931
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:12 am
Subject: Re: Introversion, feelings and AF
• [Respondent No. 38: [...].
• [Richard]: [...] my second wife (Devika/Irene) oft-times characterised me as ‘super-optimistic’ – but, then again, she was pessimistic by nature – and often marvelled at the resilience she observed during that 30+ month period wherein the braincells of this flesh-and-blood body were (organically) reconfiguring themselves.

Incidentally, my records show that I sent an email response directly to you (on Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:07 PM) making this exact-same correction to this still-the-same wording you have posted here (on Sun May 12, 2013 4:49 pm).

RESPONDENT: You have at one point described it as ‘grotesque’ – like a needle constantly being rubbed back and forth in an open wound.

RICHARD: You are obviously referring to this:

#11394
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:05 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom
• [Richard]: [...]. (So as to convey some idea of what it entailed I have, on occasion, likened the intensity of that involuntary and incessant synaptic reconfiguration to what it would be like, after having physically gashed an arm or leg deeply, to then spend the next 30+ months dragging the sharp point of a sewing-needle back-and-forth through that gash 24/7, with-out any let-up whatsoever, and with all of modern medicine’s arsenal of drugs only exacerbating/ magnifying the intensity). [...].

Incidentally (and again), I see the words ‘incessant synaptic reconfiguration’ in the above paragraph you are paraphrasing from.

RESPONDENT: What are your specific reasons for stating that nobody else need go through such a difficult adjustment to becoming free?

RICHARD: As I have already provided such ‘specific reasons’ on this very forum I am disinclined to continue doing your leg-work for you ... a search for what I have written about that incessant synaptic reconfiguration in conjunction with the word ‘genitor’ would be as good a way as any of finding out.

Such as at these URLs for instance:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10929
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10951
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11150
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11273
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11394

For example:

• [Richard]: ‘... it was that ‘thirty-month involuntary and incessant excitation of the brain cells’ – otherwise known as ‘neuronal agitation’ / ‘cerebral agitation’ – which brought the totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) for all humankind to avail themselves of, into existence. (Hence that epithet ‘genitor’ being a most apt descriptor inasmuch it explicitly conveys the radical nature inherent to the genesis of this epoch-changing consciousness). (Message No. 11394).

For another example (which includes a reiteration of that ‘apt descriptor’ explanation):

• [Richard]: ‘... as the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – being sans the entire affective faculty/the identity in toto – is being conscious (aka sentient) in a completely new/ totally original way (never before in human experience/ in human history has any body been able to be conscious/ able to be sentient thus sans the very psyche itself) then that epithet [‘genitor’] is a most apt descriptor inasmuch it explicitly conveys the radical nature inherent to the genesis of this epoch-changing consciousness’. (Message No. 11273).

RESPONDENT: The ‘path’ to an actual freedom (marked by enjoyment) has been represented as blithesome and ‘wide and wondrous.’ I take it that ‘wide’ means it is for virtually anyone.

RICHARD: Again, I have already explained (on this very forum) how the term ‘wide and wondrous’ came about, and why, so your lack of reading what is freely available becomes ever more obvious. Vis.:

#7588
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: Peculiar Information # 5
• [Richard to No.7]: [...].
Although that information was solely in the context of my reports being circumscribed, by the fact that the persons concerned were both readily identifiable and still alive, it did not elude me that the death of the very first practicing actualist[1] was a salutary reminder that everybody is but a missed heat-beat or two away from death each and every day of their life. [...].
Footnote: [1]the very first practicing actualist:
She was not only the very first practicing actualist but the term ‘virtual freedom’ was coined especially for her out-from-control different way of being (from November 1995 to December 1996), during which period she wrote those (italicised) sections of hers which appear in ‘Richard’s Journal’, as a way of referring to the truly remarkable condition – short of an actual freedom itself – by which she verified and affirmed my (as-then-unnamed) virtual freedom of 1981 as being not only replicable but, of course, equally possible for a female as well as a male.
(In case this looks suspiciously like a trivia-collection moment there was no way in which I was going to go public until or unless there was something demonstrably possible whilst still within the human condition to have on offer).
She also came up with the word wondrous, in the alliterative term ‘wide and wondrous path’ (as contrasted to that well-known term ‘the straight and narrow’) when I got stuck, after substituting the word wide for the word narrow, whilst trying out several different replacements for the word straight (the opposite of which is, of course, the word crooked).
The name was entirely apt as wonder (as in wide-eyed wonder) is an essential element in naïveté. [...]. (Message 7588).

And naïveté (elsewhere described by me on The Actual Freedom Trust website as a state of wide-eyed wonder) is the closest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, I have read this definition of naiveté earlier on AF site, but could never really understand it. You define it as ‘the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’’. But what is this ‘innocence’ one can have whilst being a ‘self’.
• [Richard]: ‘It is the nearest a ‘self’ can have to innocence ... innocence is when the ‘self’ is no longer in existence.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can you please describe it the way you describe your AF experience.
• [Richard]: ‘In a nutshell it is where one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder ... simply marvelling at it all. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish ... it is like being a child again, but with adult sensibilities, which means that one can separate out the distinction between being naïve and being gullible.
Some synonyms of naiveté are: guileless, artless, simple, ingenuous, innocuous, unsophisticated, artless, frank, open.
What ensues when one walks through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement – simply marvelling at the magnificence that this physical universe actually is – is a blitheness (being carefree, happy, merry, amiable and so on) and a gaiety (jollity, joviality, cheeriness, delight, fun, and so on) as the inevitable result ... cynicism can no longer get a look-in.
One can easily enter into the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant and azure earth actually is’. (Actual Freedom List, No. 4a, 4 Apr 2002).

RESPONDENT: Wondrous is pretty self explanatory, yet accounts of dread (the likes not experienced even in a war-zone) – physical symptoms of vomiting and dizziness, etc. (Vineeto) – temporary visits to ‘hellish’ realms (Peter) seem to detract from the ‘wondrous’ aspect of the ‘path’ to an actual freedom.

RICHARD: The following quote (from the well-known ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article) makes quite clear that experiences such as you present there are not a [quote] ‘aspect of the ‘path’ to an actual freedom’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...). The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently *wandered off the way*.
One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of every-day events ...’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive).

I have emphasised the words ‘wandered off the way’ (i.e., wandered off the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition) so as to drive the point home that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed ... um ... ‘wide and wondrous’.

RESPONDENT: To quote Peter from [...au/actualism/peter/list-af/gary-h.htm].

PETER: ‘It is common wisdom that suffering is good for you, you get stronger from suffering, that you grow and learn by suffering, etc. By experiencing the bitter-sweet lure of feeling sad, by observing it in action in your life and sufficiently investigating the roots of sorrow and depression, you eventually come to realize that all you get from suffering is more suffering.
The feeling of sorrow is a seemingly bottomless pit leading only to utter despair where the only way out of a living hell seems to be suicide. Personally, I did not have to dredge this deep to cut the ties to sorrow but I did explore fear to its limits of dread and terror. It does seem that exploring and experiencing the extreme limits of some of the passions may come about on the path to becoming free of them, but as more information and experiences are logged up this may well be unnecessary for many who follow. I can remember after my dread and terror experience saying that I had done that and didn’t need to explore any further.
I have run the gamut of the passions from the Altered States of Consciousness experiences of God and heavenly realms to the dark night of the soul experiences of Evil and hellish realms and while both were interesting, to say the least, it is not necessary to have experienced the extremes of the human condition to know that the only sensible way out is to leave the impassioned imagination of both Good and Evil behind.’

Is the ‘path’ to an actual freedom actually safer than the pioneers such as yourself, Peter, and Vineeto originally experienced?

RICHARD: Given that the three peoples you mention – the first two males and the first female to reach their destiny (i.e. destination) – all did, in fact, arrive, your usage of ‘safer’ is a non-sequitur.

(As in, how much more safe can a journey be than to arrive, upon the journey’s end, at the very destination of that journey).

RESPONDENT: I think it is sensible to want an ‘easier’ way – one that does not necessarily involve white water rapids (symbolizing the negative extremes) on the way to an actual freedom. Is that, more sensible, easier way now available?

RICHARD: Hmm ... once the direct route was opened (on Dec 29, 2009) there were no ‘white water rapids’ on the way to an actual freedom for feeling-being ‘Peter’ to navigate; in the less-than-twenty-four hours it took for him to become (newly) free it was all plain-sailing.

Similarly, for feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, in the less-than-seven days it took for her to become (newly) free after the opening of the direct route, there were no ‘white water rapids’ on the way, either. Vis.:

• [Vineeto]: When I returned, after a short leave of absence to the two moored rafted-up houseboats that provided our present convivium, I found myself in the company of not one, as expected, but two actually free men. Peter had become actually free in the days of my absence!
Those last few days of Vineeto, the identity, were filled with playfulness and laughter and thus provided me with a carefree environment for the last explorations of just what were my remaining obstacles and inhibitions to joining my fellow convivialists in the actual world.
During those days I found myself living in an utterly safe but nevertheless vivacious and sparkling ambience ...’. (Long Awaited Announcement#wunderbar).

There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

RESPONDENT: If so, what are they key techniques to employ to arrive more safely at one’s destiny?

RICHARD: Ha ... realising that there really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

(After all, that is what it was set-up for).

Regards, Richard.


RESPONDENT NO. 25 (Part Three)

RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ 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