|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 25 (Please make sure java-scripting is enabled in order for the mouse-hover tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to enlarge; left-click on the image to hold).
Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 27 Re: Upcoming visit RESPONDENT: Also, he did a very strange thing when I was there the first time. He stated that ‘unless I were to become free’ on that trip – then it was ‘pointless’ to have made the trip – which I found very bizarre. RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)]: You might have found that very bizarre but ... [...]. RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: [...]. RICHARD to No. 5: [...]. In short, you are on a hiding to nowhere, and fast, trying to impose real-world standards – where they are an absolute necessity due to the aforementioned wayward ‘self’ – on the peoples populating Terra Actualis (where nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in and/or gain a foothold). For here all is immaculate perfection. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, the sentence which started all this – with [No. 25] saying he thought it a very strange thing for me to
ask him, when he was here previously, ‘what would be the point RESPONDENT: Two points come to mind here – First, I did not write that I thought... ‘it a very strange thing for me to ask him, when he was here previously, ‘what would be the point[1] in flying halfway around the world only to fly back the same person you were before you left when it is so dead easy to become (newly) free.’’ RICHARD: G’day No. 25, If you were to re-read my above words you will see, this time around, that I make clear reference to the fact I am quoting myself/ the words I actually spoke – as in my ‘for me to ask him ... [&c.]’ wording – and *not* to what you made of what I said (as in your ‘that I thought...’ words). You can also re-read Claudiu’s post (#14749 RESPONDENT: Since I did not write that sentence... Richard made it up that I did. RICHARD: Hmm ... since I did not say you wrote ‘that sentence’ (I make clear reference to the fact I am quoting myself/the words I actually spoke) your quite laboured attempt to bracket me with those persons who are notorious for having ‘made it up’, when they attempt to deceive fellow list-members, is a rather tawdry exercise in futility. RESPONDENT: Just for the record, my memory is both that Richard said it the way he quoted as well as the in the manner I stated... RICHARD: Whereas my very clear recollection is of not only *not* saying that word ‘pointless’ but of also correcting you on your usage of this very word when you were here. I also have the distinct advantage of being readily able to check my recollection by asking Vineeto what she heard me say to you in that regard (on more than just one occasion). RESPONDENT: Here is what I actually wrote in the post Richard got this from ... RICHARD: I am interjecting here solely to point out that I am – quite evidently – commenting on the 2nd sentence of yours at the top of this page (as in my ‘the sentence which started all this ...’ wording). RESPONDENT: ... [in this ‘Upcoming Visit’ thread – ‘Also, he did a very strange thing when I was there the first time. He sated [stated] that ‘unless I were to become free’ on that trip – then it was ‘pointless’ to have made the trip – which I found very bizarre. In my estimation, I had my own reasons for making the trip – for example, even if Richard turned out to be a complete crock – the trip would have been worthwhile for me.’ RICHARD: Do you see how you have extended the one-sentence of yours (at the top of this page) by combining it with your very next sentence which follows (your 3rd sentence) – whilst prefacing it with [quote] ‘Here is what I actually wrote in *the post* Richard got this from ...’ [emphasis added] – but not including your fourth and fifth sentences. Here are all three (your 3rd, 4th & 5th sentences):
Now, obviously only you can know what you intended to convey with those words – not being a mind-reader I can only go by what your words actually convey – and your explanatory words clearly have it that [quote] ‘the bizarre thing for me is ...’ [endquote] and then go on to specifically convey just what that ‘bizarre thing’ for you actually is ... namely: that Richard ‘started with ...’ but ‘then changed his ...’. RESPONDENT: Note that I found it bizarre even without Richard’s subsequent ‘consoling words.’ At least that is what I said. What Richard makes of it is up to him. RICHARD: Do you also ‘note’ how it is only by isolating your 3rd sentence from your explanatory 4th and 5th sentences that you can make it look like your phantom ‘Richard’ is behaving in the same manner/ a similar way to what [No. 4]’s phantom ‘Richard’ does? RESPONDENT: Also, in reference to Richard’s footnote RICHARD: No. 25, not only is your memory ... um ... ‘potentially’ faulty but all of your journal entries are
riddled with errors of fact (including the above Mar 14th entry made 5 days after your arrival). Not only did I advise you directly, regarding some
of those errors of fact in your private record of your visit, I also wrote to you about it, on May 25, 2013, on this very forum (in #13582 Vis.:
‘Tis fascinating that I can say the same thing over and again – to the point some diehard opportunists make snide remarks about my ‘endlessly repetitive words’ and etcetera – in plain English and yet, even so, still no notice is taken. * Last, but not at all the least, before making any more of your journal entries (i.e. your private record of your visit) public please consider carefully the implications and ramifications of doing so before you click ‘Send’. Regards, Richard.
Re: Upcoming visit RESPONDENT: Also, in reference to Richard’s footnote RICHARD: No. 25, not only is your memory ... um ... ‘potentially’ faulty but all of your journal entries are riddled with errors of fact (including the above Mar 14th entry made 5 days after your arrival). RESPONDENT: I have never responded to your email pointing out the various errors ... RICHARD: G’day No. 25, I am interjecting right at the beginning solely to point out that I did not say ‘the various errors’ but, rather, I said ‘some of those errors’ (big difference). Vis.:
Also, I wrote to you asking for your telephone number – so that I could call you and explain all the rest to you verbally as there are just too many for me to sit here typing them out for you – and yet to this very day you still have not sent it to me. RESPONDENT: ... they have not gone unnoticed ... RICHARD: The textual evidence I have just previously re-presented, from my May 25, 2013 post (#13582), clearly demonstrates that the very first of those corrected errors – the error numbered No. 1 at the top of the list of 24 items – did indeed go ‘unnoticed’ ... and a little over 5 weeks later at that. Vis.:
That you can sit there and type out those ‘have not gone unnoticed’ words of yours, when the textual evidence – now brought to your attention for the third time – quite clearly demonstrates otherwise, shows a marked lack of engagement in reading what is actually being presented to you before reaching for your keyboard. RESPONDENT: ... but I do think ‘riddled with errors of fact’ is too extreme as much of what you pointed out in that email to me with corrections were very minor modifications, such as your point about ‘synaptic reconfiguration’ presented below. RICHARD: You may say that you [quote] ‘do think’ [endquote] all you like but the fact remains that my correction regarding you lumping my 30+ month synaptic reconfiguration period under the same-same ‘adjustment to an actual freedom’ category which all the (newly) free peoples experience is not only a major error of fact but the most major error of fact, amongst all those errors of yours, you could possibly have made. For instance, I have written about it, on the very forum, describing it as being a ‘macabre and gruesome’ period. Vis.:
Even further to that point, here is some more from that above post of mine (#13582) ... i.e. my direct and engaged response to the very questions you specifically asked of me (on May 12, 2013). Vis.:
For you to dismiss that correction – the error numbered No. 1 at the top of the list – as being a modification (let alone a ‘very minor’ one at that) indicates a stubborn refusal to face the fact of what an actual freedom from the human condition actually is ... meaning that whatever type of ‘actual freedom’ it is you have in mind, as being your goal, it is not the actual freedom reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website. (Maybe it is some kind of watered-down humanised/ materialist version of what is actually on offer on the website ... just as some peoples of an opposite persuasion have it as a watered-down mysticised/ spiritualist version). RESPONDENT: [...snip...] RICHARD: Last, but not at all the least, before making any more of your journal entries (i.e. your private record of your visit) public please consider carefully the implications and ramifications of doing so before you click ‘Send’. RESPONDENT: Just what do you have in mind? RICHARD: This very email exchange (as above), for instance, where you sit there typing out erroneous email after erroneous email which, if they remain uncorrected by me, give the impression they must be true because you, [No. 25], have been to visit ‘Richard and Vineeto’ (plus quoting from your ‘journal entries’ as if that makes those erroneous emails fact) ... all of which is not all that dissimilar to some of your earlier posts (as in #133xx & #133xx & #134xx & #134xx & #134xx & #136xx for example) which are not yet corrected by me. For instance:
Incorrect. For another instance:
Incorrect example. For another instance:
Incorrect example. For another instance:
Incorrect conclusion. For another instance:
Incorrect premise=incorrect conclusion. For another instance:
Incorrect example again. For another instance:
Incorrect. For another instance:
I will not even dignify your tacked-on ‘or even deceptive’ words with a comment. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Regarding your (erroneous) insistence I said ‘pointless’: what you have done with my actual words is no different to that ‘meaningless’ line you went on and on and on about with me, on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, until I lost interest and just stopped responding. (Simply because I had said that ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of existence’ or ‘the riddle of the universe’ or however one’s quest might be termed) was to be found here in this actual world you *inferred* from this I had said life in the real-world was ‘meaningless’ and away you went ... email after email after email). I am simply not buying into it this time around.
Re: Upcoming visit RESPONDENT: Richard, I wanted to go through this email response of mine, now that I am feeling better and less argumentative. Also, I realized it might be a good idea to apply naivete to each item raised in this post, both for your benefit (so you don’t find yourself addressing an outdated version of my comments), as well as mine.
I do see that and understand the difference. Vis.:
This is accurate. RICHARD: G’day No. 25, I cannot help but notice how you draw no distinction between your private correspondence and your public correspondence inasmuch, without any by-your-leave, you (unilaterally) proceed to make public knowledge text which is obviously communicated to you in a non-public manner. I will therefore take this opportunity to request that you similarly make public knowledge a vital portion of text from your
private correspondence with [No. 4], on October the 7th, 2011, during the period Sep-Oct of that year when he was putting into action his [quote] ‘warn
a few friends’ (#136xx I am specifically referring to two paragraphs of text to be found in the following email you sent to Vineeto (and Cc’d to me) on March 26, 2012. Vis.:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Forwarded message
Please note that all what is required is those 176 withheld words in those two paragraphs – and nothing else as all the rest of the text in any of those eight emails you forwarded is worthless – because those 176 words contain the key to comprehending how this whole sorry saga (aka ‘the mother of all kerfuffles’) was triggered. In other words, once those two paragraphs (those 176 withheld words) are public knowledge I will be able to demonstrate,
step-by-step, how [No. 4]’s actions at that time effectively led to wrecking another’s life (her exact words, in message #10555 Regards, Richard.
Re: Private Correspondence
RICHARD: G’day [No. 25], This is to advise you that the private email you sent to my personal email address 3-4 days ago (at 4:48 AM on Fri 11/10/2013 AEST) arrived intact. It is also to advise that, 3 months ago (on Jul 4, 2013 at 3:50 pm), your name and email address was added to a short list of people whose disregard of the distinction betwixt private and public correspondence has elicited a reluctance on my part to oblige them with an exchange of private emails. Consequently, in regards to a matter you would like my response to please post it on this forum. Regards, Richard. P.S.: Generally speaking, I cannot guarantee an immediate answer (or indeed if at all, for that matter, due to having mostly retired from writing) as I usually do not check-in to this forum on a daily basis.
RE: affective vibes are real RICHARD: [...]. And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of
affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around
and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of
decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret). RESPONDENT: How can it be verified independently that these vibes and psychic currents are not transmitted via physical means? RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Did you not read my ‘through a closed door’ description (first made public knowledge 14 years ago) and my follow-up report/ explanation to No. 15? Furthermore, I do not understand why you would ask such a question (as both affective vibes and psychic currents – being affective/ psychic in nature – are non-physical your tacit assumption a physical transmission mechanism is involved makes no sense). As a matter of idle interest: just what [quote] ‘physical means’ [endquote] of transmission are you alluding to? And, as a supplementary question, by what mechanism are the non-physical vibes/ currents coded, for physical transmission, and then decoded, from physical reception, for non-physical sampling? RESPONDENT: Most people are familiar with picking up on someone’s vibe due to bodily cues ... RICHARD: I will interject here because of a category error. What most people are familiar with is trying to pick-out what someone is feeling – anger, sadness, love, hate and so on – via physical cues (such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language). In other words, those physical cues – such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language – are not the transmission mechanism for vibes (they could not possibly be as peoples regularly fake those physical cues, on a daily basis, for all manner of conjugal, familial, social, cultural and commercial reasons) but are the effect which feelings are having on their vocal chords/ on their physiognomy/ on their posture. RESPONDENT: ... but how can we distinguish between vibes that are detected due to bodily cues and those that are not? RICHARD: Again, your question makes no sense – and especially so in the context you ask it from – as vibes are detected (to use your phrasing) extrasensorially. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Also, what is the relative importance with the actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion as opposed to feeling happy and harmless, thus putting out happy and harmless vibes? RICHARD: As there is no such [quote] ‘actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion’ [endquote] it is difficult to determine just what it is you are asking ... and why you are. If what you are referring to is to neither express nor suppress any of the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings/ emotions/ passions – and thus put them into a bind so the third alternative (felicity/ innocuity) may hove into view – then the relative importance (to use your phrasing) is the resultant involuntary extrasensorial emanation of those happy and harmless vibes into the human psyche, in particular, and the animal psyche in general. RESPONDENT: If good and bad vibes are felt by others regardless of emotional expression, why is it important not to express the good and bad feelings if they will be felt regardless of expression? RICHARD: As nowhere is it advised that it is [quote] ‘important not to express the good and bad feelings’ [endquote] then I am unable to answer your query as-is. (It is, essentially, a matter of choice/ personal preference as to what feelings are expressed). What I can say is this: as the many and various emotions/ passions are the same affective energy, at root, then directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself), via minimisation of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and maximisation of the happy and harmless feelings, will have the effect of involuntarily radiating felicitous/ innocuous vibes and currents as a matter of course. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it possible to hide what one is feeling? RICHARD: If you mean ‘hide what one is feeling’ as in disguising the physical effects such feeling has on one’s vocal chords/ one’s physiognomy/ one’s posture (as per the tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language mentioned further above) then, yes, of course one can ... peoples everywhere do so regularly on a daily basis. (Diplomats, for an obvious instance, elevate doing so into a high art-form as part and parcel of their job-description). If, however (going by your follow-up question below), you mean is it possible to hide the affective vibes which all feeling-beings involuntarily transmit, extrasensorially, by virtue of affectively/ psychically existing as a ‘being’ then, no, one cannot ... and the word ‘involuntarily’ should explain why. RESPONDENT: Is it a matter of sensitivity whether or not a vibe is picked up if it is not expressed? RICHARD: As a vibe is not [quote] ‘expressed’ [quote], but is involuntarily transmitted regardless of whether feelings are expressed or suppressed, your query cannot be answered as-is. What I can say is this: it is a matter of sensitivity whether affective vibes are consciously discerned or not. The vast majority of feeling-beings experience other feeling-being’s vibes as if they are their own feelings – and are, of
course, totally oblivious to the very existence of psychic currents * So as to obviate this email exchange getting ever-longer, with yet more and more back-and-forth additions, it would be great if you could comprehend this one thing: A feeling-being, by virtue of being an affective/ psychic ‘being’, involuntarily emanates/ transmits/ radiates affective vibes (and psychic currents), extrasensorially, regardless of whether they express or suppress feelings and/or whether they display or conceal any physical effects feelings may have on their tone of voice/ their facial expression/ their body language. 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 |
