|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 37 (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).
(Editors Note: For a possible explanation see Re: Few humble words from Justine SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about. RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you? I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out. CLAUDIU: Could you provide message #s/quotes of the above happening? Or a message # of where to start reading. I don’t remember reading it as-it-happened and I wouldn’t know where to look, exactly. It’s easier to navigate the yahoo group archives if you know where to look (as you seem to). RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Just a quick note to advise you what the ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be. The following URL will help you ‘to navigate the yahoo group archives’ in that regard:
The ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be the email part-quoted immediately after these words (about 3/4 the way through the above post):
RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): No, it is not that message but the URL listed above did have the part of the message that I was referring to:
RICHARD: As Claudiu has already pointed out (in #13943 Vis.:
Whereas the following partly fits that depiction of yours (but not your ‘threatened to post details’ part of course). Vis.:
Quite frankly, nobody of the ilk you allude to (i.e. ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’) could have ‘threatened to post details’ as there are only two people on this planet who intimately know them and, thus far, I have of course remained as circumspect as possible (so as to spare her feelings as she was, quite evidentially, hurt, hurting and hurtful) in the circumstances. If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]? My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals). Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. (Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk). Put specifically: you have been sucked in by No. 2’s deliberate and calculated mis-information/ dis-information campaign and are busily perpetuating it for him ... the following is something else you have so obligingly perpetuated, on his behalf, in your above post. Vis.:
And the following is where you obtained that particular bit of mis-information/ dis-information from (the post immediately before that message (#11325) you re-presented). Vis.:
Now, I know for a fact that [Respondent No. 00] (posting as <email ID withheld>) is not a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ as that is both her birth-certificate name and the only email ID she used. Also, she was quite up-front about having met in-person. Vis.:
(Incidentally, she is the woman I referred to, in the post (#10532 So, I would advise taking a second look, and a really good look this time around, at that above post of No. 2’s (#11324) where he was somehow (presciently?) able to warn everyone, at 2:56 pm on the 21st of February, 2012, to beware of a person identifying as [quote] ‘watsonholly (and possibly others)’ [endquote] as being a sock-puppet of ‘Richard & Associates’ a full ten minutes before the person identifying as ‘watsonholly51’ posted their first, and only email ever, to this forum (at 3:06 pm on that 21st day of February, 2012). Furthermore, have a look at how he is somehow (miraculously?) able to do that in response to a post of his own – with the one-word text ‘Beware’ in its body – which is manifestly time-stamped as having being posted 5 hours and 27 minutes *later* (at 8:23 pm on that quite remarkable 21st day of February, 2012). Thus, seeing as how No. 2 is somehow complicit, in whatever it was which led to that one-off appearance of ‘watsonholly51’, that quaint ‘Would you divulge ...’ (rather than the regular ‘Will you ...’) provides a pointer to just which particular person of No.2’s intimate acquaintance it might be whom he would thus be privy to the intention, on their part, to post such an email a full ten minutes before they did so. Ain’t life grand! Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about. RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you? I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out. RICHARD: [...]. If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]? My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals). Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. (Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical
experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would
have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such
matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/
mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk). RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Nothing of the above mentioned would scandalize or be troublesome etc. ... RICHARD: Okay ... as none of the ‘above mentioned’ is what you had in mind, when you told Srid that [quote] ‘a sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is not at all surprising just what it is that you did have in mind, then. Could it, perchance, have been planted in your mind by the way in which that #11325 message you specifically referred to was worded? Vis.:
So as to not beat around the bush here are some examples of what the word affair refers to:
RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): but being ‘single’ and ... RICHARD: Please provide the message where she says she is not married. RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): ... and being ‘mingling’ (including sex) with others would scandalize or be troublesome. RICHARD: Please provide the message where she says she is [quote] ‘mingling’ (including sex) with others’ [endquote]. Also, I would suggest re-reading what Srid posted a week ago (Sun Jun 9, 2013)
before reaching for the keyboard again. (Message 13854 Take particular note of what he has to say in the fourth paragraph, about the ‘ambience-atmosphere-milieu’ effect, before going on to read the fifth paragraph. Who knows, it may very well enable you to get your mind out of the gutter that No. 4 and No. 2 put it into with their ... um ... their testosterone-fuelled and/or libido-driven mis-information and dis-information campaign, eh? RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): If someone is posting from different continents, times can be different on different posts. There is nothing more to it than that. You have been fooling yourself. RICHARD: The automated time-stamped dating on each numbered message indicates the moment the ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members. It has nothing to do with the varying time-zones of list-members on different continents. Put differently, the instant you click ‘Send’ is virtually the same instant that fully-automated software processes it regardless of your physical location on the globe. The so-called ‘time-zones’ are actually a measure of physical distance, longitudinally, from Greenwich, England, as this very moment is the same-same moment for everybody on the planet, the instant it happens, no matter what so-called ‘time’ has been assigned to it via the internationally agreed-upon navigational system of meridians (latitude and longitude) established a few centuries ago. Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about. RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you? I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out. (#13913) CLAUDIU: Could you provide message #s/quotes of the above happening? Or a
message # of where to start reading. I don’t remember reading it as-it-happened and I wouldn’t know where to look, exactly. It’s easier to
navigate the yahoo group archives if you know where to look (as you seem to). (#13914 RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Just a quick note to advise you what the ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be. The following URL will help you ‘to navigate the yahoo group archives’ in that regard:
The ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be the email part-quoted immediately after these words (about 3/4 the way through the above post):
RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): No, it is not that message but the URL listed above did have the part of the message that I was referring to:
RICHARD: As Claudiu has already pointed out (in #13943 Vis.:
Whereas the following partly fits that depiction of yours (but not your ‘threatened to post details’ part of course). Vis.:
Quite frankly, nobody of the ilk you allude to (i.e. ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’) could have ‘threatened to post details’ as there are only two people on this planet who intimately know them and, thus far, I have of course remained as circumspect as possible (so as to spare her feelings as she was, quite evidentially, hurt, hurting and hurtful) in the circumstances. If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]? My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals). Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. (Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk). RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Nothing of the above mentioned would scandalize or be troublesome etc. ... RICHARD: Okay ... as none of the ‘above mentioned’ is what you had in mind, when you told Srid that [quote] ‘a sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is not at all surprising just what it is that you did have in mind, then. Could it, perchance, have been planted in your mind by the way in which that #11325 message RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): I have read many messages. RICHARD: Aye, and when Claudiu asked you (in #13914 So, when Claudiu pointed out to you (in #13934 Now, as I know that nothing at all – nothing whatsoever – transpired which would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is a very simple matter for me to point out to you just where that ... um ... that libido-driven picture might have been planted in your mind. However, when I did point that out – via the very word ‘affair’ (in #11325 RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): There is a girl who thinks that her life got wrecked because of her association with you. RICHARD: She did indeed say that her life got wrecked (her exact words, in message #10555 RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Now why does she think that? RICHARD: In her own words, she said (in #10563 RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Or is there no such girl according to you? RICHARD: Ha ... whilst I would hardly characterise a 37-year old female as a ‘girl’ it would be simply absurd to suggest there is no such flesh-and-blood woman, alive today, when it is so obvious there is. RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Is it all about ‘phantom Richard’. RICHARD: It is indeed all about a phantom ‘Richard’, of passionate imagination, who gads about, girding his loins, and getting up to all manner of mischief. Whereas all the while I am right here, where I have been all along, and always will be. Regards, Richard.
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative RESPONDENT: Nothing you have ever said shows how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people at a longer distance where there can be no sensory clues. RICHARD: The very fact you say ‘no sensory clues’ (aka cues) indicates that what I have written over the years – and all archived on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – has been beyond your ken as I have indeed shown how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people who are not physically proximate. First and foremost, the phrase ‘psychic currents’ (and ‘psychic energies’ as well) is a term which evolved throughout
the many discussions between my second wife and myself so as to readily refer to an elementary aspect of animalistic interconnectedness (that we
variously referred to as either the ‘psychic web’ or the ‘psychic network’) which had become more and more evident in the latter stages of
that 11-year period of my life wherein the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body back then was living that/ being that which, up until the
30th October 1992, was held to be the summum bonum of human experience/ of human history. The following is the specific sense in which we used the adjective psychic and/or psychical (and its adverbial form, psychically). Vis.:
And the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation. Vis.:
And here is what that word ‘soul’, in the above definition, is referring to:
I chose to use the word soul when I first went public because, as it refers to the innermost affective entity of both those of
either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being the materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ intuitive self –
aka ‘spirit’ (Incidentally, the reason why the Greek word psukhe (‘breath, soul, life’), from which the Latin word psyche is derived, and the related Greek word psukhein (‘breathe, blow’) refer to breath and to breathing is because, for ancient peoples and/or primitive peoples life began when a newly-born infant drew its first breath and ended with that body’s last breath). Also, here is what the word affective refers to:
And here is an explanation about the word vibes:
For instance:
Lastly, I am using the word current (from the Latin currere, ‘to run’) in its ‘something which flows’ Oxford Dictionary meaning purely as a matter of convenience and am in no way suggesting thereby that ‘psychic currents’ (or even ‘psychic energies’) are electrical or electromagnetic in nature ... being affective they are non-physical/ non-material and, thus, have no existence in actuality. Vis.:
Now, if you have followed all of the above (and if you have not you will be well-advised to re-read it again and again until you do) – including all of the dictionary definitions/ my explanations as to what those key-words refer to – then you will comprehend both ... (a) why ‘being’ to ‘being’ psychic currents/ psychic energies are instantaneous in their effect ... and (b) why physical distance is irrelevant to their propagation/ their reception. (Hint: as they have no existence in actuality there is no such thing as a physical distance for them to travel). As I said before (in #14641 RESPONDENT: The following P.S. note also doesn’t throw any light on the source of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents. RICHARD: It does indeed throw some light on the source – the psychic force itself in fact – of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents (aka psychic energies). Perhaps if I were to put that postscript of mine back into the context you have snipped-off it might become more clear. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Experientially going deeper into those affective feelings don’t show how they can act at a distance. It just shows how they are acting out in a person’s head, not at a distance. RICHARD: How about you were to have said ‘a person’s psyche’ – which, as I have oft-times said before (e.g. #14807), is the human psyche – instead of that (physical) word ‘head’ that you used? And, again for emphasis, the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation. Vis.:
And, also again for emphasis, here is what that word ‘soul’ (aka ‘spirit’) – be it of either a secular or a spiritual connotation – is referring to:
I will leave you with a quote of mine, written and posted over a decade ago (on August the 17th 2002), as a concise reminder of just what this discussion is all about. Vis.:
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 |
