|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 49 (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. 2 Subject: Re Yet Another Summary of the Actualism Method ALAN: Hi [No. 49], I am butting in on your conversation with Claudiu as I have been able to verify (by what you have written here, your texts and emails to me and our recent audio conversation) that which I first suspected some considerable time ago. Although it took a little while, I like to be certain of my facts before making rash statements – and I had fun and understood/found out more about myself in the process. As Claudiu said, I know not what you are doing on this forum. Perhaps hoping to gather a few converts to ‘your way’ with myself, [No. 7] and Claudiu as the prime contenders apparently. Were it needed the final proof was our email exchange earlier today:
I have considerable experience of attempting to use Richard’s words to describe what I was experiencing – and vice-versa to pretend to experience what Richard describes (as has already been discussed on here), so I do know what I am talking about. It is pointless to continue our conversation unless you decide to come to your senses when I will be delighted to converse with you again. Life was meant to be fun Alan (Message 220 31)••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ALAN: I am butting in on your conversation with Claudiu as I have been able to verify (by what you have written here, your texts and emails to me and our recent audio conversation) that which I first suspected some considerable time ago. Although it took a little while, I like to be certain of my facts before making rash statements – and I had fun and understood/found out more about myself in the process. RESPONDENT: Alan, your (now), public statement and subsequent disclosure of our private email conversation together with your private suspicions, is, of coarse, your prerogative. Presumably you acted in what you considered in the best public interest, given your track record. I should, likewise, in the public interest, point out the fuller context of that private email misunderstanding, lest you, or anyone else, here, get the wrong impression. In so doing, perhaps this exchange will provide yet more demonstration, as to how you and others may diligently proceed, as you say, ‘in the process’. BTW I am most glad to hear that you are: 1: having fun, 2: understanding and finding out more about yourself ALAN: As Claudiu said, I know not what you are doing on this forum. Perhaps hoping to gather a few converts to ‘your way’ with myself, [No. 7] and Claudiu as the prime contenders apparently. RESPONDENT: Ha, I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade but if ‘my way’ is helping perhaps ...just perhaps... I should stick around a little longer then? (joke). ALAN: Were it needed ‘the final proof... RESPONDENT: Yes, with both eyes wide open, ‘proof’ is needed, Alan. ALAN: ...was our email exchange earlier today:
RESPONDENT: No, Alan this is not the ‘start’ of the quote.
This is a tongue in cheek reference to an expression of gratitude. Note the ‘Ha...’ at the start of this sentence. Here I am assuming that Alan considers ‘expressed gratitude’ is technically not politically correct AF phraseology...as the full quote context demonstrates.
This is an example of Alan missing [No. 49]’s humour per favour AF phraseology.
This is an example of Alan missing [No. 49]’s humour per favour AF phraseology. This is where I attempt to expose the joke for what it was...namely a dig at his literal interpretation of AF phraseology over sensibly acceptable social conduct in the world as it is with people as they are:
This is where our conversation concluded and where Alan has now gone public with his ‘conclusion’: ALAN: I have considerable experience of attempting to use Richard’s words to describe what I was experiencing – and vice-versa to pretend to experience what Richard describes (as has already been discussed on here), so I do know what I am talking about. It is pointless to continue our conversation unless you decide to come to your senses when I will be delighted to converse with you again. RESPONDENT: This is where our communication ended. Alan now apparently assumes pretence, (on the basis of misinterpreted humour)... per favour AF phraseology... rather than via simply asking me to explain said joke. ALAN: Life was meant to be fun RESPONDENT: Aye, Alan, demonstratively fun. (Message 220xx) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RICHARD: (This is a brief note, to the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum at large, on a matter of general interest). Even though at first glance a cyberspace equivalent of the cubiform Planet Htrae, fittingly located in a
comic-book ‘Bizarro World’ cosmos O what a tangled web ... (&c.). Regards,
Subject: Re Yet Another Summary of the Actualism Method RICHARD: (This is a brief note, to the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum at large, on a matter of general interest). Even though at first glance a cyberspace equivalent of the cubiform Planet Htrae, fittingly located in a comic-book ‘Bizarro
World’ cosmos O what a tangled web ... (&c.). ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• [†]the papal-like blessing: Viz.:
RICHARD: As the above affectation was later revealed to be “humour per favour AF phraseology”, as in being an attempt to expose an earlier joke for what it was, “namely a dig” ... RESPONDENT: Aye, digging (as in uncovering), or exposing to scrutiny, for the purpose of exploring, ‘yet another’ failed elucidation, summary/ explanation of the actualist’s methodology. RICHARD: The sense in which [quote] “a dig” [endquote] is to be understood by the readers of Message № 220xx – and specifically made public knowledge thereat for the explicit reason of it being in “the best public interest” lest anybody “get the wrong impression” from Message № 22031 – is expressly conveyed therein as being non-literal by virtue of it being qualified immediately prior as “the joke” and spelled out as being “[Respondent’s] humour per favour AF phraseology” (twice-over) as well as being a “tongue in cheek” (viz.: “as a joke; ironically” ~ Webster’s College Dictionary) reference to “an expression of gratitude” (i.e., to an expression of felt thankfulness masquerading as an enunciation of qualitative appraisal per favour its transparently deliberate “actualist phraseology” contextual placement). Besides which, the word itself is the well-known figurative form of the common phrase ‘a dig in the ribs’ As for the purposeful intent of this instance of “[Respondent’s] humour” (namely, the reason provided above for “the
joke” being “a dig” at a response suggesting a possible alternative to an ascription of the word “lovely” to a video,
purloined from the DVD entitled ‘A Pure Consciousness Experience’, which distinctively features a recorded abeyance of blind nature’s
instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof) – and which pre-determined objective is explicitly premised on assuming the responder “considers
‘expressed gratitude’ is technically not politically correct AF phraseology” (a smearing of actualism which is evidentially quite blind
to the experientially verifiable inability to ever feel grateful in actuality) – its very wording presupposes that the particular subject it
purports to be “exploring” (designated as being “‘yet another’ failed elucidation, summary/ explanation of the actualist’s
methodology” above) is a valid topic to thusly investigate without even one scintilla of evidence in support of an emboldened “I think”
ruling For the sake of clarity in communication here is the ...um... the methinks-it-is-therefore-it-is basis upon which “[Respondent’s] humour” was unleashed (namely, the “dig” which was electronically launched for “the purpose of exploring, ‘yet another’ failed elucidation, summary/ explanation of the actualist’s methodology” no less) in all its tawdry glory. Viz.:
Incidentally, given the “best arbiter” quality inhering in that “I think” utterance – per favour its “requiring
no third party or authority” supremacy over facts and actuality – it is Mr. Auguste Rodin’s famous “Le Penseur” (‘The Thinker’),
in “The Gates of Hell” sculpture at the Musée Rodin in Paris, France, which immediately springs to mind, of course, in conjunction with the
ground of ten-thousand worlds quaking as each methinks-it-is-therefore-it-is What is of particular bizarrerie, however, is how petty this incident is ... here are the first two sentences, of the footnoted email exchange made public in Message № 220xx, reconstituted to read as sent by the responder, and with certain words highlighted to emphasise this triviality:
First, there is a fundamental concurrence (“Indeed it is” = ‘it certainly is’) that a video distinctively featuring a recorded abeyance of blind nature’s instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof is a “lovely” video. (As the word ‘lovely’ is a polysemous word it can also convey what words such as ‘enjoyable’ or ‘delightful’ refer to). Next, the likelihood of having otherwise depicted it (“perhaps” = ‘maybe’) is canvassed due to the word “lovely” being suggestive of (“implies” = ‘indirectly indicates’) the affectional qualities of the more tender aspects those abeyant instinctual passions. Lastly, even that ridiculous meme – a poster, self-reporting on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list on the 25th of Nov, 2000, as having been “reading of AF for about one year” (i.e., 1999) cannot possibly have this so-called ‘admitted lack of practice with use of actualist phraseology’ after 16+ years exposure to the millions of actualism/ actual freedom words freely available on the website – is proffered on the chance (“perhaps” = ‘peradventure’) that it be a lack of familiarity with words and terms, which more accurately depict the abeyant nature of blind nature’s instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof during a PCE, that gave rise to that ascription. How such a response as that, with its fundamental concurrence upfront, can afterwards be depicted as having warranted a [quote] “digging (as in uncovering), or exposing to scrutiny, for the purpose of exploring, ‘yet another’ failed elucidation, summary/ explanation of the actualist’s methodology” [endquote] not only defies rational comprehension but is also suggestive of some incapacity in respect to rationality on the part of the depicter thereof. * RICHARD: ... [was later revealed to be “humour per favour AF phraseology”, as in being an attempt to expose an earlier joke for what it was, “namely a dig”...] at a response vis-à-vis the non-affective quality of laughter during a PCE (which response the above blesser assumed to instead be representing a “literal interpretation of AF phraseology over sensibly acceptable social conduct”) ... RESPONDENT: No, ‘the above blesser’ never attempted, (or assumed) to represent a literal interpretation of AF phraseology, over sensible acceptable social conduct’. RICHARD: As it is clearly specified (and twice-over at that) as being *the response* which “the above blesser” made that assumption about – namely, the assumption that *the response* relating to the word “lovely” represents a “literal interpretation of AF phraseology over sensibly acceptable social conduct” (in the mind of the assumer) – then the above sentence has no rational basis for its existence. RESPONDENT: The ‘tongue in cheek blesser’, attempted to expose Alan’s flawed MO, (of now admitted pretence), in favour of sensible communication. RICHARD: Yet when that “tongue in cheek blesser” wrote [quote] “Ha, can I say that I ‘appreciate’ you (sending it to me)...” [endquote] – directly after automorphically assuming the “laughing reactions” in a video distinctively featuring a recorded abeyance of blind nature’s instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof were “affectively inspired” (a methinks-it-is-therefore-it-is thought of such emboldened persuasiveness as to render the wannabee exposer “happy to call a spade a spade” in that respect) – as being the substance of that attempt to expose what was thereby further assumed to be a “flawed MO” (a rather turgid term, by the way, for simply preferring words which do not imply affectivity) it was insensible communication which ensued thereafter such as to be defying rational comprehension to the point of paralleling a topsy-turvy comic-book cosmos (where bad deeds, for instance, are “good deeds” of such a quality as to be worthy of the bestowal of grace from ahigh). * An inline reviewing of the full email exchange, made public in Message № 220xx, will enable clarity in communication for what follows on further below. Viz.:
It is the second-last sentence (beginning with the “Ha, can I say...” phrasing) which is the wannabee exposer’s “tongue in cheek” attempt – elsewhere referred to as “[Respondent’s] humour per favour AF phraseology” (namely, “the joke” as in “a dig” at a response suggesting a possible alternative to an ascription of the word “lovely” to a video distinctively featuring a recorded abeyance of blind nature’s instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof) – and it is the last sentence (beginning with “May your wordless...” phrasing) which is purportedly the carrier of “an obscure reference to Richard’s recently quoted [sic] wordless appreciation words”) even though Richard’s words reporting/ describing/ explaining the ‘wordless appreciation’ which is intrinsic to apperceptive awareness have not been quoted since the 4th of May, 2010, in Message № 94xx (duplicated in Message № 94xx). RICHARD: ...[as in being an attempt to expose an earlier joke for what it was, “namely a dig” at a response
vis-à-vis the non-affective quality of laughter during a PCE (which response the above blesser assumed to instead be representing a “literal
interpretation of AF phraseology over sensibly acceptable social conduct”)...] – by it somehow being the carrier of “an obscure
reference to Richard’s recently quoted [sic] wordless appreciation words” – it is pertinent to point out that my usage of the term ‘wordless
appreciation’, in depicting the appreciational perceptivity of quality and value RESPONDENT: Ah, Richard’s, uncertain ...snip... ‘somehow being a carrier of...’ reference (above), to my, ‘... obscure reference to Richard’s recently quoted [sic] wordless appreciation words”, goes some way to explain his, ‘tangled web’ reference, (above). RICHARD: This has to be clutching at straws because here is that “tangled web” reference in full (inclusive of the ‘&c.’ portion):
And as that reference (to this early 19th century expression) is contextually situated as a follow-up to the immediately preceding paragraph – thus specifically referring to two claimants of ‘pure intent’ nevertheless engaging in purveying and receiving stolen goods (not to mention blindly making such illicit transactions public knowledge) – it has nowt to do with the word ‘somehow’ and everything to do with the (‘self’-) deceit practiced by those two claimants. Purely for the sake of a tangible illustration, then, what follows is an example of pure intent in operation in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. Viz.:
And here is an extract from the top of the ‘Journals and DVDs’ order-form web page:
’Tis inherent to the very nature of pure intent – and all societal values and principles are but pathetic substitutes for its pristine purity and peerless perfection – that it would never even occur to a feeling-being, of a naïve sensitivity sufficient for its benefaction to have rendered such cultural morals and ethics redundant, to illicitly obtain (let alone purvey) pirated versions of that supplementary merchandise, those unessential items, which only exist in the first place so as to be of assistance in keeping everything currently available to all and sundry for free on the web site freely accessible unto an indeterminable future. * Look, it is this simple: the words [quote] “...it somehow being the carrier of...” [endquote] in that sentence relate to the impossibility of those designated words of Richard’s – those words depicting the appreciational perceptivity of quality and value intrinsic to apperceptive awareness as being a wordless appreciation – ever being referenced by that papal-like blessing, no matter how “obscure” that reference might be, due to the fact those words were not “recently quoted” (hence the square-bracketed “[sic]” insertion the first time around) but, rather, were last quoted a few months shy of six years ago (in Message № 94xx on the 4th of May, 2010, and duplicated in Message № 94xx on the same date). Moreover, that papal-like blessing – by specifically referring to “wordless appreciation, delight and wonder” as it did – is clearly not a reference (no matter how “obscure” it might be) to those ‘wordless appreciation’ words of Richard’s as he has never written of either “delight” or “wonder” as being “wordless” anywhere or anywhen at all (let alone “recently quoted” as such). In fact, the only incidence of “wordless wonder” words in the entire ‘Yahoo Groups’ archives is as follows:
Could it be, perchance, that the “obscure reference” to words about wordlessness as such stems from automorphism (i.e., originating in the referrer and projected onto Richard)? For example:
Another instance:
Incidentally, that last response (relating to how ‘pure intent’ is experienced in the actual world) is a classic ‘fail’ if there ever was. Viz.:
What follows is a clue as to why any and all persons illuding themselves they be actually free from the human condition eventually score a ‘fail’ upon closer examination. Viz.:
Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Here, ‘the tongue in cheek blesser’ differentiates Alan’s (now) confessed usage, ‘of Richard’s words to describe what (he) was experiencing – and vice-versa to pretend to experience what Richard describe of Richards words’, from the more sensible everyday usage of words’, to simply communicate. RICHARD: Give that the opening word “Here...” refers to “an expression of gratitude” (i.e., to an
expression of felt thankfulness masquerading as an enunciation of qualitative appraisal per favour its transparently deliberate “actualist
phraseology” contextual placement) then “the tongue in cheek blesser” does not differentiate any such thing and, instead, displays
a lack of experiential familiarity with how appreciation in the actual world has the function of qualitative appraisal RESPONDENT: As this clearly demonstrates cult-like behaviour, I seem to have achieved the objectives of the AF Trust, no? RICHARD: The role of The Actual Freedom Trust is, of course, unambiguously spelled-out and freely available for perusal on The Actual Freedom Trust website via left-clicking the link at the very bottom of the Home Page (videlicet: ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-2016). Viz.:
As yet another ‘cult-buster’ In other words, it is only those ‘solutions’ to the human condition whose aims or goals lie within the human condition that can ever be either a cult or attract cult-like behaviour. * If nothing else the above rôle-disclosure at least solves the mystery as to what the motivation is for chiding other posters about utilising Richard’s words/ Richard’s phrases (even whilst liberally sprinkling same all throughout their own posts, of course, as such policing is of the ‘do as I say not what I do’ variety) and other similar botherer-type behaviours. Howsoever, it does little to illuminate the motivation for urging others to make the same mistake as them ... to wit: elevating the rotten-to-the-core identity into the position of being the [quote] “highest authority” [endquote]. Here is a recent instance (30 Jan 2016) of such elevation:
Plus an instance from over 15 years ago (27 Oct 2000) and originally from the ‘ListBot’ archives:
By way of contrast, here are two reports/ descriptions/ explanations pertaining to how that “highest authority” is rotten-to-the-core. Viz.: Actual Freedom List, No. 7, 22 August 1999). 13 Oct 2002: Lastly, here is a timely reminder, once again, which speaks to the pure consciousness experience (PCE) as being the ‘highest authority’ (to use that phraseology):
And that square-bracketed insert will be added to the original on The Actual Freedom Trust web site so there never be any need for anyone to entertain even the slightest doubt about it ever again. Regards,
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 |
