Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Andrew


Permission to use my first Name on the Actual Freedom Trust website.

ANDREW: Hello, Directors of the Actual Freedom Trust!

As much as I like the designation “No. 42”, (being a fan of Douglas Adam's choice of this ‘ordinary and inconspicuous’ number as his answer to the “meaning of life”),

I am happy to retire it and be called by my first name on the Actual Freedom Trust website.

Cheers Andrew (Message 22396, Mar 25 2016)


June 5 2013

Re: Richard, to be fair..

RICHARD to No. 4: [...]. As I said last year (in message #11150) you have a whole lot of explaining to do regarding your actions.

RESPONDENT No. 4: I’ve been doing that all along, haven’t I? What do you want me to explain that I haven’t already explained? I did ask you once to be very specific about any ‘lies’ you’ve ever accused me of, so we could set the record straight. I’m still willing to do that, because I’m confident that I haven’t knowingly lied about anything concerning you.

RESPONDENT No. 4: FYI, I would / will have no hesitation in admitting it if I’m mistaken about anything... but what I won’t do is be mesmerised or bullied or shamed into denying anything I know to be true, or affirming what I know to be false. Any facts you want to put on the table, please put them on the table, and let’s discuss.

RESPONDENT No. 4: And it’d be great if Peter and Vineeto would join in.

RESPONDENT No. 4: Actually, it’s just another revolving door. I’ve already done this, already been here before. Everyone who’s been a direct participant or inside observer has already moved on in his or her own way. I myself stand to gain absolutely nothing from going through this again except the opportunity to argue a case (or cases) before an audience of strangers who’d probably largely resent me for it anyway. To those people, I can – and already have – summed up anything of value I might have to say, and that is: take what’s valuable here, discard what isn’t, don’t forfeit your own judgment and common sense, and don’t let your life ***depend*** on what anyone says, does, is, or claims to be. (And I think anyone who doesn’t already have that willingness to be guided by their own reasoning and discoveries over the course of time isn’t likely to get it from me anyway).

ANDREW: No. 4, I’ve tried 3 times to come up with some response to this whole episode, and deleted them all.

I’ll just say that this post is here so that there isn’t deafening silence, and although we are strangers, I’m not one to resent anyone for arguing their case. You, richard or anyone.

Though I didn’t think No. 37’s trolling was going to amount to anything, but oh, how wrong I was heh?! whatever the facts are, I don’t have anything much to say, it just seems weird to ignore all this without saying ...something.

ANDREW: Hi Richard, I addressed the [above] to No. 4, mainly I suppose because i feel for him. Silence just seems inappropriate when we have had so many exchanges over the last few years. You and I haven’t spoken much directly, and I do take you at your word that the feelings I would otherwise assume another to feel simply are not there in you.

So, this post is about fairness in my own mind, and is rather selfish really, I just want to be fair and address you too! (Andrew; the arbiter of making things fair on the internet?!)

So also my post [above] is somewhat, if not wholly, just one of those thing that ‘feeling beings do’! But as I have just learnt over the weekend not to ‘despise’ feelings, I can breathe easy and say, who cares? even if i do... but, to be fair (for my own sake), I can see where you are coming from here in this whole thing. And though it seems foolish even in my own eyes to be posting, it’s only me judging me, and I can give myself a break!

I was surprised that No. 37’s trolling turned into all of this, but i can only assume that there is a point to your responses, and that point is implict in what you say; there isn’t anything to talk about, as nothing happened. this is fair enough. And that’s all I wanted to say. It is amazing how much time I spent on this whole thing tonight only to realize it was all about me...

RICHARD: G’day Andrew, Given you mused about what point there is in my responses I will reiterate what I have already indicated, in that regard, but in a slightly different way for clarity.

Everything is contained in my Message No. 13675 post (I left the entire sequence in so no one has to back-track through my two earlier posts – #13658 & #13652 – to ascertain context).

Here is how ‘this whole thing’ began:

#13637
From: Respondent No. 37
Date: Sun Jun 2, 2013 2:36 am
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Respondent No. 37]: No. 4, if I remember correctly, you had said in one of your messages that Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent. If this is correct, would you mind telling who it was?

And here is that very message being referred to:

#11349
From: [Respondent No. 4]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: Richard writes mysticism

• [Respondent No. 4]: I was there when it happened. [...snip...] (1) ‘no libido’: the claim that the instinctual-passionate drive for sex/ power/ dominance/ primacy is null and void in ‘actual freedom’ is ... well ... let’s put it this way: if it’s true, it certainly manifests in strange/ unexpected ways. Eg. In February 2010 the genitor of actual freedom [...] was actively trying to woo another woman back into a full-time sexual relationship with him (which she had suspended while trying to decide her future); [...].

Now, No. 4 knows perfectly well that his [quote] ‘trying to woo another woman *back into* a ...’ [emphasis added] words refer to my telephonic and electronic communications with my third wife (de facto), when she was in New Zealand in November/ December 2009, and not to some [quote] ‘girl on another continent’ [endquote] as his co-respondent had remembered the message.

(Incidentally, note how he begins it all with his ‘I was there when it happened’ stamp of eye-witness authenticity even though ‘February 2010’ is *not* November/ December 2009).

So, all he needed to do (if he was even going to reply to a known troll that is) was to write words to the effect that, as that troll’s remembrance was not correct, there was nothing to tell.

It is such a simple thing, yet me pointing out that the query was a conditional question (‘if this *is* correct’) and not a suppositional question (‘if this *were* correct’) has resulted in No. 4 generating email after email – even responding rapid-fire to his own posts (such as the four-in-a-row further above) in what seems to be an almost manic-like manner – as a futile attempt to defend the indefensible by deflecting attention away from what is indeed such a simple thing.

‘Tis no wonder you say you ‘feel for him’.

Regards, Richard

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

P.S.: In case you have still missed it: that is it (i.e., conditional vs. suppositional); that is the point in my responses.

June 13 2013

Re: Richard, to be fair..

ANDREW: [...]. I was surprised that [No. 37]’s trolling turned into all of this, but i can only assume that there is a point to your responses, and that point is implict in what you say; there isn’t anything to talk about, as nothing happened. this is fair enough. And that’s all I wanted to say. It is amazing how much time I spent on this whole thing tonight only to realize it was all about me...

RICHARD: Given you mused about what point there is in my responses I will reiterate what I have already indicated, in that regard, but in a slightly different way for clarity. [...].

In case you have still missed it: that is it (i.e. conditional vs. suppositional); that is the point in my responses.

ANDREW: G’day Richard (though it is well and truly night on both sides of Oz!), Thanks for continued presence and answers on this list. All the back and forth lately has been a reminder to me not to become complacent and use actualism as an add on, or adopted philosophy. And though I am not really that interested in the current topic (who wooed whom!) it has however made a few things clearer to me.

i still must admit to not understanding your particular style of dealing with these things when they come up, but I also notice the nature of that ‘not understanding’ being related to issues of expectation and admonitory ‘voices’ in my own psyche that get nervous when considering what being actually free in this world actually is.

this is not to say that I’m seeing this whole latest round as a mistake, but the thought has crossed my mind, and in crossing my mind I let it play out a bit briefly (rather than side with any-thing – just let things float around a bit) and it reminded me of the primary case of investigating my own present moment experience, and the value of even these otherwise accurately described ‘troll’ invasions. It seems to me that most of this angst originates in expectations of what a ‘perfect man’ should be. It also reminds me of how, as a father in the modern world, men in general are demonised and blamed for everything. a man doesn’t feel comfortable walking down the street with his own child without the thought occuring that others may have looked twice at him and, well, thought the worst.

i read a while back a book about the otherwise complete reversal of the blame game in western society, how, since the 60’s, men have increasingly been the scapegoat for everything, monsters for even being male at all. I get the sense, (as only perhaps a feeling being can) that there is a fair amount of this going on in this list. I wonder what would have been the allegations if instead of being a man, the first actually free person had been a woman, or, ‘god forbid’, gay or lesbian!

anyway, just wanted to add my thanks that you stick around, it boggles my mind that you can, but that also in itself is instructive as to what happy and harmless is.

RICHARD: G’day Andrew, As the ‘point in my responses’ raised issues of expectation and admonitory ‘voices’ (i.e. ‘god man’ expectations) for you – which leaves you contemplating there being no-one to tell you what to do – it may be pertinent to be reminded of when it first struck home to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, that no one was in charge of the world (no Supreme Being/ Ultimate Authority of any description whatsoever).

But first, given that your out-spoken thoughts (about ‘barking up the wrong tree on this whole idea of perfection’ for 13 years) set off an informative – and hilariously entertaining – exchange of ‘improv’ posts (including riff-like licks with a hook), a faint echo of the context will be sounded by re-presenting that email sequence.

Vis.:

#13948

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: ah i see, so youre happy to acept that actuality is pristine perfection but the flesh and blood body living as that ONLY doen’t have to be? what kind of a dream world are you living in man.

what are you griping about, its not as though men are victims of another species theyve done it to themselves! grow up dude!

• [Andrew]: I realise it’s a subtle point, but with a little thought (rather than reaction) you may agree that the idea of perfection commonly held (that a ‘god man’ is omniscient and unimpeachable) isn’t what is presented on the AFT. And if it is, then it is clearly mistaken.

Which is a circluar axiom I know.

I’m not sure how baby males are ‘doing it to themselves’, though like everyone we do indeed grow up. And in the end as Gerard Depardieu said the other day ‘we all end up horizontal – dead’ in 13 years has it occured to you that you may be barking up the wrong tree on this whole idea of perfection? (that indeed the universe is beyond intelligent and thus human intelligence, whether actually free or not, is finite and not a reflection of the universal ‘beyond intelligent’ idea?)

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

#13952

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: and with this mentality you hope to find your way out of the human condition. your a joke. you wouldnt be able to live AS the pristine perfection of ACTUAL FACTS if they slapped you in the face.

• [Andrew]: not sure how much slapping is going to be involved, but so far so good, the FACTS seem to pretty self evident far.

BTW, it’s ‘you’re a joke’ not ‘your a joke’. My ‘A Joke’ is ‘companies have meetings because they cannot masturbate’ but it’s not that funny, mainly cause it’s true.

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

#13960

• [Respondent No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)]: Some sock puppets had popped out at that time which haven’t posted since, <email ID for No. 00 withheld> and <email ID for No.00L withheld> being the ones that I remember.

• [Respondent [00L]: I am no more a sock puppet than you are a useful contributor to this forum, ie not at all. I simply do not have the time to write anymore, whereas you have ample time to continue to troll.

Do you understand the irony, that every troll message here is just a further impetus for the serious people to get on with their actualist journey?

• [Andrew]: hi [00L] this time around, I can vouch for that. the more they whine and complain and troll the more I know beyond any doubt that freedom from such tendancies in myself is up to me, and up to me right now.

it’s also encouraging personally to not be upset by it, that I can see real change in how i am in the world, and online.

13 years of trolling, I mean I’ve had a hobby or two, but that is an outstanding dedication to an art if ever i saw it.

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

#13965

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: what is the beneficial motive, the 100% harmless, benevolent and benign motive, behind exposing peoples anonyms/ pseudonyms/ aliases etc on the internet?

bearing in mind that this is open membership mailing list, and that the instinctual passions of the average human being is prone to mental delusions and that we are the most cunning and aggressive predator on the planet?

• [Andrew]: Your logic is so twisted I’m surprised you can even string sentences together.

if you, after 13 YEARS of attacking richard, can’t see that the last part of your question answers the first, then, well, I’ve wasted my time writing even this much. as you obviously think these questions are ironclad rhetorical slamdunks, it’s time you started READING WITH YOUR EYES OPEN!!!

What are my motives for replying? that is a 100% great question, considering you embody the type of behavior online that you accuse richard of, i may as well be writing a post addressed to a serial killer about kindness.

You are abusive.

You are malicious.

You are cunning.

You are aggressive.

You are deluded.

Oh, and you have spent 13 YEARS butchering and regurgitating in your accusations the very words of the man you are attacking. You haven’t understood a single one of them to start with.

What are my motives? I cannot honestly say, I probably like to hear myself think and like avoiding getting my evening work done. If it was to converse with you, then so far you have proven to be a complete waste of time.

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

#13973

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: GOT IT! took a while but he’s baaaaaaack :) here you are folks, let me introduce you, give him a big hand now, this is the REAL ANDREW TROLL heh heh heh.

no more Mr Pretentious Actualist now eh Andrew? knew you STILL had it in ya and FUMING wooph!!! here’s LOOLIN at YOU kid, hohoho :))))))))))))

• [Andrew]: Fuming?

Not at all.

And yes I am back, sort of, and all your shit don’t scare me off one bit. I got your number, it’s 1800 NOFKNKLU. troll away whoever you are, I’m sure to get bored soon, or just start enjoying it like you do, which ironically, is the whole point of actualism. Most of my hobbies last a year or so, 13 YEARS of this stuff don’t sound too exciting though. It’s quite a record you have there. Bet you’re proud as punch.

Wow, 13 YEARS.

Good for you, well done. Not every day someone achieves such lofty success.

Really gives me hope that if every single other thing i try in life completely fails , i can always fall back to internet trolling to get my rocks off.

You are an inspiration.

I should get one of those posters that say ‘never give up’ and stick a picture of you on it. Of course, I’ll have to cut out pictures from ‘woman’s day’ and ‘ knitting ‘n yarn’ to build a composite of your face, but I don’t imagine it to be too hard.

Just make sure it’s all green and i’m most of the way there.

funny thing is you are probably some post-middle aged dude/ dudess who doesn’t say ‘boo’ to anyone in real life and gets all ‘it’s’ angst out on the net. Good ol’ internet. Between porn and trolls I don’t think it would have got past the military-geeks-spending-black-budget-tax-dollars stage.

you are the perfect and timely reminder why any of this ‘quest to change’ needs doing at all. Thanks.

Also, thanks for the laugh. Hope you are having fun. genuinely enjoyed this. Had a shit day earning a crap load of money.

Why are my hands turning green...?

haha (Got anymore? Oh, of course you do. You are the MASTER.

13 YEARS. wow.

No really, wow, just WOW!)

Oh, and my name is Andrew. What is yours?

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

#13976

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: more please. i ...ah.. i’m not quite understanding what youre saying. perhaps a couple more days of rephrasings should do it. nah a coupla weeks, then i’m bound to comprehend.

gooooooood boy (3 thumbs up)

• [Andrew]: Comprehend? you should be so lucky. I reckon if after, what was it again?, 13 YEARS, hasn’t done it, 3 days ain’t going to do shit on that front.

It’s not for your sake by the way, I’m having fun. Isn’t that why you do this?

To have fun? that is your motivation right? You were harping on the other day about enjoying all this. I really can’t remember how you put it, i skip most of what you say. It’s just not a particularly good to read at the best of times, and your best so far is somewhere between ‘God Awful’ and ‘Cro-Magnon’.

(really couldn’t be bothered looking up it up either, it was dreary enough the first time).

Three thumbs up from a 13 YEAR veteran troll!

Not bad after a few attempts. I got a real future in this don’t you think?

Any pointers?

Am I malicious enough?

Got enough tired old material?

The 13 YEAR joke is a getting bit worn out, but jeez, 13 YEEAARRS!, it’s worth flogging it for at least 13 posts.

It’s the least I can do.

If I could do any less for you, I would.

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

#13978

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: basically the question is: if you are an Actually Free human being (IOWs 100% harmless, benevolent and benign) what would be the motive for exposing peoples anonyms/ pseudonyms/ aliases etc on the internet where the most cunning and aggressive predator on the planet is lurking?

• [Andrew]: Do you mean to say JAWS is loose in cyberspace now?!!!!

Heck, thanks for the heads up. Better get me an alias. good ol’ aliases, keeping us safe since the year 2000.

That’s 13 years ago you know!. that’s a LONG LONG time.

I can barely remember 13 YEARS ago. Let’s see, what have I done?...

OK, yeah. That’s right. I’ve learnt 3 instruments, made a career, had a family, built a house, ... and become an internet troll.

I’m most proud of the last one. It just makes the others seem so, what the word?, pointless. i wish I had found it sooner actually.

I feel like I’ve wasted 13 YEARS of my life on all that other shit.

I could have posted so much crap. Oh, for another chance..

Sniff.

If only I had a time machine or something, it would be so different, I would have hit the net hard back in ‘89, back when the screens a nice shade of green and the apples had rainbows on them, I would have been a contender, a really heavy hitter.

but here I am only discovering the joys of trolling now.

Thank god I’m still young and got all my fingers.

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

#13981

• [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: Adnrew seems like Richard to me. His repetitious ‘13 YEARS of attacking richard’ is a give away. I am only suspcting, nothing is confirmed yet

*

• [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: Hi Andrew here is a fresh opportunity for you or anyone who gets affected by messages that challenge Richard/ AF/ or carefully nurtured Actualist feelings or loyalty for AF....ask yourself – why are you so affected by it?

ask yourself – if you are having fun, why do you say you ignore most of what is written by a so-called troll ( define troll, btw – being contrarian is not trolling; if the troll has a different personality than yours, then it is ‘you’ that needs investigation; the so-called troll is giving you an opportunity to find more about your reactions, responses); ask yourself – why are you on this forum; ask yourself – what is the discussion about; ask yourself – if you do not find this useful what else will you like to do; ask yourself – what is it that is troubling you. Richard gets extremely unsettled by the so-called troll because the so-called troll calls his bluff. Does that trouble you, that your beleif in Richard gets shaken up and because it gets shaken up it also gets strengthened.

• [Andrew]: Hi Mr M.

I’m just having fun MJ, just having me some fun.

Feel free to have some too. It’s actually quite pleasant and re-warding. (I got THREE THUMBS UP – I’m chuffed to say the least)

Now, down to business.

Point for point, your post is, well, pretty bland. I forced myself to read it, and was un-surprised to be disappointed.

Far Too Serious.

And lacking any ‘zing’ or bite.

Needed something flippant and frivolous. Perhaps an insult would do if you can’t manage wit.

Do you think I’m affected? what gave you that impression?

Was it something I said?

Is my nervous-hand-sweat so obvious in the way the letters are formed?

Did you have to wipe spittle from your eyes as you read it?

Now to the chase; Am I really Richard?

Piece it together [MJ].

1) Australian

2) Says ‘Man Alive’ while avoids saying ‘G’day’ (too obvious)

3) Intelligent. No hiding that.

There, it’s out now. In print. The evidence is clear. (it’s on the internet for christ’s sake! It has to be true)

I’ll email you all the transcript of my friend’s sister’s dog’s recollections of this conversation and CC God to make it official and you can stuff it up, I mean in, your archive.

Ain’t Life grand!

Regards Richa...I mean Andrew.

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

#13982

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: damn boy! when i gave you enough rope, i didnt expect you’d REALLY hang yourself, your death throes are downright pitiful!

sound younger than [No. 11] with every post. and this folks is the mentality actualism attracts. good luck with that.

• [Andrew]: Again, TOO SERIOUS. What has come over you? Did I miss yet another memo? I thought it was troll season.

i think you are getting tired. Time for bed and dreams of large green things of the opposite sex.

Were you teased in troll kindergarten?

Here’s the thing.

My mentality is indeed attracted to actualism. I thought so myself the other day. I thought why can’t I go back to all those nice fluffy christo-buddist warm lovelies I was into a few years back?

sure was nice back then. Nothing changing, pure frustration all the time.

And the boredom, GOD, it was like being killed with tweezers and a lice brush; very little point and extremely itchy.

So yeah, MADAM/SIR, I accept your luck, and your rope, and also the changes I have seen since last we trolled it up and I was ringing the QLD police to see if your allegations had made it to court.

Should have been NSW police, but hey, close enough.

Mentalities attracted to actualism hey? I’m guessing you haven’t looked in the mirror lately. But being a troll, I can relate to that.

Scary Stuff.

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

#13984

• [Respondent No. 00M]: not sure you wanna play their games Andrew: http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/catalogue/sarcasm.htm

sarcasm is certainly a way to have fun but is it harmless?

• [Andrew]: [00M], yeah maybe harmless factor is close to zero. But hey, we are talking about a verteran here. 13 YEARS of toughing out the BIGGEST PREDATOR ON THE INTERNET.

Heck this woman/man is Sigourney Weaver of the Actualist World. Ain’t no lil ol’ Andrew getting under that thickened hide.

No sir.

It’s like at the cattle ranches when they brand cows, it doesn’t hurt them. Does it? surely not. there would be an inquest or something. Jamie Oliver would be called and it would all be shut down.

Yeah, i probably will regret playing in the mud, and no i didn’t read the link like I probably should have.

([00M] they are watching you know, like right now, can we have this conversation in a squirrel-like manner elsewhere? It’s just a bit like when your mum calls to you come inside in front of your friends...you know, just when you had them convinced you lived on the street battling while dogs and hunting kangaroos just to survive, she calls ‘Dinner time Sweety!’ Not a good look for a new troll, I just got three thumbs up man, you spoiling my credz dude...)

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

#13986

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: woa! youre a REAL nutter arent you Andrew? so what is it, bipolar?

whatever its senselessly manic now. better take your meds mate, coz youve majorly lost it.

• [Andrew]: That’s it? ‘nutter’, ‘meds’, ‘lost it’?

I thought 13 YEARS would have had more refinement and originality.

Must have been a case of 13 x 1 years experience then.

Or a case of ‘you can’t beat the classics; ‘Your crazy!’

‘No i’m not, your crazy’

haha. Where is my rubber hammer. KA-BONK! hilarious stuff.

You’d want to hope I’m not a real bipolar nutter. Or by your own estimation you have been teasing the BIGGEST PREDATOR ON THE INTERNET and now just picked up a REAL BIPOLAR NUTTER WHO HAS MAJORLY LOST IT with you. Good Work Sir/Madam, as the case may be.

I would have thought the other PREDATOR would have taken you out by now, but then Arnie survived a couple of those and he came out OK.

Ok, your boring me now. I thought you said you were fun to be around?

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

#13989

• [Respondent No. 00M]: yeah, we’re being watched and that´s actually the great thing about this mailing list troll or no troll, whoever/ whatever triggers ‘me’ is actually doing me a favor in that he presents me an opportunity to see wether I have something to defend in order to be willing to own up to ‘me’ being in defense mode though, my first priority has to be sincerity being sincere is to be willing to be wrong and to be willing to be wrong is to be unafraid of being wrong after all, I’m doing this for me... no point in fooling anyone oh and to get back to the topic (lol), being sincere/ naive is the prerequisite for being benevolent... and being benevolent (even the affective version) feels pretty sweet

• [Andrew]: The irony of trolling this thread wasn’t lost on me. And [No. 5] is indeed a good test of where I am at, am I just playing? Mostly, there where a few moments tonight when it occurred to me ‘perhaps he/she can’t take what they give, maybe 13 years is a sad lonely cry from a broken person and this crusade against actualism is the only thing keeping them going’. Then I thought ‘nah, they said that wasn’t true. Why would they lie?!’

Neither of us could be here tomorrow – we could join the 20,000 kids that starved to death today in whatever does or doesn’t come next. i don’t agree that sarcasm is always violence, and i don’t agree that violence is always something wrong.

but that’s another whole kettle of trolls and dragon slayers.

this is where the whole ‘tar brush’ comes unstuck.

Carefully being an ‘actualist’ is not what this is about.

It’s about enjoying ones life. [No. 5] came to play, (didn’t end up playing that well, but meh), I played.

[No. 5] isn’t really much fun in the end, which makes me think they (he/she/it) are lying and this is their only sad outlet.

such is life for some. The reactions were predictable and trite.

What was interesting was how much fun it is to have a go at it.

I’ve never straight up went for it without some internal ‘oh, no, don’t do that, it’s not <fill in the ism here>. so in a way i’m just taking [No. 5]’s advice and making sure i’m not just following the ‘rules’.

If I was trolling Childfund or some parents of a dead kid, yeah, different story. [No. 5] can do what they like with that keyboard, cry over it, go donate money to a kids cancer fund, come back with some more inanity, switch it off, whatever.

So can I, and will do soon as I’ve successfully procrastinated for a couple of hours now...

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

#13990

• [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: don’t get so hot and bothered, mate no one is forcing you to stay in this forum, you are doing it to yourself.

• [Andrew]: Oh yes, look at that! So I am.

Gee, thanks for the pearl of wisdom there. For a minute I thought i was being forced to read your comebacks.

Until I read your comeback, and wished I could unread it and realized not even Satan himself would force someone read that shit.

No one should be reading that comeback. Period. It hurts sanity itself. (or insanity as the case may be, I am a biploar nutter you know).

It is truly atrocious.

‘don’t get so hot and bother, mate’

what is this Home and Away?

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

Ha ... you are quite a card when on a roll, Andrew.

Here is an account of when it first struck home to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, that no one was in charge of the world.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: My adult questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in 1966 at age nineteen where a religious man killed himself in a most gruesome way. There was I, a callow youth dressed in a jungle-green soldier’s uniform and with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in a saffron-orange monk’s robes dowsed with petrol and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the mystical way to peace.

I was aghast at what we were both doing ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either secular or spiritual.

This was to be the turning point of my life for, up until then, I was a typical western youth; raised to believe in a cultural ‘God, Queen and Country’ ethos. Humanity’s inhumanity to humankind – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way which left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion.

I saw how no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – how no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race insofar as all gods and goddesses were but a figment of a feverish imagination.

Out of a despairing desperation, which was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood how I was as ‘guilty’ as anyone else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’; it was that some people were better than others at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can consistently control any longer ... evil (aka malice) ran rampant. I saw how fear and aggression and nurture and desire ruled the world and, already knowing that these were the instinctual passions one was born with, thus started my search for freedom from the ‘Human Condition’. My attitude, all those years ago, was this:

I was only interested in changing myself fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly.

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: You will probably find the following quite topical.

Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: Richard, have you encountered a situation where people want to test your ‘harmlessness’ by poking, trying to be mean etc. in real lives?

• [Richard]: Aye, on many an occasion ... both in face-face situations and on this mailing list (where it happens more often due to lack of physical restraint).

By the very nature of the human condition human beings, through no fault of their own, are self-centred and some are more so than others – some to the point of feeling, and thus thinking, that the world revolves around them – and it never occurs to those, who do just that, that they are simply wasting both their time and a vital opportunity by manifesting the same-same behaviour (and using the same-same techniques) as the many who have done so before them have done ... being so self-centred as to be fondly imagining that their own fundamental sphincter-muscle, which they are wearing around their neck, is a dainty little necklet they are unable to realise that they, and therefore their behaviour and techniques, are in no way unique.

In short: trying to get me riled is as futile as shaking a fist at the firmament, and fulminating against the universe, is ... it has no effect whatsoever.

Furthermore, those who do it frequently on this discussion list are, by mistaking freedom from moderation as a licence for anarchy, openly demonstrating to all and sundry (other than to themselves, though, or they would cease forthwith) why the very rules, regulations, protocols, etiquettes, and so on, they are rebelling against in general have been needed, are needed, and will remain needed.

‘Tis a weird way to try to convince those, in a position of governance, to cease governing as the only effect is to emphasise why the need is there in the first place, eh?

Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 66 27 April 2005b).

May 22 2015

Re: Moral cap and Authority

RICHARD to Claudiu: (...). Also, something I wrote in 1998 will help set the scene for what else the term ‘peasant-mentality’ meant to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (a ‘turning-point’ decade in which ‘he’ sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia). Viz.: [...snip discussion about Ms. Ayn Rand’s use of the word ‘parasites’ (as in her ‘parasites incapable of survival’ phrasing) to depict any people who ‘attempt to survive’ by defrauding/ looting/ robbing/ cheating/ enslaving the ‘men who produce’ – specifically, those who ‘choose to think and to produce the goods’, that is – whom she otherwise characterises as those ‘who are capable’ and who pursue ‘a course of action proper to man’ in an essay on Objectivist Ethics...].

The main point to get about the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work is the work which the now-made-redundant workers once carried out still gets done – indeed productivity increases many-fold due solely to such ingenious ‘labour-saving’ devices – yet the dispossessed workers are castigated just as the peasants of yore were (way back when peasants not working meant the work did not get done). The made-redundant person (or a person unable to gain paid employment in the first place) who buys into such epithets a ‘dole-bludger’ and the ilk – and dutifully self-castigates – is thus another example of a person with a ‘peasant-mentality’. (...).

ANDREW: Hi Richard, that’s a great read indeed! Thanks for taking the time to put it together. It helps to hear also of the work you did during the late 70s through to mid 80s looking into these issues.

RICHARD: G’day Andrew,

Yes, the resolution of the above issue (the implications and ramifications of the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work) came to a head in the late 1970’s whilst listening to a Parliamentary Broadcast, on the National Radio, of the then-Prime Minister’s speech about the necessity of importing the latest electronics technology – despite it putting tens of thousands of current and future employees out of work – in order for the nation to remain competitive on the world market.

In other words, it was a deliberate Government Policy to add even more hapless citizens to the rising double-digit pool of unemployed – the days of full employment, in developed countries, had ended during the early 1970’s world-wide economic crises – and yet, despite this remarkably frank public admission, disparaging epithets such as ‘dole-bludgers’ and similar continued unabated.

Obviously, for him and his ilk such ingenious labour-saving devices were not designed to release peoples from having to ‘earn their (daily) bread by the sweat of the brow’ – even though productive work not only still got done but productivity increased many-fold as well – but were avariciously arrogated to serve as saving-labour costs instead and, thus, increase their profits many-fold.

Howsoever, those words from that wealthy pastoralist – a man infamous for forcing the nation into a constitutional crisis, so he could gain such political power he was then liberally exercising, and notorious for saying that ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’ (despite a privileged Grammar School education and an Oxford degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics) – were the final straw in regards the hallowed ‘Protestant Work-Ethic’ which had been thoroughly inculcated, from early childhood onward, into the identity then-inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, such as to occasion ‘him’ to work 12-14 hours a day 6-7 days a week.

Now, whilst ‘he’ did not have an Economics Degree (let alone from a prestigious university) ‘his’ egalitarian far-sightedness enabled ‘him’ to see that unless productive workers – including those displaced by the ingenious mechanisation, robotisation, and computerisation of productive work – receive monies sufficient enough to purchase those goods produced then any such increased productivity decreases accordingly, with the economy correspondingly going into slow-down, whereupon workers are laid-off, and the economy goes into melt-down.

Evidentially, however, avaritia leads to short-sightedness.

ANDREW: In retrospect, the work of breaking down the social identity preceded your recall of a pure consciousness experience ...

RICHARD: As the remembrance of numerous pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) occurred in the winter of 1980 then the major part of that circa 1978-1988 ‘turning-point’ decade – in which the identity then inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia – came afterwards.

In fact, the bulk of the sussing-out took place whilst ‘he’ was egoless – and especially so during the years whilst single, celibate, itinerant and homeless (in what I have earlier reported as being ‘his’ puritan period) – as ‘his’ release from being ego-centric enabled considerable insight to take place.

ANDREW: ... which helps put in perspective my own efforts. Something you wrote about struck me the other day and that was the process of realization to actualization. Actualizing insights into practical ways of behaving, in this case, working for a living, has seen me stuck many times. At the moment I liken my efforts to a pilot pulling out of a steep dive, there is only so much one can do, and only time will tell if is enough, financially speaking! I mentioned on this list a few weeks ago that it seemed to me that I was daring myself to go broke. Not by choice as such, more so in a rebellious, almost automatic way. I have read about ‘peasant resistance’ before, the universal ‘go slow’ that is the only resort of dispossessed.

RICHARD: Ha ... that which you read about is a classic example of the ‘peasant-mentality’ in action (you obviously missed my final words – ‘no need to rebel at all’ – written just above my signature/sign-off).

ANDREW: Anyway, perfect timing to have a closer look at these concepts.

RICHARD: Whilst you are having a closer look at those concepts – especially the ‘rebellious’ ones – it may very well be in your interest to also examine those other concepts you explicated in your next post, some thirteen hours or so later, entitled ‘Infinitude and meaning’.

Viz.:

• [Andrew]: ‘I have long been a fan of Spinoza. My avatar name, <identifier deleted>, isn’t a reference to a type of glass bead, or an obscure machine part code, but his initials and birth date. Going back around 8 years, I had a profound insight into his book ‘Ethics, the emendation of the intellect’. The core of it was that choice is an illusion born out of ignorance of causes, and that an infinite and eternal substance/nature was the only thing going on. The reason I say this is lately, having been able to look at these realizations again with less affect and more intelllect, I can see that what is needed is a direct experience of the infinitude and ‘meaning of life laying open all around’ to actualize this idea’. (Message No. 194xx).

Given that variations on such phrasings as ‘the meaning of life lays open all around’ feature on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – when referring to life here in this actual world, as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty), where the infinitude of this temporal, spatial, and phenomenal universe is directly experienceable – it is pertinent to point out that what Mr. Benedict de Spinoza refers to (conveyed accurately enough by your ‘infinite and eternal substance/nature’ phrasing) is something other entirely.

However, there is no need to just take my word for it as more than a few peoples have studied his writings extensively.

For instance:

• [Mr. Max Müller]: (...) the Brahman, as conceived in the Upanishads and defined by Śaṅkara, is clearly the same as Spinoza’s ‘Substantia’. Spinoza defines it as that which is in itself and is conceived by itself (in se est and per se concipitur). It is according to him infinite, indivisible, one, free and eternal, just as Śaṅkara’s Bráhman is called in the Upanishads ‘unborn, undecaying, undying, without parts, without action, tranquil, without fault or taint’. (p. 123, ‘Three Lectures On The Vedanta Philosophy’; delivered at The Royal Institution in March, 1894 by The Right Hon. F. Max Müller, K.M. First Edition, 8vo, May, 1894. Reprinted in the Collected Edition of Prof. Max Müller’s Works, April, 1901, and August, 1904. Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London. New York and Bombay; 1904).

Viz.: (https://archive.org/stream/threelecturesont00meuluoft#page/123/mode/1up).

From the above text alone it can be comprehended that what Mr. Benedict de Spinoza refers to (conveyed accurately enough by your ‘infinite and eternal substance/nature’ phrasing) is of a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical determination ... or, in a word, spiritual.

There also is, of course, a much-quoted headline from the New York Times, dated April 25, 1929, to contemplate.

Viz.:

• Einstein Believes In ‘Spinoza’s God’; Scientist Defines His Faith in Reply, to Cablegram From Rabbi Here. Sees a Divine Order But Says Its Ruler Is Not Concerned ‘Wit Fates and Actions of Human Beings’.

[Displaying Abstract]

Professor Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of relativity, professed belief in ‘Spinoza’s God’ in a radiogram received here yesterday from Dusseldorf, Germany, by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, 37 West 116th Street. The message came in response to a cablegram to the scientist asking him in German: ‘Do you believe in God?’ (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E01EFDD1530E33ABC4D51DFB2668382639EDE).

*

At this stage it could very well be helpful – as an aide-mémoire in any similar instances – to draw attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust homepage (immediately below the ‘Actual Freedom’ logo).

Viz.:

• A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/).

From that very succinct heading (which is not placed in such a key position merely for rhetorical effect) three fundamental aspects of the freedom referred to can be readily ascertained ... and without inference:

1. It is new.

2. It is non-spiritual.

3. It is down-to-earth.

And not to forget, of course, from the logo itself:

4. It is actual.

Now, this is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘spiritual’:

• ‘spiritual (adj.): relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things’. (Oxford Dictionary).

The term ‘non-spiritual’, then, means *not* relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things; thus the freedom being referred to is *not* the freedom spiritualism has to offer.

Here is what that dictionary has to say about the word ‘spirit’:

• ‘spirit (n.): the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Also, and given that ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are synonymous, this is what that dictionary has to say about the word ‘soul’:

• ‘soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus, when it comes to ‘the seat of emotions’ the words ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are interchangeable and, as each 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 spirit or soul – aka ‘self’ – dies with the body whereas the spiritualists maintain it does not), then my presentation of actualism as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism speaks to the self-same affective ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ‘being’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, leaning or worldview in that regard.

Therefore, if (note ‘if’) the new and non-spiritual down-to-earth actual freedom was none other than the same freedom which spiritualism has to offer, only differently-worded for modern-times, then it would not be:

1. New.

2. Non-Spiritual.

3. Down-To-Earth (a colloquialism for: temporal, spatial, phenomenal).

4. Actual (i.e., physical).

Instead it would be:

1. Old.

2. Spiritual.

3. Away-With-The-Fairies (a colloquialism for: atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal).

4. Non-Actual (i.e., metaphysical).

*

Also, the following words of mine are worth bearing in mind.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) when providing a report/ description/ explanation I say what I mean and I mean what I say; my words are to be taken strictly at face value’. (.../richard/listdcorrespondence/listd07.htm#05Jan10).

And again for emphasis:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) I am always up-front and out-in-the-open with my words and writing – I say what I mean and mean what I say – such that nobody has to read between the lines/ look for any hidden agenda and can thereby take my words, literally, at face value. (.../richard/listdcorrespondence/listd15.htm#24Jun13).

*

Lastly, what Claudiu wrote the other day (in Message No. 19439) is well worth taking note of.

Viz.:

• [Claudiu]: ‘It’s going to take me some time to process your reply, as per usual. I think this may always be the case *when one comes in contact with original thinking*’. [emphasis added].

Regards,
Richard.

February 28 2016

Subject: Re Yet Another Summary of the Actualism Method

ANDREW: Hi Claudiu and fellow correspondents! There are a few things that I am curious about, and also, a few possibilities that could do with the time and space to be answered (if the involved parties are willing) regarding [No. 49].

G’day Andrew,

As those “few possibilities” you typed out below (without one single supportive quotation even) are conjectural, speculative and hypothesised ideations and intellections – drawn in the main from and pivoting around a demonstrably invalid premiss readily rectified via recourse to an archived post and a little applied excogitation in conjunction with some matter-of-fact consideration of related textual evidence from the archives – there never was any need to ponder upon the willingness or otherwise on the part of some innominate “involved parties” to allocate that time and space you envision on their behalf as there is nothing of substance to even contemplate let alone be answered.

ANDREW: One of the possibilities is that Richard (and others) are wrong in their assessment of [No. 49]’s “way”.

RICHARD: And as the alternate option is that they are right in their assessment – for that is the nature of abstract possibilities such as you have posted a one-sided version of here – it is evident from the get-go how you are taking a position with “[No. 49]’s ‘way’” vis-à-vis the way on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust website (as per the clear distinction made when the latter way was publicly declared “glibly produced” and “quite unhelpful” plus “not a method at all”, in Message № 217xx).

First of all, then, just what “way” is that which you so readily refer to here but are unsure about elsewhere?

For example:

• [Andrew]: “Granted, (no pun intended), on this list I don’t get what [No. 49]’s posts mean sometimes ...”. ~ (Message № 220xx).

And another instance:

• [Andrew]: “(...), I would rather, for all our education, find out more about where [No. 49] is coming from”. ~ (Message № 221xx).

It is a rhetorical question, of course, posed right upfront so as to draw attention to the totally abstract nature of the very first of your “few possibilities” because a comprehensible rendition of just what that “way” is cannot be found anywhere in the archives.

Besides which, [No. 49]’s “way” incorporates the central feature of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s way – i.e., that which is central to his ‘Truth is a Pathless Land’ proclamation of 1928 – inasmuch the moment you articulate his “way” (unless his “way” be your lived experience) it is not his “way” you are articulating, thus rendering any such third-party assessment impossible (it is a rather shrewd feature, of that politically-motivated 1928 proclamation, which [No. 49] milks for all its wily worth on occasion).

Indeed, you immediately go on, in your very next sentence (below), and tacitly acknowledge as much yourself.

ANDREW: I do not think it is sensible to assume, on the basis of Richard’s post [i.e., #22059] and personal assessment, what the facts are.

RICHARD: And on just what “basis” is it, then, that you do think it is “sensible to assume” what the facts are in regards to that “way” you so readily refer to, above, but are unsure about elsewhere?

This is another rhetorical question, of course, posed thusly to draw attention to how your follow-up sentence is as insubstantial as the first inasmuch dismissing ‘X’ without proffering either the justification for doing so or an alternative thereto conveys an impression of vacuous posturing for the sake of that position taken.

Specifically, no reason is proffered as to why your “personal assessment” is somehow not up to the task of determining “what the facts are” – despite voluminous evidence in the archives – let alone the “personal assessment” of each and every other person. Similarly, no reason is proffered as to why “Richard’s post” falls into the same not-up-to-the-task category.

Put tersely, what you think about ‘X’ is irrelevant to the facts and actuality of ‘X’ (i.e., I-do-not-think-it-is-sensible ≠ therefore-it-is-not-sensible).

And the reason for pointing this out is because a closer inspection of what has been posted on the forum so far will show that “Richard (and others)” have not necessarily made an “assessment of [No. 49]’s ‘way’” as such but, rather, have pointed out – with referenced quotes as textual support – the manner in which (whatever it is that constitutes) his “way” falls short of and/or deviates from and/or is contrary to what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site such as to be *self-evident* that, whatever his “way” is, it is indubitably not an actual freedom from the human condition (and, therefore, not the “way” to an actual freedom from the human condition, either). Furthermore, given that [No. 49] has been actively engaged in his “way” for at least 30 years (since 1986), it looks to be more a likely candidate for the ‘tried and failed’ category than anything else.

The pivotal question which arises out of this – given the even-handedness of those purely speculative possibilities – is why you would favour one side over the other to the point of composing an email and posting it.

Stripped of its remaining “few possibilities” this is the essential thrust of your post:

• [Andrew]: “There are a few things that I am curious about, and also, a few possibilities that could do with the time and space to be answered (if the involved parties are willing) regarding [No. 49]. (speaking about you, and to you!) One of the possibilities is that Richard (and others) are wrong in their assessment of [No. 49]’s “way”. I do not think it is sensible to assume, on the basis of Richard’s post and personal assessment, what the facts are. [...elide 29 words...]. It’s an outside runner of a possibility, but until it is addressed, then it is just “hanging there” waiting for a response. [...elide 154 words...]. Here’s the thing, until the discussion happens, between those who where there, the facts are unclear”. [endquote].

That autocratic “here’s the thing” declaration – that “the facts are unclear” until/ unless “the discussion happens” between “those who were there” at the end of this email – is indistinguishable from the issuance of an edict (if not an ultimatum).  The impression conveyed is those innominate “involved parties” are to get off their backsides, tout suite, and engage each other in some literate joust in your newly-created cyber-amphitheatre (as per your “the time and space” phrasing) with the ‘last person standing’ being declared victorious by ...um... by Caesar Andrew!

As no such cyber-space ‘death match’ will ever take place – prior experience has repeatedly informed me that discussing matters pertaining to ‘consciousness studies’ with [No. 49] is always to no avail – then your final words just sit there in the archives, and as vague memory to most, as a fait accompli ‘truth’ (as in “the facts are unclear”) as if it were the fault of those non-complying contestants.

Thus, the pivotal question resolves itself into what this ‘fait accompli’ defence of “[No. 49]’s ‘way’” is motivated by.

What immediately springs to mind, of course, is the ‘price of admission’ into the paradisaical wonderland this verdant and azure terraqueous globe is, in actuality, when compared with and in stark contrast to how the outcome of the “way” [No. 49] has engaged himself in for at least 30 years – which has no such pivotal event/ definitive moment (whereby all the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof are totally eradicated/ is rendered extinct, in a remarkably magical manner, as to have never actually existed in the first place) as a knowable point of reference for both his and third-party benefit – can never be knowable due to “the unknowable future” being ...um... unknowable.

ANDREW: Maybe, when [No. 49] mentioned that he coined the term “Pure Intent” ...

RICHARD: A timely interjection here – to point out how neither the term designating the ‘golden clew’ connection (betwixt naïveté and the purity and perfection of the PCE), in actualism lingo, nor his mother’s term for sorting out all that was “important and sensible” in life, when he was growing up, was “coined” by [No. 49] – will go a long way towards obviating a proliferation of conjectural, speculative and hypothesised ideations and intellections drawn from and pivoting around an invalid premiss.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 49; 14 Aug 2014]: “(...). I also introduced the term ‘pure intent’ with Richard when he was deluded/ enlightened. It was actually *told to me by my mother* as I was growing up and sorting out all that was *important and sensible*”. [emphases added]. ~ (Message № 175xx).

Even more to the point, as he specifically designates it, earlier in that post, as being “back in 1990” – when he writes of introducing his mother’s term, for the above sorting out of all that is “important and sensible” in life, to the enlightened/ deluded (as in, a solipsistically vainglorious feeling-being) ‘Richard’ – then the significance of that aforementioned ‘golden clew’ connection having already been feeling-being ‘Richard’s guiding light/ authority/ teacher/ lodestone/ benchmark over the nine years beforehand (since January 1981) has evidently escaped your notice.

Moreover, the term ‘pure intent’ itself has been around for a long, long while. For an obvious ecclesiastical example, translated by Rev. James Barmby in 1898, Pope Gregorius I (circa 540-604), commonly known as ‘Saint Gregory the Great’, wrote a letter to ‘Paschasius, Bishop of Neapolis’ (a.k.a. Naples), beginning with the words: “Those who with pure intent desire to bring to the true faith aliens from the Christian religion should study kindness, and not asperity ...”.

Also, my second wife, Devika, who first came into my life four years earlier in 1986 – and who was raised by a devout Catholic mother and thus attended a Catholic Boarding School as a young child (and represented by her as being presided over by an archetypically severe Mother Superior) – was conversant with the term ‘pure intent’ and utilised it, for example, quite liberally when regaling me with detailed descriptions of her preparations for the prescribed ‘state of grace’ she was inspired to attain to so as to be worthy of receiving the Catholic Confirmation (which exalted state entailed something like 10 days, if my memory serves me correctly, of pious mental-emotional preparation as well as both ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ physical cleanliness so as to feel sufficiently pure in respect to both body and soul).

Plus a quick internet search for <pure intent> returned around 100,000 hits. There is even a ‘Piano Piece’ entitled “Pure Intent” available for online listening (for those whose mood is changeable by differing arrangements of musical notes and variations in pitch and tone). (youtube.com/watch?v=LOVgJV04IQQ)

ANDREW: [Maybe ...] it has been forgotten by Richard what influence [No. 49] had on him at that stage of life.

RICHARD: Generally speaking, all of the influencing taking place, when an earnest spiritual seeker or even a facsimile thereof is in the presence of a fully-enlightened being – i.e., the almighty ‘presence’ of a massively-deluded/ megalomaniacal feeling-being (for whom human love and compassion has transmogrified itself into Love Agapé and Divine Compassion, presenting as a transcendental unborn-undying state of ‘being’, and manifesting as an embodiment of the atemporal-aspatial-aphenomenal Ground of Being itself) – is of the one-way variety as is epitomised, for instance, by the well-known mystical expression ‘transmission outside of the scriptures’.

In regards to your hypothesised “influence” which the egoic feeling-being [No. 49] might or might not have had upon the egoless feeling-being ‘Richard’, at “that stage of life” (circa 1990), and expressly speculated as being a forgettable “influence” at that – specifically some conjectural “influence” which his mother’s precept may or may not have had when it was introduced to that latest and greatest Saviour of Humankind back then – the most likely effect of being apprised of that homily would have been of the type any similar ‘chalk and cheese’ misinterpretation of ‘His’ numinous wisdom would have evoked ... namely: zilch, zero, naught, nil, &c.

*

Please note that, as I have no recall of [No. 49] ever mentioning either his mother’s precept or her term for it, the above is presented purely in arguendo.

ANDREW: It’s an outside runner of a possibility, but until it is addressed, then it is just “hanging there” waiting for a response.

RICHARD: It has apparently also escaped your notice that whatever it is that [No. 49] is conveying, via his usage of the ‘pure intent’ term in his posts (bearing in mind the precept his mother impressed upon him, while growing up, and which he may very well be otherwise conveying with his ‘living expertly well’ phrase), it is not what is conveyed by that term on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (viz.: a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself).

Here is a recent instance of his ‘living expertly well’ theme:

• [Respondent No. 49]: “It should be remembered too, that the AF lingo, or narrative, (however well crafted), serves only to point one in the right direction, until one becomes ‘free’ (out from control) *and lives expertly well*. It can do no more. It is not a prescriptive ideology or...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (Message № 218xx).

There is a wealth of information packed into that sentence. First, even though being dismissive of [quote] “the AF lingo” [endquote] – via alternatively referring to it as being but “narrative” (along with a parenthetical allusion to ‘style over substance’) – he nevertheless sneaks a version of such lingo into the latter part of his sentence, parenthetically, as a follow-up signifier of what the enclosed-in-scare-quotes word ‘free’ connotes (and which connotation is a referent for that ‘living expertly well’ theme of his).

As an aside: it is really counter-productive to dismiss “AF lingo” as being “narrative” – rather than the specialised terms they actually are which specifically refer to the experientially-verifiable factuality/ actuality thusly signified – insofar it then follows that ‘[No. 49]-idiolect’ is therefore equally dismissible as being ‘narrative’ which, in his case, implies that none of it refers to anything in particular due to him “ot coming from anywhere particular” and simply responding to “ideas as expressed”.

Secondly, because the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being term, in actualism lingo, specifically refers to the actualism process superseding the actualism method – meaning the controlling doer is abeyant (hence: ‘out-from-control’) and a naïve beer is ascendant (hence: ‘different-way-of-being’) – whereby the benignity and benevolence of pure intent increasingly renders the otherwise essential societal moeurs (a.k.a. ‘mores’) redundant, whilst simultaneously precluding anomie, then [No. 49]’s parenthetical signifier sneakily creates the impression that his ‘living expertly well’ theme is synonymous with actualism’s pure intent being operant.

Thirdly, as he obviously considered it important that his co-respondent, and thereby all of this forum’s subscribers, should know how it was [No. 49] who [quote] “...introduced the term ‘pure intent’ with Richard when he was deluded/ enlightened” [endquote] – a not-at-all-subtle insinuendo of a sanity-saviour in action – it is thus vital, in comprehending what that term means to him, to take due note of his explanatory [quote] “It was actually told to me by my mother as I was growing up and sorting out all that was important and sensible” [endquote] follow-up because his mother’s usage of the term ‘pure intent’ self-evidently relates to “sorting out all that was important and sensible” and, as such, quite obviously has nowt to do with the pure intent which was feeling-being ‘Richard’s guiding light/ authority/ teacher/ lodestone/ benchmark (just as it had been all along since January 1981).

If nothing else, the obvious parallel which “important and sensible” has with the prosaic ‘silly and sensible’ bespeaks of the level at which his mother’s precept operates.

Thus his enclosed-in-scare-quotes referent of that particular rendition of his ‘living expertly well’ theme in his further above sentence – as per his [quote] “until one becomes ‘free’ (out from control) and lives expertly well” [endquote] phrasing – is itself reflective of whatever it is his mother’s term has come to mean to him (as in ‘living expertly well’ perhaps) over the ensuing 55+ years since she first impressed it upon him.

A one-word variation on this ‘living expertly well’ theme was also a feature of another quoted extract in that recent Message № 22176 of mine as well:

• [Respondent No. 7]: “I’d be interested to read more about how you experience ‘pure intent’ today?”
• [Respondent No. 49]: “Ha, wordlessly, effortlessly, automatically, and *expertly*, in the world as it is, with people as they are”. [emphasis added]. ~ (Message № 219xx).

Quite frankly, the status of your hypothesised “influence” (which you conjecturally had [No. 49]’s personage as somehow capable of impressively extending, circa 1990, despite being an influence of a kind speculatively held as being forgettable by Richard and yet still an impressional influence nonetheless) as being “an outside runner of a possibility” is not only unsupported by any textual evidence as being some-such faraway likelihood in the first place but has instead, upon closer inspection (via the invalid-premiss textual evidence), been revealed as never having had even the remotest of chances of being any such a “runner” to start off with.

Furthermore, because of never having even been a “runner” in the first place, and thus with nothing “just ‘hanging there’ waiting for a response” either – despite your insistence to the contrary – there never was any call for “the discussion...between those who were there” to happen, either.

Look, as a general rule of thumb, speculative conclusions which are compelling enough to be deemed as awaiting response by third-party on-the-spot participants or witnesses for resolution – yet drawn from and pivoting around an invalid premiss – are (no matter how persuasive) bound to be at least as invalid as what they are based upon and, more often than not, even more so due to the proliferative nature of speculation unrestrained by the anchored-in-fact effect all valid premises have.

(Note how no third-party on-the-spot participant or witness is required, in drawing attention to the invalid premiss, as anybody subscribed to this forum has access to the archived post from whence that [quote] “when [No. 49] mentioned that he coined the term “Pure Intent”...” [endquote] basis for unrestrained speculation was obtained).

In fact, had you accessed the archives yourself, so as to provide the quote as supportive evidence for basing your “few possibilities” on, you would have seen it for yourself, firsthand, and thus not typed-out and sent this email.

*

I have pointed out this ‘an invalid premiss = an invalid conclusion’ phenomenon on many an occasion before and the following is of an illustrative kind.

Viz.:

• [Respondent № 122 to ‘Vineeto’]: “Reading a section of the mailing correspondence on the site I’ve stucked upon something, being posted by Richard I haven’t quite understood: [...elided...]. (...) If you can ask Richard, to give a better explanation of this, it would be great. Does he mean he is not capable of having sex with all of these people, or is he capable of having sex with them? Thanks a bunch”.
• [Richard]: “In the context of that e-mail exchange it matters not just what a person actually free from the human condition may or may not be capable of in regards paraphilia – an umbrella term used by clinicians to cover a wide variety of atypical sexual interests – as all I was pointing out is that my co-respondent’s assumptive premise (that there be people with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress) is demonstrably invalid. Vis.: [...elided...]. Whilst on the topic of assumptive premises: more than a little of my correspondence involves getting the other to see that their entire argument is an elaborate edifice resting upon an invalid premise – somewhat akin to a pyramid teetering (upside-down) on its cap-stone – and that had they examined same for themselves they would not have needed to write to me in the first place.
In other words, more often than not my communications are all about having my fellow human being think for themselves”. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 14, 26 September 2006).

Had the above respondent taken note of what I had posted a scant five months earlier they need not have sought me out, via the website’s admin email address and per favour the unfailing patience of the website’s now-extinct ‘administrator’, after the mailing list was closed down due to having reached its ‘use-by’ date.

Viz.:

• [Respondent № 110]: “Reading over some of your previous correspondence (regarding UV Light, quantum physics and subjective realities), I seem to have no reason to believe in private representative realities or a noumenon objective reality anymore. Stunning stuff. Thanks again Richard”.
• [Richard]: “You are very welcome ... it is indeed stunning to discover that more than a little of the wisdom of the real world is not worth the parchment/ papyrus/ palm leaves/ rice paper/ clay panels/ stone tablets it is inscribed upon.
What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention ... so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down .
It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for – the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition – and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110, 14 April 2006).

And what follows is a classic example of it typically being the case that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention (heavily edited to minimise the amount of multiple speculative side-tracks being addressed in full).

Viz.:

January 13 2006
• [Respondent № 53]: “Hey Richard ... now why don’t you tell us why you really took a 7 week hiatus from this virtual loony bin? In this day & age, computer problems tend to be resolved before 2 lunar cycles”.
• [Richard]: “[...elided...]”.
• [Respondent № 53]: “Don’t be so coy ... spill your guts”.
• [Richard]: “As I am not being coy your peremptory admonition is entirely gratuitous. You specifically asked me to tell you and your co-respondent (with whom you were speculating about speculative reasons for a speculated moodiness) why I really took a 7 week hiatus from writing to this mailing list, as in this day and age computer problems tend to be resolved before 59.06 days, so I obliged with the relatively detailed explanation above”. [...elided...].

January 17 2006
• [Respondent № 53]: “The clones cannot wait to drop a few more hard earned dollars, yen, euros or gold on your latest get free quick scheme”.
• [Richard]: “As the proposed project, being at such a preliminary stage, might very well never see the light of day (and thus may never be released for publication) your presumptuous assertion is entirely impertinent”.
• [Respondent № 53]: “It is hardly impertinent ...”.
• [Richard]: “The following is what I wrote (as part of my response to your request regarding what I did over the seven weeks I was not writing to this mailing list): [Richard]: ‘...suffice is it to say for now that, amongst other things, I was doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project which may, or may not, be one day released for publication under the aegis of The Actual Freedom Trust. If nothing else such research makes me better-informed’. [endquote]. Now I ask you: where would I go to for information (which if nothing else makes me better-informed) about what you have characterised as a [quote] ‘get free quick scheme’ [endquote] ... namely: how to become actually free from the human condition? Did it not give you pause to think, before reaching for the keyboard, that whatever it was I was researching one thing was for sure: information on how to become actually free from the human condition it most certainly was not.
As briefly as possible (as I have no interest in becoming side-tracked): what I was mainly searching for, over about three weeks, were *the facts* upon which the currently-popular ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ hypothesis was (purportedly) based ... and the reason why it took that long was because *I could not find any* (being based upon *unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics* it is not all that surprising, with the benefit of hindsight, that there be none).
Thus, as your presumptuous assertion most certainly does not pertain to the matter in hand it is indeed entirely irrelevant; out of place; inappropriate, incongruous; absurd ... in a word: impertinent”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53j, 17 January 2006).

*

RESPONDENT: I remember reading on the AFT, Richard mentions the general mood of the 1960’s and has good things to say about it. The focus on peace, adventure, challenging social order, an optimistic view that change was possible.

RICHARD: Yet what you remember reading on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is actually what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote – feeling-being ‘Richard’s focus in the 1960’s was, instead, on warfare, misadventure, upholding social order, an unenterprising view that change was impossible – which is neatly encapsulated in ‘Peter’s Journal’ via descriptions of then being a typically radicalised university student (per favour the subversive ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ socialistic-communistic propaganda, of Mr. Herbert Marcuse (a.k.a. ‘Father of the New Left’) and the ilk, which gripped the largely proto-revolutionary imagination of those socio-politically impressionable youths of the time).

Viz.:

• [Peter]: “University days were filled with a wonderful optimism and naivety as the sixties’ youth revolution gathered momentum. We were going to change the world! Socialism, peace, love, sexual freedom, environmentalism – anything was possible to have or to change. I marched to stop the Vietnam war, I poster-pasted to save the forests, I grooved to the Rolling Stones in Hyde Park in London, I hung around in Amsterdam, I travelled to the East, I became politically and socially concerned and involved.
I’ve thought about these times during the last twelve months – what happened to the dreams, the enthusiasm of those times? Remember John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ or ‘Give Peace a Chance’, or watching Woodstock? We were going to change the world! And then it all started to fade a bit – I got rather lost in the daily business of wife, two kids and two cars. And then, when that crashed, I was off to the East with thousands of others, seduced and fired up by the promise of a New Man, Peace, Love, Utopia and an end to my personal suffering. In fact, the whole of the revolution of the sixties was simply sucked into the mystery, confusion and ‘mindlessness’ of the Eastern religions.
Of course spiritualism failed – there was nothing new in it at all, now that I look back (...)”.
~ (from Chapter Nine, ‘Peace’, ‘Peter’s Journal’; © The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).

Incidentally, your comment on the 17th of Feb, 2016, about not sharing the opinion that there was anything special about that era – viz.:

• [Andrew]: “For the record, I don’t share the opinion that there was anything special about that era. The hippies went on to run the corporations and fuck over the world in exactly the same way as the generations before and after them. Lennon and the Beatles not least of them” ~ (Message № 22134)

– could perhaps be said to typify a wholesale ignorement of just how successful that ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ propaganda against the then still-prevailing dextral individualism has been, as evidenced by the stranglehold sinistral statism has increasingly had on the ‘International Community’ in the decades since, insofar as the way in which politico-economic governance nowadays operates in developed nations is more or less in accord with what the sixties ‘student revolution’ was practicably on about.

Put the other way around: as what those gullible university students protested about so vociferously, and marched en-masse in the streets for, has largely come to pass in the technologically advanced nation-states, then your usage of ‘exactly’ – in the above “in exactly the same way” characterisation – may very well stem more from a blanket ignoration of how deprived the bulk of the populace comprising those laissez faire states were, before the resultant expansion of the corporative ‘Welfare State’ (which ever-expanding bureaucratisation of governance, were it not largely funded by its correspondingly ever-expanding indebtedness, would ultimately become all-encompassing), than from an even-handed appraisal of the outcome those ‘New Left’ propagandists were agitating for.

Ha ... it could even be a classic case of hoary adage “Be careful what is wished for [whilst the peasant-mentality prevails] lest it come true”, eh?

ANDREW: Is it possible that [No. 49] indeed did practice a proto-version of “actualism” before Richard discovered just how far it can go, and as such, is non-plussed about labels and terminology for that reason?

RICHARD: In a word: no.

In a couple of hundred words: as he has evidentially never practised what he recently dismissed as the “glibly produced” and thus “quite unhelpful” way, manner or means on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – namely: the actualism method (as in, consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death, that is) – then the 1986 vintage “proto-version” of his post-1999 ‘on-going mindful action’ (as per the half-dozen quotes in Footnote № 3, of Message № 21923, from the ‘ListBot’ archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list) would surely be just as it is depicted therein ... to wit: a 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’, promoted as working due to it having been in use for a full thirteen years prior to finding the actualism/ actual freedom writings in late 1999, and which he gradually came to refer to over the years with the same [quote] “haietmoba” [endquote] string of letters which quite a few persons were using back then to refer to the actualism method.

*

To summarise: as there is no textual evidence with which to substantially differentiate that 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’ from any other regular mindful-of-the-moment practice – as per that (misnamed) ‘mindfulness’ regimen of buddhistic mispractice which has gained traction in large swathes of many and various societies and cultures around the world (with many and various secularised off-shoots) – this further “Is it possible...” speculation of yours is self-evidently demonstrative of the proliferative nature of speculation unrestrained by the anchored-in-fact effect all valid premises have.

ANDREW: Richard makes the point of how much research he did to find a precedent of “an actual freedom from the human condition”, but not so much the actualism method itself ...

RICHARD: As there is no such “precedent” (an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed entirely new to human experience/ human history) then it follows that the way, manner or means of having that unprecedented condition come about – consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death – is equally unprecedented.

Otherwise – and given there are untold millions upon millions of malpractitioners of the many and various ways in which that mindful-of-the-moment buddhistic mispractice is practiced (plus equally innumerable practitioners practising a secularised version thereof as well) – how come none of them ever discovered Terra Actualis?

What was it, about that naïve boy from the farm, which enabled ‘him’ to find what untold billions upon billions of peoples of any description and persuasion, in any culture and every age, never ever found (including the person you are defending through the invocation and proliferation of abstract possibilities)?

Viz.:

• [Respondent № 68]: “I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs”.
• [Richard]: “There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation)”.

• [Respondent № 68]: “Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet. [...elision...]. I’m sure you’re aware that certain folks have highly developed aptitudes that others don’t?”
• [Richard]: “The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no highly developed aptitude for awareness-cum-attentiveness ... let alone to a degree that others do not.
Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about”.

• [Respondent № 68]: “Oh I don’t doubt others can do this your way, but it seems others undoubtingly need something else”.
• [Richard]: “I can say this much: the something else which those others you refer to *do not need* is a history of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) ... if anything *they need to unlearn/ discard* all of those tried and failed disciplines.
And unless/ until that much is crystal-clear there is no point in discussing just what the something else was, which the identity in residence circa the ‘eighties decade had in abundance, which those others you refer to may very well be in need of”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68d, 30 October 2005).

Have you never wondered, for instance, why the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté does not feature in dictionary listings of various forms of intimacy/ ways of being intimate?

ANDREW: ...[the actualism method itself...] which when you separate it out, has many parallels with the types of naive optimism that spawned such phrases as “if it feels good, do it”, “make love, not war”, “give peace a chance”.

RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: more than a few otherwise intelligent peoples do indeed “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) such as to instead practice some already extant method or modification thereof – being either too stupid to realise that doing what untold millions upon millions of practitioners have already done, without even a single success, is a totally unproductive enterprise, or being so arrogant as to think they can succeed despite untold millions upon millions of practitioners, without exception, having abjectly failed thereby – despite the way, manner or means of having such an unprecedented condition come about indubitably needing to be as unprecedented as it is.

Is it just a case of that apocryphal ‘definition’ of insanity (i.e., doing the same thing over and again, ad infinitum, yet expecting a different result) or is it something else entirely?

A primary reason to “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) is, of course, the arrant failure to appreciate how ground-breaking the millions of actualism/ actual freedom words actually are – as evidenced, for instance, by that egotistically-fuelled you-cannot-know-you’re-the-first fixation, which afflicted more than a few peoples upon coming across the website or, for another example, the inordinate lengths the ‘Pragmatic Dumber’ participants went to/ go to in order to incorporate gross distortions of them into their massively watered-down and westernised version of the already watered-down traditional buddhistic mispractice – as well as likewise failing to appreciate how truly epoch-changing a female replication of the ground-breaking male break-through into Terra Actualis actually is inasmuch that, for the first time in human history/ human experience, it is now possible, and demonstrably so, for man and woman to live together in peace and harmony with gladness and delight.

And here is why that replication is truly epoch-changing:

• [Richard]: “(...) man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus *the very core of civilisation itself* ...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (Message № 20095 & Message № 14341 & Message № 11502 & Message № 8630 & Message № 8137 & Message № 7578 & Message № 7531).

As the implications and ramifications of this epoch-changing replication not only directly relate back to your “make love, not war” and “give peace a chance” allusions to the idealistic 1960’s generational shake-up of the prevailing cultural ethos, of the post-World War II era, but directly impinge upon your failure to “share the opinion that there was anything special about that era” then this is an apt moment to spell-out just what the “naïve optimism” of the sixties generation (disparagingly referred to as ‘the boomers’ and the suchlike, by succeeding generations, when not latterly being called ‘old farts’) has managed to spawn.

(In case it has escaped your notice: the first settlers to take up residence in Terra Actualis are all a product of that naïvely optimistic sixties generation, as contrasted to the cynically pessimistic generations who disenchantedly succeeded them, and it remains to be seen whether the latter can successfully retrieve their long-lost naïveté or not).

To spell-it-out then: All through the ages, and throughout all cultures, one basic predicament exemplified the problem of human relationship and, thus, civilisation itself: man and woman had never been able to live together in peace and harmony – let alone with mutual gladness and delight – for the twenty-four hours of every day for the duration of their respective lives.

Each and every person currently alive, and ever alive, on this otherwise verdant and azure paradise has or had entered this world of minera, flora and fauna via the only possible way – any and all peoples both alive and now dead are or were the progeny of man and woman – and the quality of the start of life is, to a considerable degree, dependent upon the quality of the relationship between each and every person’s progenitor and progenitrix.

Any and all children can and could but blindly follow the examples – and the precepts – bequeathed, at best, with the all-too-human love and compassion of their parental providers and carers (not to mention their extended families).

Obviously, what was required was an in-depth investigation and exploration, an existential uncovering and discovering, a salutary seeking and finding, of the pitfalls and problems which have beset and tormented both genders – difficulties which were, so had it been ordained, set in concrete and indisputable – as per the hoary “you can’t change human nature” maxim.

That appalling status-quo was simply not acceptable to a handful of persons of a sufficiently naïve sensitivity.

Thus the basic premise was, and is, as simplistic as this: if man and woman cannot or could not live together with nary a bicker or a squabble – let alone a quarrel or a wrangle – then forget about street-marches, assorted ‘love-ins’ and other public-demonstrations calling for world peace because man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself.

*

Is it not high time ‘grown-ups’ began living-up to the title “mature adults” else the next generation, and those thereafter ever anon, also settle for a best which is less than the superlative best?

ANDREW: This is only a possibility, [No. 49] though, seems to have implied such in the posts quoted by Richard.

RICHARD: Not only is it not even “only a possibility” there is also no way he “seems to have implied such” (i.e., that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method) in those quoted snippets, either, as that [quote] ‘on-going mindful action’ [endquote], which he promoted in that post on Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, as working because he had been using it [quote] ‘since 1986’ [endquote] cannot possibly be him implying that he practiced a proto-version of the actualism method “before Richard discovered just how far it can go” as [No. 49] not only *did not recognise* the actualism method – when critiquing Claudiu’s ‘scrolling banners’ post to Srid (albeit the Wiki version) – but he also methought-it-was-therefore-it-was quite unhelpful to glibly produce, or pronounce, what is printed on those banners as a method and, further, that in his opinion those banner words were *not describing a method at all*.

Viz.:

• [Claudiu to Srid]: Take a look at the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article. One banner says: “Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is the actualism method”. The writers of that page felt it was important enough that they repeated it again, almost verbatim, in another banner: “Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is”.
• [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “(...). To glibly produce, or pronounce, these banners as ‘a method’ is quite unhelpful, methinks because (...). IMO then, your banner words are not describing a method at all”. ~ (Message № 217xx).

Having now read those quotes – readily available for all forum subscribers to access in the ‘Yahoo Groups’ archives – do you still consider [No. 49] “seems to have implied” in those quoted snippets from Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method since 1986?

*

Yet there is more: due, no doubt, to [No. 49] having called them “your banner words”, in the above post, Claudiu informed him, in a follow-up email, that the words on the banners were not written by him but, presumably, by Richard because of the copyright notice to that effect. What is of interest in [No. 49]’s response is what he has to say about those words on the banners, which unambiguously spell-out what the actualism method is, now that he undeniably knows who wrote them.

As he opines how Richard wanted to emphasise that [quote] “the method” [endquote] – whatever that might be in [No. 49]’s mind – when properly applied should be enjoyable it is obvious that he still does not know what the actualism method is *despite* the scrolling banner words clearly and unambiguously stating that “consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive *is what the actualism method is*” sitting right there in front of his eyes, on his computer screen, as he types out his reply.

Viz.:

• [Claudiu to No. 49]: “It wasn’t me pronouncing these banners as a ‘method’... it says it right in the banners themselves - which, I presume, were written by Richard (the bottom of the page says ‘Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust’), but in any case were certainly not written by me. If you think it is unhelpful to pronounce ‘consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive’ as ‘a method’, then that criticism is best directed towards Richard”.
[...elided...].
• [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “[...your banner words] are not describing a method at all”.
• [Claudiu to No. 49]: “Why, then, does the banner say ‘Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism *method* is’?” [emphasis added in original].
• [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “IMO Richard wanted to emphasise that the method properly applied should be enjoyable”.
[...elided...].
• [Claudiu to No. 49]: “This is all quite new to human history, is it not?”
• [Respondent No. 49 to Claudiu]: “Yes, ‘consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive’ is indeed all quite new. Take care!” ~ (Message № 217xx).

That last response of [No. 49]’s – agreeing that the phrase from the banners that he re-quotes right there as he types, and which clearly and unambiguously delineates just what the actualism method is, *“is indeed all quite new”* – is quite remarkable, in and of itself, given that he has purportedly been practicing precisely that for the last 30 years (since 1986).

How could you have possibly considered for even a moment – let alone typed it out and posted it online – that [No. 49] “seems to have implied” in those quoted snippets from Saturday the 25th of November, 2000, that he practiced a “proto-version” of the actualism method since 1986?

Moreover, do you see how not only is no third-party on-the-spot participant or witness needed – in order to attend to “a few possibilities that could do with the time and space to be answered” – but how no discussion between “those who were there” is required, either?

*

Whilst on the subject of those quoted snippets, in Footnote № 3, of Message № 21923 (and which came from the ‘ListBot’ archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list), here are some more from those archives which will be of related interest.

First, these two extracts from my keyboard in the year 2000:

From: Richard <richard@...>
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Date: Mon 14/08/2000 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: PCE’s

• [Richard] [...]. I stress that it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) that is *one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher* – and not me or my description of a PCE.
[...]. It is one’s destiny to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.
Regards,
Richard. [emphasis added].

*

From: From: Richard <richard@...>
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Date: Tue 15/08/2000 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: PCE’s

• [Richard]: (...) I stress that it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) that is *one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher* – and not me or my description of a PCE.
• [Gary]: Yes, with the PCE as one’s teacher, one has the very finest there is, an experience in which nothing is lacking and nothing can be added. It is already always here, awaiting discovery by those rudely bold enough to leave the Tried and True teachings of religion, ethicality, and morality behind.
• [Richard]: And, what is more, it is one’s own experience wherein believing or taking on faith the words of another plays no part whatsoever. One’s own PCE demonstrably shows what is possible. It is both *lode-stone and benchmark* … a point of reference upon which all terms of reference can be reliably and confidently sourced.
[...]. [emphases added].

And then the following post, a mere 15 emails and 23 days later, containing several references to reading, and absorbing, what is on both the website and the mailing list (with the latter freely acknowledged as being a valuable source of clarification) such as to convey the impression that the import of the highlighted portions of the above two posts would not have been overlooked.

(Also, as there was so very little traffic on the mailing list, in these early days, it is hardly likely those two posts above would not be read through, anyway, as there was so very little else to read).

Viz.:

From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Date: Sat 9/09/2000 2:38 PM
Subject: [No. 49]’s anniversary rave

• [Respondent No. 49]: Hi all,
Yes I’m still reading most of what is on offer...it is now 12 months since I discovered AF. [...].
[...] I have been absorbing the reading and living my life as only “I” can while still an identity inhabiting this flesh and blood. [...].
The list still however provides a valuable source of clarification... [...]
When ‘my’ aim is to be actually free I don’t want to be dependent on a mailing list, person or anything else ... [...].
Altogether a thrilling and stimulating year with more twists and turns than an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
Thanks again for the mailing list.
Cheers [No. 49]

Yet a little over four weeks later there is the following oddity (an oddity inasmuch it disregards the guiding light/ authority/ teacher/ lodestone/ benchmark attributes of the PCE and, in lieu of that impeccably-sourced certainty, ascribes a judge-and-jury rôle to the rotten-to-the-core identity vis-à-vis assessment of *the words* of those with expertise in the area of felicity and innocuity).

Viz.:

From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Date: Sat 14/10/2000 3:01 PM
Subject: Sherlock Holmes methods...

• [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. ‘I’ view afresh everything that is stopping me from breaking through to a happier and more harmless moment each moment again. Certainly ‘I’ listen to the experts but *‘I’ remain the judge and jury* till the end. [...]. [emphasis added].

And, less than two weeks later, the following email (already quoted twice before on this forum) encapsulates this self-ascribed ‘ultimate-fount’ rôle with unequivocal directness.

Viz.:

From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: Actual Freedom <actualfreedom@...>
Date: Fri 27/10/2000 9:55 PM
Subject: Mindfulness not spiritual

• [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. You obviously object to the term “mindfulness”, Peter? Please...do not mistake the word for some ethical “right mind” controlled by some external authority...I am *my own highest authority* until I am actually free not enlightened. If you prefer I will use a word with which you are more comfortable?
Bye for now,
[No. 49] [emphasis added]. (see )

So, here are the two pertinent lines of text juxtaposed for ease of comparison:

• [Richard]: “...it is the PCE that is one’s guiding light – *one’s authority* or one’s teacher – and not me or my description of a PCE”.
• [Respondent No. 49]: “...I am *my own highest authority* until I am actually free not enlightened”.

And so it came to pass that it was still the case 14 years later as the following snippet evidences (with a superiority-aspiration feature highlighted as well).

Viz.:

#175xx
From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: <actualfreedom@...>
Date: 14 Aug 2014 00:30:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Justine’s recent Mails to Richard
[...].
• [Respondent No. 49]: Please remember that Richard never needed anothers words to forge his understanding of that which he identified as actual. ‘we’ must sort it all out on our own methinks....ever questioning *and possibly surpassing the master himself*. [...].
I am always indebted to all those teachers that have impacted my life in a myriad of different ways but *I was always the final arbiter and author* of my life. It was always in my hands as to what I sensibly accepted or rejected. [...]. [emphases added].

Also, a curious coincidence becomes evident, per favour all these snippets, inasmuch it just so happens that the inclusion of *benchmark* in that much further above Tue 15/08/2000 post of mine was a singular event – never repeated nor copy-pasted anywhere in any of my consequent emails [until now] – yet that very word features in more than just one of [No. 49]’s posts.

For instance:

From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: <actualfreedom@... >
Date: 23 Aug 2014 01:09:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Justine’s recent Mails to Richard
[...].
• [Claudiu [!sic! - No. 40]]: Besides, I would be a fool, if I merely believed Richard’s or anyone words.
• [Respondent No. 49]: OK...I know your no fool...this is a whole new paradigm... we pursue to experimentally discard and find ... *using haietmoba upping the bench mark as we go*.
All the very best. [emphasis and square-bracketed insertion added].

*

From: [Respondent No. 49]
To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:41:52 +1100
Subject: Re: What is the difference?

• [Respondent No. 49]: [...]. It should be remembered too, that the AF lingo, or narrative, (however well crafted), serves only to point one in the right direction, until one becomes ‘free’ (out from control) and lives expertly well. It can do no more. [...].
This can be dangerous territory, *if haietmoba is not reflectively benchmarked against ones life experiences*, in the market-place, to ascertain contemplatively and experientially what mutually works best. [...]. [emphasis added].

Thus, rather than the PCE being lodestone and benchmark – delineated as being a point of reference upon which all terms of reference can be reliably and confidently sourced (as per that singular Tue 15/08/2000 post of mine much further above) – it is his (renamed) ‘on-going mindful action’ of 1986 vintage which either ups the benchmark (whatever that means) or reflectively benchmarks against life experiences (however that mayhap) for ascertaining mutual benefit.

*

ANDREW: Here’s the thing, until the discussion happens, between those who where there, the facts are unclear.
Addendum (Message № 22134): Hi Alan, when I said “those who were there”, I wasn’t referring to the 1960’s, but rather to [No. 49] and Richard’s interactions at art college and later when Richard was enlightened.

RICHARD: Okay, for what it is worth then, my interactions with him at art-college (which, although a university in its own right, nowadays, was then but the lowly country college of a city university) were minimal at best – even though starting the three-year ‘Fine Arts’ course in the same year we majored in different subjects and thus our paths rarely crossed – as I was what was called a ‘mature-age student’ (in my mid-to-late twenties) and [No. 49] was either in his late-teens or early-twenties. Furthermore, I was a married man with a family and living in a family-household type setting whereas he was single and either living in the student’s quarters (at some stage) or rent-sharing regular accommodation with other students and the ilk. Moreover, my memory of the times is of him being a rather quiet, mild-mannered and/or reserved sort of youngster insofar as, on the few or scattered occasions of having a brief chat about matters relating to art, it was via him seeking me out rather than vice versa (as far as I recall).

Although we both graduated at the same ceremonial event – only 7 or so of the original 70+ first-year students successfully graduated at the end of the three-year full-time course – [No. 49] went on to a further year or so of ‘State School Teacher Training’ (so as to qualify to teach in Government Schools) whereas I became a practising artist, and took to living way out in the rural countryside (about an 80 kilometre or so round-trip from the Art College).

As for the enlightened years – not that I am about to provide extensive detail though – the main item of note was [No. 49] similarly illuding himself as having ‘arrived’ (i.e., to be enlightened when clearly not), circa 1990, such that I actually ceased speaking to him, literally, as yet more of my words, pointing out the incongruities, had only served to feed the illuding process as those words, too, were adjusted accordingly so as to be accommodated into the existing mind-set. Yet even such a drastic course of action as that was to no avail, either, and the wording of that further above ‘Fri 27/10/2000’ quote of his – viz.: [Respondent No. 49]: “I am my own highest authority until I am actually free *not enlightened*” [emphasis added] – is suggestive of still being illuded a decade later.

*

ANDREW: (Message № 22102). As far as I know/ remember this is the first time Richard has pointed out his concerns with [No. 49]’s way of going about actualism.

RICHARD: Well now, that is because it was the first time [No. 49] was openly dismissive of the actualism method – as depicted on the third and last scrolling banners in the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article – inasmuch he methought-it-was-therefore-it-was quite unhelpful to glibly produce, or pronounce, what is printed on those banners as being a method and, further, that in his opinion those banner words were not describing a method at all.

’Twas the step too far – which left me with no choice but to ‘head it off at the pass’, so to speak, lest it gather momentum through finding favour with any other entities instinctually more cunning than the norm running with it – but true to form he doubled-down, and then doubled-down again and then again, until finally being hoist with his own petard (e.g., his self-appointed ‘cult-buster’ rôle).

Just consider this for a moment: if (note ‘if’) his self-elevated “I am my own highest authority” status had not prevented him from backing-off, on that unsupportable methinks-it-is-therefore-it-is “glibly produced” & “quite unhelpful” reaction to the words on those “nifty banners scrolling across the screen” you reminded Srid of (vide: Message № 210xx), upon that reaction of his being queried by Claudiu, this particular Q&A email exchange would never have been written.

*

In finishing up, here is the salient point of this email: why did more than a few persons, upon reading the word ‘attentiveness’ and mentally substituting the word ‘mindfulness’ (as per the popular yet mistaken rendering of the Pāli ‘sati’/ the Vedic ‘smṛti’ as ‘mindful’ that is, not as in dictionaries, and thusly perpetuated throughout the secularised versions thereof), nevertheless still take that *tool for facilitating the actualism method* to be the actualism method in and of itself?

For instance (from a 2004 email exchange):

• [Respondent № 71]: “...[I am not able to see the silliness of feeling bad...] feeling bad seems to be the driving force for doing various things like laundry, which I am not interested in – and the only way feeling bad goes away is by doing it ... not by seeing the silliness of it ... am I missing something here?”
• [Richard]: “Maybe an example will provide the clue: back in 1981, in the early days of starting on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition, I was standing in the kitchen of my ex-farmhouse, situated on a couple of acres of land in a remote countryside location, washing the breakfast dishes; I was not interested in washing the dishes/ I had never been interested in washing the dishes; I did not like washing the dishes/ I had never liked washing the dishes; washing the dishes was an uninteresting chore, an unlikeable task, that just had to be done (otherwise I would not be doing it/ would never had done it/ would never do it) ... and all the while the early-morning sun was streaming in through the large glass windows, in the eastern wall to my front, beckoning me, enticing me to hurry-up and get the uninteresting and unlikeable job over and done with so that I could scamper outside and get stuck into doing the interesting things I really liked doing/ wanted to do.
Howsoever, *the tool for facilitating the actualism method*asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – had by now become a non-verbal approach to life, a wordless attitude towards being alive, and all-of-a-sudden, whilst standing there with my hands in the sink being anywhere but here, at anytime but now, *it was a delight and a joy to be doing exactly what it was I was already doing anyway* ... standing in the golden sunlight with hands immersed in delicious, tingling-to-the-touch, hot soapy water.
I find myself looking at what the hands are feeling (the hot soapy water) and become aware I have never seen hot soapy water before – have never really seen hot soapy water before – and become fascinated with *the actuality of what is happening*: it is as if the hands know what to do without any input from me; they are reaching for a plate, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are turning the plate over, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are lifting the cleaned plate out of the washing sink; they are dipping it into the rinsing sink; they are placing it in the rack to drip ... and all this while they are *feeling the delicious tingling sensation of hot soapy water* as it strips-away the grease and other detritus ...”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 71, 15 July 2004).

The reason for my ‘salient point’ query is because whether one is attentive to the fact, each moment again, that this moment of being alive/ of being here is the only moment of ever being alive/ of ever being here (and taking action accordingly), or mindful of the fact, each moment again, that this moment of being alive/ of being here is the only moment of ever being alive/ of ever being here (and taking action thereby) is largely irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is not taking that *tool for facilitating the actualism method* to be the actualism method in and of itself.

In my pre-internet days, due to it being largely irrelevant, I utilised either word – plus ‘conscious of the fact’ and ‘aware of the fact’ and ‘tuned-in to the fact’ and, maybe, even ‘awake to the fact’ and ‘alert to the fact’ as well – when explaining what helped in facilitating the way, manner or means (this is in the years before such formally became a method) whereby the resident identity enabled a paradisaical dimension to become apparent (nowadays known as the actual world). However during my early internet days (as explained in some detail, albeit in a different context, in Message № 20095), I gradually ceased using the word ‘mindful’ altogether as the all-pervasive nature of that (misnamed) buddhistic method became more and more apparent to me.

And thus was it that ‘attentiveness’ became actualism’s designator for a particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* – as distinct from and contrasted to ‘mindfulness’ being the buddhistic method, in and of itself, even unto secularised versions – so as to further distinguish the fact of the actualism method being so totally different to anything else (or, put another way, that the buddhistic ‘mindfulness’ method is another ball-game entirely).

(Please note: once it becomes second-nature – a non-verbal attitude to life; a wordless approach to living – an intuitive awareness, as in an affective monitoring of mood and temperament, dispenses with that initial diligence and perseverance).

*

Now, and relating to the salient point of this Q&A exchange, there could be a possibility (as clearly distinct from a probability, let alone the likelihood, as the obverse is equally possible) that [No. 49] might have heard both me and my second wife interchangeably using either word circa 1986, when he first met Devika whilst a guest for a few weeks or so in the spare bedroom of our rented solid-brick apartment – or, more fittingly perhaps, circa 1990, when rent-sharing an old wooden house with the two of us, for more than a few months, along with <name withheld> (an occasional poster to this forum) and on the verandah of which he snapped that large colour photograph mentioned in Message № 21923 – and thus unthinkingly assumed, just as more than a few others have also mindlessly presumed, that this particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* was, essentially, no different to his ‘on-going mindful action’ method of 1986 vintage, in and of itself, and thus adapted that particular *tool for facilitating the actualism method* into being that ‘on-going mindful action’ method, in and of itself, circa late-1999, which he gradually came to refer to thereafter by that [quote] “haietmoba” [endquote] string of letters.

Hence, then, that reactionary “glibly produced” & “quite unhelpful” declaration upon taking issue with the scrolling banner words which, thereby, evidenced that what he had mindlessly assumed to be the actualism method since, ostensively, late-1999 was in fact not the actualism method which has been sitting there in plain view, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, all the while.

*

Lastly, the ‘Summary of the Entire Path’ which Claudiu posted on the 31st of October, 2013, in Message № 15710 is well worth reading (or re-reading if applicable) as it lays out how he came to realise just what the actualism method actually is – as distinct from the tools (i.e., ‘techniques’ a.k.a. ‘technics’ or ‘techs’) for facilitating the actualism method – in a fresh, newly-discovered kind of way.

Regards,
Richard.


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