Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’
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.
Re: Richard, to be fair..
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.
Here is how ‘this whole thing’ began:
And here is that very message being referred to:
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’.
P.S.: In case you have still missed it: that is it (i.e., conditional vs. suppositional); that is the point in my responses.
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.
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.
P.S.: You will probably find the following quite topical.
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’.
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.
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.
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).
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:
And not to forget, of course, from the logo itself:
Now, this is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘spiritual’:
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’:
Also, and given that ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’ are synonymous, this is what that dictionary has to say about the word ‘soul’:
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:
Instead it would be:
Also, the following words of mine are worth bearing in mind.
And again for emphasis:
Lastly, what Claudiu wrote the other day (in Message No. 19439) is well worth taking note of.
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].
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?
And another instance:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
Incidentally, your comment on the 17th of Feb, 2016, about not sharing the opinion that there was anything special about that era – viz.:
– 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)?
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:
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*.
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.
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:
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).
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).
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.
So, here are the two pertinent lines of text juxtaposed for ease of comparison:
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).
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.