Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Claudiu / Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem


On Being Less Anonymous

CLAUDIU: Hello everyone, I’ve decided that instead of being known only as ‘Respondent No. 26’ on the Actual Freedom Trust website, I’d like to be known by my real first name, Claudiu, instead. The reason for this is that I see how much we feeling-beings influence each other, and if having my real first name prominent would increase the impact of reading about how I had my life turned around by visiting Richard in April 2012 then I am only too happy to help.

In order to further stress just how much I thought I knew what actualism was about and what an actual freedom from the human condition was, before April 2012, and how wrong that turned out to be, I’d also like my name unambiguously linked with my Dharma Overground screen name, ‘Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem’. A list of the posts I’ve participated in on that forum can be found here if anyone would care to go through the archives:.

I would advise not taking anything I said about actualism or actual freedom before April 2012 on that forum as being too accurate.

I’ve already written Vineeto and provided my request & permission for my name to be used instead of ‘Respondent No. 26’ on the Actual Freedom Trust website, and she has already done a quick job of de-anonymizing my name in the correspondences & indices. I’ve also asked that she put this very (at that point yet-to-be-written) email on the top of my correspondence page so that everybody can indeed see that it was done with my explicit permission.

Hehe, this is pretty exciting.

- Claudiu (Message 12916, 15 January 2013)


January 3 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

RICHARD to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): [...]. Lastly, this stuff you make-up and type out, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, will have grave consequences if you persist in telling lies which malign, libel and defame.

For instance, the following lies of yours in regards to attempted murder – of which properly dated and time-stamped screenshots have been taken and safely stored – constitute, without any doubt whatsoever, an actionable case. Vis.:

#11xxx
From: [Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]
Date: Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:29 am
Subject: Re: Richard: stepping aside

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: [...]. i don’t see how horrifying your visitors by dragging a terrified woman across the floor from one room to another then sitting one’s large male frame on her small chest and threatening to strangle her by squeezing her throat till shes breathless is NOT out right primal violence ??? THAT is not freedom from any condition.
its been done by male apes for millions of years. it is NOT the behaviour of an intelligent ‘kind’ 100% harmless, free-from-aggression, human being ...and thats just one of the many contradictory examples of Richard’s violating behaviour. [...].

How you managed to become a middle-aged codger without comprehending that there are consequences, to such actions/ behaviours/ deeds as you perform online, has got me beat.

Also, the fact you have been thus engaged for 13 years (on your own cognisance for 15 years) it clearly amounts to a case of persecution as well.

So be it ... proceed at your own peril. Richard to No. 5, 31 December 2012

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): cut the crap and address those reports NOW! to wit: ‘that youre a perverted woman bashing ...

RICHARD to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): I am stopping you right there solely for the sake of demonstrating something you have quite evidentially overlooked ... namely: there are no [quote] ‘reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a woman-basher (let alone a ‘perverted’ one).

So, here is your opportunity before you go on and make it even worse for yourself than you already have: if you can produce those so-called reports of [quote] ‘woman bashing’ [endquote] then I will indeed address them, as demanded so emphatically by you, and ... um ... then ‘get tapping NOW!’.

Note well, this is a one-off opportunity because, as I enunciated unambiguously in Message No. 11315, there is no way I am going to rebut/ refute each and every one of all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination. Vis.:

#11315
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:22 am
Subject: Re: IF

• [Richard]: [...]. Also, for those wanting me to rebut/refute all that made-up stuff about a phantom ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of passionate imagination, do you realise I would have a full-time job monitoring the entire world-wide-web, on a daily basis, seeking out all the stuff peoples are making up ... Richard to Rick, 21 February 2012

Richard to No. 5, 31 December 2012

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): stop fantasising. the only people who ever ... [...].

RESPONDENT No. 19 to No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’): [...]. You have some basis (even if they are not fully justifiable at this point – as they say there is no smoke without the fire – your mails are smoky and there might be some fire somewhere, maybe a disproportionate spark that is unchecked, for which Richard is not providing extinguisher but only seems to amplify it, for more than a decade).

RICHARD to No. 19: If, as you say, your co-respondent has [quote] ‘some basis’ [endquote] then why is he not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘basis’?

RESPONDENT No. 19: [...].

RICHARD to No. 19: Put differently: if, as you say, [quote] ‘there is no smoke without the fire’ [endquote] then why is your co-respondent not taking advantage of this one-off opportunity to produce that so-called ‘fire’?

RESPONDENT No. 19 to Richard: I think he/she did produce the mail snippet from somebody you met.

RICHARD to No. 19: Why do you say that you [quote] ‘think’ [endquote] your co-respondent did something? Did he, or did he not, do that? If he did, then why did you not re-produce it, right here and now so there would have been something of substance to discuss? If he did not then why take the time to type that tergiversation out? Richard to No. 19, 2 January 2013

CLAUDIU: This is what No. 19 was referring to. Here’s the progression ...

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, How do you know what [No. 19] was referring to when he was not sure himself (as in his ‘I think...’ phrasing)?

In other words, why not let him answer my query?

CLAUDIU: [...snip five quotes...].

So, presumably the report [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] wishes you to address is Message 10778, written by [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)], and specifically, that paragraph that [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] quoted, no?

RICHARD: First, and given that you are asking me to presume something based upon your presumption about something which [No. 19] was not sure about (as in his ‘I think...’ phrasing) it would be more conducive to clarity in communication for him to do away with you having to presume that ... and, by extension, me.

Second, and given that you are asking me to presume something based upon your further presumption that what [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] referred [No. 3] to is the *entirety* of what he had in mind, when he told me to ‘cut the crap’  and address [quote] ‘those reports’ [endquote] to the effect of me being a (perverted) woman basher, it would have been more conducive to clarity in communication for him to have done away with you having to presume that ... and, by extension, me.

Third, do you not find it a trifle odd, to say the least, that all this presuming is taking place solely because [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] did not interact with me directly, person-to-person, when provided with that one-off opportunity to do so (to produce those so-called ‘reports’)?

Fourth, do you not see that you have taken it upon yourself to refer me to what he referred [No. 3] to (in lieu of him directly referring me to it himself) inasmuch you are thereby volunteering to act as his proxy?

Now, were we to go on and discuss the contents of what he has referred [No. 3] to (in lieu of him directly referring me to it himself) then we would be talking *about* him, regarding those contents, and thus he avoids having to discuss it with me directly, person-to-person, and thereby be personally held accountable.

Maybe it is because I have been on this planet for 65 years, and thus simply have more life lived than you, or, perhaps (and more likely) it is because I have more than a few previous experiences of interacting with manic persons, that it is almost second-nature for me have the accuser be directly confronted, person-to-person, with the entire contents of their case against the accused.

In other words, the accuser needs to sit at a table, as it were, with the accused and lay the contents of their case out on that table for the accused to freely sift through item-by-item, and thus be held amenable for each and every aspect of their case as each item is closely examined. (And the very first thing to establish is, of course, whether what is laid out on that table is it – their case – in its entirety).

In my experience, third-party discussions *about* the accuser, in regards the contents of their case, very rarely brings them to their senses.

Regards, Richard.

January 3 2013

Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism

CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Aye, all fair points. The reason I butted in and spoke for [No. 19] & [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] is because I wanted this whole charade move along more quickly so we can get back to discussing something that is actually interesting.

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Yes, that is quite understandable.

Of course, for the person concerned, in situations like this (and there have been more than a few face-to-face instances for me over the years), it is not a charade but a passionate truth as imagination stitches together a multiplicity of otherwise disparate ‘data’-points, most of which are also imaginary, into a (seemingly) seamless whole.

Experience has shown me that locating/ identifying the vital factor holding the entire edifice together – like the keystone of an ancient archway (for example) – is essential else time and energy be forever dissipated on fruitlessly responding to a vast array of ever-proliferating non-essential items (which items passionate imagination readily begets in replacement of those few which that time and energy expended did finally manage to expose).

A real-time example of fruitlessly pursuing that proliferating array would be to latch onto the new one which appears in the 4th quote you provided (‘... you even offered to pay her air fare to Australia! TWICE!’) and easily demonstrate, via suitably referenced quotes, that it too be an outright lie, but as doing so would merely beget evermore replacements.

‘Tis far better to remain obdurately insistent on the total lack of substance in the pivotal item being faced-up to.

CLAUDIU: But it seems all I accomplished was complicating the matter a bit more by adding another person to the mix with an extra layer of relationships to the preexisting participants (a proxy for this one, speaking for that one, etc.)

RICHARD: I am glad you see it because, once you get the hang of what can pass for genuine discussion in the real-world, each and every interaction becomes a fun-time activity ... still sincere, of course, but no longer serious.

I am, as always, having a ball here at the keyboard.

CLAUDIU: So I shall instead withdraw my comments, sit back, and let it move along on its own, although given [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] has already decided not to take you up on your offer you might be right in saying that it is already over – although that hasn’t stopped [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] from continuing to speak as if it isn’t (e.g. by writing ‘its about time something was done before it gets even more out of hand and YOU physically hurt someone AGAIN!.’ not 20 hours ago).

RICHARD: Yep, that one comes at the end of the vitriolic spray which begins, most revealingly, with him informing that phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, ‘you don’t deserve common decency’.

Its context is reminiscent of another craven instructing his phantom ‘Richard’ to ‘apologize in public’ (for all those phantom misdeeds) because, until then, ‘empathy will be wasted on you’.

If nothing else this forum’s laissez-faire disregard for all the normative legal laws and social protocols (designed expressly to curb such instinctual savagery) readily exposes the lie of unenforced morals/ ethics/ values/ principles being sufficient for civil behaviour.

Howsoever, as it comes at a price – quite a price in fact – it is apposite to draw attention to what the warning note in the library topic ‘Social Identity’, on The Actual Freedom Trust website, has to say:

• [Richard]: ‘It is an utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent be dedicatorily in place – as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the otherwise essential societal/ cultural conditioning be undertaken’. The Actual Freedom Trust Library, Social Identity, Warning

Regards, Richard.

May 28 2013

Re: An interesting development

CLAUDIU: [...]. Another related thing i’m not sure of is from the transcript of one of the audio taped dialogues.

On a phone now so no link handy. But Richard was saying how the nature of infinitude is that it is always here and now. Thus to be here now is to be everywhere at once. I’m not sure what to make of this ‘everywhere’. China for example is pretty far away so how can I be in China if I am here? It makes sense that on the way to china I would also be here. But not that everywhere at once includes china right now. This train of thought already seems silly as I’m typing it out but I’m left without an answer. Ah well! Something to reflect on next PCE. [...].

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, You are, presumably, referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘The actual experience of the infinitude of space and time is to be ‘everywhere all at once’, because all time and all space are right here ... and right now. There is nowhere else but here and no time but now. Anywhere is everywhere and everywhere is anywhere’. (Richard, Audiotaped Dialogues, Infinitude is the Boundlessness).

It is better explained in ‘Richard’s Journal’. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to a vast stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of every- thing. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being’. (pp. 179-180, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Edition: Article 25, ‘Peace-On-Earth Is Not The Be All And End All Of Life’; for context see: (Richard, Selected Writing, Actual Freedom).

Thus if you think of it, initially, as the vast stillness which is ‘everywhere all at once’ (as in, there is no centre to physical infinitude) then, when following a train of thought about the audio-taped dialogue regarding the actual experiencing of that vast stillness – where matter-as-energy is the source of every- thing apparent (i.e., matter-as-mass) – as being a flesh-and- blood body’s essential disposition it will make more sense.

Incidentally, Vineeto affirmed this experience of being, in essence, that vast stillness in another way, during the period in which she was becoming essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years), inasmuch she was able to detect four distinct properties of that ‘everywhere all at once’ matter-as-energy source ... to wit: ageless, genderless, shapeless, and limitless.

Here, in part, is how she wrote about it in an email to another back in February 2011:

• [Vineeto ]: ‘(...) before Richard left for India I experienced this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard (the word energy used in its general purpose sense) as being bathed in a delicious, delicate and appreciative intimacy, and Pamela reported the same. (...). Presently, I apperceptively experience this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard on a daily basis. Often I experience it as ambrosial in nature, of a quality that fills me with extraordinary delight and well-being, in a way that it makes every cell in my body hum with fulfilment as if a missing chemical has suddenly been added to each cell’s physical structure. (...). Other times this immanence was of a more expediently potentiating nature that furthered my progress to become fully actually free and nowadays is advancing the progress in my aim to *be* Richard, undifferentiated except bodily. (...). One day when I experienced the fullness of the quality of this energy, which I labelled ‘experiencing the source’, I described four outstanding qualities – it is genderless, ageless, shapeless and vast in its depth ...’. (Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:24 PM).

Thus, whenever we interacted intensively over the months after writing that, she inexorably came ever-closer to experiencing herself as each of those four distinct properties, one after the other, until only the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated.

And that is what took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM, on the 28th August, 2011, which I wrote to you about in February last year on this forum. Vis.:

#10929
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:43 pm
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

• [Claudiu]: [...] What prevents it [‘the quickening’] from happening to Vineeto, for example?

• [Richard]: Given that she is the first female to become actually free from the human condition there is, of course, nothing to prevent it from happening to Vineeto.

Indeed she has been interacting with me intensively with that very intention; an existential event of some considerable significance in regard to this intent took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM on the 28th of August 2011, for instance.

For about three weeks prior to this she had been experiencing a near-constant pressure-pain in the nape of the neck, so she knew that something was imminent, as well as experiencing what she referred to as ‘an ambrosial immanence’ filling her up, inasmuch from time-to-time she could bear no more of it (such as to cause her to refrain from interacting intensively for two-three days until it dissipated) due to it being ‘too much’ or ‘too overwhelming’ for her.

Then, at the moment she became essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years) there was a tremendous upwards surge of that energetic immanence, in and around my head and shoulders region, of such a potency, of such a strength, as would previously (on some occasion) render me utterly passive, completely immobile, and scarcely able to bear with it, to contain its immensity.

On this occasion, however, it was able to flow freely – it was as if a circuit had been formed betwixt the two of us – and a second, equally potent, surge of that existential immanence followed the first (again in an upwardly direction in and around my head and shoulders region) a short while later.

Regarding that reference to a circuit having been formed, I am reminded of first being shown, as a child in High School, how a magnet produces a magnetic field by holding a sheet of paper over it and sprinkling iron-filings upon its surface; as there is a potent field now operating it is as if the two of us, a male and a female, are the ‘north’ and ‘south’ poles of a magnet; alternatively, the effect could perhaps be likened to the ‘anode’ and ‘cathode’ of a battery generating an electric current (and thus producing an electric field) when a circuit is completed. [...].

Interestingly enough, nerve impulses, more technically called ‘action potentials’, occur in several types of animal cells, called excitable cells, which include neurons, muscles cells and endocrine cells. In neurons they play a central role in cell-to-cell communication. Nearly all these cells function as batteries in the sense that they maintain a voltage difference between the interior and the exterior of the cell, with the interior being the negative pole of the battery. The voltage of a cell is measured in thousands of a volt (milli-volts). A typical voltage is approximately 1/15th of a volt (70 mV). Because cells are so small, voltages of this magnitude give rise to very strong electric forces within the cell membrane. (cribbed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential).

Also, speaking of ‘matter-as-energy’, a ‘magnetic field’, an ‘electric current’, and ‘very strong electric forces within the cell membrane’ (aka ‘action potentials’) I am reminded of having written the following brief note back in 2004:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) I personally favour the ‘electric-cosmos’ hypothesis, also known as the ‘plasma-universe’ hypothesis, which is based upon the findings of Mr. Halton Arp, as it shows promise of being a far more fruitful line of investigation into what the nuts and bolts of the universe are than anything else I have come across so far.
‘Tis only an opinion, though’. (
Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 27, 17 Mar 2004).

This is all such fun!

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: So as to further assist in the ‘joining of the dots’, and related to that (heavily edited for brevity) email of Vineeto’s re-presented further above, dated February 20, 2011, appended below is an excerpt from an earlier email of hers (December 03, 2010), where she describes how her intent formed itself just before I left for India on Mar 25, 2010, and what she set about doing after I returned six months later (on Sep 03, 2010).

Vis.:

• [Vineeto ]: ‘(...) in my long-standing interactions with Richard as an identity I often felt and sometimes expressed the intent to be the first woman to become free – to be that female pioneer who not only proves that an actual freedom is repeatable but who will provide the obviously necessary balance in gender for an actual freedom to gaily spread in the world at large (hence ‘destiny’ above). Very soon after becoming newly actually free a modus operandi emerged as a way to speed up the progress of the transitional period/ to move a completion of this transitional period for the pioneers forward, which can be described as exploring closer and closer intimacy in the interactions between Richard and the newly actually free people (something you may not have fully understood at the time).

To explain, Richard has described that being actually free results in experiencing an actual intimacy because the separation caused by the identity no longer exists here. This enables a direct, unmediated experiencing of people, things and events.

In contrast, the intimacy between actually free people – what we chose to call ‘exquisite intimacy’ – is different; it is interactive, closer and more direct and something entirely new to human consciousness. We played a game of ‘how close can we get’ which led for me, amongst other profound experiences, to the revelation of ‘Closeness Itself’, where I aligned myself with Richard as he actually is and to what he actually does. To spell it out – Richard’s goal is my goal – dedicating my life to peace on earth, whatever it takes. Out of this dedication the intent emerged, which on the 10th of March (shortly before Richard left for India) I formulated as ‘I want to *be* you, Richard’.

As I repeated those words to myself, with the sincere intent to start a process of becoming Richard as he actually is while looking into his eyes, I began experiencing falling into infinitude.

During the experience I became aware that I had passed a point of no return and kept going nevertheless, fully aware that I was irrevocably giving up any trace of a private life, a personal life, and that my life from thereon was dedicated to becoming, being and doing whatever it takes to bring about a virtual/an actual freedom for everyone. Hence, as soon as Richard returned from India, I set about to work to close the gap between my basic actual freedom and his way of experiencing himself (as described in the second half of his journal) as the discoverer and genitor of an actual freedom achieved via going beyond full blown spiritual enlightenment (as in being the Ground of Being) into what was previously considered only possible after physical death (as in Parinirvana/ Mahasamadhi). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘There is an utter purity in the perfection of this universe that one and all live in which wells up ever-fresh from an immense stillness which is the genesis of all that is apparent’.
• [Richard]: ‘This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its genesis’.

(Friday, December 03, 2010 6:17 PM).

June 8 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RESPONDENT No. 4: Richard, you wrote only yesterday:

RICHARD: What I am saying is not correct is [quote] ‘Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote].

No wonder I thought that’s what the issue was. It was, wasn’t it?

RICHARD to No. 4: G’day No. 4, Look, it is this simple: it was about what your co-respondent remembered you as having written in one of your messages. Vis.:

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

• [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?

Thus what I am saying is not correct (if I spell it out more fully) in the above is [quote] ‘... you had said in one of your messages that Richard was trying to woo a girl on another continent’ [endquote].

CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, For what it’s worth, I appreciate the clarification here. I didn’t look back at [No.4]’s #11349 when he first replied to [No. 37], but based just on that message to [No. 37] + #11349, I would have assumed that ‘he 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)’ referred to that ‘woman on another continent’.

It actually does seem like a really simple thing that did get massively overblown.

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Thank you for your feedback; especially so as I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth my while to continue writing about any topic/any issue if none of the peoples active on this forum could comprehend something which – to me anyway – was such an obvious thing. I even hesitated writing in to point it out in the first place.

As you have copy-pasted in what he actually wrote regarding my third wife (the woman in New Zealand) – ‘he 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)’ – it is an opportune moment to point out the obvious deceit in it just as I did in his ‘actively recruiting another’ nonsense regarding that ‘woman on another continent’.

As I said, in the above post you are responding to, it is not about what the word ‘woo’ means (he could have as easily had written ‘seduce’ or ‘entice’) but the very fact he used a word of that ilk to characterise my telephonic and electronic communication, with my third wife back then, whereby I apprised her of the good news about ‘The Floating Convivium Project’ finally going ahead.

(She had always favoured the idea of collective living – and had oft-times expressed how she would have preferred the menage a trois with Devika to have continued – and had given Peter the idea of the four of us pooling resources and building a 65-foot wooden ship by suggesting we all hire a large houseboat for a holiday in Queensland).

So, for No. 4 to assert that I was trying to get her ‘back into’ the very relationship ‘she had suspended while trying to decide her future’ is quite nonsensical on that basis alone. But even more to the point is the fact that she had *not* suspended that relationship in order to ‘decide her future’ in the first place ... as well he knows (as I had already written publicly, on this very forum a month or so earlier, about why we were at that stage living under separate roofs).

As briefly as possible: she had reached an impasse in her live-in association with me due to an experience she had, at anchor up-river one day, which was so wonderful it was frightening ... and frightening to the nth degree.

Now, you will search in vain to find that post – and its associated posts – on this forum because they have been censored, deleted, at the express demand of ... (wait for it) ... of none other than that ‘woman on another continent’.

Here is a part of one of its associated posts:

Message No. 7576
From: [Respondent No. 6]
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Peculiar Information # 5

• [Respondent No. 6]: [...] <snip>

• [Richard]: Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits.

• [Respondent No. 6]: Interesting. I am curious about the use of the expression ‘fear (of female sexuality)’ – because being with a man without any limits – as in limiting fear as you put it above, is liberating from the fear that female sexual identity suffers videlicet body image, self-esteem, social/ cultural/ moral conditioning induced guilt and shame of being wild etc.

• [Richard]: My third wife was already liberated from the social/ cultural moral conditionings (such as induced guilt and shame and so on) when she set out to explore her ‘wild side’ ... she was most uninhibited in that respect.
What emerged, of course, was her ‘dark side’ (hence my ‘fear of female sexuality’ phrasing when characterising what eventually set the limits).
Yet behind or beyond even that lay a much greater fear (giving rise to even greater weird and bizarre behaviour).
As it is of such importance I obtained her permission to speak about it (she is currently out of the country for an indefinite period).
One fine weekend some time ago we went on a boat-trip up-river; we were at anchor in a semi-remote spot and something happened to her, whilst having sex, which she unknowingly locked-away for nearly two years.
And it was during those two years that the pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on, began to occur more and more (much to her mystification as her sexuality had been rampant).
What first came out, during an intense conversation some twenty or so months later, was how she had seen that were she to further explore sexuality and intimacy via sexual congress with me she would surely go insane ... literally (as in a lock-up psychiatric ward).
Yet underneath or behind that very real fear lay a fear so vast it can best be called dread (the remembrance of the ‘going insane’ fear gave access to what it was concealing or covering-up).
Some three months or so later the final truth emerged: the sex was so wonderful, on that occasion upriver, it was frightening ... and frightening to the nth degree.
For here all is immaculate perfection.

• [Respondent No. 6]: i have been rendered wordless since i read this. It is utterly and completely incomprehensible to me that such a turning away and shutting down can happen, having tasted the immaculate perfection.
‘going insane’ is something I understand and very well applies to, let’s say, someone like me (for i am still working on my female identity, even when i have stripped moral/ cultural conditioning).
However, turning away at the brink of such freedom means much more lies ahead.
Thank you for this dialogue, it has provided me further opportunities to explore.
best regards [No. 6].

Regards, Richard.

June 11 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you?

I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out.

CLAUDIU: Could you provide message #s/quotes of the above happening? Or a message # of where to start reading. I don’t remember reading it as-it-happened and I wouldn’t know where to look, exactly. It’s easier to navigate the yahoo group archives if you know where to look (as you seem to).

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Just a quick note to advise you what the ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be.

The following URL will help you ‘to navigate the yahoo group archives’ in that regard:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11434

The ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be the email part-quoted immediately after these words (about 3/4 the way through the above post):

‘The following is probably the most blatantly obvious clue to emerge to date ...’.

Regards, Richard.

June 26 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

CLAUDIU: FWIW I also thought [No. 3] (see ) was referring to the Surbhmeister [No. 6]. [...].

RESPONDENT No. 15: [...].

CLAUDIU: [...].

RESPONDENT No. 15: Being mistaken about typing the wrong word is hardly the same as admitting a wild accusation was way off the mark ...

RICHARD to No. 15: As I neither made a ‘wild accusation’ nor was ‘way off the mark’ there is nothing of that nature for me to be ‘admitting’ to. (#14400 )

CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Ah I stand corrected in thinking that you no longer thought [No. 4] was lying in #141xx.

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, First of all, my response to [No. 15] was to set the record straight about an assumption he had made (i.e. ‘accusation’) as what I drew [No. 25’s attention to (in #14225) was quite matter-of-fact ... inasmuch pointing out that a spade is a spade, for example, is neither an ‘accusation’ (let alone a ‘wild’ one) nor ‘way off the mark’ but, rather, making a statement of fact.

Second, if you re-read what I wrote to [No. 25] (in #14225) you will see that I never said those specific words (‘[No. 4] was lying’) – although such could readily be inferred of course – but, rather, drew [No. 25]’s attention to [quote] ‘something so *outrageously* mendacious it is no surprise it has passed everyone by without even a comment’ [emphasis added] and invited him to scroll upward and re-read, in the context of the entire sequence, the words in that particular response/ the way that particular response was worded.

The following is the entirety of my words in that message (#14225) with only the quotes snipped for ease of reading what I actually said.

Vis.:

#14225
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:21 am
Subject: Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

• [Respondent No. 25]: [No. 4], I understand exactly what you mean by ‘control of the narrative,’ [...] what I am saying here boils down [to] your implication that Richard and others are battling for the ‘narrative.’ I don’t think that Richard, for example, would accept that his is a ‘narrative’ at all, nonetheless a ‘battle.’

• [Richard]: Just popping in here briefly to draw your attention to something so outrageously mendacious it is no surprise it has passed every one by without even a comment.
I invite you to scroll upward and re-read what your co-respondent had to say to his co-respondent further above (I have included the entire sequence for the sake of convenience). Please re-read that exchange before continuing on with the rest of this email.
Immediately below I have copy-pasted four excerpts from various posts in this forum’s archives for your consideration. Vis.: [...snip...].
Surely, it is abundantly clear that *most* of what he has had to say, be it either unaccountably (pseudonymous posts) or clandestinely (by private emails), about ‘actualism or actualists or anything associated with it’ has indeed ‘come either directly or indirectly’ from ... um ... Someone Unequivocally Recognisable By Her Inveracities, non?
Here, again, is the essence of that further above exchange. Vis.: [...snip...].
Just who is toying with his fellow humans (#109xx), eh?

It is always fascinating to have feedback on what many and various self-centric feeling-beings make of my words/my wording.

To explain: words, being referent as they are, refer to some thing, some body (some one), some event (some episode) or some occasion (some time) and, in the above situation, the operative words posted by both parties – namely, [No. 3] and [No. 4] – referred not only to a some one but to a specific someone ... and just who it is being referred to is critical to comprehension.

With [No. 4]’s text it is dead easy to detect just who it was his words referred to ... to wit: [quote] ‘the person you’re suspecting’ [endquote].

So, all that is left is to discern just who it was [No. 3]’s words referred to and the matter is settled, over and done with, finished.

And, given that ‘the bullet is through the church(see #14083) for [No. 3], on this issue (i.e. ‘soapy’, ‘soap-opera’, ‘melodrama’), then his operative words are readily apparent as they provide a unique identifier (a phrase used both exclusively and extensively, by me, to refer to a specific female) ... namely: [quote] ‘when she made up all that stuff’ [endquote].

‘Tis all so simple, eh?

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: If only peoples would read what is actually written – and cease trying to divine intention – the volume of posts to this forum would probably diminish to a fraction of what is currently the norm.

Trying to ‘read’ anybody’s intention is fraught with problems inasmuch all manner of suppositions and assumptions can thereby be taken as being factual when they are not ... and this is not the first time I have said this.

Vis.:

#11502
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Just who is taking license to trifle with life of people?

• [Respondent No. 25]: Her account includes displays of emotion and other behaviors attributed to you contrary to your claim to live an actual freedom, so it makes sense to read her intention to say these ‘facts’ came to light during the subsequent 6 months you were in India – ‘after’ she met you during your visit to India. [...].

• [Richard]: As her online account does not include ‘displays of emotion and other behaviors’ attributed to me – the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – whilst I was in India for six months in 2010 it does *not* make sense to do what you do above (to ‘read her intention’).

(Besides which, to ‘read’ anybody’s intention is fraught with problems inasmuch all manner of suppositions and assumptions can thereby be taken as being factual when they are not). [...].

July 6 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RICK: And did she ever say why we can’t ever say her name publicly? Can you please explain that because I’m beginning to feel a bit ridiculous.

RESPONDENT no. 4: The whole situation, which people here write off as ‘melodrama’ to be enjoyed with popcorn, was incredibly painful, confusing and embarrassing to her. It cost her a great deal of familial strife and exposed her to scorn and ridicule from colleagues. She does not want her name associated with Richard in any way. That you don’t *know* her reasons was/is not a good reason not to respect the fact that she *has* reasons. [...snip...].

How well do you know her?

RICHARD: Hmm ... and just how well do *you* know her? [...snip...].

Before you answer – and given you also tell your co-respondent, further above, that the whole situation ‘cost her a great deal of familial strife’ – I will draw your attention to the following excerpt from a message of yours, addressed to me, written a little over six months ago.

Vis.:

#126xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

• [Respondent No. 4]: G’day Richard, [...]. (But kind of goofy as well. I’ve been shown a photo of a young, bearded Richard tripping off his nut on mushrooms, with a huge grin that instantly evoked the same in me, and that’s a ‘Richard’ I immediately liked). [...].

Simply because you say you have been ‘shown a photo’, rather than ‘sent a photo’ (i.e. either by surface mail or electronically), it occurs to me to ask whom it was you were ‘shown’ such a photograph by – presumably either a black-and-white or colour image on photographic paper – and when? [...].

So, I ask you: just how well do *you* know her – and her family – such as to be telling your co-respondent those things?

P.S.: Regarding your (quite erroneous) ‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’ depiction please be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in mid-1980 – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event.

Furthermore, to depict that event in your ‘rave-party’ type phrasing (‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’) is yet further evidence you cannot stop making up stuff about me even when it is (presumably) complimentary in your mind. (List D, No. 4a, 25 June 2013)

RESPONDENT No. 4: No, once again, I’ve done no such thing. The photo (file name: ‘Richard 1975 stoned.jpg’) was sent to me 9 November 2010 with the accompanying note, verbatim: ‘and I could not help but share a photograph of Richard from his early days , during college , when he consumed Magic mushrooms in green tea. Why? because when he showed me this picture, he did tell me that it was taken while he was tripping – i found the pic funny because of his smile in it.’

RICHARD: G’day [No. 4], So, you had not been ‘shown a photo’ after all (it was ‘sent to me’ you say) but you instead took on the wording of an – unverified – claim that an unnamed sender used (‘showed me this picture’) as your own truth, eh? Glad to have that one sorted out, at least, because your (borrowed) wording (in #126xx) made it look as if you might have met in-person.

So, I ask you again: just how well do *you* know her – and her family – such as to be telling your co-respondent those things?

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

P.S.: Is that going to be how you excuse yourself of all this made up stuff you keep making public – and why you get all indignant about the (surely quite predictable) feedback from me – inasmuch you are not making it all up but are mindlessly regurgitating the stuff some (un-named) other person/ persons made up?

Also, again be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in *mid-1980* – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event. [emphasis added]. (List D, No. 4a, 25 June 2013a)

RESPONDENT No. 4: Folks, it has been brought to my attention that any discussion of matters involving a certain person is continuing to have painful and detrimental consequences for that person in ways that neither I nor anyone else here can fully appreciate. I am going to respect that person’s wish not to have anything further to do with these matters and not to be discussed in this forum.

RICK: What of the detrimental consequences of NOT putting all this on the table and sorting it all out? Guess it’s the case where she got say whatever SHE wanted to say no matter how horrible (eg suggesting that Richard is a fraudulent, homicidal lunatic [#10750]) or to be shown on record to be a vindictive liar and deceiver when representing herself (the invasive exposition of the contents of richard’s smartphone thru underhanded, deceitful tactics) yet cries foul and demands silence when attempting to discuss the subject.

Really?

CLAUDIU: Hey [No. 4], A while ago on the DhO I wrote the following to you regarding the [‘VET-NET-AUSTRALIA’] article: ‘How do you know the person ‘doing you a huge favor’ wasn’t being intentionally deceitful?’

I’ve asked this multiple times in our interactions and you’ve always said that you’re simply sure because of the way it was presented to you. Yet now you have proof that at least one of the things that was presented to you was presented to you deceitfully:

• [Richard]: ‘Furthermore, to depict that event in your ‘rave-party’ type phrasing (‘tripping off his nut on mush-rooms’) is yet further evidence you cannot stop making up stuff about me even when it is (presumably) complimentary in your mind’.

• [Respondent No. 4]: ‘No, once again, I’ve done no such thing. The photo (file name: ‘Richard 1975 stoned.jpg’) was sent to me 9 November 2010 with the accompanying note, verbatim: ‘and I could not help but share a photograph of Richard from his early days , during college , when he consumed Magic mushrooms in green tea. Why? because when he showed me this picture, he did tell me that it was taken while he was tripping – i found the pic funny because of his smile in it.’

• [Richard]: ‘Is that going to be how you excuse yourself of all this made up stuff you keep making public – and why you get all indignant about the (surely quite predictable) feedback from me – inasmuch you are not making it all up but are mindlessly regurgitating the stuff some (un-named) other person/ persons made up? Also, again be advised that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago ingested psylocibin one evening in *mid-1980* – on the advice of an (erstwhile) associate under the (misguided) impression it was similar to tetrahydrocannabinol (only much stronger) – no cameras were present, no photos were taken, no photographic image whatsoever exists of that event. [emphasis added].

I say deceitfully because it seems unlikely the person misheard Richard telling them that he was tripping in that photo. So, some part of the story behind that photo is made up in some way. Given that this was just something you happened to mention in passing, and it turned out to be wrong, incorrect, in some way – does that change your opinion at all about whether you can rely on the person you’ve gotten all this information from?

– Claudiu (#14489)

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, First, in response to your (quite understandable) assumption that ‘it seems unlikely the person misheard Richard’ please be advised that, to the best of my recollection, the photograph in question is not one I showed to ... um ... to S.U.R.B.H.I. during my 6-month visit to India in 2010 (what I do recollect showing her was my then-privately online ‘Richard’s Personal Webpage’ where quite a few older-style photographs of my early years can be downloaded by anyone).

Be that as it may: what I do know, for a fact, is that I neither gave her a copy of *any* photographic images in my possession at the time nor, of course, never on any occasion spoke the obvious untruth of having ingested psylocibin before that memorable evening in mid-1980.

In other words, it could not possibly be the case that ‘the person misheard Richard’ because nothing even remotely of that nature (such as could, plausibly, be ‘misheard’) would have ever been spoken by me.

Second, a quite telling aspect in regards to [No. 4]’s ‘rave-party’ type phrasing – i.e. ‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’ – is the fact that he already knew that it was in 1980 (and *not* 1975) when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first ingested psylocibin ... because he asked me himself, in 2003, in his 8th post to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list.

Vis.:

From: Richard <richard@...>
Date: Sat Nov 29 2003 – 00:59:35 AEST
To: actualfreedom(at)topica.com
Subject: Re: The ‘Process’, etc.

[...snip...].
• [Respondent No. 4] : 4. Richard, was it HAIETMOBA that induced your first PCE ...
• [Richard]: No, the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) in 1980, which initiated the remembrance of many such moments of perfection stretching way back into my childhood, and which set in train the entire process eventually resulting in an actual freedom from the human condition, was inadvertently precipitated by psylocibin (given to me by a well-meaning but somewhat misguided associate at the time who told me it was similar in effect to tetra-hydrocannabinol only much stronger) ... [...]. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 60[=No. 4], 29 November 2003)

Please note that, up until he asked that specific question, it had featured nowhere at all on The Actual Freedom Trust website that it was psylocibin which initiated ‘my’ remembrance of many such moments of perfection, stretching way back into ‘my’ childhood, and which remembrance (not the psylocibin) set in train the entire process eventually resulting in an actual freedom from the human condition.

Third, I have been able to identify the photograph in question as I do not have many of those older-style photographs of my early years (I was unable to locate any photographs of Devika, for instance, when I began compiling my more biographical-style ‘Richard’s Personal Webpage’ in 2009) and it is a snapshot of myself taken by the wife of a couple who stopped by to visit me and my then-wife, in March-April 1975 whilst they were on a caravanning holiday (travelling from Queensland on a clockwise journey all around Australia), at the place she and I were then living, in Victoria, while I completed my three-year full-time studies in Fine Arts at the country-college of a city university.

The husband of the couple – whom I shall refer to as ‘Me ole sea-mate ‘Arry’ – was the captain of a cruise-ship operating off the north-eastern seaboard of Australia (conveying live-aboard passengers on guided tours through the tropical waters and the coral reefs of ‘The Great Barrier Reef’) and he and I ‘hit it off’ upon our very first meeting after I signed-on as a seaman-cum-barman-cum-guide on board another of the same company’s fleet of cruise-ships.

At the time of my departure from my cruise-ship job my then-wife was seven months pregnant with our third child and ‘Me ole sea-mate ‘Arry’ and his wife had kept in contact – hence knowing where we were currently located – and were desirous of not only renewing our acquaintance on their travels but also of seeing our new baby daughter (as married couples tend to do as part of the typical socialising that happens amongst such peoples with young families) because they were contemplating starting a family themselves.

I have uploaded the photograph she snapped that night of ‘me’ smiling at her husband (who was as charmed by this newly-born baby’s smiles as ‘I’ was) – along with another photograph taken a few weeks later in daylight – onto ‘Richard’s Personal Webpage’ at the following URL.

http://an.actualfreedom.com.au/richard1975.htm

When I look at that photograph, even now 38 years later, what I see is a very happy man – a proud father in fact – warming some (refrigerated) breast milk for ‘his’ baby daughter’s bottle during a typical social evening with another married couple.

Whereas, when [No. 4] looks at that photograph he sees a kind of goofy ‘Richard’, with a huge ‘tripping off his nut on mushrooms’ grin, which instantly evokes the same in himself (such that it is a ‘Richard’ he immediately likes).

And when S.U.R.B.H.I. looks at that (purloined) photograph she sees a ‘Richard’ from his early days – during college – when ‘he consumed Magic mushrooms in green tea’ and, thus, finds ‘the pic funny because of his smile in it’.

*

On February the 12th last year (in #10968) I depicted their vicious and vindictive campaign against ‘Richard & Associates’ – such that ‘AFT enterprise and its proponents would run off the planet with their tails between their legs’ (see #10555) – as being fuelled by ‘the nasty side’ of the human condition but the above blind desecration of all what most societies hold dear (it is a snapshot of a scene of domestic happiness/ harmony wherein a family man, married and with children, is warming some previously-expressed breast-milk for his newly-born baby’s bottle whilst socialising with another couple desirous of parenthood themselves) goes beyond any such nastiness.

Only sick minds could see what they see (and thus surreptitiously utilise to clandestinely spread their lies and deceit world-wide) in their fervour to halt the global spread of peace and harmony in our lifetimes.

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: Appended below are the Message Nos. of every email [No. 4] posted thereafter (including his gutless ‘Folks’ cop-out email but excluding those posts he deleted after posting) – plus that timely reminder from you (in #14604) – for the sake of convenience in ascertaining for yourself his blatant refusal to face the facts even when they expressly are ‘put on the table’ for him to ... um ... to ‘happily acknowledge’ as facts.

Vis.:

#144xx From: Richard [To No.4].

#144xx From: No. 4 [To ‘Folks’].

#144xx From: No. 4 [To Andrew].

#144xx From: No. 4 [To Himself].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Himself].

#145x From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Himself].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 25].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 5].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Andrew].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Claudiu].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Rick].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 5].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Rick].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Himself].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 25].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 38].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Claudiu].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [Re-Post].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [Re-Post].

#145xx From: No. 4 [Re-Post].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To No. 3].

#145xx From: No. 4 [To Claudiu].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To Himself].

#14604 From: Claudiu [To No. 4].

Vis.: ‘(...) this might be a good time to ask: are those articles as genuine as that photograph of Richard you saw of Richard tripping on shrooms, which ended up ... not being of Richard tripping on shrooms?’ (#14604).

#146xx From: No. 4 [Re-Post].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To Claudiu].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To Richard].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To No. 25/Srid].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To ‘Gosh’].

#146xx From: No. 4 [To Srid].

#146xx From: No. 4 [‘I’m out of here’].

February 6 2014

Re: On the difficulties of communication

CLAUDIU: Communication is difficult! Richard, you might be interested in this email to help you find an answer to your question of why I had to fly to meet you in person to understand that which you had already written about many times. First, humorous approach: Wiio’s laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiio’s_laws [...snip ‘laws’...].

Now, the more meaningful approaches. They provide a constellation of reasons why it might be difficult - if not impossible - to get one’s point across and make oneself understood.

Illusion of transparency: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency. ‘The illusion of transparency is the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do’. [...snip linked & quoted text...]. (#16294, Subject: On the difficulties of communication, Sun, 2 Feb 2014 )

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu,

I accessed the above web-wiki ‘Illusion of Transparency’ page you provided a link to and have part-quoted from several links there. The following is the full quote (and I say ‘full’ advisedly as there is nothing else on that page except links to 9 other web-wiki pages) plus the essence of the Wikipedia article linked to from there.

Vis.:

• [Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky]: ‘The illusion of transparency is the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do. Words are a means of communication, but they don’t in themselves contain meaning. The word apple is just five letters, two syllables. I use it to refer to a concept and its associations in my mind, under the reasonable assumption that it refers to a similar concept and group of associations in your mind; this is the only power words have, great though it may be. Unfortunately, it’s easy to lose track of this fact, think as if your words have meanings inherently encoded in them, leading to a tendency to systematically overestimate the effectiveness of communication. Wikipedia has an article about Illusion of transparency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_transparency’. [endquote].

Vis.:

• [Wikipedia]: ‘The illusion of transparency is a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others. Another manifestation of the illusion of transparency (sometimes called the observer’s illusion of transparency) is a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others’ personal mental states. This cognitive bias [i.e., ‘a pattern of deviation in judgment whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion’] is similar to the illusion of asymmetric insight [i.e., ‘a cognitive bias whereby people perceive their knowledge of others to surpass other people’s knowledge of themselves [which] seems to be due to the conviction that observed behaviours are more revealing of others than self, while private thoughts and feelings are more revealing of the self’]’. [square-bracketed insertions from links provided in-text].

I included quotes from the Wikipedia article Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky linked to as it provides a more concise and on-topic account of the subject under discussion (as compared to his excursive – i.e., ‘tending to depart from the main point or cover a wide range of subjects’/ ‘given to making excursions in speech, thought, etc.; wandering; digressive’ – manner of writing in other web-wiki pages of his).

(For an instance of ‘excursive’: I clicked his ‘FAQ’ link and then his fifth Q&A there – namely the ‘2.3 Isn’t truth subjective?’ link – and read the entire article plus scanned the 32 online comments and yet was still none-too-sure as to whether the question is answered in the affirmative, the negative or even elsewise).

First and foremost: unlike Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky, when I use the word apple it refers to the thus-named physical object itself – i.e., the fruit which grows on an apple-tree (as contrasted, say, with the fruit which grows on an orange-tree) – and *not* to some undisclosed concept (let alone to any such unrevealed mental construct’s unspecified associations which he retains, privately in his mind, nor any such so-called ‘reasonable assumption’ whereby he, self-centrically, assumes other peoples similarly have the word ‘apple’ reference some unquantified ‘concept’ and its unspecified/ withheld ‘associations’).

Thus, words do indeed have far more ‘power’ than Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky gives them credit for (as per his ‘this is the only power words have’ assertion) – inasmuch words most certainly have ‘meanings inherently encoded in them’ (to keep with his somewhat strained usage of vocabulary) – and therefore do *not* in themselves lead to any such ‘tendency to systematically overestimate the effectiveness of communication’ on that account.

Consequently, Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky’s depiction of ‘the illusion of transparency’ – namely ‘the misleading impression that your words convey more to others than they really do’ as per your part-quote of his – does not answer the question of why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written, about an actual freedom, on many occasions.

As for the Wikipedia article he linked to – which appears to written by ‘KJamison7’ (who was back-then ‘currently attending the Missouri University Of Science and Technology for a BS [sic] in Computer Science’) – it can be readily observed to similarly depict this ‘illusion of transparency’ as being [quote] ‘a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others’ [endquote].

(And I say ‘similarly depict’ because, and staying with Mr. Eliezer Yudkowsky’s ‘apple’ example for the nonce, there is no need for anyone to even know – let alone ‘overestimate’ (or underestimate, for that matter, nor anywhere in-between) – what anyone’s ‘personal mental state’ is in order to comprehend that the word, as it is regularly used in everyday transactions such as at a greengrocery for instance, refers to the thus-named physical object itself).

The remainder of that Wikipedia article – including those linked-to inserts in square brackets – is but a variation on the theme (albeit dressed-up with impressive-sounding nomenclature such as ‘cognitive bias’ and ‘asymmetric insight’) and, most likely, stems from that blight of modern-day communication known as ‘relativism’ (aka ‘post-modernism’) wherein objectivity has all-but-vanished and subjectivity rules the roost, insofar as all knowledge is rendered phenomenological (i.e., nothing has independent existence), to the point that fully-fledged relativists (by whatever name of similar ilk) live in a factless world.

Consequently, the Wikipedia article’s depiction of ‘the illusion of transparency’ – namely ‘a tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which their personal mental state is known by others’/ ‘a tendency for people to overestimate how well they understand others’ personal mental states’ – does not answer the question of why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written, about an actual freedom, on many occasions.

(Besides which, I neither overestimate the degree to which my ‘personal mental state’ (i.e., an actual freedom from the human condition) is known by others – a recalled PCE is nowhere near as efficacious, in this respect, as a currently-occurring PCE – nor my understanding of theirs (as my recall of experiencing life as they do, around 33 years ago now, is an intellectual memory only), either, and thus phrase all of my spoken and written words accordingly).

*

Generally speaking, the reason why most instances of problematic comprehension of my meticulously conveyed communication (extensive writings with precise meaning given to terminology) occur is a rather simple one and, perhaps, is quite succinctly encapsulated in the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home-page (strategically placed immediately below the ‘Actual Freedom’ logo so as to be up-front and out-in-the-open from the get-go).

Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’ [endquote].

Reactions to the second of those cardinal words (i.e., ‘new’) is probably best exemplified by the expression ‘cognitive dissonance’ and the hyphenated word which immediately follows (i.e., ‘non-spiritual’) was drolly parsed by me, along with the other words, nearly nine years ago.

Underlying all prehensility difficulties is, of course, fear ... in particular: dread.

Be all that as it may: the specific reason why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written, about an actual freedom, on many occasions, was – as I recall and as confirmed just now by Vineeto – my verbal explication of Buddhism as per the buddhānasāsana (usually translated as ‘The Message/ Dispensation of all the Buddhas’). Along with considerable reference to the buddhavacana (usually translated as ‘The Word/ Teaching of the Buddha’), as per the Pāli Canon, that was what the turning point for you was as I had not yet begun to write at that level of detail on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website back then.

To briefly explain, en passant, that last point: the vast majority of my on-line writings about Buddhism at that time – being mainly responses to queries and objections from non-Buddhist practitioners – were rather general; quite encyclopaedic in nature, in fact, and thus reflected the remarkably erroneous yet commonly-accepted English translations of key Buddhist words ... key words such as ‘mindful’/ ‘mindfulness’, for sati (instead of ‘rememorative’, ‘rememoration’); ‘heedless’/ ‘negligent’, for pamada (rather than ‘(worldly) intoxication’); ‘feeling’/ ‘sensation’, for vedāna (in lieu of ‘hedonic-tone’); ‘fabrications’/ ‘formations’, for saṅkhāra (instead of ‘(wilful) conations’); ‘defilements’/ ‘taints’/ ‘cankers’, for āsava (rather than ‘(worldly) intoxicants’); ‘sense’/ ‘perception’, for sāñña (in lieu of ‘agnise’, ‘agnition’); ‘suffering’/ ‘stress’/ ‘ill’, for dukkha (instead of ‘asunder, apart or away from ākāsa’); ‘space’/ ‘air’, for ākāsa (rather than ‘aether’, ‘etheric’, ‘ethereal’) and so on.

Specifically, it was whilst chatting about what both the Pāli word ākāsa (=the Greek aether; as in that hoary ‘luminiferous aether’ of pre-Einsteinian yore for instance) referred to, and how the first of the five arūpa samāpatti (aka anupubbavihara) – namely, akasanancayatana, in Pali, or the ‘boundless etheric plane, luminous/lustrous all throughout’ (as in ‘lit. shining forth’ according to the PTS Pāli-English Dictionary’s etymology of ākāsa) – served as the mystical *interface* betwixt the physical world (as in the Pāli rūpabhava, aka samsāra) and the metaphysical world (as in the Pali arūpabhava, aka arupavacara), that it all started to make sense for you.

As these pre-buddhistic altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) – and quite evidentially pre-buddhistic because the unenlightened/ unawakened Mr. Siddhattho Gotama learnt to attain to them from the Vedic śramaa/ religieux Mr. Alara Kalama and Mr. Uddaka Ramaputta – are intimately familiar to me (from those eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment between 1981 and 1992) it would be conducive to clarity in communication to point out what the ‘Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary, first published in 1899 by Oxford University Press, has to say (so that no-one need just take my word for it):

• [quote] ‘ākāsa, fr. kas (to be visible, appear; to shine, be brilliant, have an agreeable appearance; to shine brightly, to see clearly) = the subtle and etheric fluid supposed to fill and pervade the universe and to be the peculiar vehicle of life and sound; Brahma as identical with ether; (...) the sacred ether or Brahma in the interior part or soul of man’. [endquote].

And the ‘MacDonnell’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary says this:

• [quote] ‘ākāsa ether as the subtlest element’. [endquote].

Furthermore, and as I have observed before (in #10949), the key Pāli word dukkha is a compound word (as in du + kha) where, etymologically, the ‘du-’ prefix (an antithetic prefix, generally opposed to the ‘su-’ prefix, such as in sukha) has connotations of ‘asunder, apart, away from’, and the ‘-kha’ syllable/ ending, which functions also as root, has the meaning akasa (pronounced a-cash-a).

Thus what the word dukkha denotes, fundamentally, is that abiding in the world of samsāra is to be asunder, apart or away from kha (akasa).

Consequently, it is not for nothing that the first arūpa samāpatti – the religieux’/ mystics’ contemplative/ meditative interface betwixt the physical world and the metaphysical world – is known in Pāli as ākāsānañcāyatana (i.e., ākāsa + ānañca + āyatana) as that is the region/ sphere/ realm/ dimension/ world/ etcetera where dukkha ceases.

*

All of the above – and, of course, more – was the reason why you had to fly to meet me, in person, so as to understand what I had already written about an actual freedom on many occasions.

In effect, during that chat you had an insight – via the word *interface* (you repeated it, ruminatively, several times) – into the deceit of both the western ‘Secular Buddhism’ (which more resembles a buddhistic-flavoured therapeutic humanism with phenomenological overtones, per favour Mr. Edmund Husserl et al., than anything canonical) and the sectarian ‘Theravādan Buddhism’ (an impossible-to-achieve orthodoxy institutionalised, by many and various unawakened/ unenlightened practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/pundits, and so on, around an uncanonical ‘diṭṭhi’/ ‘drsti’ known as the anatta/anatma doctrine) and thus cleared the way, for yourself, to be able to read with both eyes open.

Over the years I have come to appreciate ‘turning point’ instances and have learned to be on the look-out for them.

Regards,
Richard.


CLAUDIU (Part Three)

RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ INDEX

CLAUDIU’S REPORT OF VISITING RICHARD AND VINEETO

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