Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime.

RICHARD: I snipped out every above word of mine as it has become patently obvious that anything actually written by me just gets in the way of your interpretation of same and, speaking of which, I appreciate your honesty in going public with such an unequivocal declaration that the only thing you are interested in discussing with me is just that (your interpretations) ... and anytime to boot.

So, which interpretation are you planning on kicking off your interpretative discussion with ... your interpretation that my (now-snipped) words constituted a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent or your previous interpretation that my (now-snipped) words indicated a dearth of peace on earth?

And this is why I ask:

• [Richard]: ‘So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now here *it* becomes tricky.
• [Richard]: ‘*It* is not tricky at all ...
[Respondent]: ‘Not to you, but to No. 89 *its* [aka it is] tricky (can also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain or understand), in those terms *its* [aka it is] tricky to me also, others might care less’. [emphasises and bracketed inserts added].

Here is what a dictionary has to say about that objective (dative and accusative) pronoun:

• ‘it: as obj. (direct, indirect, or after preps.): the thing etc. previously mentioned, implied, or easily identified’. (Oxford Dictionary).

As you have made it abundantly clear that you are not referring to my three-part question previously mentioned and easily identified (or my elucidation of same for that matter), then is your version of [quote] ‘it’ [endquote] a phantom ‘it’, perchance?

If so, ‘tis no wonder you are experiencing that as being [quote] ‘something hard to explain’ [endquote].

*

(...)

RICHARD (to Respondent): ... here are my words, reinserted for your convenience, in the sequence they were written:

• [Co-Respondent to Peter]: ‘You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’.
• [Richard]: ‘How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’
• [Richard]: ‘How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed).
• [Richard]: ‘Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’.
• [Richard]: ‘So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Now here it becomes tricky.
• [Richard]: ‘It is not tricky at all ... I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry? You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry? And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypothesises); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypothesises); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)?

If you could explain how you interpret those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: OK although one wonders why you need to be reminded, I will say it again.

RICHARD: I have received nothing as yet, despite six e-mails from you, to be [quote] ‘reminded’ [endquote] of ... you are yet to explain it (just how you go about interpreting those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent) for the first time.

RESPONDENT: The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration.

RICHARD: I do understand that you are interpreting [quote] ‘verbal aggression/dictatorial arbitration’ [endquote] ... the question is: whereabouts in that text of mine (re-posted above in its entirety) is there anything even remotely resembling same such as to occasion you to do so?

It is your call.

RESPONDENT: Are you writing to me?

RICHARD: I am writing to the person who is currently writing to this mailing list under the name ‘[No. 87]’ (if that is what you mean).

RESPONDENT: Because it seems more like you are writing to yourself ...

RICHARD: No matter what it [quote] ‘seems more like’ [endquote] to you I am most certainly not writing to myself ... if I were I would have got a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, by return mail (instead of the seven vacuous e-mails received from you).

RESPONDENT: ... and I can make neither head nor tail of it.

RICHARD: Just what part of [quote] ‘if you could explain how you interpret those words of mine [reposted above in their entirety for your convenience] as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated’ [endquote] is it that you can make neither head nor tail of?

It is still your call.

RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture.

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

CO-RESPONDENT: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent), No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc. He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer. And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RESPONDENT: That’s it in a nutshell.

RICHARD: Just in case you had not noticed: the person who started the flame war you are conducting has left the building (like all good flamers do once the desired effect is set in motion). Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 87]: ‘Excuse my absence for a few days, as I have other matters to attend to’. (Wednesday, 1/02/2006 1:43 PM AEDST).

 *

RESPONDENT: For my part this is not a flame war.

RICHARD: It has all the hallmarks of one (as in unsubstantiated/unsustainable allegations/accusations, repeated by rote, along with unsubstantiated/unsustainable support from the sidelines for instance).

RESPONDENT: I did (and do) agree with what No. 87 said about your communication style ...

RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding:

1. You did (and do) agree that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks?
2. You did (and do) agree that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence?
3. You did (and do) agree that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation?

In other words, you did (and do) agree that Richard is not free from the human condition at all (either actually or virtually)?

RESPONDENT: ... based on long experience and observation.

RICHARD: Well now ... here is your opportunity to give the person concerned the benefit of your long experience and observation: please explain how any of any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004).

RESPONDENT: What you do with that information is up to you.

RICHARD: What I do with that information is, of course, to ask you to explain how any of any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004).

RESPONDENT: As for this bunch of malcontents hanging out together for mutual security as they take pot-shots at Richard out of pure perversity and spite ...

RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to the following:

• [Richard to No. 107]: ‘So, you have effectively reduced yourself to sniping away at Richard from the sidelines, exhorting another subscriber on like some frilly-decked cheerleader, and throwing peanuts from the gallery where assorted malcontents have gathered together for mutual support, eh? (Thursday, 2/02/2006 9:10 AM AEDST).

That was posted a scant 1 hour and 51 minutes before this e-mail of yours was posted yet already, in that remarkably short period, ‘mutual support’ has changed into ‘mutual security’ and (and this is a big ‘and’, by the way, as in quite indicative) a mix of ‘pure perversity and spite’ has been gratuitously added.

Is that a real-life demonstration of your uncanny ability to see the big picture ... or did you write privately to each and every one of those denizens of the peanut-gallery, in that 1 hour and 51 minute period, and ask just what exactly is motivating them?

RESPONDENT: ... why not see it as several people who independently see you in pretty much the same light ...

RICHARD: Ha ... just what is the point of taking any notice of what purely perverse and spiteful people see?

RESPONDENT: ... based on what we’ve observed and experienced over the months or years?

RICHARD: If you could explain, with a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, just what you and several people have observed and experienced it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: I never suggested there was any novelty in what I am saying ...

RICHARD: I never suggested that what you were saying is novel ... on the contrary, I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for a quarter of a century now and have had that particularly insidious argument of yours (that the devil is not in the detail) presented to me on many an occasion.

RESPONDENT: ... and I’m not at all surprised if/that people have been saying similar things to you for 25 years or more.

RICHARD: Oh, it has not only been said to me: it is an argument which has been used by many a person over many a year (currently getting a re-run under the nom de guerre ‘seeing holistically’).

RESPONDENT: What I wonder, though, is whether you have ever taken /their/ words at face value ...

RICHARD: I have most certainly taken their words at face value (just as I do with anyone’s words) and still do: wherever someone – anyone – explicitly states that their words refer to, for example, what I [quote] ‘seemed’ [endquote] to be doing with my communication and/or to what they [quote] ‘saw’ [endquote] and/or to the [quote] ‘impressions’ [endquote] they had and/or to what they [quote] ‘infer’ [endquote] from, and/or [quote] ‘read into’ [endquote], my words I take them literally (as in them meaning what they said and saying what they meant).

For instance: as my previous co-respondent (the one who has left the building) explicitly stated, and more than just a few times at that, that what they were referring to was their interpretations of what my words actually convey I, of course, took their words at their face value (as being just that) and never took them to be referring to facts and actuality.

Indeed that co-respondent repeatedly re-posted their initial assertion that subjective interpretations is [quote] ‘all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise’ [endquote] – for them, for me, for you, and for each and every person either living or dead – and I took those words at their face value too (as in them meaning what they are saying and saying what they mean).

RESPONDENT: ... and wondered whether you might have a blind spot?

RICHARD: As what you are asking is if I have ever wondered whether that which others see in my words/ infer from my words/ read into my words/ interpret from my words – the impressions they have as to what I seem to be doing – has any validity over the facts and actuality of my 13+ years, night and day, of being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (which includes its intuitive/ imaginative facility) such as to have me go trotting off to some duly qualified professional and be tested for anosognosia then the answer is ... no, not at all, never.

I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly.

CO-RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture.

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent) ...

RICHARD: I am not finding what my co-respondent is doing hard to comprehend ... I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (that the devil is not in the detail) presented to me on many an occasion.

RESPONDENT: No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy.

RICHARD: It is not an analogy ... my co-respondent is literally saying that. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... it has seemed to me as if Richard was behaving like a pedantic prick throughout, playing Perry Mason for his own amusement, already certain of his own conclusions, closed to new information or ideas, teasing, frustrating, deflecting, diverting, thwarting, trying to maintain a spotless record, side-tracking the flow of conversation away from No. 56’s area of interest and expertise, away from the issues of substance he wanted to discuss. I ‘saw’ No. 56 being irritated by this, but I also had the impression that he would have been willing to have a frank dialogue, had Richard not come across as so smug and meticulously defensive at the same time.
Those were my impressions. It raises the question: how much does a person ‘read into’ a situation, and how much is actually there? To go back and comb carefully through each word, I reckon it’s a safe bet that Richard hasn’t actually said much, if anything, that is provably incorrect. Furthermore, there were no emotions in his words. Everything I infer about his intent, feelings, purpose, is what ‘I’ supply with the distortions of empathy and imagination. Look at the actual words close up, and the overall picture dissolves ...’. (Wednesday, January 28, 2004 16:39 PST).

I was not behaving like a pedantic prick throughout; I was not playing Perry Mason for my own amusement; I was not closed to new information or ideas; I was not teasing; I was not frustrating; I was not deflecting; I was not diverting; I was not thwarting; I was not trying to maintain a spotless record; I was not side-tracking the flow of conversation; I was not smug and meticulously defensive.

My co-respondent on that occasion, self-acknowledged to be a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me which had no basis in fact whatsoever (what I share with my fellow human being is experiential and not scientifical) and, despite at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their ill-conceived position ... yet all the while wanting me to instead discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms.

RESPONDENT: He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc.

RICHARD: My co-respondent is not referring to the words I wrote ... they are clearly referring to what I [quote] ‘seemed’ [endquote] to be doing; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘saw’ [endquote]; they are clearly referring to the [quote] ‘impressions’ [endquote] they had; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘infer’ [endquote].

Anything but, in other words, taking what I have to say at face value: as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, to instead [quote] ‘read into’ [endquote] my words all manner of things which are simply not there can only be an exercise in futility ... and to adamantly defend those intuitive imaginings only serves to (a) compound the situation and (b) waste time and bandwidth and (c) fritter away a vital opportunity.

RESPONDENT: He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression ...

RICHARD: I will stop you right there: your usage of that (definite article) determiner presupposes it has already been determined that there is aggression and it is just a matter of advising me where to look to find it ... whereas a truly [quote] ‘impartial observer’ [endquote] would phrase it something like this:

• [example only]: ‘He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out whether or not there is any aggression ...’. [end example].

Put succinctly: your prejudice is showing.

RESPONDENT: ... it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer.

RICHARD: And what impression does the conversation in question (January 2004) convey to that impartial observer?

RESPONDENT: And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: As I said at the beginning: I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (an argument which rests upon no evidence whatsoever but relies solely upon intuition and imagination) presented to me on many an occasion.

This is one of those occasions.

If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? Have you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Are you thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to?

Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

Just curious.

*

RESPONDENT: ... [it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer]. And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: As I said at the beginning: I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (an argument which rests upon no evidence whatsoever but relies solely upon intuition and imagination) presented to me on many an occasion. This is one of those occasions. If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question ...

RESPONDENT: I am not overly concerned about that particular conversation, but yes, I have read that conversation.

RICHARD: Have you read all of it – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end?

And the reason I ask is none other than that of expecting you to have taken your own advice, as endorsed by my co-respondent as being it in a nutshell, to look at [quote] ‘the entire conversation as a whole’ [endquote].

*

RICHARD: Have you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Are you thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to?

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that knowing another’s agenda, where they are coming from, where they were heading to justifies aggressive behaviour?

RICHARD: Your prejudice is showing again.

*

RICHARD: Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

RESPONDENT: That is besides the point under discussion right now ...

RICHARD: The point under discussion is seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] is it not? Have you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Did you follow-up every URL they posted? Did you access every book reference they quoted? Did you look for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Do you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in.

And the same applies for Peter and Vineeto, by the way, but they are not currently the target of vilification.

RESPONDENT: ... [the point under discussion right now]: that of your aggressive style of communication.

RICHARD: Your prejudice is showing again.

RESPONDENT No. 60 (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957).

RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909456484

And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909449803

Finally, here is my response to that reply:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909452231

If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT No. 60: If you can’t see it already, you never will.

RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened.

CO-RESPONDENT: Give it up No. 60, it’s hopeless. In all these years not one person has elicited a ^you may have a point there^ or even a ^the words dribbling from your mouth may, given a stiff breeze from the SE and proper’ alignment of the stars, be construed to contain a semblance of sense^. I don’t know if deep down inside there is any merit at all to what he says, but to try to wade through the verbal swamp that issues forth just ain’t worth it. The man is a textbook sociopath. Nice freedom on offer, kinda like Sam’s at the end of Brazil.

RESPONDENT: Don’t give it up, No. 60. Eliciting anything in particular from Richard is not the point. Exposure of Richard’s character to an audience is where it’s at. Watching Richard’s attempts to control audience perception is fascinating and revealing.

RICHARD: So, you have effectively reduced yourself to sniping away at Richard from the sidelines, exhorting another subscriber on like some frilly-decked cheerleader, and throwing peanuts from the gallery where assorted malcontents have gathered together for mutual support, eh?

RESPONDENT: How could I possibly snipe away at Richard?

RICHARD: As you are one who is doing it – as in your ‘Richard’s attempts to control audience perception’ misconception – why ask me?

RESPONDENT: There’s nothing to shoot at, remember?

RICHARD: So why do it, then?

RESPONDENT: It’s all water off a ducks back, remember?

RICHARD: You are not the first person to take the absence of any feeling ‘being’ whatsoever to be licence ... and you will most probably not be the last.

*

RICHARD: And all because Richard has the audacity, the unmitigated intrepidity, to fly in the face of a popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure).

RESPONDENT: ‘Fly in the face of popular wisdom’?

RICHARD: No ... fly in the face of [quote] ‘a’ [endquote] popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure) as popularised by Mr. Karl Popper.

RESPONDENT: Not likely.

RICHARD: Ha ... you either have a short memory or that is just silliness masquerading as a meaningful comment. Vis.:

• [Respondent to Richard]: ‘... there may well be solid facts in reality but I don’t believe we can be completely certain we know the facts’. (Thursday, 12/01/2006 12:13 PM AEDST).

RESPONDENT: You’d like to be special ...

RICHARD: No, I *am* special.

RESPONDENT: ... but your particular brand of naive realism* is the most common wisdom of all. (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism).

RICHARD: All you are doing is displaying your ignorance in public for the sake of a cheap shot: actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, and not philosophical, and that unmediated perception of this actual world (the sensate world where flesh and blood bodies live) only occurs where identity in toto is either in abeyance (as during a PCE) or extinct (as upon an actual freedom from the human condition) ... naive realism (aka direct realism) is nothing of the sort. Vis.:

• [Wikipedia]: ‘Naïve Realism: In the philosophy of perception naïve realism is the belief that the world is exactly as it appears’. [endquote].

In short: any identity can be a naïve realist ... all they have to do is adopt that philosophy.

RESPONDENT: The words you choose (or do they choose themselves?) ...

RICHARD: I choose my words carefully and they are consciously designed for a specific effect.

RESPONDENT: ... to communicate with seem to exhibit a worldview that is beleaguered ...

RICHARD: I do not experience being beleaguered ... even though (except for a handful of people) virtually everyone tells me that I have got it all wrong.

RESPONDENT: ... spiteful ...

RICHARD: I never experience any form of malice ... as I am incapable of taking offence I am free from the horror of revenge.

RESPONDENT: ... presumptuous ...

RICHARD: I do not have to be presumptuous ... I see for myself the fact and it is the fact that dictates.

RESPONDENT: ... condescending ...

RICHARD: I cannot be condescending if I tried for I am in no elevated or otherwise ‘holy’ position. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... yet this way of living is so superior to any other way of being on this verdant planet that it beggars belief. Yet it is actual – as evidenced in a PCE – and is freely available for those who dare to care and care to dare.

RESPONDENT: ... reductive, etc (see posting from No. 40 for ample examples from your writings – Thanks No. 40!).

RICHARD: If you took the time to examine what I write instead of relying upon another’s selection you would find that I also say things like:

• [Richard]: ‘My writing is both heretical and iconoclastic ... a fact that I make no apology for. The wars and rapes and murders and tortures and corruptions and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that afflict this globe are far too serious a matter to deal with for me to spend time in mincing words. The Divine ‘Beings’ have been peddling their snake oil for centuries to no avail. Their time has come to either put up or shut up ... how much longer than these thousands of years do peoples need to further test the efficaciousness of their failed Divine Message?’
• [Richard]: ‘I have no problem about speaking frankly. 160,000,000 peoples have been killed by their fellow human beings this century in wars alone ... that is what ‘harmful’ looks like. I have never made a secret of what is involved in conducting an honest investigation into the human psyche ... it is a situation which calls for a rigorous and vigorous appraisal of the Human Condition. Only a robust discussion will winkle out that which is causing all the animosity and anguish that characterises the human species as being in a parlous state. The 160,000,000 deaths points to the fact that we cannot afford to pussy-foot around in our best parlour manner of polite interest in what motivates the other. Human beings are noted for the horrific suffering that they are capable of inflicting upon one another ... about every conceivable atrocity imaginable has been tried at some place in the world and at some time in history. And yet you see the above exchange as ‘harmful’? Are you vitally interested in eliminating malice and sorrow and, becoming thus happy and harmless, living in peace and harmony for the remainder of your life? If so, then we may have a genuine discussion’.
• [Richard]: ‘If you see that a ‘confronting manner can be harmful to another emotionally’ and is a factor to take into consideration in one’s dealings with others ... then why can you not see that feelings are the root cause of all the ills of humankind? Other people’s precious feelings do not rule me. Respect for another’s feelings ultimately means respect for physical force, for if one upsets another’s feelings sufficiently, they will become violent. Thus, through violence, people’s precious feelings rule the world ... and look at the mess it is in’.
• [Richard]: ‘What did you expect when you first wrote to me? Platitudes? That is ... re-hashes of the ‘Tried and True’?
• [Richard]: ‘I am not talking of having to suppress the intent to harm – being a pacifist practising non-violence – I am talking of not even having the intent at all ... ever. The reason why I am not harmful is that in an actual freedom I have no furious urges, no instinctive anger, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil disposition ... no malicious or sorrowful tendencies whatsoever. The blind animal instinctual passions, in what is popularly called the ‘reptilian brain’, have under-gone a radical mutation’.
• [Richard]: ‘You have to be grasping at straws if you can see acrimony in any of my words ... I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. I use an exclamation mark, for example, for what it is designed for: it is for surprise – or emphasis – and does not indicate a bitter, caustic, harsh, acidic, virulent, spiteful, vitriolic or venomous attitude at all. If you are referring to a phrase like ‘This is silly’ or ‘This is stupid’ and so on it is because what the other is writing is patently silly or stupid or whatever. This is called being honest ... up-front, frank, open and straight-forward, down-to-earth and matter-of-fact. I do not suffer fools gladly ... if someone is so foolish as to think that by entering into a discussion with me with an adversarial attitude – and thus turning it into a debate and then an argument – to defend the status-quo so that their ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can stay intact ... they will find themselves being progressively driven into a corner of their own making. I am relentless where it comes to dismantling the Human Condition. 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone. I write trenchantly, saliently ... this is me being authentic’.
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, as I have been writing on the Internet for over a year now, I have honed my talents as a wordsmith with particular verve and vivacity as virtually everyone who wrote objected to being happy and harmless. In my first week of having my Web-Page up and running someone wrote in ‘questioning’ what I had to say. The writer quickly turned it into a debate and ‘questioned’ me as to my statement ‘I have no desire to argue’. So I wrote back: ‘I said that I have no desire to argue ... and I still have no desire to do so. But you seem bent upon having an argument, so I am obliging you. We can stop it at any time you wish and have a meaningful and fruitful discussion ... if you want it. I have no desire to argue for my experience has shown me that argumentation and disputation lead nowhere constructive ... as this current spate of correspondence betwixt you and me is amply demonstrating. But ‘having no desire to do so’ does not mean that I will not. It just means that I would prefer not to. The English language is quite clear and specific, when one gets into the subtleties of it’.

RESPONDENT: These views seem contrary to the idea of freedom, actualised or otherwise.

RICHARD: Ahh ... therein lies the nub of the problem: ‘the idea of freedom’ is a far cry from the actuality of freedom. If you have an ‘idea of freedom’ – and set out to achieve that – then you will wind up being a self-righteous prude, for the ‘idea’ is not what the actual is. Whereas I know where I am at and where I came from and how I got here and I can write meaningfully, trenchantly, direct and to the point. As no one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas, has become actually free of the human condition, then there is no precedent or example that you can use to judge me by.

RESPONDENT: Is this indicative of the Actual Freedom that you write about?

RICHARD: No ... what you see being written here on this Mailing List is my response to dogma and doctrine. If each and every person were to be happy and harmless (free from the human condition) you would never see me write like I currently do.

RESPONDENT: As you are the spokesman for Actual Freedom, it would appear so.

RICHARD: In an ‘idea’ of freedom, people are into altering behavioural patterns (rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic) whereas what I speak of is the elimination of that which causes the aberrant behaviour in the first place. As pacifists and their ilk (those who live the doctrine of non-violence) do not eliminate the source of aberrant behaviour ... then they have to imitate the actual ease of an actual freedom from the human condition by making a big splash about their ‘goodie-goodie’ behaviour. To put it simply – and in a way that might just convey it to you – this what I speak of is somewhat indicated by what is possibly the only passage in the Christian’s Holy Scriptures worthy of note. Vis.:

• ‘He and/or she that looketh upon a woman and/or man with lust in their heart has already committed adultery’.

Which means: clean up your act on the ‘inside’ and the ‘outer’ actions are free to be appropriate to the circumstances. This applies to all anti-social behaviour ... not just a minor thing like sex outside of marriage. Things like all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, to give but a small yet very representative example.

If someone were to bop me on the nose I am free to bop them back.

RESPONDENT No. 74: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent), No 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc. He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression, it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer.

And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RESPONDENT No. 60: That’s it in a nutshell.

RESPONDENT No. 37: Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. If Richard’s ‘style’ seems aggressive to you, or you have a problem with it, then you have something to investigate. It had gradually dawned on me that Richard’s very relentlessness had something to do with the fact that he is currently the only human being on the planet that is actually free.

Is the ‘aggressiveness’ really coming from Richard or not? In every case I’ve looked into, Richard has simply not been the aggressor. It’s really quite simple – a normal human being ducks and shoves. When Richard refuses to let you of the hook, ‘you’ (those that interpret it as an aggressive style) duck the perceived dart and shove the blame on him for being ‘aggressive.’

Blaming others, trying to change or manipulate others, having a problem with someone’s ‘style,’ etc simply has no place in actualism – it really is all or nothing. Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. No 37 to No 60, 3.2.2006

RESPONDENT: I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc. Never have. I do think it would be possible to do all of that in a friendly and peaceful way though. I think the impression I have of him being a ‘prick’ in his interactions with his fellow humans is separate/different from all of that ...

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you think your impression of Richard being an unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating, ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean and/or an inadequate and/or a spiteful person, in his interactions with his fellow humans, is separate/different from him being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, and so on and so forth, in a non-friendly and non-peaceful way?

RESPONDENT: ... but will keep my eyes/ears open to see if I’m wrong.

RICHARD: Good ... because just how being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, and so on and so forth, in a non-friendly and non-peaceful way can be all that separate/ different from being an unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating, ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean and/or an inadequate and/or a spiteful person has got me beat.

RESPONDENT: Maybe it is, after all, the whole actualist paradigm that is wrong in my eyes, and Richard embodies it.

RICHARD: Have you ever heard the colloquialism ‘either poop or get off the pot’? And the reason I ask is because you get (metaphorically) all red in the face about a lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) experience you have had – as contrasted to me writing directly from my 13+ years of experiencing, night and day, of what a pure consciousness experience (PCE) evidences – and pooh-pooh what I have to report/ describe/ explain (as in your ‘the whole actualist paradigm is wrong in my eyes’ phrasing) as if a potential way of living, replete with [quote] ‘psychic adumbrations of a personal and transpersonal quality’ [endquote] as a matter of course, is in some way superior.

RESPONDENT: But the way it seems at the moment is that Richard does indeed act like a prick, whether his discovery is what it seems to be or not.

RICHARD: For what it is worth, my previous companion also went about bad-mouthing both me and actualism after she changed direction completely (so much so that I went to some considerable endeavour and expense to get at least some of that blackguarding into print both for the benefit of others and the sake of posterity) as if painting something black (the PCE) would somehow makes the substitute (the ASC) look white by comparison.

Is there any chance you will now be devoting an equal number, and length, of e-mails to painting your LSD experience black (they are your pictures you are busily painting, dot by dot/pixel by pixel and each complete with carrot/ donkey, when all is said and done)?

Just curious.

GARDOL: But let’s look at the next exchange:
[Respondent]: ‘Secondly, what difference does it make whether Richard is the first to find actual freedom ...’.
[Richard]: ‘It makes no difference whatsoever who was the first to find an actual freedom from the human condition as it is what is found that makes a difference ... as expressed thisaway (also only a few weeks ago): [Co-Respondent]: ‘Questioning your ‘priority’ of discovery is tantamount to rejecting ‘peace on earth’. [Richard]: ‘It matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct’. [endquote].
While he says ‘It matters not one jot ...’ if you read all of his arguments and attempts to prove this point ...

RICHARD: It is unmitigated dishonesty to categorically state that Richard [quote] ‘attempts to prove this point’ [endquote] as he makes it compellingly clear that he is not in the business of proving it to anyone. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have previously read the link supplied and the proof that you offer is not a proof for the uniqueness of your actual freedom (...) just because you say so does not make it so.
• [Richard]: ‘You do seem to be under some misapprehension: I am not in the business of proving to you (or anyone else for that matter) that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience ... I am simply providing a report of how I know it is’. Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 56, 20 Oct 03

Here is a useful word:

• ‘mendacity: the quality of being mendacious [lying; untruthful; false]; habitual lying or deceiving; an instance of this; a lie, a falsehood’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: ... while also denigrating his questioners ...

RICHARD: The particular instances Gardol refers to here, en passant, are specified by him as follows (from further below):

• [Gardol] ‘(...) he denigrates his questioners on this subject with words like ‘addled’, ‘straight-jacketed’, ‘invidia’, and ‘knee jerk reaction’. [endquote].

And here is the text in question (also from further below) so as to see those instances in their context:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) why do people spend so much time debating it?
• [Richard]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it an addled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’, a strait-jacketed fixation on logical impossibilities, an entrenched credulity that life is the pits and the universe sucks, which gives rise to this peculiar question or something else ... something else like, for instance, an ingrained dubiety (just-who-does-this-man-think-he-is-anyway), or even invidia, perchance? Or is it, and maybe even more likely, nothing other than a knee-jerk reaction to the price of admission? [endquote].

First, as the word addled refers to being unsound and/or muddled, when used figuratively, the first quizzical response looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it an unsound and/or muddled addiction to the snake-oil ‘cures’ which gives rise to this peculiar question ... ?’ [end example].

Second, as the term straight-jacketed means severely restricted, when used figuratively, the second quizzical response looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it ... a severely restricted fixation on logical impossibilities which gives rise to this peculiar question ...?’ [end example].

Third, as the word invidia is a catch-all word for envy and/or jealousy of, and spite and/or resentment at, another’s success the fifth quizzical response looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Is it ... something else like, for instance, envy and/or jealousy of, and spite and/or resentment at, another’s success, perchance?’ [end example].

Fourth, as the term knee-jerk can mean either automatic/instinctive or stereotypical/predictable, when used figuratively, the last quizzical response looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘It has got me beat (...). Or is it, and maybe even more likely, nothing other than an automatic/instinctive or stereotypical/ predictable reaction to the price of admission?’ [end example].

Thus, as is plain to see, Gardol’s condemnatory judgement of [quote] ‘denigrating’ [endquote] for those four instances is not really warranted ... apart from which, they are only quizzical generalisations, anyway (coming as they do immediately after a clear expression of not actually knowing), and are not directed at any particular person or persons.

Here is a useful phrase:

• ‘make a mountain of a molehill: attribute great importance to something, esp. a difficulty or grievance, which is really insignificant’. (Oxford Dictionary).

GARDOL: ... and attempting to disprove their points ...

RICHARD: Ha ... there is no mere [quote] ‘attempting’ [endquote] going on as he does indeed disprove – ‘show the fallacy or non-validity of’ (Oxford Dictionary) – each and every one of their points.

GARDOL: ... you might conclude that it matters to him much more than one jot.

RICHARD: No ... not if Gardol were to have been honest, that is, and included the Q&A which follows the very next exchange in that email. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why make the statement about the pristine newness in the first place?
• [Richard]: ‘The following perspicacious observation from an earlier co-respondent brought forth as good an answer as any: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that your being unique in this is not what is important: that you merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new? [Richard]: ‘Yes. The on-going experiencing of the already always existing peace-on-earth is entirely new to human experience ... everybody I have spoken to at length has temporarily experienced such perfection, in what is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE), but nobody has been able to provide a clear, clean and pure report as an on-going actuality. Usually the PCE is interpreted and/or translated according to selfish personal desires, and by corresponding cultural conditioning, as a variation of the many types of an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which perpetuates the ‘self’ as the ‘Self’ (by whatever name) in some spurious after-life ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides have gone on forever and a day ...’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No. 101, 02 Sep 05

Besides which, just because Gardol [quote] ‘might conclude’ [endquote] that it matters much more than one jot it does not miraculously turn it into a fact that it does ... let alone provide an even remotely valid basis for the further conclusion of the ‘inconsistent’ condemnation (below).

GARDOL: Did I say contradictory?

RICHARD: Gardol was, of course, more sensationalistic than just that ... he said ‘very contradictory’. Vis.:

• [Gardol]: ‘What makes the psychic eye of his parasitic entity so special that it could establish this fact? I did not understand, and it struck me as very contradictory ...’. [endquote].

How someone can admit to non-understanding yet, in the next breath, be so condemnatory out of that very ignorance is simply risible.

GARDOL: Also inconsistent.

RICHARD: Hmm ... Richard cares enough about his fellow human beings’ welfare to thoroughly attend, in some considerable detail, to the concerns of those to whom that topic was important and yet Gardol adjudges him to be inconsistent solely on the basis that he [quote] ‘might conclude’ [endquote] that it matters to Richard much more than one jot.

Just so there is no misunderstanding here is another version of that perspicacious observation (as in that Q&A above Gardol was not honest enough to include) with the relevant text highlighted:

• [Respondent]: ‘... and you just get cut when your status as the one and only is questioned.
• [Richard]: ‘And here you are again coming out with the same egocentric charges ... even though I re-posted the following perspicacious observation to you on October 31 2003 (I will highlight the relevant text this time around): [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that *your being unique in this is not what is important*: that you merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new? [Richard]: ‘*Yes*. ...’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No. 56, 31 Jan 05

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless