|
(List D refers to Richard’s List D
Vineeto’s Correspondence with Claudiu on List D and DA Forum
CLAUDIU: Hope all is well! I’d like to ask you and Richard a last question which I only posted after Dona and Alan had left. And also to give a great thanks for participating and answering all our questions on slack. The chat transformed for the better once it started happening. Just another reason for me to “do it” as well – so I can be an actually free person contributing directly on the chat. VINEETO: Hi Claudiu, That is very good to hear and great that it inspired you to become actually free sooner rather than later. CLAUDIU: So the question is: I’ve been looking at ‘how’ to self immolate, in terms of ‘how’ to give permission to have the controls be let go of. I discovered a reluctance to allow the controls to be let go of. I saw the reluctance as a wanting others to approve of what I was doing! A need for permission from the others. I am not giving permission to have the controls be let go of because I’m putting my freedom in others’ hands. I haven’t gotten past this yet. But my question is am I right in getting that the only thing that is needed is for me to give permission to let the controls be let go of to pure intent? That is having the golden clew in place and then giving permission to allow that. Then literally all ‘i’ do is enjoy as it all unfolds (which unfolding ‘i’ have no control over). VINEETO: The “I” who would be doing the letting go *is* the controller (Remember the simile of ‘you’ and a pizza? You can slice the pizza into pieces but ‘you’ can never remove the last piece because that is still ‘you’.) “I”, the controller, can give ‘my’self (the controller) permission to have it happen – the “it” refers to being out from under control to have one’s life live itself similar to Richard’s experience to have the painting paint itself. What that means is that the controller goes in abeyance. CLAUDIU: Also is it correct that it is ‘me’ I give permission to? As in it’s an allowing myself to have the controls be let go of ... since ‘i’ am the only thing standing in the way anyway? VINEETO: Yes, that is well said – “allowing myself to have the controls be let go of”. CLAUDIU: Finally I’m curious, the feeling of requiring permission from others... considering that ‘i’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’ does that feeling also mean that ultimately ‘i’ only need permission from ‘myself’ – since the “others” that ‘i’ feel ‘i’ need permission from are ‘me’ also? I find this strange to say though because they are factually speaking flesh and blood bodies separate from this one... they are not ‘me’ in actuality. VINEETO: A clarification to your reasoning – they are not factually speaking flesh and blood bodies, they are identities using their flesh and blood tongues and vocal cords to say what the identities instruct them to say. Those other identities will never give you permission to leave the fold, and deep down you know that. The feeling of requiring permission from others for your actions is backed up by strong atavistic feelings that leaving the fold is deadly dangerous and this feeling is reinforced by the fact that in the past being an outcast has meant that the person couldn’t survive on their own. Even so this is no longer the case the feeling is still based on ancient human history. So, whilst your reasoning might help you to understand it in theory that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’ in the psychic/affective sense, it is important to understand this experientially and eventually come to the conclusion, with supreme confidence, that it is utterly safe to abandon humanity, defying all of humanity’s wisdom, even if not a single person gives you permission to do so or agrees with you. Your PCEs and the golden clew inform you of the utter safety of living here in the actual world. CLAUDIU: Also a note of interest, lately I’ve been experiencing the golden clew as an experience that the world actually is indeed a magical fairy-tale like playground, where all everyone is doing is basically moving through the world and having fun. I much prefer that over the real world! VINEETO: And this is truly wonderful. Cheers Vineeto
Claudiu: As what started as a quick follow-up but led to some questions, can I share pieces
of or all of the following on the forum? I think it’s relevant to his queries about what Richard was sensing before you abdicated the guardian. Milito’s question: I agree with you about pure intent being actually existing and forgive me if I’m not following you but this started with my curiousity surrounding the event where one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially then the next he couldn’t. That is why the question was posed, what is it he was sensing one instant, then no longer able to sense the next? Could it be that the abdication of the guardian was the elimination of the last vestiges of any perceivable ‘presence’ in Vineeto? If so, then the question arises: Richard cannot feel vibes. So what is the non-affective content of presence? I dunno I thought it might be the sum total of all the social mores and psittacisms VINEETO: Here is the text of mine Milito is referring to – Private Correspondence, November 29, 2010 I remember a similar profound disorientation (for a short period of time) after allowing to fully understand and experience
the temporal infinitude of the universe. Two corrections to Milito’s perception - It was not that “one second Richard could sense Vineeto existentially then the next he couldn’t”. It was that “Richard reported that in the days before ["I had lost my centre of (spacial) reference”] he was able to existentially sense me as being close, very close, right in front of his eyes, so to speak, but that after this event he has been no longer able to sense me existentially”. So the ceasing of Richard’s existential sensing of me is directly related to me having “lost my centre of (spacial) reference”, i.e. I was no longer a boundary-creating centre of consciousness who could be sensed existentially. The second correction to Milito’s question is that this ceasing of existential sensing is *not* related to me having abdicated the guardian as I clearly stated in that email what it related to. “The abdication of the guardian” was *not* “the elimination of the last vestiges of any perceivable ‘presence’ in Vineeto”. In fact, after that event of the guardian abdicating I existentially looked around, so to speak, expecting Richard to be where I was (existentially) but he was nowhere to be found. I was on my own. Hence it was clear that I had further to go to reach a full actual freedom. I am pleased Milito’s question has crystallized this aspect of existential sensing because it has become clear that, when on certain occasions a fully free person is sensing another existentially – be they feeling beings approaching the actual world or newly free persons with a social identity, or even without a social identity as I had been in the few days after the abdication of my guardian – this sensing is always related to the *boundary-creating centre of consciousness* which that person still maintains. Once I had lost this there was nothing available for Richard to existentially sense. I read through the exchanges you quoted and find that they don’t directly relate to Milito’s question. It would only confuse the issue. Cheers Vineeto
VINEETO: Hi Claudiu, PS: For clarification purposes I would like to address the rumour Milito apparently started from a verbal report (I never wrote about this on the website) which either the reporting person or Milito himself misconstrued and now has been further developed by Kuba – Milito, 1 April 2024: Jeez, Vineeto can cry when a cop writes her a ticket … And Kuba, misinterpreting the event even further adds ‘Vineeto cries to get out of trouble with police’ – Kuba, 2 April 2024: I have read Actually free people write all sorts of stuff that is weird to me : […] As
Milito mentioned there is the situation where Vineeto cries to get out of trouble with police. Before this rumour gets even more legs and spreads any further like ‘Chinese Whispers’, here is what actually happened – and I remember recounting the event on the meeting with Claudiu, Henry, Alan, Jon and Srinath in Café 29 – One day whilst driving to a work appointment in Byron Bay on the main 2-lane highway I noticed I was followed by a blinking police car. Because I considered the space at the side of the road too narrow for such a busy road as it was I slowed down to perhaps 30 km/h and drove on to a nearby public car park and stopped there. The police officer commanded me to stay in the car, reached through the open window and took my car keys (as if I was going to escape!). He then proceeded to scold and berate me with great passion because I had not stopped immediately along the busy road. I explained that I had found it unsafe to stop there and then, but he was not satisfied with my explanation and started again with the same berating. When he arrived at the third repeat of his monologue with no sign of abating passion I realized I had to do something if I ever wanted to get to my work appointment. There was no thought of what to do next when suddenly I felt an uprising of a sob from the gut area and so I allowed it to continue, resulting in the eventual calming down of the police officer's mood as I had obviously demonstrated the remorse he was looking for. He then proceeded more calmly to write me a ticket and I could finally go on my way. In hindsight I was amazed and pleased about this event as it was a practical demonstration that despite being devoid of feelings and thus possibly handicapped when dealing with feeling beings, I still have the wherewithal and the options available, if the situation requires it, to communicate a true facsimile of a feeling should it be necessary. * The other point I want to address is this comment – Kuba, 2 April 2024: I have read Actually free people write all sorts of stuff that is weird to me :
There is a bit
on the AFT where Richard responds to someone by suggesting that what he is doing, in Australia is called ‘being a bit of a wanker’. Now, Kuba could have easily looked up the correct wording and the context for himself on the website to see if it indeed still was ‘weird’ to him and to verify for himself if that quote justifies not paying due diligence in regards to the claims of anyone declaring themselves to be actually free. Here is the sequence which shows that nowhere Richard is ‘suggesting that what he [the respondent] is doing, in Australia is called ‘being a bit of a wanker’’. .  (Richard, List B, No. 14b, 09 November 1998)
VINEETO: Hi Claudiu, [...] The link for the postscript of my last email can be found on the website here CLAUDIU: To make the post-script even better – I looked it up at the time and I thought he was referring to this exchange rather than the one you referred to in your postscript:
VINEETO: It could be either this or the one I presented or a different one altogether which Kuba was referring to but Richard prefers the one I presented in the previous email because in this correspondence he explained that ‘I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label’, which is less explicit in the excerpt of his correspondence with Konrad. Kuba can always present the quote which he is referring to and in the context it was written, so it can be discussed rationally and intelligently. But presenting a sentence out of context and make it fit his list of 'weird' utterances in order to bring into question the purity of a full actual freedom so that he can justify his faith in a very questionable claim is rather counterproductive to himself and others.
Hi Claudiu, Richard has asked me to draw your attention to the following text (from the Facts vis-à-vis Groupthink index). Viz.: What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention ... so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down. It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for—the factual basis of the
hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite
often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. Richard wrote all what follows (below) and handed it over on a memory-stick for me to include in this response of mine. * Richard: The reason for drawing your attention
to the above text is because the recent “Burnt Toast” thread, on the Discuss Actualism Online forum, is
where Rick has painstakingly constructed a teetering edifice of such a flashy magnitude—an inverted pyramid
teetering so gaudily on its illegitimate It is well worth copy-pasting it here (immediately below), in full, so as to more easily refer to its fatal flaw. Viz.:
[https://discuss.actualism.online/t/burnt-toast-thats-that-sh-i-dont-like/965]. In 1959, Broadway writers Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein composed “My Favourite Things” for their hit musical The Sound of Music, whose film adaptation starring Julie Andrews went on to win five Oscars, including Best Picture. “My Favourite Things” was Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s ode to those things for which they heartily approved, namely: || Raindrops on roses | whiskers on kittens | Bright copper kettles | warm woollen mittens | Brown paper packages tied up with strings | Cream coloured ponies | crisp apple strudels | Doorbells | sleigh bells | schnitzel with noodles | Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings | Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes | Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eye lashes | Silver white winters that melt into springs || {Video Caption: The Sound of Music; My Favourite Thing; 1965}. 53 years later, in what was plainly a furtive nod to the Broadway composers, Chicago debutants Messrs. Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, self-styled “musicians,” pillars of their community, and “good boys” according to their mommas, penned their chart-topping “[Things] I Don’t Like”, a definitive, antipodal version of the 1959 classic. “[Things] I Don’t Like” was Chief Keef’s and Lil’ Reese’s sonnet dedicated to those things for which they fervently disapproved, namely: || fuck niggas | snitch niggas | bitch niggas | sneak dissers | popped bitches | smoking Reggie | fake trues | fake shoes | flake niggas | stalking-ass bitches | playing both sides | thirsty-ass bitches || {Video Caption: Chief Keef: I Don’t Like f/ Lil Reese}. Enter Richard, a Perth native {!sic!; a Harewood native, actually • “hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip”. Then, in style characteristic of Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, he submitted a thing he did not like, namely: • “cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed”. How is one to feel about this? The audience has been straightaway driven from one extreme of the like/ dislike spectrum to the other. They are confused, dizzy, and, what’s worse, feeling rather neutral about it all. “Meh”, they seem to say, for that is how it feels when subjected to an equal share of repulsive “ones” and pleasing “tens”. But not to worry, for that was just the intro, a mere illustration of the essential defect in the jumbled, chaotic outlooks of those who’d gone before. Then, defying all convention, he rectifies the defective dichotomy by decimating the scales, hierarchies, and gradations altogether, to reveal a pre-existent, underlying, and “ultimate” aspect to everything—golden-brown and charred-black toast alike—that is nothing short of perfect and peerless. Here, and only here, is where all without exception is faultless and flawless. Here is where ♫ crisp apple strudels and thirsty-ass bitches, raindrops on roses and the raping of villages ♫ can be liked, enjoyed, and appreciated, for how else would one experience a thing that was, in the final analysis, perfect? RICHARD: “[i]f, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot,
golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black
toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10
and the latter as being 1 on the same scale ... howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff of both the
former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate
sense, *everything* is perfect here in this actual world”. [emphasis added by Rick].
To explain: by hyperopically  (wherein an argufier invents something their interlocutor did not say then criticises their own invention as if they are having a
meaningful conversation about what the other had actually said).
What follows are some clearly spelled-out examples, from The Actual Freedom Trust website, which unambiguously detail just what Richard is referring to when he writes and/or says “the very stuff” and “the very stuff of infinitude itself” (as in the further above “Burnt Toast” instance). Viz.:
RICHARD: “No, not only as living
organisms—as in, flora and fauna, that is—but as matter as well (which is what the constituent elements
__________ • June 17 2000 RICHARD: “What I am is the air breathed, the water drunk, the food eaten and the sunlight
absorbed—thus I am nothing but ‘the stuff of which the universe is made’ (matter). The matter of the universe
is both actual things (solid stuff) and active force (energetic stuff). The immeasurable amount of ‘stuff of the
universe’ (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in
endless varieties of myriad form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of
eternal time. This universe, being boundless and limitless (never beginning and never ending) is unborn and undying—as
I remarked (further above): it is this universe which is immortal”. __________ • March 16 2000 RICHARD: “Yet a fact never changes (otherwise it is not a fact). It is a fact that there is only heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on ‘within’ this flesh and blood body”. RESPONDENT: “Yes that qualify as material plane stuff. Why couldn’t there be non-material plane stuff? Why limit stuff? Isn’t that being a bit stuffy?” RICHARD: “Yet ‘material stuff’ is not limited: this physical universe, being infinite and eternal, is boundless and limitless. The physical infinitude that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of ‘material stuff’ perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. Thus the ‘material stuff’ that is this flesh and blood body is the very same-same ‘material stuff’ as the ‘material stuff’ of this infinite and eternal physical universe, in that I come out of the ground (‘material stuff’) as a variety of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever (‘material stuff’), combined with the air (‘material stuff’) that I breath and the water (‘material stuff’) that I drink and the sunlight (‘material stuff’) that I absorb. As such there is no ‘limit’ whatsoever, and, as this flesh and blood body (‘material stuff’), I am this very ‘material stuff’ universe experiencing its own infinitude (‘material stuff’) as a sensate and reflective human being (‘material stuff’). This very physical universe (‘material stuff’) is also experiencing itself as cats and dogs (‘material stuff’) and all other sentient beings (‘material stuff’). How on earth can all this magnificence be ‘a bit stuffy’ (i.e., ‘dull; lacking in freshness or
interest’; Oxford English Dictionary)? Everything is in a constant state of flux: nothing stays the same, each
moment again everything is novel, fresh, vital, dynamic. One can never, ever be bored”. __________ • October 20 2001 RICHARD: “Whereas, as I said further above, I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the
stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood
body only, I was born, live for x-number of years, and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a
multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). In short: I am
mortal”. __________ • October 21 2001: RICHARD: “In short: I am mortal”. RESPONDENT: “In long: this mortal is also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc”. RICHARD: “No ... ‘in long’ it reads as above: I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood body only, I was born, live for x-number of years, and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). I am not ‘timeless, etc.’”. RESPONDENT: “I thought we agreed upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we?” RICHARD: “No, I have been most specific that the physical universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal and materially perpetual—in direct contrast to the non-physical Brahman being spaceless, timeless and formless. ’Tis the universe which is immortal—not some god (or ground of being by whatever name)”. RESPONDENT: “[Richard]: ’Tis the universe which is immortal, not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes]. Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So, which one is it, [A] or [B]?” RICHARD: “It is quite simple: the very stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows, ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory)—be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Viz.:
Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’, or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example”. __________ • June 21 2000 RESPONDENT: “(...). Now my question is which entity ‘I’ or ‘me’ is perceiving this state which you are describing...”. RICHARD: “The brain is entirely capable of perception without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ whatsoever—it does it a whole lot better, in fact. I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me—and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’/‘me’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose ... and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world—the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: “...the state that I name ‘stasis’ if you allow me, as ‘perfect’? RICHARD: “Sure ... although most people I have used the word ‘stasis’ with, as being a word describing the motile equanimity which ensues in arriving at perfection, initially comprehend ‘stasis’ as being either a static equipollence or a stagnant immobility—rather the dynamic, scintillating vitality of the peerless perfection of infinitude wherein everything is the vivid, sparkling and lustrous purity that is coming from nowhere nor going anywhere. Consequently I rarely, if ever, use the word—too much explaining involved”. RESPONDENT: “If I am not wrong due to physics the world is going toward an atrophy [an entropy]. Disorder. You perceive what is and call it perfect”. RICHARD: “In physics, entropy applies
only in a closed system, whereas this universe is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in myriads of
countless form (nebulae, stars, planets and so on) all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the
limitless extent of eternal time. This infinitude is perfection (infinitude has no opposite) and as infinitude cannot
be entropic (infinitude is perpetuus mobilis) there is no disorder whatsoever”. __________ • February 13 2002 RESPONDENT: “Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact?” RICHARD: “First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter—one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe? Similarly, if (note ‘if’) one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time—one would never ‘prove’ anything. Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that is 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory ... which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe—12 to 14 billion years—simply look sillier than it already did. Obviously then, the entire question revolves around being sensible, and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable approach—the judicious approach—from the word go. It is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their claim. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude. Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space—and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time—and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable matter—and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain just what constitutes their timeless and spaceless nothingness which this immense universe (supposedly) arose out of. Apperception reveals that identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) creates a centre to consciousness—and thus a boundary (or circumference)—which is then projected onto this universe’s properties; the ending of identity is the ending of such boundaries. In an apperceptive awareness it is patently obvious that one is the universe experiencing itself as a
sensate and reflective human being—as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude”. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ The following is the much further above “Burnt Toast” text in full (and thus in context) with explanatory curly bracketed inserts added. Viz.:
As detailed in the “inverted pyramid” explanation (where a judicious pulling-out of an intuited/ imagined capstone-like basis of many an otherwise scholarly thesis results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down) it is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for—the basic premiss of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense. Nonetheless, buoyed by the apparent success of his hyperopic strawman argument, a certain hubristic tone soon ensued in Rick’s follow-up messages in the ‘Burnt Toast Part Two’ thread. Viz.:
That certain hubristic tone subtlely became a rather self-satisfied hubristic tone shortly thereafter. Viz.:
By the eleventh message that rather self-satisfied hubristic tone had segued into a blatantly self-satisfied hubristic tone. Viz.: • Post № 11; Rick; 18 Apr 2024. [Claudiu]: (...). [Rick]: (...).
You sidestepped the question. Which is fine, you’re free to do as you wish. As I already know the answer, it was more for your edification than anything else. I’m losing the inclination to continue pointing out the obvious. Have a good day. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ All of which self-satisfied hubris (despite being based upon a strawman argument, remember) reached its high-and-mighty zenith by the fourteenth message. Viz.:
’Tis all openly evident, as the above message expressly conveys how Miguel—unlike Claudiu and Nick and Paul (the other three responders thus far), along with their “further misunderstanding”, their “equivocations”, and their dialogue-shattering “fractal of non sequiturs” no less—is a specially-honoured responder to be “amusingly” trusted (and with a ‘blank-cheque’ type of trust, to boot, as Rick does not guess as to what “unspoken motivation or purpose” lies behind his “petition”) to having been neither “illegitimate nor frivolous” with his request for Rick to not yet be “done with pointing out the obvious”. Meanwhile, over on the Zulip forum, Rick had been engaged in pulling a similar stunt on Srid—trying repeatedly to browbeat him into answering a certain question in a certain way—via the strawman tactic of first articulating something Srid never said (as in “to genuinely like absolutely everything” immediately below in the first copy-pasted message) and thusly drawing a red-herring conclusion regarding what Richard finds likeable (as in “he finds all them—a whole slew of people, such as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves—likeable somehow” much further below), which is *not*, of course, in any way, shape, or form even remotely what Rick’s “to genuinely like absolutely everything” words signify. Viz.:
As Rick has quoted five times from The Actual Freedom Trust website without indicating where he has elided some text and/or without any identification detail let alone any attributive references (i.e., URLs) the following is the full context for his first edited-without-indication quotation). Viz.:
The elided “Which is why...” preface to Rick’s further above [quote] “[Richard]: I say to people to ‘embrace death’...” [unquote] truncated sentence—in conjunction with overlooking the preceeding “I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and then” proviso, and ignoring the “I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’” qualifying context at the very beginning—is the means by which Rick convinces himself, mentally, and is thereby able to baldly proclaim, regarding feeling-being ‘Richard’ and ‘his’ modus vivendi, immediately after his snippet version [quote], “Of course, if you like everything, then it’s only natural to embrace, welcome, approve, and endorse it all”. [unquote]. Almost needless is it to add how nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust website are the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] to be found. The full context for Rick’s second unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
Unsurprisingly, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen. The full context for Rick’s third unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
Again, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen. The full context for Rick’s fourth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
Once more, the words [quote] ”like everything“ [unquote] are nowhere to be seen. The full context for Rick’s fifth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:
As the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen in the above exchange, either, then the only reason for posting the four follow-up quotes to the initial truncated version is to convey an impression of feeling-being ‘Richard’ being able to [quote] “fundamentally like absolutely everything” [unquote] as ‘his’ modus vivendi. Which, of course, is simply not true. To continue: the fourth and fifth copy-pasted messages at the Zulip forum read as follows. Viz.:
And on and on Rick went, message after message after message (all twenty-five of them appended further below) despite Srid not buying into his “like everything” strawman-derived red-herring question from the get-go. For example:
So as to add some clarity to this “likeable/ liking” subject I have written the following brief description. Viz.:
* Well now, that should put the whole burnt toast strawman-diversion to rest. As it is now the second time that Rick has been misusing (and altering without reference) Richard’s
quotes to bolster his paraphrastic Below the dotted line are the 30 messages (painstakingly copied by Richard for reference) from Rick demonstrating how he developed and cemented his theme of “liking everything” before he posted his embellished narrative on the Discuss Actualism forum. Cheers Vineeto •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
__________
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual
Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
