Actual Freedom – A Request from Jayahn Saward

June 18 2001

JAYAHN to Peter: My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me. You generalise from very little information. And then when I reply to you I have to put a lot of effort into clarifying that ‘I did not say that; you did’ it is tiresome. Can you understand that. I am convinced you do not see the extent to which you misinterpret and classify and generalise. Not only me; many others ... basically anybody who does not write that they are doing it our way ... you classify and misinterpret and demean. And then when some of us are relentless and still are here you finally decide that the conversation has no point – you did it with No. 19 recently; Richard did it also with No. 20 – and you pretend and put out that that is because these people are not interested in peace on earth.

RICHARD: As Peter has made it clear that he will not be responding – and because you have chosen to use my correspondence as an example to demonstrate your point – I am writing a brief note (I have no intention in becoming embroiled in a long and drawn out exchange over the issue) with the aim of clarifying this one point, and this one point only.

You mention ‘trigger words’ (such as ‘tantra’ and ‘Humaniversity’) bringing forth ‘a whole bag of concepts’ as being the nub of your critique of certain peoples on this Mailing List. So as not to pointlessly revisit the discussions regarding the verbatim (copy-pasted) quotes I provided for you (what you are now calling ‘a whole bag of concepts’) regarding what you had written to this Mailing List previously on the ‘tantra’ and ‘Humaniversity’ issues, I will provide a fresh example for you that may throw some light onto what is going on. Viz.:

• [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘I want to just thank you for expressing your point of view and I am grateful that lists such as this exist so that I also can express my point of view – which could in places be ‘wrong’, of course. I thought that was obvious. I call all that I write a point of view; I thought you would take my words at face value. I express my point of view; which is autonomous from yours; (...) Each of us has a point of view; each of us is UNIQUELY located in regard to time and space, position and history; so each of us is a unique point of view. I am now drawing on the work of the founder of the Avatar trainings, whose name I currently forget ... Palmer ... we each have a point of view, Richard. That is what it means to be human. No more; no less’. (November 26 2000; The Actual Freedom Mailing List).

As this ‘point of view/ viewpoint’ issue had cropped up again and again in our (then on-going) discussions I was pleased that you had finally provided a reference that made it unambiguously clear why you wanted your ‘the viewpoint that is ours, that is correct and true, may not be the only correct and true viewpoint’ radio link (and text) on The Actual Freedom Trust Home Page and nowhere else. As you had clearly and distinctly stated that you were ‘drawing on the work of the founder of the Avatar trainings, whose name I currently forget ... Palmer ... we each have a point of view, Richard’ I was able to appreciate your concern that this was the proper place for the radio link (and text) as I had some considerable experience in the past with peoples involved in the ‘Avatar’ course. I already knew, from my numerous conversations and subsequent readings, what Mr. Harry Palmer was on about and provided you with some copy-paste quotes and an explanation/commentary as to what it all entailed.

Mr. Harry Palmer is clearly referring to what may be called God/Goddess, Truth, Ground Of Being, Source and so on when he refers to ‘the timeless, spaceless, massless, energyless awareness that underlies all creation’ in the following quote of his own words:

• [quote]: ‘A habitual viewpoint is called a self. (...) Behind viewpoint is the timeless, spaceless, massless, energyless awareness that underlies all creation. It perceives by becoming the thing perceived. (...) Perception is the same as being. And awareness can be anything. Realities are projected from viewpoints. Viewpoints react and interact with their own projected realities to produce the phenomena of energy, space and time. (...) Many viewpoints may exist simultaneously within a single reality. The viewpoints may or may not agree upon their interpretation of the reality; thus many interpreted realities (beliefs) may exist within the shared reality. (...) The quintessential viewpoint, which you have forgotten, is that of the primal universal creator’. (‘Living Deliberately – The Discovery and Development of Avatar’; © 1994, 2000 Harry Palmer; Chapter Twelve’; ‘Creativism and Reality’, page 32 and Chapter Fourteen; ‘Viewpoint and The Nature of Being’, page 34).

Therefore, the ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/regurgitated/restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... and needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ (as detailed above) or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose and never will be despite your insistence that I am?

I cannot put it any more plainly than this.

RICHARD: The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/ regurgitated/ restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this.
JAYAHN: You have missed the point entirely.
RICHARD: Only if your point is fugacious.

RICHARD: The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/ regurgitated/ restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this.

JAYAHN: You have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Only if your point is fugacious.

JAYAHN: Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.

RICHARD: The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/ regurgitated/ restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this.

JAYAHN: You have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Only if your point is fugacious.

JAYAHN: Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.

JAYAHN: I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have.

RICHARD: Then I have not missed the point at all.

RICHARD: The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/ regurgitated/ restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this.

JAYAHN: You have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Only if your point is fugacious.

JAYAHN: Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.

JAYAHN: I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have.

RICHARD: Then I have not missed the point at all.

JAYAHN: I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing.

RICHARD: This is the point under discussion:

• [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me.

This is but one example of the ‘dozens of other trigger words’ you use:

• [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘Each of us has a point of view; each of us is UNIQUELY located in regard to time and space, position and history; so each of us is a unique point of view. I am now drawing on the work of the founder of the Avatar trainings, whose name I currently forget ... Palmer ... we each have a point of view, Richard. That is what it means to be human. No more; no less’.

These are Mr. Harry Palmer’s own words:

• [quote]: ‘A habitual viewpoint is called a self. (...) Behind viewpoint is the timeless, spaceless, massless, energyless awareness that underlies all creation. (...) The quintessential viewpoint, which you have forgotten, is that of the primal universal creator’.

Therefore, the ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised and/or restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom.

Yet this is what you had to say only two days ago:

• [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘... the first time I referred to ‘viewpoint’ you came back – as if fact – that I was talking about concepts. I was not.

And last: because Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ are of the spiritual variety, it is patently obvious that I am not a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your continued insistence that I am. Viz.:

• [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have.

Acta est fabula.

RICHARD: The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/regurgitated/restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this.

JAYAHN: You have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Only if your point is fugacious.

JAYAHN: Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely.

RICHARD: Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.

JAYAHN: I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have.

RICHARD: Then I have not missed the point at all.

JAYAHN: I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing.

RICHARD: This is the point under discussion: [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me’ [endquote]. This is but one example of the ‘dozens of other trigger words’ you use: [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘Each of us has a point of view; each of us is UNIQUELY located in regard to time and space, position and history; so each of us is a unique point of view. I am now drawing on the work of the founder of the Avatar trainings, whose name I currently forget ... Palmer ... we each have a point of view, Richard. That is what it means to be human. No more; no less’ [endquote]. These are Mr. Harry Palmer’s own words: [quote]: ‘A habitual viewpoint is called a self. (...) Behind viewpoint is the timeless, spaceless, massless, energyless awareness that underlies all creation. (...) The quintessential viewpoint, which you have forgotten, is that of the primal universal creator’ [endquote]. Therefore, the ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised and/or restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom. Yet this is what you had to say only two days ago: [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘... the first time I referred to ‘viewpoint’ you came back – as if fact – that I was talking about concepts. I was not’ [endquote]. And last: because Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ are of the spiritual variety, it is patently obvious that I am not a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your continued insistence that I am. Viz.: [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have’ [endquote]. Acta est fabula.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: You are saying that if I have a point, as well as you having a point, then the discussion is ended? The discussion will only proceed if you are the one who is in charge of making the points?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I was simply acknowledging that you had ended the discussion as it is simply not possible to discuss (negotiate) a non-discussable (a non-negotiable) issue.

As it is your issue it is your call.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: You are saying that if I have a point, as well as you having a point, then the discussion is ended? The discussion will only proceed if you are the one who is in charge of making the points?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I was simply acknowledging that you had ended the discussion as it is not possible to discuss (negotiate) a non-discussable (a non-negotiable) issue.

JAYAHN: Not only do you terminate the conversation; but you state that I terminate it. Now Richard ... behave yourself! I at this moment am keeping the conversation open. Do you wish to terminate it? That is possible. Please state such; and I will read your statement at face value, and respond or not, accordingly. The call is – the conversation has just begun; we are in the early stages of the prelude; right now.

RICHARD: Not so ... because for as long as you keep on insisting that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are – and for as long as you keep on insisting that this ‘viewpoint’ (which tells you that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are) is a ‘non-negotiable’ fact – is precisely how long you keep a discussion about your issue closed. In case you have forgotten ... this is your issue:

• [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me’.

Through what I can only describe as word-magic your ‘issue’ became your ‘point’ and your ‘point’ became your ‘point of view’ and your ‘point of view’ become your ‘viewpoint’ and your ‘viewpoint’ became ‘non-negotiable’ because you claim that it is a fact that your viewpoint is ‘Actual’ (capitalised).

‘Tis either a circular argument or you are implying omniscience.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: You are saying that if I have a point, as well as you having a point, then the discussion is ended? The discussion will only proceed if you are the one who is in charge of making the points?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I was simply acknowledging that you had ended the discussion as it is not possible to discuss (negotiate) a non-discussable (a non-negotiable) issue.

JAYAHN: Not only do you terminate the conversation; but you state that I terminate it. Now Richard ... behave yourself! I at this moment am keeping the conversation open. Do you wish to terminate it? That is possible. Please state such; and I will read your statement at face value, and respond or not, accordingly. The call is – the conversation has just begun; we are in the early stages of the prelude; right now.

RICHARD: Not so ... because for as long as you keep on insisting that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are – and for as long as you keep on insisting that this ‘viewpoint’ (which tells you that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are) is a ‘non-negotiable’ fact – is precisely how long you keep a discussion about your issue closed.

JAYAHN: As I previously indicated should you wish to have a tantrum and throw the table in the air again please instead just request that you wish the conversation to be terminated because the point of view being presented does not agree with your own.

RICHARD: As I never received any e-mail from you saying that I threw a table in the air in a tantrum – nor can I locate such an e-mail in the ListBot Archives – could you re-send it so as I can become cognisant of what it is that you are wanting to convey and why you are wanting to convey whatever it is that you are wanting to convey by your use of the word ‘again’?

It would be all-to-easy to misunderstand you – going only on the (above) brief reference – and you say it is tiresome to have to re-explain yourself. Plus if you could also include how you came to the conclusion that:

(a) I threw a table into the air.
(b) I had a tantrum.
(c) I am capable of having a tantrum.

... it would facilitate my comprehension as to why you take exception to other people assuming that they can somehow know what is happening in regards to what you say is the unique perspective of an autonomous ‘viewpoint’ occupying a particular set of time/space/dna coordinates from very little information.

I only ask for this further information from you so as to gain at least some glimmer of understanding as to why you continue to insist that I should be the one to terminate this discussion (about your ‘non-negotiable’ issue). Because what I am left wondering, in the present void of up-to-date information from you about you, is whether the following statement of yours has anything to do with this insistence? Viz.:

• [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘... when some of us are relentless and still are here you finally decide that the conversation has no point – you did it with No. 19 recently; Richard did it also with No. 20 ...’. (17 June 2001; The Actual Freedom Mailing List).

I am sure you will excuse me still being here writing to you (and being so relentless in pursuing this matter) as it must be obvious that your clarification is needed before I can continue? Especially in view of your correspondence to the Mailing List only 34 hours ago:

• [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘This conversation becomes a little pointless – but pleasantly comical – I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing. And we perhaps could leave it at that’. (19 June 2001; The Actual Freedom Mailing List).

However, as this was written 4 hours before you wrote to the Mailing List to say that your ‘mind is quite dull right now actually’ you will appreciate that I do need to be up-dated as to whether your mind was already quite dull when you wrote your ‘this conversation becomes a little pointless ... we could perhaps leave it at that’ decision or not.

I look forward to your response so that I can be fully informed before writing again.

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

P.S.: Please find attached all the relevant e-mails providing the ‘Full Context’ regarding these matters raised as per the point you made to others. I am sure you will understand the necessity of converting them to text-only format (ListBot has a 100kb limit on all posts) even though you have previously written to the Mailing List saying that the font type, the font size, the font colour and the font layout plays an important part in comprehending your communication.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: You are saying that if I have a point, as well as you having a point, then the discussion is ended? The discussion will only proceed if you are the one who is in charge of making the points?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I was simply acknowledging that you had ended the discussion as it is not possible to discuss (negotiate) a non-discussable (a non-negotiable) issue.

JAYAHN: Not only do you terminate the conversation; but you state that I terminate it. Now Richard ... behave yourself! I at this moment am keeping the conversation open. Do you wish to terminate it? That is possible. Please state such; and I will read your statement at face value, and respond or not, accordingly. The call is – the conversation has just begun; we are in the early stages of the prelude; right now.

RICHARD: Not so ... because for as long as you keep on insisting that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are – and for as long as you keep on insisting that this ‘viewpoint’ (which tells you that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are) is a ‘non-negotiable’ fact – is precisely how long you keep a discussion about your issue closed.

JAYAHN: As I previously indicated should you wish to have a tantrum and throw the table in the air again please instead just request that you wish the conversation to be terminated because the point of view being presented does not agree with your own.

RICHARD: As I never received any e-mail from you saying that I threw a table in the air in a tantrum – nor can I locate such an e-mail in the ListBot Archives – could you re-send it so as I can become cognisant of what it is that you are wanting to convey and why you are wanting to convey whatever it is that you are wanting to convey by your use of the word ‘again’? It would be all-to-easy to misunderstand you – going only on the (above) brief reference – and you say it is tiresome to have to re-explain yourself. Plus if you could also include how you came to the conclusion that: (a) I threw a table into the air ... and (b) I had a tantrum ... and (c) I am capable of having a tantrum it would facilitate my comprehension as to why you take exception to other people assuming that they can somehow know what is happening in regards to what you say is the unique perspective of an autonomous ‘viewpoint’ occupying a particular set of time/ space/ dna coordinates from very little information. I only ask for this further information from you so as to gain at least some glimmer of understanding as to why you continue to insist that I should be the one to terminate this discussion (about your ‘non-negotiable’ issue). Because what I am left wondering, in the present void of up-to-date information from you about you, is whether the following statement of yours has anything to do with this insistence? Viz.: [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘... when some of us are relentless and still are here you finally decide that the conversation has no point – you did it with No 19 recently; Richard did it also with No. 20’. [endquote]. I am sure you will excuse me still being here writing to you (and being so relentless in pursuing this matter) as it must be obvious that your clarification is needed before I can continue? Especially in view of your correspondence to the Mailing List only 34 hours ago: [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘This conversation becomes a little pointless – but pleasantly comical – I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing. And we perhaps could leave it at that’. [endquote]. However, as this was written 4 hours before you wrote to the Mailing List to say that your ‘mind is quite dull right now actually’ you will appreciate that I do need to be up-dated as to whether your mind was already quite dull when you wrote your ‘this conversation becomes a little pointless ... we could perhaps leave it at that’ decision or not. I look forward to your response so that I can be fully informed before writing again.

JAYAHN: I have the impression I should put my German wife online to handle your meticulous record keeping and re-provision. She loves to keep spreadsheets and files and budgets and I confess to always falling out of her systems and analyses. It is the same with how I respond to you. Perhaps I will leave the explanation of my merriment in response to your communication at that. I do intend to respond more formally to your table-banter a little later ...

RICHARD: If I may interrupt your merriment for but a moment, and as past experience has shown it to be best that I do not hold my breath waiting for you to respond when you take the time to write only to say that you will write again later, I am using this opportunity to sharpen the focus of the current issue with a couple of enquiries:

1. Is it because you are always ‘falling out of systems’ that you have now had to get your co-respondents to scour through the archives for you so as to provide you with attached copies of your very own e-mails to this Mailing List in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it is that they are referring to when they write to you ... or is it that your wife really has no interest in doing your e-mail filing for you that you now have get your co-respondents to do it despite your saying she does love to do so?
2. Has it escaped your attention, due to the welter of information you now have to process as a result of ‘falling out of systems’, that this e-mail exchange (which started off as me merely writing a brief note to explain to you how your concepts are received and why they are received the way they are) has moved on to an all-time low in lack-lustre internet communication skills inasmuch as it is now only about one thing and one thing only: why you want it to be me that is to be the one to terminate this discussion about your ‘non-negotiable’ point?

You do not, of course, have to respond at all if you finally decide that the conversation has no point ... in which case just disregard this e-mail along with all the rest.

JAYAHN: ... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable.

RICHARD: So be it then ... end of discussion.

JAYAHN: You are saying that if I have a point, as well as you having a point, then the discussion is ended? The discussion will only proceed if you are the one who is in charge of making the points?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I was simply acknowledging that you had ended the discussion as it is not possible to discuss (negotiate) a non-discussable (a non-negotiable) issue.

JAYAHN: Not only do you terminate the conversation; but you state that I terminate it. Now Richard ... behave yourself! I at this moment am keeping the conversation open. Do you wish to terminate it? That is possible. Please state such; and I will read your statement at face value, and respond or not, accordingly. The call is – the conversation has just begun; we are in the early stages of the prelude; right now.

RICHARD: Not so ... because for as long as you keep on insisting that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are – and for as long as you keep on insisting that this ‘viewpoint’ (which tells you that I am a ‘viewpoint’ just as you are) is a ‘non-negotiable’ fact – is precisely how long you keep a discussion about your issue closed.

JAYAHN: As I previously indicated should you wish to have a tantrum and throw the table in the air again please instead just request that you wish the conversation to be terminated because the point of view being presented does not agree with your own.

RICHARD: As I never received any e-mail from you saying that I threw a table in the air in a tantrum – nor can I locate such an e-mail in the ListBot Archives – could you re-send it so as I can become cognisant of what it is that you are wanting to convey and why you are wanting to convey whatever it is that you are wanting to convey by your use of the word ‘again’? It would be all-to-easy to misunderstand you – going only on the (above) brief reference – and you say it is tiresome to have to re-explain yourself. <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> I look forward to your response so that I can be fully informed before writing again. P.S.: Please find attached all the relevant e-mails providing the ‘Full Context’ regarding these matters raised as per the point you made to others. I am sure you will understand the necessity of converting them to text-only format (ListBot has a 100kb limit on all posts) even though you have previously written to the Mailing List saying that the font type, the font size, the font colour and the font layout plays an important part in comprehending your communication.

JAYAHN: I have the impression I should put my German wife online to handle your meticulous record keeping and re-provision. She loves to keep spreadsheets and files and budgets and I confess to always falling out of her systems and analyses. It is the same with how I respond to you. Perhaps I will leave the explanation of my merriment in response to your communication at that. I do intend to respond more formally to your table-banter a little later ...

RICHARD: If I may interrupt your merriment for but a moment, and as past experience has shown it to be best that I do not hold my breath waiting for you to respond when you take the time to write only to say that you will write again later, I am using this opportunity to sharpen the focus of the current issue with a couple of enquiries: 1. Is it because you are always ‘falling out of systems’ that you have now had to get your co-respondents to scour through the archives for you so as to provide you with attached copies of your very own e-mails to this Mailing List in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it is that they are referring to when they write to you ... or is it that your wife really has no interest in doing your e-mail filing for you that you now have get your co-respondents to do it despite your saying she does love to do so? 2. Has it escaped your attention, due to the welter of information you now have to process as a result of ‘falling out of systems’, that this e-mail exchange (which started off as me merely writing a brief note to explain to you how your concepts are received and why they are received the way they are) has moved on to an all-time low in lack-lustre internet communication skills inasmuch as it is now only about one thing and one thing only: why you want it to be me that is to be the one to terminate this discussion about your ‘non-negotiable’ point? You do not, of course, have to respond at all if you finally decide that the conversation has no point ... in which case just disregard this e-mail along with all the rest.

JAYAHN: It is indeed true that I need not respond if I decide not to;

RICHARD: As the phrasing I used was ‘if you finally decide that the conversation has no point’ (and not the ‘if I decide not to’ phantasm you have responded to) then whatever it is you want to convey by saying ‘it is indeed true that ...’ conveys nothing of substance (other than giving the impression that you are agreeing with me).

JAYAHN: ... and this email has not been disregarded along with all the rest.

RICHARD: Good ... I will be drawing your attention to just some of the ones that appear to have been disregarded (much further below).

JAYAHN: ... how do you get the idea that my wife – [name withheld] – has ever said that she loves to do my email filing, or does my email filing, or has or has not any interest in doing that filing. Did I state such or did you assume from my words?

RICHARD: You were expressing a ‘merriment’ in regards the ‘meticulous record keeping and re-provision’ of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List that I provided (as per your ‘making a point to others’ post) and in doing so you specifically mentioned your ‘impression’ that you ‘should put’ online your ‘German wife’ because she ‘loves to keep spreadsheets and files and budgets’.

I simply regurgitated/restated what you wrote in my own idiom (as in ‘your e-mail filing’ and ‘do so’) instead of forever copy-pasting your own words back to you (which you occasionally object to me doing) such as would look like this:

• ‘Is it because you are always ‘falling out of systems’ that you have now had to get your co-respondents to scour through the archives for you so as to provide you with attached copies of your very own e-mails to this Mailing List in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it is that they are referring to when they write to you ... or is it that your wife really has no interest in doing your e-mail filing [the ‘meticulous record keeping and re-provision’ of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List] for you that you now have get your co-respondents to do it despite your saying she does love to do so [‘keep ... files’]’?

What I find cute is that you look for where I ‘assume’ something rather than noticing that you used the phrase ‘meticulous record-keeping’ just four words after using the phrase ‘my German wife’ when my so-called record-keeping of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List amounts to being nothing more than me scouring through the ListBot archives for you.

May I ask? What made you ‘assume’ that I do ‘meticulous record-keeping’ of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List (as in the thorough way the citizens of a particular country are stereotypically alleged to do) in the first place? A possible clue (suggestion only) is that you did mention that your mind was dull and that your brain was not engaged (my idiom) when you wrote your ‘merriment e-mail’ to me. Viz.:

• [Jayahn]: ‘I am scanning my morning emails as is sometimes my habit when my mind is somewhat dull without replying to any until perhaps after I have enjoyed the second cup of filtered coffee (the first cup is now almost empty on my desk) ... and I come to your email and my fingers seemingly of their own volition (actually freed from my mind, it seems) begin to type out a response to your missive’.

Perhaps you might not have made this assumption had you read it and/or written it after your second cup of filtered coffee?

JAYAHN: Richard, it is good for me to take things one at a time. Otherwise we go in circles ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... you are making a presumption with your use of the word ‘we’ (you may very well be prone to going in circles but you can include me out of your projections). As for you saying that it is good for you to ‘take things one at a time’: in order to successfully take things one at a time (so as to avoid your acknowledged wish not to ‘go in circles’) it is therefore vital to take the first things first. Here is the sequence in brief:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/regurgitated/restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘You have missed the point entirely’.
• [Richard]: ‘Only if your point is fugacious’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely’.
• [Richard]: ‘Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have’.
• [Richard]: ‘Then I have not missed the point at all’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing’.
• [Richard]: ‘This is the point under discussion: [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me’ <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have’ [endquote]. Acta est fabula’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable’.
• [Richard]: ‘So be it then ... end of discussion’.

Over to you.

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

P.S.: The attachment of your very own e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List (in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it was that I was referring to when I wrote to you) that I obliged you with last time from the ListBot archives was a one-off event. You will either have to get someone else to do the meticulous record-keeping and re-provision of all or any of your e-mails or (and now here is an idea) ... do it yourself.

RICHARD: Please find attached all the relevant e-mails providing the ‘Full Context’ regarding these matters raised as per the point you made to others. I am sure you will understand the necessity of converting them to text-only format (ListBot has a 100kb limit on all posts) even though you have previously written to the Mailing List saying that the font type, the font size, the font colour and the font layout plays an important part in comprehending your communication.

JAYAHN: I have the impression I should put my German wife online to handle your meticulous record keeping and re-provision. She loves to keep spreadsheets and files and budgets and I confess to always falling out of her systems and analyses. It is the same with how I respond to you. Perhaps I will leave the explanation of my merriment in response to your communication at that. I do intend to respond more formally to your table-banter a little later ...

RICHARD: If I may interrupt your merriment for but a moment, and as past experience has shown it to be best that I do not hold my breath waiting for you to respond when you take the time to write only to say that you will write again later, I am using this opportunity to sharpen the focus of the current issue with a couple of enquiries: 1. Is it because you are always ‘falling out of systems’ that you have now had to get your co-respondents to scour through the archives for you so as to provide you with attached copies of your very own e-mails to this Mailing List in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it is that they are referring to when they write to you ... or is it that your wife really has no interest in doing your e-mail filing for you that you now have get your co-respondents to do it despite your saying she does love to do so? 2. Has it escaped your attention, due to the welter of information you now have to process as a result of ‘falling out of systems’, that this e-mail exchange (which started off as me merely writing a brief note to explain to you how your concepts are received and why they are received the way they are) has moved on to an all-time low in lack-lustre internet communication skills inasmuch as it is now only about one thing and one thing only: why you want it to be me that is to be the one to terminate this discussion about your ‘non-negotiable’ point?

JAYAHN: ... how do you get the idea that my wife – [name withheld] – has ever said that she loves to do my email filing, or does my email filing, or has or has not any interest in doing that filing. Did I state such or did you assume from my words?

RICHARD: You were expressing a ‘merriment’ in regards the ‘meticulous record keeping and re-provision’ of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List that I provided (as per your ‘making a point to others’ post) and in doing so you specifically mentioned your ‘impression’ that you ‘should put’ online your ‘German wife’ because she ‘loves to keep spreadsheets and files and budgets’.

JAYAHN: Oh that was irony. Are you able to discern irony. The systems and analyses that [name withheld] enjoys do not extend to my emails or those of the actual freedom lists; and the word ‘files’ refers to paper in filing folders on the shelf.

RICHARD: Let me run your own words by you:

• [Jayahn]: ‘I should put my German wife *online* to handle your meticulous record keeping and re-provision’ (emphasis added).

JAYAHN: I did not bring up into the subject [name withheld] being involved in emails; you did.

RICHARD: Let me run your own words by you once more:

• [Jayahn]: ‘I should put my German wife online to handle *your meticulous record keeping and re-provision*’ (emphasis added).

JAYAHN: It is true that I brought up merriment and you cut it off and I presume that means that merriment is not an officially sanctioned affective state. I once actually asked you for such a list and you ignored the request. Now we have Vineeto claiming happiness and I get confused because some emotions are fine and some are not and really you ought to provide a list.

RICHARD: Might I draw your attention to the following comment? Viz.:

• [Jayahn]: ‘I enjoyed your response to No. 18. I found it a very clear exposition of your viewpoint’. (June 20 2001; The Actual Freedom Mailing List).

Sometimes what you write simply amazes me.

*

RICHARD: What I find cute is that you look for where I ‘assume’ something rather than noticing that you used the phrase ‘meticulous record-keeping’ just four words after using the phrase ‘my German wife’ when my so-called record-keeping of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List amounts to being nothing more than me scouring through the ListBot archives for you. May I ask? What made you ‘assume’ that I do ‘meticulous record-keeping’ of your e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List (as in the thorough way the citizens of a particular country are stereotypically alleged to do) in the first place? A possible clue (suggestion only) is that you did mention that your mind was dull and that your brain was not engaged (my idiom) when you wrote your ‘merriment e-mail’ to me. Viz.: [Jayahn]: ‘I am scanning my morning emails as is sometimes my habit when my mind is somewhat dull without replying to any until perhaps after I have enjoyed the second cup of filtered coffee (the first cup is now almost empty on my desk) ... and I come to your email and my fingers seemingly of their own volition (actually freed from my mind, it seems) begin to type out a response to your missive’ [endquote]. Perhaps you might not have made this assumption had you read it and/or written it after your second cup of filtered coffee?

JAYAHN: This is great. The topic of discussion is turning to assumptions. And that is what I have been presenting for over two years in this forum. The extent to which actualism depends on assumptions. Let’s keep going.

RICHARD: Sure ... here is the sequence in brief:

• [Richard]: ‘The ‘whole bag of concepts’ that comes forth when you use a ‘trigger word’ such as ‘point of view’ or ‘viewpoint’ are nothing but Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘whole bag of concepts’ either copy-pasted or summarised/regurgitated/restated in your co-respondent’s own idiom ... needless is it to say that I am not such a ‘quintessential viewpoint’ [the primal universal creator], or any varied ‘point of view’ you may propose, and never will be despite your insistence that I am? I cannot put it any more plainly than this’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘You have missed the point entirely’.
• [Richard]: ‘Only if your point is fugacious’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘Nevertheless; you have missed the point entirely’.
• [Richard]: ‘Not unless you have all-of-a-sudden ceased to be a ‘viewpoint’ or ‘a point of view’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have’.
• [Richard]: ‘Then I have not missed the point at all’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘I suspect we are discussing non-intersecting points ... that is; the point you are discussing is not the point I am discussing’.
• [Richard]: ‘This is the point under discussion: [Jayahn to Peter]: ‘My whole issue is that you lie about what I am and what I say. You constantly misinterpret me because the minute you read the word ‘tantra’ or ‘Humaniversity’ or dozens of other trigger words, you pull down a whole bag of concepts around that keyword and dump them on me’ <SNIPPED FOR SPACE> [Jayahn to Richard]: ‘I have no more ceased to be a viewpoint or point of view than you have’ [endquote]. Acta est fabula’.
• [Jayahn]: ‘... the central element of Actual Freedom is that each of us has a point. Or perhaps it is one of the central elements. And that; I am afraid [a figure of speech] is non-negotiable’.
• [Richard]: ‘So be it then ... end of discussion’.

Over to you.

*

JAYAHN: Richard, it is good for me to take things one at a time. Otherwise we go in circles ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... you are making a presumption with your use of the word ‘we’ (you may very well be prone to going in circles but you can include me out of your projections).

JAYAHN: But is not the making of presumptions the very core of the actualist method? I am surely beginning to fit into the coterie when I make such presumptions; is not that so?

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way?

• Presumption No. 1 (masquerading as a basic premise): the making of presumptions is the very core of the actualist method.
• Presumption No. 2 (masquerading as a secondary premise): there is a coterie of presumptuous actualists.
• Presumption No. 3. (masquerading as a conclusion): I am surely beginning to fit into such a coterie when I make such presumptions.

*

RICHARD: The attachment of your very own e-mails to The Actual Freedom Mailing List (in order for you to know the ‘Full Context’ of what it was that I was referring to when I wrote to you) that I obliged you with last time from the ListBot archives was a one-off event. You will either have to get someone else to do the meticulous record-keeping and re-provision of all or any of your e-mails or (and now here is an idea) ... do it yourself.

JAYAHN: I suggest that if you have an interest in maintaining the past as you demonstrate so undeniably on this list that it is you and your assistants who must provide the history. I merely suggest and request and demand that if you are going to provide context that you provide it faithfully. If you cut and snip and so on then please justify your selection process. Coincidentally a number of correspondents recently have picked up on this.

RICHARD: You have already informed me of this just recently. Viz.:

• [Jayahn]: ‘... [Richard] cut and pasted text to suit his agenda in the same fashion as noted by our correspondent from [another country] a few days ago’. (June 19 2001; The Actual Freedom Mailing List).

A DIALOGUE WITH JAYAHN (Page Twelve)

RETURN TO A REQUEST FROM JAYAHN SAWARD

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.