|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 104
RESPONDENT: Hello, I have a few questions regarding: ‘the ancient, hoary
and persistent belief that you can’t change human nature.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm) RICHARD:
RESPONDENT: Hello, I have a few questions regarding: ‘the ancient, hoary
and persistent belief that you can’t change human nature.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm) (...) What do you mean by changing human nature (rearranging, less/more, alteration of form, appearance etc.)? (...) RICHARD: Copy-paste the following (including the quotation marks) into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: ‘you can’t change human nature’ Then left-click ‘search’ (or press ‘enter’) ... you should get about 674 hits.
RESPONDENT: Hello, I have a few questions regarding: ‘the ancient, hoary
and persistent belief that you can’t change human nature.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm) (...) What do you mean by changing human nature (rearranging, less/more, alteration of form, appearance etc.)? (...) RICHARD: Copy-paste the following (including the quotation marks) into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: ‘you can’t change human nature’ Then left-click ‘search’ (or press ‘enter’) ... you should get about 674 hits. RESPONDENT: Typing ‘you can’t change human nature’ into Google produces 668 results. Typing ‘you CAN change human nature’ produces 573 results. Typing ‘the moon is made of cheese’ produces 25,900 results. Can I infer that most people believe that the moon is made of cheese? RICHARD: How many of those 668 results did you read?
RESPONDENT: It stands to reason that a psychological identity that is
malleable to radical change is also susceptible to total elimination.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm). RICHARD: The ‘evidence’ you are asking for (as in the ‘it stands to reason’ phrasing) is referred to in the context you mention ... as the sentence immediately preceding the sentence you selected makes abundantly clear. Viz.:
Here is a question to ponder: what would happen to that social identity if (note ‘if’) no new socialisation/ acculturation connections or pathways are formed when the old ones ‘die’ for lack of use? As an aid to pondering that question copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: whittle site:actualfreedom.com.au. Then left-click ‘search’ (or press ‘enter’) ... you should get about 90 hits. The following will produce something like 52 hits: whittling site:actualfreedom.com.au. And the following around 46 hits: whittled site:actualfreedom.com.au.
RESPONDENT: ‘Physiological alterations that could eliminate this crude
programming, as a biological adaptation to changed circumstances, are well documented within the animal species.’
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm) RICHARD:
RESPONDENT: ‘It stands to reason that a psychological identity that is
malleable to radical change is also susceptible to total elimination.’
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm) RICHARD: If you could provide a scientific explanation for the presence of the psychological identity there may very well be a way of explaining the elimination of same in those terms.
RESPONDENT: ‘It stands to reason that a psychological identity that is
malleable to radical change is also susceptible to total elimination.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm). RICHARD: No ... knowledge of oneself, just like knowledge of anything, is just that (knowledge) and that alone.
RESPONDENT: (...) There are many existing conceptual systems that try to explain a PCE under their own terms (Eckhart Tolle is one that I enjoy). (...) RICHARD: What Mr. Eckhart Tolle reports/ describes/ explains is what is popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. For instance: http://store.yahoo.com/soundstruestore/interview-tolle.html
RESPONDENT: ‘This blind and senseless survival program is now well and
truly redundant for many human beings’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm). RICHARD: No ... it is, of course, suffering which causes the desire for peace.
RESPONDENT: Hello, I have a few questions regarding: ‘the ancient, hoary
and persistent belief that you can’t change human nature.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/actualfreedom1.htm). (...) I don’t believe that suffering can ever be eliminated (...) RICHARD: Voilà
RICHARD (to No. 36): I am only too happy to re-phrase my sentence so as to be in accord with your
phraseology
Or:
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’ that I originally started using, but you’re now corresponding with somebody else. I’d just like to make clear that I’m not the person you are quoting (No. 36 or No. 60?). (...) RICHARD: I am indeed now corresponding with somebody else ... as is undeniably indicated by the words [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36] wrote’ [endquote] in the e-mail, now appended below for your convenience, which you are referring to. The reason why I am using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’, which you originally started using, is because my co-respondent wrote to me using that very title ... as is incontrovertibly indicated by the words [quote] ‘From: [Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] in that appended text, further below, which you are referring to. Whilst I appreciate you taking time out from theorising with another about ASC’s (albeit using the acronym PCE to do so with), in order to inform me that you are not the person I am quoting, the very fact it is already patently obvious you are not that person being quoted – as is unquestionably indicated by the bracketed word [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] prefacing the quote in question – renders your otherwise informative aside a superfluity bordering upon an immoderacy.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’ that I originally started using, but you’re now corresponding with somebody else. I’d just like to make clear that I’m not the person you are quoting (No. 36 or No. 60?). (...) RICHARD: I am indeed now corresponding with somebody else ... as is undeniably indicated by the words [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36] wrote’ [endquote] in the e-mail, now appended below for your convenience, which you are referring to. The reason why I am using the title ‘Re: Newbie Questions’, which you originally started using, is because my co-respondent wrote to me using that very title ... as is incontrovertibly indicated by the words [quote] ‘From: [Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] in that appended text, further below, which you are referring to. Whilst I appreciate you taking time out from theorising with another about ASC’s (albeit using the acronym PCE to do so with), in order to inform me that you are not the person I am quoting, the very fact it is already patently obvious you are not that person being quoted – as is unquestionably indicated by the bracketed word [quote] ‘[Respondent No. 36]’ [endquote] prefacing the quote in question – renders your otherwise informative aside a superfluity bordering upon an immoderacy. RESPONDENT: Richard, you seem to have misinterpreted the intention of my posting. RICHARD: I neither interpreted nor misinterpreted your intention (not being a mind-reader I cannot possibly know what another intends when they post something) ... I simply took your words at face value and responded accordingly as, as an aside in an e-mail to another entitled ‘Re: PCE’, you informed me that (a) I am using the title you originally started using ... and that (b) I am now corresponding with somebody else ... and that (c) you would just like to make it clear that you are not the person I am quoting. RESPONDENT: I want to keep the discussion consistent with the title of the posting. RICHARD: In which case, then, why did you not write to that [quote] ‘somebody else’ [endquote] you referred to further above, who first wrote to me using that very title, rather than me? RESPONDENT: I wasn’t blaming you ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I never said you were (indeed I did not even know that your up-until-now-unspoken intention was your want to keep the discussion consistent with the title of the posting). RESPONDENT: ... [I wasn’t blaming you] just suggesting consistency ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? Your up-until-now-unspoken intention would carry a lot more conviction were you to not use a title (‘Re: PCE’) which is inconsistent with the discussion you are now conducting, eh? RESPONDENT: (I didn’t say it outright, doh!). RICHARD: Not only did you not say it outright you never even alluded to it. Viz.:
Here is what a dictionary has to say about that word:
RESPONDENT: No doubt No. 36 deserves your response (and you’ve done a astonishing, astounding, awe-inspiring, awesome, awful, bewildering, breathtaking, confounding job in defending yourself). RICHARD: If I might point out? I was not defending myself ... I was pointing out that the way an identity aggrandises itself (as in an ASC) has no relevance to an identity intent on oblivion (as in a PCE). RESPONDENT: I’d like to discuss issues, not like in a soap opera, but like in a reasoned discussion. RICHARD: Hmm ... and when are you planning on doing that? RESPONDENT: I appreciate that you appreciate me ... RICHARD: What I said I appreciated was what you did (taking time out from theorising with another about ASC’s ... albeit using the acronym PCE to do so with). RESPONDENT: (I take it you’re the lord of this philosophy?) ... RICHARD: I will first remind you of what you wrote a mere 15 words ago:
I will then draw your attention to the following:
That was posted five days ago (two days after your first post) ... here is another posted four days ago (three days after your first post):
RESPONDENT: ... and I’m deeply, earnestly, frankly, genuinely, sorry if I’ve inconvenienced you by making you read what interests other people on this list and isn’t consistent with your interests/ understanding. RICHARD: As I am neither inconvenienced nor made to do anything of the sort you can now cease feeling your deep, earnest, frank, genuine remorse. RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘... renders your otherwise informative aside a superfluity bordering upon an immoderacy’. [endquote]. In future may I suggest that you ignore/ don’t entertain things that are useless for you ... RICHARD: Or, more to the point, you could, in that same future, refrain from writing clarifications of things which are already patently obvious ... that way you would not have to resist getting sucked into reaching for the keyboard so as to tap out yet another 180-word justification for doing so. RESPONDENT: ... and don’t waste ego, I mean time ... RICHARD: There is a handy device on all computer keyboards called the ‘back-space’ key: if, as you say, you did indeed mean to type ‘time’ you could have simply erased the word ‘ego’ with it and got on with your ... um ... your reasoned discussion. RESPONDENT: ... writing verbose responses? RICHARD: As I happen to like words, and have always enjoyed the wide range this particular language commands, I have no intention of dumbing-down just because some peoples have an ill-founded objection to such proficiency. RESPONDENT: Now my better nature (huh?) knows that I should have ignored your posting, but my ego is just so itchy! RICHARD: Ha ... maybe it is just worms.
RESPONDENT: There was once a man that had never had a thought about how his diet could relate to his wellbeing. One day a man claiming to be Vegetablinated introduced him to the knowledge that there was a relationship between diet and physical/mental wellbeing. The Vegetablinated man explained it as such: {{He starts to speak}} ‘Humankind has being suffering ...’. {see www.actualfreedom.com.au/introduction/index.htm for the rest of his speech*} *copyright Hindu, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Schindlers List, MTV etc. RICHARD: Not wanting to have anything on The Actual Freedom Trust web site infringing copyright regulations I accordingly copy-pasted <Humankind has being suffering> into the search function of this computer and sent it through the entire ‘Introduction To Actual Freedom’ but to no avail ... and a similar search for <Humankind> resulted in only one hit. Viz.:
If you could provide the allegedly copyrighted text beginning with ‘Humankind has being suffering ...’ to which you are referring it would be most appreciated ... especially as you categorise it as being [quote] ‘an emotional speech’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: {{After an emotional speech}} ‘... When one comes in contact with Nutrients of the Earth, one takes on the vital life force of the Earth and can feel joyful and alive because of the union with the Earth. The Earth is the source of our life and it is the Earth to which we will return. We are the Earth and suffering arises for humankind when they have separated theirselves from the Earth through Thought. Thought that separates us from our Diet desires pleasure. Yet Thought imposed on Diet cannot produce pleasure, only Diet grounded in knowledge of Nutrients can produce pleasure’. My mother always said: ‘Don’t eat junk food, always eat some of what’s good for you’. Besides being grammatically incorrect, is there anything in my mother’s advice that doesn’t contain the essential message (that diet is related to wellbeing)? RICHARD: In the context of that preamble about [quote] ‘union with the Earth’ [endquote] – presumably via becoming [quote] ‘Vegetablinated’ [endquote] – as being the antidote for any and all ‘selves’ suffering through being separated from said planet through thought, then ... yes. RESPONDENT: I like my philosophies to be contains in point form so that I can differentiate between elaborations and things that I can relate to. What is Actualism in point form (4, 10, 100 noble truths of Actualism)? RICHARD: 0.
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
