|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 107
RESPONDENT: Have the actualists solved the riddle of nature vs. nurture? RICHARD: As I was born and raised on a farm there never was a nature versus nurture riddle to solve ... the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were. RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience. RESPONDENT: ... are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential
and not theoretical RESPONDENT: On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims? RICHARD: They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same. RESPONDENT: How is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming? RICHARD: In a word: experientially. RESPONDENT: Are all instincts ‘software’ as implied in the quote above? RICHARD: As the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact – then the analogy to computer software is reasonable enough for the purpose of communication. RESPONDENT: Seems like a sweeping statement about an area that is little understood. RICHARD: It is an experiential account about an area that was understood well-enough 13+ years ago to successfully extirpate in its entirety.
RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience. RESPONDENT: They are theories to me because I haven’t had your particular ‘experiential’ revelation. RICHARD: If I may point out? Just because experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations are theories to you does not make them [quote] ‘the theories’ [endquote] ... and neither does your lack of similar experience make them a [quote] ‘revelation’ [endquote] either. RESPONDENT: I take it that you’re not talking about a scientifically verifiable report then? RICHARD: What I am talking about is experientially verifiable ... as explicitly spelled-out on the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Viz.: (Richard, Homepage). Did you overlook that when you read what was on offer there preparatory to asking me these questions? * RESPONDENT: ... are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential
and not theoretical RESPONDENT: Are you suggesting that researchers only ever deal with theory and that they never employ observation to arrive at their own experiential revelations? RICHARD: All I was doing was responding to your invitation to see a web page you cited for an overview of [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] on aggression ... however, in view of your ‘they are theories to me’ explanation (further above) are you now suggesting that the overview on aggression at that web page you cited should be read as being [quote] ‘experiential revelations’ [endquote] and not theories after all? For example:
* RESPONDENT: On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims? RICHARD: They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same. RESPONDENT: How is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming? RICHARD: In a word: experientially. RESPONDENT: So you seem to have a special class of experiential proof ... RICHARD: No, as I was born and raised on a farm there was no need for a special class of experiential proof – the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were – thus the common or garden variety of experiential proof was all that was required. RESPONDENT: ... I’ll call it actualist proof. RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your argument, when all is said and done. RESPONDENT: Using actualist proof are you able to tell us which particular genes or gene complex are involved in genetically endowed programming? RICHARD: As I do not have what seems to you a special class of experiential proof, which you have seen fit to inform me you will call actualist proof, I am unable to answer your query as-is ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question? RESPONDENT: That would be very interesting if you could. If you could tell researchers which particular gene sequence to look into, imagine what could be achieved. RICHARD: As it obviously escaped your notice, when reading all of my responses to you before replying, that there is no imaginative facility extant in this flesh and blood body it would be conducive to clarity in communication to draw it to your attention here: (Richard, Homepage). RESPONDENT: Scientists could switch off the responsible genes in laboratory animals and scientifically validate your actualist proof. Can you do it? RICHARD: As I do not have what seems to you a special class of experiential proof, which you have seen fit to inform me you will call actualist proof, then scientific validation of what you have fabulously seemed into pseudo-existence (quite possibly per favour an intact imaginative facility) might be a long time coming ... if ever. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, keep on going on unabated.
RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience. RESPONDENT: They are theories to me because I haven’t had your particular ‘experiential’ revelation. RICHARD: If I may point out? Just because experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations are theories to you does not make them [quote] ‘the theories’ [endquote] ... and neither does your lack of similar experience make them a [quote] ‘revelation’ [endquote] either. RESPONDENT: Okay, if the world works as you say it does then you are quite right. RICHARD: As the author of the web page article you cited clearly says right up-front [quote] ‘... I find it helpful to look at *theories* of aggression by dividing them into three schools ...’ [emphasis added], as well as using the word ‘theorists’ more than once, further on, to refer to what you describe as [quote] ‘researchers’ [endquote], then the reason why I responded to your initial paragraph the way I did might become more readily apparent were it to look something like this:
* RESPONDENT: I take it that you’re not talking about a scientifically verifiable report then? RICHARD: What I am talking about is experientially verifiable ... as explicitly spelled-out on the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Viz.: [snip]. RESPONDENT: Experientially verifiable and scientifically verifiable: can you tell me what the difference is? RICHARD: As I have already described what I mean by the term ‘experientially verifiable’, in that paragraph you snipped, then if you could describe what you mean by the term [quote] ‘scientifically verifiable’ [endquote] in both your queries the difference may very well become readily apparent. * RESPONDENT: ... are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical. RESPONDENT: Are you suggesting that researchers only ever deal with theory and that they never employ observation to arrive at their own experiential revelations? RICHARD: All I was doing was responding to your invitation to see a web page you cited for an overview of [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] on aggression ... however, in view of your ‘they are theories to me’ explanation (further above) are you now suggesting that the overview on aggression at that web page you cited should be read as being [quote] ‘experiential revelations’ [endquote] and not theories after all? For example: [example only]: ‘See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of experiential revelations on aggression’. [end example]. RESPONDENT: No. Leave aside the web citation for a moment. I’m asking the question in a more general sense: are you suggesting that researchers (in the areas of nature vs. nurture, instincts and conditioning) only ever deal with theory and that they never employ experiential observation to refine their theories? RICHARD: If you could provide the names of the [quote] ‘researchers’ [endquote] you are referring to, and a synopsis of their [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote], it would be most conducive to eliciting a sensible response ... an un-informed opinion from me would not be worth either the time taken to type it out or the bandwidth used to send it. RESPONDENT: The reason I ask is because you appear to be implying (to paraphrase you): ‘Maybe, just maybe, that is because what *researchers* report/ describe/ explain is theoretical and not experiential’. RICHARD: No, I was not implying that at all ... as you have now reverted to what I wrote before you left aside your web citation, for that moment it took to ask your question, any implications of what I wrote then would look something like this:
* RESPONDENT: On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular
belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See
www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm RICHARD: They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same. RESPONDENT: How is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming? RICHARD: In a word: experientially. RESPONDENT: So you seem to have a special class of experiential proof ... RICHARD: No, as I was born and raised on a farm there was no need for a special class of experiential proof – the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were – thus the common or garden variety of experiential proof was all that was required. RESPONDENT: ... I’ll call it actualist proof. RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your argument, when all is said and done. RESPONDENT: Okay, I have snipped away the now irrelevant section. You have informed me there is no special class of experiential proof involved ... you call it as you see it. RICHARD: If by [quote] ‘you call it as you see it’ [endquote] you mean I report it/ describe it/ explain it from the direct experience of it then ... yes. * RESPONDENT: Are all instincts ‘software’ as implied in the quote above? RICHARD: As the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact – then the analogy to computer software is reasonable enough for the purpose of communication. RESPONDENT: I take it that you are saying that all instincts are software. RICHARD: Another way of saying it is that the instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact – can in no way be analogised as being hard-wired. Viz.:
Nobody has to take my word for it ... all it takes is to either recall or initiate a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and thus verify experientially that blind nature’s biologically-inherited rough and ready survival package is not a [quote] ‘specific unchangeable function’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: No chance that any instinctual bits might be governed by hardware at all and thus be beyond the reach of ‘extirpation’? RICHARD: As there has been nary even a smidgeon of a trace of a whiff of a hint of any such [quote] ‘instinctual bits’ [endquote] remaining extant for 13+ years now I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying with the confidence engendered by that long-term and practical-life experiencing ... no. RESPONDENT: Could some instincts be hard-wired? Closely allied to the instincts are the regulatory functions such as digestion, body temperature and heartbeat. RICHARD: As the autonomic RESPONDENT: These must be hard-wired, or at least taken care of by software sub-routines that are outside of the scope of extirpation, otherwise you would have dropped bodily dead from software extirpation! RICHARD: The whole point of altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, is the elimination of all that stands in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent – as is patently obvious in a PCE – and not the eradication of life itself. RESPONDENT: In other words, extirpation necessarily has limited effect. RICHARD: I will separate your premise into its two disparate elements for the sake of clarity in responding:
As that makes no sense at all your ‘in other words’ conclusion can only have been drawn from your alternate postulation. Viz.:
Not being a computer nerd I would have to seek professional advice, so as to make an informed comment, as I cannot comprehend why software vital to the very functioning of a computer itself would come bundled as a sub-routine of an erasable ancillary programme written in as a starter-kit for beginners. RESPONDENT: How then do you really know that you have rid yourself of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges? RICHARD: As you are surely not proposing that to [quote] ‘really know’ [endquote] that the extirpation of all the instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact – has indeed taken place one must bodily drop dead then perhaps you might be inclined to rethink both your postulation and the question it generated? Incidentally, I would hardly describe the elimination of the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides, and so on and so forth, as a [quote] ‘limited effect’ [endquote].
(...) RICHARD: As the author of the web page article you cited clearly says right up-front [quote] ‘... I find it helpful to look at *theories* of aggression by dividing them into three schools ...’ [emphasis added], as well as using the word ‘theorists’ more than once, further on, to refer to what you describe as [quote] ‘researchers’ [endquote], then the reason why I responded to your initial paragraph the way I did might become more readily apparent were it to look something like this:
RESPONDENT: You are artificially dividing theory and the experiential. RICHARD: Here is the example you provided from The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and my succinct response:
Given that more than a few ... um ... researchers posit/ postulate/ propose that the instincts being referred to (instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are ‘hardware’, and not ‘software’, then if you could explain how I am [quote] ‘artificially dividing theory and the experiential’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You simply say that your experience is ‘experiential’ and therefore superior. RICHARD: Unless you are suggesting that ‘hardware’ can be removed non-surgically (in an experiential process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation) then my experiential ‘proof’ as to their ‘software’ nature – the experience of the very deletion of same – is so vastly superior to those posits/ postulates/ proposals as to make them not even worth the mass-produced papers they are printed on. RESPONDENT: Good theories are not completely divorced from experiential evidence. RICHARD: If you could provide me with the name of one – just one – of those researchers you allude to who has experiential evidence that the extirpation of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, is a matter of the removal of ‘hardware’ (in a non-surgical process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation), and not the deletion of ‘software’, it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory. RICHARD: So as to keep it topical here is what I wrote in my first response to you:
If you could point out where I am [quote] ‘expounding theory’ [endquote] in that instance of me opening my mouth it will be most appreciated ... as it is a fact, and not theory, that it was an act of altruism (and not an act of selfism) whereby ‘self’-immolation occurred; it is a fact, and not theory, that it was the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago who altruistically ‘self-immolated; it is a fact, and not theory, that the identity’s altruistic ‘self’-immolation was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges; it is a fact, and not theory, that the simultaneous extirpation included the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility). RESPONDENT: It’s unavoidable. A description cannot capture all the details of a situation, so it is necessarily a distillation of experience ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Since when has a distilled description of experience rendered the experience a theory? Or, even more to the point, how can experience be theoretical? RESPONDENT: ... it’s a theory that could be modified or disproved by further experience or a change in perspective. RICHARD: Here again is what I wrote in my first response to you:
If you could demonstrate how [quote] ‘a change in perspective’ [endquote] can modify or disprove that factual account it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: ‘The chair is blue’ is untrue at 10,000X magnification. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you wrote a scant three sentences ago:
As you have, perforce, opened your mouth in order to share that bit of wisdom then, by your own reckoning, you are expounding theory and I can only guess that your theory, that the chair miraculously ceases to be blue per favour the transmogrifying power of a human eye looking at it through a magnifying lenses, is as valid or as invalid as any other in the factless world you live in. So be it then ... end of discussion.
RESPONDENT: I see that you’re not talking to me now because of my position on theory and experience ... RICHARD: If by that you mean I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory then ... yes. Viz.:
Similar situations have arisen before
(...) RICHARD: ... I, for one, have no interest (and thus no intention) whatsoever in conducting my correspondence on that basis [that any description of all matters experiential is to be expounding theory]. RESPONDENT: So you would prefer that your facts be accepted as such by your correspondent? RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following (from the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site):
Did you overlook that when you copy-pasted a copy of it into your e-mail to me less than 48 hours ago There is another version which is even more specific (just substitute the words ‘accept my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations as fact’ for the words ‘believe me’ and it will all become patently obvious). Viz.:
As that version was reposted only six days ago (Friday, 6/01/2006 6:02 AM AEDST), in an e-mail to another under the title ‘Re: Nature vs. Nurture’, it does seem rather odd that you would overlook that as well.
RESPONDENT: I see that you’re not talking to me now because of my position on theory and experience ... RICHARD: If by that you mean I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Now I see. You want everything you say to be taken as fact, after we go away and experience it for ourselves, of course. RICHARD: No, it is all as simple and as straightforward as this: I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory.
(...) RESPONDENT: I see that you’re not talking to me now because of my position on theory and experience ... RICHARD: If by that you mean I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Now I see. You want everything you say to be taken as fact, after we go away and experience it for ourselves, of course. RICHARD: No, it is all as simple and as straightforward as this: I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory. RESPONDENT: And to get it that simple and straightforward you must remove the context ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I did not remove the context at all ... on the contrary, I responded
point-by-point to the entire paragraph, in which you maintained that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am
unavoidably expounding theory, before I then simply and straightforwardly said [quote] ‘So be it then ... end of discussion.’
[endquote]. Viz.: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912795480 What you are now trying to claim to be the context did not manifest until two e-mails and two days later ... and under a different title to boot. RESPONDENT:... and reduce what I say to parody. RICHARD: As I did not remove the context, but responded point-by-point to the entire paragraph, then any parody you are seeing can only be your own ... such as trying to claim that what you wrote two e-mails and two days later (and under a different title to boot) is the context in which you maintained that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory. RESPONDENT: All your way or no way. RICHARD: As you are the one who maintains it is unavoidable that as soon as another opens their mouth
to describe the experiential evidence they are expounding theory And as your way (aka ‘position’) hubristically elevates some theory to the status of being the fact It is indeed that simple and straightforward.
(...) RESPONDENT: I see that you’re not talking to me now because of my position on theory and experience ... RICHARD: If by that you mean I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Now I see. You want everything you say to be taken as fact, after we go away and experience it for ourselves, of course. RICHARD: No, it is all as simple and as straightforward as this: I am not about to sit here discussing matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory. RESPONDENT: And to get it that simple and straightforward you must remove the context ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I did not remove the context at all ... on the contrary, I responded point-by-point to the entire paragraph, in which you maintained that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory, before I then simply and straightforwardly said [quote] ‘So be it then ... end of discussion.’ [endquote]. Viz.: (snip link). What you are now trying to claim to be the context did not manifest until two e-mails and two days later ... and under a different title to boot. RESPONDENT: ... and reduce what I say to parody. RICHARD: As I did not remove the context, but responded point-by-point to the entire paragraph, then any parody you are seeing can only be your own ... such as trying to claim that what you wrote two e-mails and two days later (and under a different title to boot) is the context in which you maintained that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably expounding theory. RESPONDENT: All your way or no way. RICHARD: As you are the one who maintains it is unavoidable that as soon as another opens their mouth
to describe the experiential evidence they are expounding theory It is indeed that simple and straightforward. RESPONDENT: If it is indeed so simple and straightforward ... RICHARD: There is no conjunctive ‘if’ RESPONDENT: ... [If it is indeed so simple and straightforward] then perhaps you can answer this question: What becomes of your fact if ... (snip). RICHARD: I have taken the liberty of snipping the remainder of your hypothetical question as what
actually is [quote] ‘indeed so simple and straightforward’ [endquote] is the fact that I am not about to sit here discussing
matters with someone – anyone – who maintains that by providing a description of experiential evidence I am unavoidably
expounding theory ... which means, therefore, that there is no such consequential ‘perhaps’ As a suggestion only: even though that absurdity has now reduced you to consigning a fact – ‘a thing known for certain to have occurred or to be true; a datum of experience’ ~ (Oxford Dictionary) – to the fanciful domain of a putative ‘your fact’ (as in ‘your theory’ or ‘your truth’) there really is no need for all this floundering around and thrashing about which you are vainly indulging in as you will find, were it to occur to you to pause a while and have a good look around so as to thoughtfully take stock of where you are at and just what your agenda is, that you can touch the bottom quite easily there in the shallow end of that toddler’s pool you are splashing away in with much hubbub and hullabaloo. ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
(...) RICHARD: ... there really is no need for all this floundering around and thrashing about which you are vainly indulging in ... RESPONDENT: From where I sit it’s not vain at all. I now have a much better idea where you are coming from and I realise that you have nothing to offer me. That you cannot answer a simple question proves to me that your obscurantist bent runs deeper than instincts in you. RICHARD: You asked four questions, all told, in your initial e-mail ... here is your very first one (complete with my response):
In what way does that straightforward answer to your simple question (a) qualify me as being a person that cannot answer a simple question ... and (b) prove to you that there is any obscurantist bent at all in me (let alone one that runs deeper than instincts)? Here is your second question ... complete with my response:
In what way does that unambiguous answer to your simple question (a) qualify me as being a person that cannot answer a simple question ... and (b) prove to you that there is any obscurantist bent at all in me (let alone one that runs deeper than instincts)? Here is your third question ... complete with my response:
In what way does that simple answer to your simple question (a) qualify me as being a person that cannot answer a simple question ... and (b) prove to you that there is any obscurantist bent at all in me (let alone one that runs deeper than instincts)? And here is your last question ... complete with my response:
In what way does that detailed answer to your simple question (a) qualify me as being a person that cannot answer a simple question ... and (b) prove to you that there is any obscurantist bent at all in me (let alone one that runs deeper than instincts)? There is no need to reply as they are rhetorical questions designed solely to make apparent what is patently obvious (once seen) ... to wit: that because of your belief that human beings cannot be completely certain they know the facts there is nothing, therefore, that a fellow human being sans the entire affective faculty (which includes the facility of being able to believe, period) can offer you. (...) RESPONDENT: (...) It tells me a lot about Actualism that you cannot tolerate or put aside what you label as deficient thinking in another and still keep a dialogue going. RICHARD: How on earth can I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is dismissed out of hand as being an expounding of theory? RESPONDENT: If that’s how you approach your fellow humans then I can see that your ‘deep regard’ for them runs to a mere skin depth. RICHARD: It is because of my regard – there is no ‘deep’ without feelings – for my fellow human being that I have no interest (and thus no intention) whatsoever in having an identity and/or its beliefs dictate the way I conduct my correspondence. Put differently: I did not come onto the internet in order to be run by another’s feelings. RESPONDENT: You have a higher regard for your Oxford dictionary. RICHARD: No, the reason why I provide dictionary definitions of words – which definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive – is for the sake of clarity in communication ... you can have any word mean whatever you wish, of course, but if you want to communicate effectively you will have to explain what that word means to you. Look, it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and I can only suggest ... what you do with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to you as it is you who gets to either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction that you may or may not do. Provided you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you wish. Put succinctly: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.
RESPONDENT: (...) That you cannot answer a simple question proves to me that your obscurantist bent runs deeper than instincts in you. RICHARD: [snip the four examples, from the very first e-mail, of simple questions answered]. RESPONDENT: (...) it’s the quality of your detailed answers that mark you as an amazing obscurantist. RICHARD: As you have now radically modified your original hypothesis (that the asseverated obscurantism was supposedly proved by a purported inability to answer a putatively simple question) into it currently being because of an unquantified quality, of those detailed answers to such questions, which allegedly marks me as being ‘a person who obscures something’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and an ostensibly amazing one of those persons at that – I have snipped all of my response as it is transparently evident that answering any of your questions in any way at all is only going to be met with yet even more displays of such feats of mental acrobatics as to make the most accomplished politician gasp in envy. Accordingly, I will propose this: suppose you are right Now, just supposing that scenario (or any variation thereof) were indeed to be the case, then ... so what? That boy-from-the-farm, in all his naïveté and ignorance of matters epistemological but with the confidence born of the certainty which pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) provide in abundance, just went blithely ahead and gladsomely extirpated the whole dang lot (including himself) anyway. It is your call.
RESPONDENT: It tells me a lot about Actualism that you cannot tolerate or put aside what you label as deficient thinking in another and still keep a dialogue going. RICHARD: How on earth can I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is dismissed out of hand as being an expounding of theory? RESPONDENT: You could realise that I deal with facts and believe them to exist as well ... with the usual proviso that contradictions render previously accepted facts into falsehood. RICHARD: Why would I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is treated as being (a) evidence believed to exist ... and (b) potentially false evidence? RESPONDENT: You’ve created a straw man to argue with. RICHARD: Here is an example which will illustrate:
Do you see that by the use of the plural you requested evidence that (a) the instincts being referred to are indeed ‘software’ (and not ‘hardware’) ... and that (b) the instincts being referred to can indeed be deleted? If you do see that then I will ask you this: knowing in advance that any evidence whatsoever is going to be treated as being potentially false evidence believed to exist just what is the point of me answering at all? In fact, is there any point in asking that question in the first place? RESPONDENT: Could you be so kind as to point out where I have ‘dismissed out of hand’? RICHARD: Look, by your own reckoning Perhaps a fanciful conversation will throw some light:
An alternative ending might look something like this:
The slippery-slope into the place where the sun don’t shine
RESPONDENT No. 60 (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:
And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:
Finally, here is my response to that reply:
If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT No. 60: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. CO-RESPONDENT: Give it up No. 60, it’s hopeless. In all these years not one person has elicited a ^you may have a point there^ or even a ^the words dribbling from your mouth may, given a stiff breeze from the SE and proper’ alignment of the stars, be construed to contain a semblance of sense^. I don’t know if deep down inside there is any merit at all to what he says, but to try to wade through the verbal swamp that issues forth just ain’t worth it. The man is a textbook sociopath. Nice freedom on offer, kinda like Sam’s at the end of Brazil. RESPONDENT: Don’t give it up, No. 60. Eliciting anything in particular from Richard is not the point. Exposure of Richard’s character to an audience is where it’s at. Watching Richard’s attempts to control audience perception is fascinating and revealing. RICHARD: So, you have effectively reduced yourself to sniping away at Richard from the sidelines,
exhorting another subscriber on like some frilly-decked cheerleader, and throwing peanuts from the gallery where assorted
malcontents And all because Richard has the audacity, the unmitigated intrepidity, to fly in the face of a popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure). Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT No. 60 (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:
And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:
Finally, here is my response to that reply:
If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT No. 60: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. CO-RESPONDENT: Give it up No. 60, it’s hopeless. In all these years not one person has elicited a ^you may have a point there^ or even a ^the words dribbling from your mouth may, given a stiff breeze from the SE and proper’ alignment of the stars, be construed to contain a semblance of sense^. I don’t know if deep down inside there is any merit at all to what he says, but to try to wade through the verbal swamp that issues forth just ain’t worth it. The man is a textbook sociopath. Nice freedom on offer, kinda like Sam’s at the end of Brazil. RESPONDENT: Don’t give it up, No. 60. Eliciting anything in particular from Richard is not the point. Exposure of Richard’s character to an audience is where it’s at. Watching Richard’s attempts to control audience perception is fascinating and revealing. RICHARD: So, you have effectively reduced yourself to sniping away at Richard from the sidelines, exhorting another subscriber on like some frilly-decked cheerleader, and throwing peanuts from the gallery where assorted malcontents have gathered together for mutual support, eh? RESPONDENT: How could I possibly snipe away at Richard? RICHARD: As you are one who is doing it – as in your ‘Richard’s attempts to control audience perception’ misconception – why ask me? RESPONDENT: There’s nothing to shoot at, remember? RICHARD: So why do it, then? RESPONDENT: It’s all water off a ducks back, remember? RICHARD: You are not the first person to take the absence of any feeling ‘being’ whatsoever to be licence ... and you will most probably not be the last. * RICHARD: And all because Richard has the audacity, the unmitigated intrepidity, to fly in the face of a popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure). RESPONDENT: ‘Fly in the face of popular wisdom’? RICHARD: No ... fly in the face of [quote] ‘a’ [endquote] popular wisdom (that nothing can ever be known for sure) as popularised by Mr. Karl Popper. RESPONDENT: Not likely. RICHARD: Ha ... you either have a short memory or that is just silliness masquerading as a meaningful comment. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You’d like to be special ... RICHARD: No, I *am* special. RESPONDENT: ... but your particular brand of naive realism RICHARD: All you are doing is displaying your ignorance in public for the sake of a cheap shot:
actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive
In short: any identity can be a naïve realist ... all they have to do is adopt that philosophy.
CO-RESPONDENT: ... in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being. (...) RICHARD: Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in. RESPONDENT: Richard, if you ever need help getting that last nail in, don’t you be a martyr now, just ask! RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your alacrity (within 34 minutes flat) in providing a real-life
verification, with this latest cheap shot of yours Put succinctly: you would have to take your snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so.
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 |
