|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: The problem I have with Richard is that he demands that the people around him adopt his viewpoint and his rather simplistic classification schemes of complex phenomena and systems; or else those people are not part of his Actual Freedom, and he will teach them how to view things correctly and in the way that he sees things, and that will be that; and that will be the connection he has with those people and natural affection can ... be derided. I do not share his viewpoint. I have my own. My viewpoint changes. That is part of being human. I love being human. I love being free. RICHARD: I am taking this opportunity to jump ahead three E-Mails so as to catch-up to where your mind is at. Also, this classification of yours (‘linearity’) of straightforward cause and effect consequences, is blocking mutual communication and, as you are now pointing out that simplistic classification schemes are the problem you have with Richard, I consider the jump ahead warranted. You will see that simply living, when described to university graduates (for example), can sometimes all-too-easily be classified as ‘reductionist’ or ‘simplistic classifications’. There is a method which may very well dissolve the strangle-hold that complex analytical thinking has on the mind. Ask yourself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Where a person puts this method into action, with the pure intent garnered from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), this soon becomes a habitual attitude or approach to each and every moment of one’s interactions in the world of people, things and events. And, as only this moment is actual (the past is not actual; the future is not actual) that dratted identity’s cynical and complex analytical thinking scarcely gets a look-in to stuff up the works. Instead, naiveté gets to walk in the world again. And it is only naiveté which comprehends just how simple peace-on-earth already always is. * RESPONDENT: Richard, I will respond later; to some or one or all of the points you continue development of. On a first reading what stands out to me is that your cogitation proceeds in the same general direction that it was before my last input. RICHARD: Did you really anticipate that the psittacistic wisdom in your ‘last input’ would effect a massive rearrangement of Richard’s cognitive process? RESPONDENT: I hear your defence of the linear viewpoint on life. RICHARD: You may, of course, ‘hear’ whatever you wish. This actual world is not ‘linear’ (nor cyclic), however ... it is already just here (coming from nowhere and going nowhere), and it is always here right now (coming from nowhen and going nowhen). For an actualist, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) demonstrates that this actual world, where time has no duration as the normal ‘now’ and ‘then’ and space has no distance as the normal ‘here’ and ‘there’ and form has no distinction as the normal ‘was’ and ‘will be’, is where there is only this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space existing as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (a three hundred and sixty degree awareness as it were). The PCE unequivocally evidences that everything and everyone is transparently and sparklingly obvious, up-front and out-in-the open ... there is nowhere to hide and no reason to hide as there is no ‘me’ to hide. One is totally exposed and open to the universe: already always just here right now ... actually in time and actually in space as actual form. This apperception (selfless awareness) is an unmediated perspicacity wherein one is this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Yet all you can say is ‘I hear your defence of the linear viewpoint on life’. RESPONDENT: I do hope that once Actual Freedom Trust is a political party and gains control of parliament in Australia that you will be kind enough to allow us non-linear folk to remain. At least you could set up reservations for us. RICHARD: May I ask? How does this nightmare of yours contribute to a meaningful discussion? RESPONDENT: One of the myths is that linearity is better than not. RICHARD: As I said in the previous post, ‘linearity’ is mostly a word spiritual people use when talking with me in response to my suggestion that they stay focussed, stick to the issue, be relevant ... and communicate meaningfully. RESPONDENT: I actually have a degree in computer science. Actually I graduated top of my class. I assure you I am capable of clear thinking. RICHARD: An on-going demonstration would be far more convincing than a B.Sc (Computer Science) accreditation after your name. Have a go at using your ‘clear thinking’ and accurately respond this time around in the following exchange (for an example):
RESPONDENT: Computers demand such. They ignore or react to any other sort of thinking on the part of us humans. I am sure you have begun to find that out. RICHARD: No ... a computer is a tool and a tool is incapable of the oh-so-common normal human characteristics such as ignoring or reacting to a human’s thinking. A computer, although electronic, operates mechanically via the GUI ... what you are describing is the consequences of clicking ‘X’ instead of ‘OK’, for a simple example. The deletion (‘X’) of your work, instead of continuing (‘OK’) with your work ensues as a result of misunderstanding the mechanics of cause and effect and instead imbuing a computer with human-like characteristics such as a demand on the part of a computer for clear thinking from its operator. The dumbest, most confused person in the ABC Of Computers classroom readily comprehends such basic cause and effect consequences as ‘if I click ‘X’ instead of ‘OK’ everything gets lost; if I click ‘OK’ instead of ‘X’ it moves on to the next thing’. The question is: do you want to ‘move on to the next thing’ or continue to get lost? RESPONDENT: I recommend a 3 year university level training as a computer scientist for you; if you are willing and interested in deepening your discernment; of being able to distinguish between facts and points-of-view. RICHARD: This would be the appropriate moment to inform you that other respondents have told me that, in order for me to communicate with them, I must do their version of what you are recommending – one such person insisted I do a five year university course in logic and analytic thinking for example – and if I did do all these studies, courses, groups, therapies, workshops and so on that these different peoples want me to do then ... then I will end up like them (they say). Is it not quaint that a mere boy from the farm, with no university degrees in logic or computer science or analytic thinking, wound up being free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: Along that track; the next point that my particular line thru my brain takes me; which of course will not correspond to the place your brain would take you to; is that I see now that you do not understand basic science. RICHARD: You may, of course, ‘see’ whatever you like. RESPONDENT: You present your way as science. Certainly you demand facts rather than mere speculation. That is good on your part. Have you read any Kuhn by the way? Anyway what I was going to say is that: 1. I am not stupid. 2. I am capable of thinking clearly. And not only that but there is for sure a third option to the two that you give me. You are fond of that are you not Richard ... presenting people with your demand that they see things in terms of the choices that you – your cogitation processes – serve up to them. RICHARD: What it all boils down to, basically, is that so far you will say anything – you will write whatever – rather than respond accurately to that response of mine which is relevant to the issue you raised, eh? RESPONDENT: And ... I see that all what you present as ‘results’ on your website are in fact a hypothesis. RICHARD: What I write is a description of what is actually happening, each moment again, day after day after day. RESPONDENT: It is one of the most interesting hypothesis I have read into in the last decade or two; and it certainly deserves much support in continuing to examine it. But it is a hypothesis ... and you present it as proven. RICHARD: No ... I present it thus: ‘this is my on-going experience’. RESPONDENT: It is not. It is all your cogitation. RICHARD: I have had this objection offered to me many times ... usually in the form of ‘you only think you are free’. RESPONDENT: And it would be more honest of you to clearly state that you are presenting a starting point for scientific processes to affirm, prove, support ... possibly. RICHARD: Okay ... as in a ‘I am presenting this as a ‘prima facie’ case worthy of further investigation’ type of approach? Is this what you mean? RESPONDENT: I will write more later. RICHARD: And I will not be holding my breath waiting. RESPONDENT: It may not follow on linearly in the way that you seem to demand ... RICHARD: As I said in the previous post, ‘linearity’ is mostly a word spiritual people use when talking with me in response to my suggestion that they stay focussed, stick to the issue, be relevant ... and communicate meaningfully. As you are so amply demonstrating. RESPONDENT: ... that people conform to if they want your accreditation as ‘actually free’. RICHARD: Now there is a grandiose notion if there ever was ... a B.Sc. (Actualism) to display after your name, eh? However, this is The Actual Freedom Mailing List and not The Humaniversity Mailing List. RESPONDENT: I am well aware I do not have that accreditation from you. That is fine. RICHARD: It is more than ‘fine’ ... it is liberating to be released from a master’s clutches (be it directly through a ‘Multiversity’ or indirectly through a ‘Humaniversity’). RESPONDENT: You do not have it from me either. RICHARD: I am free of sorrow and malice and their antidotal love and compassion irrespective of person ‘A’ not giving me their accreditation. Also, conversely, I am free of sorrow and malice and their antidotal love and compassion irrespective of person ‘B’ giving me their accreditation. My freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people credit or discredit me with ... or are totally indifferent about. However, their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon them remembering at least one of their pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) accurately ... and herein my words can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe. Multiplied exponentially such remembering ushers in the distinct possibility of global peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: The problem I have with Richard is that he demands that the people around him adopt his viewpoint and his rather simplistic classification schemes of complex phenomena and systems; or else those people are not part of his Actual Freedom, and he will teach them how to view things correctly and in the way that he sees things, and that will be that; and that will be the connection he has with those people and natural affection can ... be derided. I do not share his viewpoint. I have my own. My viewpoint changes. That is part of being human. I love being human. I love being free. RICHARD: I am taking this opportunity to jump ahead three E-Mails so as to catch-up to where your mind is at. Also, this classification of yours (‘linearity’) of straightforward cause and effect consequences, is blocking mutual communication and, as you are now pointing out that simplistic classification schemes are the problem you have with Richard, I consider the jump ahead warranted. You will see that simply living, when described to university graduates (for example), can sometimes all-too-easily be classified as ‘reductionist’ or ‘simplistic classifications’. RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard for writing your emails today addressed to me ... RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you wrote detailing what the problem you have with Richard is and, as you have publicly stated the value you place upon these discussions, I engaged fully. Viz.:
I do indeed consider ‘an enquiry into actual freedom incredibly important’ ... therefore, this response of yours (below) will show just what you mean by ‘incredibly important’ when provided with the means and opportunity to demonstrate the difference between empty rhetoric, mindless repetition, vacuous statements and vitalised action (as a person of your calibre would not, I am sure, fritter away such a vital opportunity to engage in this enquiry with me).
It is, therefore, fascinating to read your stimulated response (below) which you are archiving for posterity. * RESPONDENT: ... for now I want to just thank you for expressing your point of view ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition disguised in pseudo-politeness. RESPONDENT: ... 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. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric (there is a marked difference between ‘could be’ and ‘actually is’). RESPONDENT: I call all that I write a point of view; I thought you would take my words at face value. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with more mindless repetition (combined with a reminder to take note that it is also empty rhetoric). RESPONDENT: I express my point of view; which is autonomous from yours; has been effected and deflected and altered by yours; and will be in the future rebalanced; by you; and others; and always; always; always; refined and purified by my own examination of what it means to be me. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition and ever more complex empty rhetoric. * RICHARD: There is a method which may very well dissolve the strangle-hold that complex analytical thinking has on the mind. Ask yourself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Where a person puts this method into action, with the pure intent garnered from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), this soon becomes a habitual attitude or approach to each and every moment of one’s interactions in the world of people, things and events. And, as only this moment is actual (the past is not actual; the future is not actual) that dratted identity’s cynical and complex analytical thinking scarcely gets a look-in to stuff up the works. Instead, naiveté gets to walk in the world again. And it is only naiveté which comprehends just how simple peace-on-earth already always is. RESPONDENT: How I am experiencing this moment of being alive; who is in; who I am; what is happening; what do I need to be happy; what would give me pleasure; what my partner or friend or correspondent is expecting from me right now, and how much of that do I need or want to give him or her; constantly augmenting my immersion in, and at the same time delineation from the totality that is the ever modulating energy pattern we live through and in and by; is enough to be fully human in this moment ||)()()()({=} with meaning or without. RICHARD: A change of pace ... this is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with a display of confused complex analytical thinking (possibly deliberately so) and if deliberately so: cynical. RESPONDENT: And my point of view is that in the nature of the freedom we are in on this planet; it is our roots and our destiny; to be nothing more or less; than a point of view into actual freedom. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition disguised as a stirring speech. RESPONDENT: Part of being fully human and thus fully free is that we acknowledge to each other that the viewpoint of each other is just that; nothing more or less than that persons view. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with more mindless repetition (combined with a seeking of support from other people). RESPONDENT: The fact is: ‘Actual Freedom’. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with a vacuous statement RESPONDENT: Thankyou once again for presenting your point of view into actual freedom Richard. Have a good day in Byron Bay. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition disguised in pseudo-politeness. RESPONDENT: You might consider having a photo taken and going to Rabbit Photo; they will give you the photo on CD – in digital format – so you can have your image on the internet by this evening. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition ... to the point of total ignorance. RESPONDENT: Or you can keep limiting your exposure to your conceptualisation ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with yet more mindless repetition. RESPONDENT: ...which in the end is as valid as mine; or Osho’s’; or Veeresh’s; or Ramana Maharshi’s; or Leonard Cohen’s; or Isaac Shapiro’s ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric again (with some brand-names thrown in for good measure). RESPONDENT: ...or anyone else who has explored deeply into the human condition thru the only tool they have available to them; their own biochemistry, consciousness and direct perception of the moment supplemented by the method of intense continuos relentless questioning into their own interiority and out into the world that appears to be external. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with more empty rhetoric. RESPONDENT: ... each of us has a point of view ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with mindless repetition. RESPONDENT: ... 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. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with a dressed-up version of the mindless repetition. RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with a dredged-up support for the mindless repetition. RESPONDENT: That is what it means to be human. No more; no less. RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric and mindless repetition being carried through to the very end. There was only one vacuous statement, though.
RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for adding to the discussion by your statement repeated to ensure it is not lost amongst your many words; for ever. I will copy and paste your words to the top of this email so that they can be preserved for posterity. ‘Richard’s point of view on Respondent’s point of view: ‘This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric’’. Linguists may now argue forever about whether the word ‘this’ refers to Richard’s point of view; to Respondent’s point of view; or to something else entirely. Richard of course will take the statement at face-value. RICHARD: Linguists will not have to ‘argue forever’ (seeing that it was me that wrote it) because I can state clearly and unambiguously what I was referring to in saying over and again, ‘this is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away ...’. Indeed, I have already spelt it out before:
Therefore, you are certainly frittering away a vital opportunity, not only with what you are writing in this post, but in all your E-Mail exchanges so far. Because an actual freedom from the human condition is a non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and you are taking the two words (‘actual freedom’) and making them refer to ... um ... ‘all that is’ or ‘truth’ or ‘god’ or whatever (usually capitalised as All That Is, The Truth, God, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Mind, The Source, The Intelligence Behind Everything, The Underlying Cause, The Ground Of Being, Existence, The Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Real Self, The Greater Reality, The Spirit, The Soul, The Divine Presence, The Greatest, The Sublime, The Essence, The Tao, The Breath Of Life, The Core Of One’s Being, The Most High, The Highest Good, Thatness, Suchness, Isness, Mother Nature, Life Itself, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Sunyata ... and so on and so on). Here it is in context:
And where you specifically wrote:
... I responded: ‘this is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with a vacuous statement’. This is because the full version makes no sense at all when writing to me (I coined the phrase). Viz.:
I have already pointed out in a previous E-Mail that you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to re-define what my phrase means. Other ways of re-defining an actual freedom in your ‘the fact is: ‘Actual Freedom’ sentence could be as follows:
... and so on and so on. Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is another example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
Here is perhaps the clearest example of you trying to turn an actual freedom from the human condition into a pay-as-you-participate religion:
It is the ‘many other religions’ phrasing which drives the point home. Needless to say, with any one of these (possible) translations of the words ‘Actual Freedom’ the following passage make sense:
All this makes clear why you would say to me:
All that remains is for you to state unambiguously what your code-word is for ‘The Truth’, ‘God’, ‘All That Is’ and so on. Maybe it is the phrase ‘Actual Truth’ which you sometimes use ... or maybe it is the ‘awareness’ of Avatar? You wrote:
The originator of ‘Avatar’ is Mr. Harry Palmer; self-described as being a ‘poet-engineer-beatnik’ (‘Living Deliberately’, Harry Palmer, 1994). In 1972 he participated in a spiritual guidance meeting known as ‘Scientology’. He then opened the ‘Centre for Creative Learning’, a branch of the ‘Church of Scientology’ in Elmira, New York, which he directed for about fifteen years. In 1988 he set out ‘to explore many systems of beliefs, the psychedelic movement, Eastern philosophies, the hippie movement, Zen, modern psychology ...’. He developed a particular technique (‘I create my experience according to what I believe’) born out of experiences in a sensory deprivation tank over an eight week period. [quote]: ‘It was at this time that the Avatar lessons appeared. I observed my consciousness become defined, starting from the void, advancing and ebbing like the tide, in this non-space ocean of inexpressible source consciousness. From this point of view, one can perceive or apprehend (i.e. to perceive without instructions) a thought form. It is something! ... relativity is the ultimate truth! If Albert Einstein had had a tank, he would have understood that much earlier’ [endquote]. Avatar is a technique which fits in perfectly to the New Age ideology – ‘you experience what you believe and not the opposite’ – or the ‘you create your own reality’ made popular by Ms. Jane Roberts. Therefore, to change one’s life, it is enough to change what one believes. Reality, which is only a belief itself, can thus be modified at will. His basic thesis – that beliefs create a person’s reality as self-fulfilling prophesies – was one that had been expressed in many places from ‘The Vedas’ to ‘A Course in Miracles’ to information channelled through mediums from astral plane entities such as ‘Seth’ and ‘Bashar’. Scientologists are all familiar with the dictum: ‘you are totally responsible for the condition you are in’. The ‘Creation Handling’ procedure is the one part of Avatar initially considered to be unique ... until a graduate came across a description of a Tibetan meditation technique taught by Mr. Tarthang Tulku, a Tibetan lama who left the country after the Chinese invasion, and founded the ‘Nyingama Institute’ in Berkeley, California in 1969. His method for eliminating unwanted thought forms and their effects, as described in the book ‘Hidden Mind of Freedom’ is virtually the same as Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘discovery’ in the float-tank. Viz.:
(The four paragraphs above are an edited and abridged composite of some of the information available at the following URL’s: http://members.aol.com/eldonb123/avatar-EDF.html and www.scientology-kills.org/avatarpg1.htm). With the goal of Buddhist meditation in mind, what does Mr. Harry Palmer have to say about ‘Avatar’:
Okay, so what the is the source of Mr. Harry Palmer’s ‘unique enlightenment’:
Thus the source of Avatar’s enlightenment is a timeless, spaceless pure being which, although indefinable, can be called ‘awareness’ if awareness has those specific characteristics. The next question is, is ‘awareness’ the same-same as ‘consciousness’?
The goal, then, of ‘Avatar’ is to have time-bound consciousness go back into timeless ‘awareness’, the source. But how did all this come about in the first place?
So where do space and time come from?
Therefore, the ‘tool of Avatar’ is the method to have space and time (separation) disappear:
Okay, so ‘awareness is timeless’ ... but how does all this ‘removing separation’ actually work in practice?
Thus the key to ‘grace’, and thence through to enlightenment as a timeless and spaceless pure being called ‘awareness’, is none other than gratitude ... which is a warm affective feeling. And this timeless and spaceless indefinable called ‘awareness’, ‘pure being’ (or ‘truth’, or ‘all that is’, or ‘god’ or whatever name you may give it) is, once again, none other than the ‘Tried and True’ way which history clearly demonstrates is the ‘tried and failed’ way. It is not unique at all. Whereas an actual freedom from the human condition (a non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom) is totally new in human history. This is what I mean by a vital opportunity being frittered away.
RESPONDENT: You might consider having a photo taken and going to Rabbit Photo; they will give you the photo on CD – in digital format – so you can have your image on the internet by this evening. Or you can keep limiting your exposure to your conceptualisation which in the end is as valid as mine; or Osho’s’; or Veeresh’s; or Ramana Maharshi’s; or Leonard Cohen’s; or Isaac Shapiro’s ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric again (with some brand-names thrown in for good measure). RESPONDENT: Am I hearing that you consider each of these people – living or deceased – to have value ONLY as ‘brands’ – or alternatively, as fodder for the anti-branding brigade – rather than inherent value as an actual human person? In your way of seeing; do I have value as a person? Do you? RICHARD: May I suggest taking my words at face value? I am always straightforward and up-front; there is no subterfuge, no hidden meaning, no secret agenda, no ulterior motive – I mean what I say and I say what I mean – and I have oft-times said that I like my fellow human being irregardless of whatever mischief they get up to. And if someone wants to be valued as an actual human being then they ought to get off their backside and do something about being actual instead of presenting an image for public consumption (although when that happens the whole notion of being valued is meaningless). The term ‘brand-names’ has quite a common usage ... take the automobile industry, for example: Rolls Royce is a brand-name; Cadillac is a brand-name; Porsche is a brand-name; Lamborghini is a brand-name and so on. Each name conveys a quality according to public opinion or personal predilection ... consumers buy a car from a particular brand-name’s stable because of their track record; reliability, safety, after-sales service or whatever other criterion is considered valuable. There is a corollary in the spiritual bazaar (given the billions of dollars that changes hands it is undeniable that there is a product being marketed with the discerning consumer in mind) and seekers are often uncompromising (sometimes to the point of being rabid) when it comes to lineage, for instance. And you mentioned some recognisable ‘brand-names’, to demonstrate your point, that are readily comparable to the commercial world of motor vehicles inasmuch as it could be said there is a Rolls, a Stretch Limousine, a Bentley, a Hearse and a Datsun Bluebird on offer. But not necessarily in that order.
RESPONDENT: Richard, thank you for adding to the discussion by your statement repeated to ensure it is not lost amongst your many words; for ever. I will copy and paste your words to the top of this email so that they can be preserved for posterity. ‘Richard’s point of view on Respondent’s point of view: ‘This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric’’. Linguists may now argue forever about whether the word ‘this’ refers to Richard’s point of view; to Respondent’s point of view; or to something else entirely. Richard of course will take the statement at face-value. RICHARD: Linguists will not have to ‘argue forever’ (seeing that it was me that wrote it) because I can state clearly and unambiguously what I was referring to in saying over and again, ‘this is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away ...’. Indeed, I have already spelt it out before:
Therefore, you are certainly frittering away a vital opportunity, not only with what you are writing in this post, but in all your E-Mail exchanges so far. Because an actual freedom from the human condition is a non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and you are taking the two words (‘actual freedom’) and making them refer to ... um ... ‘all that is’ or ‘truth’ or ‘god’ or whatever (usually capitalised as All That Is, The Truth, God, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Mind, The Source, The Intelligence Behind Everything, The Underlying Cause, The Ground Of Being, Existence, The Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Real Self, The Greater Reality, The Spirit, The Soul, The Divine Presence, The Greatest, The Sublime, The Essence, The Tao, The Breath Of Life, The Core Of One’s Being, The Most High, The Highest Good, Thatness, Suchness, Isness, Mother Nature, Life Itself, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Sunyata ... and so on and so on). RESPONDENT: Thanks, Richard, I am just about concluding the updates I wish to make to xxx.com for the time being. I will quickly scan your latest contribution and probably add it into the record. RICHARD: Whether you add it or not is your business ... and I guess whatever you do reflects whether you are into seeing the total picture or not. Either way, I am chuffed to see just which one of all my lines you chose for the top of your main page, as being an apt quote from Richard, even though it was not just the empty rhetoric that frittered away the vital opportunity. The mindless repetition and vacuous statements had an equal place in your stage-play. RESPONDENT: I hope that you have enjoyed the last week or so when I have been corresponding fairly regularly with you on the actual freedom list. RICHARD: I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. RESPONDENT: I consider my role to be more of journalistic than as a seeker after actual truth ... RICHARD: The measure of one’s success is, of course, proportional to one’s intent. Generally speaking, commitment is avoided like the plague lest one’s friends call one ‘obsessed’ and start issuing atavistic warnings of dire consequences ... and slip the word ‘insanity’ into their conversations every now and then. RESPONDENT: ... or as a potential client of your way. RICHARD: Is this really how you still see it after all these discussions? Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: I do hope that we can continue to be friends on that basis. RICHARD: You have raised this before in a previous exchange some months ago. Viz.:
It would appear that personal friendships are important to you ... as is being respected, being valued and being accredited (to name but three of the things you have wanted from me in this current exchange of E-Mails). There is only one thing which will impress me: the other person being actually free from the human condition. This is because then they too, just like me, will be incapable of not liking another just because of whatever mischief it is they get up to. It is impossible to ‘switch off’ an actual intimacy ... ever. RESPONDENT: In fact, in around 48 hours, it is highly likely that a friend and I will begin driving north to Byron Bay and I would like to meet you once again for the enjoyment of each others company; and my friend, [name witheld] from Holland, has expressed interest in meeting the Richard I have been corresponding with. Would you like that? RICHARD: I have experimented, over the three years or so since I went public with my discovery on the internet, to see whether I am correct or incorrect (and not merely theorising) in saying that it is the words that convey an actual freedom from the human condition, and to thus find out for myself as to whether it is pointless coming to see me in person or not. It is indeed pointless coming to see me in person. RESPONDENT: When I return, I will most like continue my examination of the human condition by setting up some even newer ‘Viewpoint into’ sites by Respondent. There are many possibilities. At some time I would like to come back and be involved intensely again on this list; I will keep reading the most interesting contributions until that time. Once again; I politely and genuinely thank you for engaging with me in this online examination of actual freedom. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... it is what The Actual Freedom Mailing List is set up for.
RESPONDENT: I consider my role to be more of journalistic than as a seeker after actual truth; or as a potential client of your way. RICHARD: Is this really how you still see it after all these discussions? Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: Of course. I do not want to be a client. And I do not want you to be a server. And vice-versa; both. The client-server model of effective structuring of systems was very popular a decade or so ago; but is fast losing validity and respect; and even is losing the possibility of remaining a viable option; as the autonomous peer model that the internet is built on becomes understood more widely. The internet was built to survive a nuclear attack; so the underlying structure is a great model to utilise for human communication systems; and for understanding and increasing immersion in; the underlying actual state of affairs underneath all that. I trust you picked all that up from my communication above when you were reading my words at face-value. RICHARD: What I ‘picked-up’ then, and what I ‘pick-up’ now (as in reading your words at face value), is that you are still not talking to me. You are persisting in talking to an image in your mind called ‘Richard The Server’ (in this instance you cite) created in situ by the viewpoint which you hold to be ‘correct and true’ ... and which, although you allow it may not be, you never actually do. And the resultant problems you thus create is what ‘empty rhetoric’ and ‘mindless repetitions’ and ‘vacuous statements’ actively look like when played-out in print (this E-Mail exchange goes on and on around this one issue). I will put it this way: a potential client (a customer, a shopper, a buyer, a purchaser, a consumer) can only flower to their full potential if a merchant has set-up their stall in the market-place, fully stocked with their product, so as to peddle their wares. A client/merchant relationship, in other words, has to mutually pre-exist as a potentiality for the colloquialism ‘it takes two to tango’ to swing into gear. In the context which you wrote your sentence ‘or a potential client of your way’ (the ‘Actual Freedom’=‘Actual Truth’ aka ‘God’ by ‘Whatever Name’ context) you can only be talking to an image in your mind ... as I am not that personality (the merchant) your viewpoint seeks to superimpose over my words and thus attempts to insert into this flesh and blood body. Hence I wrote: ‘is this really how you still see it after all these discussions’ (as in does your viewpoint really still manipulate you into fondly imagining that you and this flesh and blood body answering to the name ‘Richard’ have, or have ever had, a merchant/client relationship)? There never has been such a relationship; there is no such relationship now; and there never will be such a relationship. The personality you are wanting friendship from, the personality you want to respect you, the personality you want to be valued by and the personality you want accreditation from has no existence outside of your mind. RESPONDENT: It looks like [name withheld] and I will indeed be in Byron by the end of the week; and as you state clearly that ‘it is indeed pointless coming to see me in person’ I will take your words at face-value and ring you when we are in town for a nice friendly pointless lunch and chat together. Great. RICHARD: It is to no avail whatsoever to come seeking that personality (the merchant) here in Byron Bay, to endeavour to make contact with that entity personally, as there is only a flesh and blood body here being apperceptively aware. There is no person answering to that description at this address. Or to put it another way: all you will get by ringing me is an answering machine playing the same-same message as is displayed for all the world to see on The Actual Freedom Web Site. Only the Web Site says it better ... I tend to waffle on like all get-out in voice.
CORRESPONDENT No 12 (Part Eight) 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 |
