|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 18
RESPONDENT: (...) I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. RICHARD: If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. Please note: it is the e-mail posted *to this mailing list by the person concerned* that I am asking for a URL to. RESPONDENT: So … not only that the Actualist method is not working (save for some morons who blindly accept all the hogwash about instincts) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Perhaps the reason why the actualism method is not working for you is because (a) you consider all the detailed reports/descriptions/explanations regarding the instinctual passions are hogwash ... and (b) you consider you would have to be a moron for it to work ... and (c) you consider you would have to blindly accept all the detailed reports/descriptions/explanations regarding the instinctual passions for it to work. RESPONDENT: ... it [the actualism method] is downright dangerous ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: ... especially as Richard may be a severely affectively disabled/handicapped personality ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: ... and perhaps there should be made a note of it on the page, which is the portal to the Topica discussion forum. In other words, the disclaimer at the bottom of the AF-page is not sufficient. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: If you read an allegation into that you are right, the charges are malpractice in the field of psychotherapy ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
Not a single one of the above is remotely like, let alone even coming close to, what is presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: ... [the charges are malpractice in the field of psychotherapy], because no matter how you’ll twist and turn it, that’s what you (and your actualist henchmen) have been doing ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: ... [that’s what you (and your actualist henchmen) have been doing,] teaching a quack method ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: ... [teaching a quack method], stepping way beyond their expertise in psychotherapy ... RICHARD: I have no expertise in psychotherapy at all RESPONDENT: ... [stepping way beyond their expertise in psychotherapy], let alone attempting to override expert psychiatrists’ opinions as to Richards condition ... RICHARD: As the psychiatric profession is not informed about, and hence has no expertise in, pure consciousness experiencing (and thus must classify it according to pre-existing categorisations based upon symptoms and signs presented), one would have to have rocks in the head not to ... what I find cute about all this is that total and irrevocable happiness and harmlessness is considered, by the norms of the real-world, to be a severe and incurable psychotic disorder. RESPONDENT: ...[ let alone attempting to override expert psychiatrists’ opinions as to Richards condition], considering it to be a healthy state ... RICHARD: That would be because Richard’s condition, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), is a most salubrious and irreprehensible condition ... and please note that it is the PCE which informs of this and not belief (one could believe until one was blue in the face and it still would not make it actual). RESPONDENT: ... [considering it to be a healthy state], whereas it is an outgrowth of the sickest ego-maniacal-self-inflating-inflationary-egotistical-narcissistic solipsism ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
It would appear that you have, basically, two choices: either produce some (referenced) quotes from The Actual Freedom Trust web site to that effect or unreservedly withdraw each and every commentitious allegation you have just made ... specifically that Richard’s condition is:
Not all that surprisingly I will not be holding my breath waiting. RESPONDENT: ... [it is an outgrowth of the sickest ego-maniacal-self-inflating-inflationary-egotistical-narcissistic solipsism] write large as ‘THE FIRST EVER IN HISTORY’ to be ‘FREE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION’ ... RICHARD: And thus does yet another ape-the-form-but-include-no-substance catharsis reach its shrill fever-pitch ... and fade limply away back into its own ever-reverberating echoes. RESPONDENT: ...[ write large as ‘THE FIRST EVER IN HISTORY’ to be ‘FREE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION’], sanctified and acknowledged by two dissatisfied/ bored /disenchanted sannyasins. RICHARD: As that is written by a satisfied/ interested/ enchanted sannyasin (aka ‘Rajneeshee’ and/or ‘Friend Of Osho’) I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: So ... it is even beyond me how I have ever have bought into that for a period of time ... RICHARD: As ‘that’ (spelled-out immediately below) has no existence outside of your skull only you could possibly know why you ever bought into it for a period of time. RESPONDENT: ... [it is even beyond me how I have ever have bought into that for a period of time], which apparently is a classical parody played out; the story of a patient thinking and making believe that he is the director of the Lunatics Asylum while he is a resident ... RICHARD: You have overlooked a major flaw in [quote] ‘that’ [endquote] which you bought into for a period of time ... to wit: I am neither a ‘patient’ nor a ‘resident’ of any mental institution by whatever description. RESPONDENT: ...[ which apparently is a classical parody played out; the story of a patient thinking and making believe that he is the director of the Lunatics Asylum while he is a resident], yet some of the patients/visitors believe him because he is quite cleverly going about. RICHARD: You have overlooked a minor flaw in [quote] ‘that’ [endquote] which you bought into for a period of time ... to wit: those who have read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open are neither ‘patients’ of nor ‘visitors’ to of any mental institution by whatever description.
RESPONDENT: (...) I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. RICHARD: If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: As there is no such mail I cannot point you to that URL you request to be pointed to. RICHARD: Exactly ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RESPONDENT No. 53: Lets take a look at the actual track record of your method: (...) And last but certainly not least, you had one very sincere and devoted practitioner who is now under the care of one of No. 66’s colleagues at an undisclosed location. Any acts demonstrating the care you go on and on about for your fellow human being has been sorely lacking in this case, not to mention any care from those 2 chimps who were known to converse with him at length dispensing their expert wisdom until his departure which was precipitated by what you like to call a PCE. RESPONDENT: Yep ... so far for actual caring. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: Richard, just wanna ask this question: When that thing happened, you know that amygdala-event/whatever, and you had this fit of laughing and crying alternately (or shall we say some sort of weird, yet quite effective spontaneous uncontrollable chaotic, yet not disorderly emotional release) where there any witnesses except yourself? RICHARD: If the above – ‘that amygdala-event/whatever’ and ‘some sort of weird, yet quite effective spontaneous uncontrollable chaotic, yet not disorderly emotional release’ – is an example of you exploring the written-discussion medium of a mailing list as a way to have a cyber-space one-to-one dialogue, as an alternative to the verbal-discussion medium of a café face-to-face conversation, then I would suggest making use of the preserved-exactly-as-reported-in-print medium by doing a read-up first as there is little point in wanting to know whether or not there were any witnesses to an event you obviously have no genuine interest in (else you would have re-read what your memory so dismally recalls from an e-mail I posted a scant 4 weeks ago). For an example (from that e-mail):
RESPONDENT: Hopefully you’ll understand that your’s truly is not setting the stage for yet another lets-see-if-we-can-nail-Richard-or-give him-a beat-up-game, but rather I’m looking for new ways to explore this medium as way to have a nice fellow-being-cyber- tête-à-tête, as an alternative for i.e. having a talk while each one is blowing the steam of a cappuccino or enjoying a straight espresso each one of course paying for his own consumption. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you freely acknowledge – with your ‘yet another’ phrasing – just what you have been frittering away a vital opportunity on. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it amazing what one can do with just a couple hyphens. RICHARD: Yep ... did you notice how I utilised them rather fetchingly in my ‘preserved-exactly-as-reported-in-print’ usage above? Just idly curious.
RESPONDENT No. 60: I thought the claim of an intent to intimidate (when applied to people like No 18, No 58, No 31 and No 56, was ridiculous and unjust, so I spoke up). RESPONDENT No. 68: Maybe your observations are correct. Or maybe you want them to be correct irregardless of the evidence. RESPONDENT: I prefer to say that sometimes I mildly discourage to move into a certain direction. So ... rather then using the word intimidation which is in fact a fabrication of Peter. And as such an allegation that anyone thinks/feels he is being included into a fabricated category of intimidators surely can demand some evidence for having been or being indeed intimidating. I think it was good you brought this to attention. (...) So Peter get ready to <snip and paste> some passages that you consider to have been intimidating. RICHARD: As it was not Peter who included you into the category ‘intimidators’ – he
explicitly referred to the generalised [quote] ‘other people’ [endquote] phrasing his co-respondent used RESPONDENT: Specifically where it concerns your’s truly. You have my word that if you can produce any instance of that kind of material that you consider as such that I will have it thoroughly examined ... RICHARD: Here is an (edited) instance you might care to thoroughly examine
Here is what a dictionary has to say about ‘malpractice’:
And here is what it has to say about ‘intimidation’:
The disclaimer at the bottom of the homepage of The Actual Freedom Trust web site is a stock-standard disclaimer, couched in legalese, purely for the reason that the real-world is a litigious world ... and it may be apposite to mention that the person (the same person who drove you to Byron Bay for an appointment they were knowingly incapable of delivering on) who introduced you to the actualism words and writings, and thus to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, also tried to interfere with the free exercise of expression in a more blatant manner. For just one instance, amongst many, on this mailing list:
RESPONDENT No. 53: ... it [the actualism method] can only be considered another delaying tactic ... RICHARD: As speculation derived from armchair philosophising goes nowhere, and fast, this flesh and blood body will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT No. 53: ... and perhaps even a sport of nature that worked but once for one person. RICHARD: As the term ‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’ the following is worth quoting (as you would be on a hiding to nowhere to pursue that theme with this flesh and blood body): (snip quote). RESPONDENT: Aye ... is more/or less synonymous when/if not considered in the sense of that freak has a negative emotional loaded meaning, whereas sport would merely indicate a positive emotional loaded meaning. Naturally for a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto it is understandable that after a certain point a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto will not be capable to accurately discriminate between words that have a mentioned emotional load (as there is a defective/absence of the emotional faculty which is necessary to ‘weight/check the load so to speak). So ... considering that it is somewhat arbitrary to make the call that [‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’] not only that it I find it also an inaccurate call. RICHARD: You would be better off addressing your finding of inaccuracy to the authors of the Oxford Dictionary, then:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: (...) Would you care perhaps to make an amendment to that statement [‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’]? RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT No. 53: ... it [the actualism method] can only be considered another delaying tactic ... RICHARD: As speculation derived from armchair philosophising goes nowhere, and fast, this flesh and blood body will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT No. 53: ... and perhaps even a sport of nature that worked but once for one person. RICHARD: As the term ‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’ the following is worth quoting (as you would be on a hiding to nowhere to pursue that theme with this flesh and blood body): (snip quote). RESPONDENT: Aye ... is more/or less synonymous when/if not considered in the sense of that freak has a negative emotional loaded meaning, whereas sport would merely indicate a positive emotional loaded meaning. Naturally for a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto it is understandable that after a certain point a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto will not be capable to accurately discriminate between words that have a mentioned emotional load (as there is a defective/absence of the emotional faculty which is necessary to ‘weight/check the load so to speak). So ... considering that it is somewhat arbitrary to make the call that [‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’] not only that it I find it also an inaccurate call. RICHARD: You would be better off addressing your finding of inaccuracy to the authors of the Oxford Dictionary, then: ‘sport: (Biol.): a plant (or part of a plant), animal, etc., which exhibits some abnormal or striking variation from the parent stock or type, esp. in form or colour; a spontaneous mutation; a new variety produced in this way (earliest in ‘sport of nature’). [endquote]. And: ‘sport of nature = lusus naturae. [endquote]. And: ‘lusus [Latin lusus naturae ‘sport of nature’]: in full lusus naturae. a freak of nature, an abnormal formation, a natural curiosity. [endquote]. And: ‘freak: a product of irregular or sportive fancy; (more fully ‘freak of nature’); an abnormal or irregular occurrence, an abnormally developed person or thing, a monstrosity. [endquote]. And: ‘sportive: (Biol.) of a plant etc.: liable to sport or vary from the type. [endquote]. And: ‘freak of nature: aberration, abnormality, irregularity, oddity, monster, monstrosity, malformation, mutant, rara avis. [endquote]. And: ‘rara avis: a kind of person rarely encountered; an unusual or exceptional person; a rarity; an unusual or exceptional occurrence or thing (synonyms: rarity, rare person/thing, anomaly, aberration, freak, freak of nature, wonder, marvel, nonpareil, nonsuch, one of a kind. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: (...) Would you care perhaps to make an amendment to that statement [‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’]? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: As you have indeed demonstrated that you disregard and/or fail to understand the emotional load of the words freak and sport as most commonly used in daily conversations ... RICHARD: All I have demonstrated (if anything) is that Oxford Dons also disregard the emotional load you attribute to the words ‘freak’ and ‘sport’ when they are used in the terms ‘freak of nature’ and ‘sport of nature’. The word ‘sport’, being aphetic of ‘disport’ (Anglo-Norman ‘desport’/Old French ‘desporter’ which refer to the action or an act of diverting or turning aside from an expected or usual course) and which comes from the French déporter (‘deport’) from des- (‘dis-‘), with the sense ‘apart, away, asunder’, + porter (‘port’) meaning ‘carry’, has the connotation of ‘diversion’ when used in a term such as ‘sport of nature’ and is not emotionally loaded ... be it either negatively or positively. The word ‘freak’, which is probably of dialectic origin and referring to a sudden change or an occurrence which is markedly unusual or irregular (as in ‘a freak accident’ or ‘a freak storm’), describes the product of a sportive vagary when used in a term such as ‘sport of nature’ and has nothing to do with what the pejorative word ‘freak’ means in popular usage/daily conversations ... and is, consequently, also not emotionally-loaded (be it either negatively or positively). RESPONDENT: ... [As you have indeed demonstrated that you disregard and/or fail to understand the emotional load of the words freak and sport as most commonly used in daily conversations] I see you have merely demonstrated, by your negating and leaving out those aspects in your declaration them to be synonymous that indeed there must be a defective/ absence of the emotional faculty, me thinks you will be the last to deny this. RICHARD: That makes it twice now that you have used ‘a defective/absence’ (I let it be the first time around) ... I really do wonder, at times, why person after person would consider they can try out smart-aleckry on me, and get away with it, when the evidence of so many e-mails in the archives demonstrates that any such attempt has invariably resulted in them coming off a pathetic second-best (if that). Nevertheless I will continue play the silliness game accordingly until such peoples wake up to the fact they are frittering away an opportunity ... to wit: as the absence of the affective faculty in its entirety is anything but a defect in this flesh and blood body I am unable to respond to your thought (that I will be the last to deny this) whilst it is in its present form. RESPONDENT: It would be silly to me for me to argue with authors dictionary writers, thus your advice [you would be better off addressing your finding of inaccuracy to the authors of the Oxford Dictionary] is considered dubious as to me being off any benefit. RICHARD: It was not meant to be taken literally (as in actually writing to them) ... it bespoke the sensibility of consulting a dictionary or two before typing out something of the above nature and clicking ‘send’.
RICHARD: (...) speaking generally, mostly people do not dare to see themselves, in their entirety, all at once and elect instead for the detached/dissociated way of seeing ... it being a whole lot safer, so to speak. RESPONDENT: The identity inhabiting that flesh and blood body went in so-called abeyance ... RICHARD: There is nothing ‘so-called’ about it ... it was abeyance (aka suspension/dormancy/latency), pure and simple. RESPONDENT: ... [The identity inhabiting that flesh and blood body went in so-called abeyance] for the duration of PCE for a period of time the instinctual passions had magically disappeared. RICHARD: Aye ... ‘magically’ (as in prestidigitation) is the operative word when it comes to a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: One might wonder how come that very ‘him’ suddenly was back? RICHARD: Because abeyance is not, of course, extinction. RESPONDENT: All the stranger as it is that these passions which somehow must have been absent nevertheless ‘him’ became absent as a result of ‘him’ being seen in ‘his’ entirety which made ‘him’ disappear (albeit for the duration of the PCE). Was perhaps that (PCE) not some strange sort of dissociation? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Understandably it being a whole lot safer, so to speak to elect instead for the detached/dissociated way of seeing ... advanced dissociation perhaps; some smart aleckry from the entity within, who will tell? RICHARD: Anybody who can recall having a PCE can tell (else it be not a PCE).
RICHARD: There is, of course, a third alternative to either sanity or insanity (insanity is but an extreme form of sanity) ... RESPONDENT: How do does on come to say that insanity is *but* an *extreme* form of sanity? RICHARD: Because normalcy is a mild form of lunacy. RESPONDENT: If one would arrive at a so-called extreme form of sanity then it might be progressively (as in comparatively) described as: sane [more/less] sane as [reference to examples] …, [the most/least sane] as … [reference to examples] …, (thus are both possibilities; the negative extreme form of sanity and the positive extreme form of sanity covered) yet the exclusion of any category of sane persons (to whatever degree), is only achieved by the addition of the prefix ‘in’ as meaning not, hence sanity in whatever form can never be *in*sanity. RICHARD: Hmm ... and can you conduct similar word-magic on normalcy/lunacy? RESPONDENT: In other words the prefix of the word ‘in’ would exclude any form of sanity, thus it would follow that insanity is the only option to label Richards condition. RICHARD: Ha ... some people seem to never be able to let go of a fanciful notion once it takes hold, eh? RESPONDENT: It could be that my logic is not impeccable in this matter and it would be appreciated if you or (someone else) would point that out. RICHARD: ‘Tis not a matter of logic: almost anyone having taken psychology 101 for the first time knows the unnerving experience of having, at the very least, some of the symptoms of the various categories of psychosis ... a bipolar disorder (popularly known as being manic-depressive), for instance, is nothing other than an extreme version of normalcy’s highs and lows. It is this simple: actualism is an entirely new paradigm – unlike materialism/spiritualism such states of being as normalcy/lunacy no longer exist upon an actual freedom from the human condition – and, like any new paradigm, it requires thinking outside of the box (to use a popular colloquialism).
RESPONDENT: (...) As it is now, it seems that the Buddhist-paradigm is essentially synonymous with any spiritual-paradigm hence the extreme opposition of Actualism vs. Spiritualism assumed to be accurate (hence factual) and posed as such by the actualists. Furthermore actualism being based on if not grounded in a Darwinian paradigm and ... definitely hence rejects the option of the possibility of immortality. RICHARD: Whereas the actualism presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not based on, let alone grounded in, anything other than the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. As for immortality: the very stuff of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – which is matter either as mass or energy – neither comes into nor goes out of existence ... if you were to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly through space (all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe) whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were, and not through the eyes, it may very well become apparent that, as this flesh and blood body only, one is perpetuum mobilis. In short: what many otherwise intelligent peoples have been searching for over aeons – permanence – has been no further away, all the while, than coming to one’s senses.
RESPONDENT: Lately I discovered that I have been chronically experiencing cognitive dissonance with regard to information that in order to be accurately be decoded and weighted, thoroughly needs to be considered in relation to data that add a numerical aspect to it. I.e. (see Richard’s example of the time it would take to have a crowd of x people pass by one after the other; x= i.e. the amount of people that died during wars in the previous century). RICHARD: That illustration was for the estimated number (174,000,000) of citizens dead at the hands of autocratic governments in the last 100 years ... via genocide, politicide, mass murder, extra-judicial executions, starvation/ privation, and so forth, both during and between wars. Viz.:
The number of battlefield deaths (38,000,000) was less than a quarter of that figure RESPONDENT: In the case of being specific, i.e. as to the amount of bottles of beer that are being consumed during a world-cup football match it is not sufficient to say that many bottles of beer were consumed unless one also gives roughly the boundaries in terms of more then or less then. The data more then 20,000 but less then 27,000 enables the reader to estimate for himself whether this is a case where there was consumed a lot or not so much. If there where some 30,000 people in the football-stadium it would come down to roughly less then an average of 1 bottle a person; apparently a scenario that is quite out of realistic expectation. Nevertheless in the case that there would be 27000 bottles of beer available for 27 people that would mean that there would be plenty of beer for a considerate time. Provided that each of them would consume about the same amount (1000), then at a rate of 20 pp a day the ‘party’ could continue for 50 days unabated. If one crate of beer would contain 25 bottles, then the height of 4 crates stacked on each other would be 1 meter thus 10 meter beer would correspond with 1000 bottles of beer, thus a tower of crates with a height of 270 meter would result if all these crates were stacked upon each other (roughly the height of the Eiffel tower in France.), obviously that would be an insane enterprise. However if there would be made 27 stacks with a height of 10 meter each nicely squarely arranged then depending on the size of the crates a beer-tower would result with a size of approximately 10 meter x 5m x 5m. Now is 50 days a long period? Is 27000 a lot? Is 10 meter high? It depends on the context in which it is being used and compared to what. Recently I heard Nobel Prize winner Mr. Mohammed Allbarraday (IAA), make the statement that in his opinion the overall situation with regard to nuclear issues is today even worse then at the time during the cold war even at times during the Cuba-crisis. RICHARD: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its current Director General, Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei, were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on 7 October 2005. I have not been able to locate the statement you recently heard ... but only 19 days ago (25 May 2006) Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei had the following to say:
RESPONDENT: It was mentioned that worldwide there are 27000 warheads (each of them with a destructive capacity far exceeding the destructive capacity of the both the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). And I asked myself: is that a fact? Is it a fact that there are exactly 27000 or are there more or are there less and if so how many more or less are there? RICHARD: On the 10 December 2005 he said this:
And on the 12 February 2004 he said this:
RESPONDENT: Lets assume for a moment that indeed the man has been providing factual information, then what does/ could/ will that mean, there are 27000 warheads? RICHARD: Just for starters: by being more than fifty percent less than the Cold War peak it means that more than 27,000/ 30,000 have already been decommissioned, dismantled and destroyed ... which is an effort in the control of their spread, Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei says, that can be viewed as a remarkable success. RESPONDENT: Will they (all of them) in the future being dismantled (if so when is this going to be done) or will they be detonated (if so when is this going to happen)? RICHARD: If the reduction/ elimination of the two other means which human beings have devised to bring about death, maiming and injury on a mass scale (chemical and biological warfare) are anything to go by ... probably not (at least not in the foreseeable future). RESPONDENT: Overcoming my initial cognitive dissonance I decided to do some math and then I came to the stunning conclusion, that if all of them were to be detonated in a sequence at a rate of 1 per minute this would result in a series of explosions that would continue for 27 days. If each warhead would be launched to target a city (inhabiting 100,000 persons), then in 27 days 2,700,000,000 persons would have disappeared from the face of the earth. Furthermore there are some 450 nuclear energy plants, if those also would be detonated in a sequence at the same rate then that would take an extra 6 hours. In short starting at February the first by the beginning of march the job would have been done and the world would be relieved from any nuclear threat; but at what costs. So ... my question to anyone of you is, with regard to [there are worldwide 27000 warheads]: do you consider that as a (a) fact; (b) factoid; (c) fantasy; (d) believe; (e) other than a. b. c. d. RICHARD: As both the 27,000 and 30,000 figures are rounded-out numbers it is obviously (e) ... and for what it is worth I can recall, somewhere around 1979-1980 (when the populist expression of the day was that there were more than enough warheads world-wide to kill every man, woman and child three times over), listening to a radio-broadcast of the then-head of the US armed forces being asked by a senate committee in-session whether the USA had enough warheads and his reply remains with me to this very day (due to it being the understatement of the year). He said, quietly but with full authority, ‘Gentlemen, we have a sufficiency’. RESPONDENT: In any/ which case the next question is: if prior to reading the above you have been experiencing cognitive dissonance with regard to this nuclear issue, has that undergone a change? RICHARD: By virtue of being born and raised during the post WWII era it is all oh-so-familiar to me ... just as it would be for those born and raised during the post WWI era (after the first weapon of mass death, maiming and injury – chemical warfare – had been both devised and used). RESPONDENT: Iow. how does this information affect you in experiencing this moment of being alive on this verdant planet? RICHARD: It has no effect whatsoever ... nothing, but nothing, can either add to or take way from the utter enjoyment and sheer appreciation of being alive, as a flesh and blood body only, just here at this place in finite space right now at this moment in eternal time. RESPONDENT: P.S.: Though the example of beer bottles may appear to be intended as humorous it is merely used as a stepping stone to shift from a lighter key (alcohol abuse which though is a problem as there are plenty of kids here who can consume at the rate that is being used in this example) to a lower key (nuclear threat which has become recently more to the front in case of Iran). So ... make no mistake, I am dead serious about both of the issues and if anyone thinks this list is not the place to discuss these subjects then please let me know as I neither don’t wanna waste your time nor my own. RICHARD: This mailing list was not set up to discuss materialistic solutions to those subjects – such as non-proliferation treaty regimes/ alcoholic treatment regimes for instance – but, rather, as a venue for discussing the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... to wit: ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which or ‘being’ itself). Nor was it, by the way, set up to discuss spiritualistic solutions – such as being passed the Holy Spark by
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
And, just so there is no misunderstanding as to what ‘That’ (as in Tat Tvam Asi) is:
RESPONDENT: Namaste (respectful nod). RICHARD: G’day (affable nod). RESPONDENT: If I have correctly understood the phenomenon ‘free from the human condition’, then it is possible that besides you Richard, there can be many more who can attain or have attained and hence can also claim to be the first yet not be it, as nobody is it. How is this possible? RICHARD: Let me guess ... by first asserting that individuality is a myth, perchance? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If there were i.e. an x number of actually free persons, then if they were put in a line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN in which x1 would indicate the first free, x2 the second, x 3 the third, and so on., when considered these x’s as a linear sequence then indeed x1 would be the first and x2 would be the second and so on. RICHARD: By way of example: as there have been 12 persons to have set foot on the moon then, if they were put in a line in which No. 1 would indicate the first, No. 2 the second, No. 3 the third, and so on, when considered as a linear sequence, Mr. Neil Armstrong would be the first, Mr. Edwin Aldrin would be the second, Mr. Charles Conrad would be the third, and so on, through to the twelfth. Here they are (in a descending order of sequence):
And here they are again (in an ascending order of sequence):
Alternatively, the sequence could be represented by those No’s only (reading from left-to-right):
Or reading from right-to-left:
RESPONDENT: However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result ... RICHARD: It does no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know there was a specific cause> a certain action> a definite result. RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result] which in the very long run is a cycle ... RICHARD: It is no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know it was a one-off, irrevocable event. RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle] it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result ... RICHARD: It does no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know it was most certainly so that cause preceded the result. RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result] it is also correct to say that result precedes cause ... RICHARD: It is no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know that it is incorrect to say that result preceded the cause. RESPONDENT: ... [However as this being free from the human condition happens outside a certain sequence of cause> action> result which in the very long run is a cycle it is only seemingly so that cause precedes result it is also correct to say that result precedes cause] as in fact they are both part of the same cycle of birth, growth and death. RICHARD: They are no such thing ... by virtue of personal experience I intimately know there is nothing factual whatsoever about that (borrowed) belief system. RESPONDENT: Death is the condition that precedes birth ... RICHARD: It is not ... the fertilisation of an ova with spermatozoa, with an ensuing germination/gestation, is what precedes birth. RESPONDENT: ... [Death is the condition that precedes birth] likewise is birth the condition that precedes death ... RICHARD: It is not ... unless pre-empted by (fatal) illness or injury senescence is what precedes death. RESPONDENT: ... [Death is the condition that precedes birth likewise is birth the condition that precedes death] and all the way the condition that enables that cycle to continue is stable and kept in place by intent/ desire to manifest. RICHARD: As what you are speaking of there is known as tanha (the craving for existence/ manifestation) in buddhistic circles one thing is for sure ... you have not correctly understood an actual freedom from the human condition. Viz.:
And whilst on the subject of understanding ... the Hindi word namaste comes from the Sanskrit ‘namas’ (bowing, obeisance) + ‘te’ dative of tvam (you) and thus, in conjunction with the namaskar (a bringing of the palms together before the face or chest and bowing), is a reverential acknowledgment of mutual divinity (as in ‘Tat Tvam Asi’). And as I am not ‘That’, never have been ‘That’, never will be ‘That’, then what you are ... um ... respectfully nodding at is nothing but a self-projected image. RESPONDENT: That desire however is corrupted by fear of becoming non existent thus one is born with fear/ desire and so unless that fear is understood one is being reborn with the same fear/ desire which is being at the core. RICHARD: As there is no such thing as rebirth in actuality your misunderstanding of an actual freedom from the human condition has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. RESPONDENT: Becoming free from the human condition implies having ‘stepped’ outside that particular cycle ended being (part of that particular cycle of birth and death). RICHARD: It implies no such thing ... as it involves the extinction of ‘being’ itself there is no such entity extant to have stepped anywhere (let alone outside of that buddhistic fantasy). RESPONDENT: Now ... If one would consider the line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN as a circle ... RICHARD: By way of example: those people who set foot on the moon – represented further above as the numerical line reading left-to-right (No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11 and No. 12) where No. 1 refers to Mr. Neil Armstrong, No. 2. to Mr. Edwin Aldrin, No. 3. to Mr. Charles Conrad, and so on, through to Mr. Harrison Schmitt – could be considered as being represented by a circular clock-face ... with Mr. Harrison Schmitt at the top of the circle (12 o’clock), Mr. Edgar Mitchell at the bottom (6 o’clock) and Mr. John Young and Mr. Charles Conrad to the left and the right respectively (9 o’clock and 3 o’clock). RESPONDENT: ... [If one would consider the line x1, x2, x3, and so on ... xN as a circle] then x1 is not the first nor is x2 the second. RICHARD: As the number 1 on the clock-face represents Mr. Neil Armstrong, the number 2 Mr. Edwin Aldrin, the number 3 Mr. Charles Conrad, and so on, through to the number 12 (representing Mr. Harrison Schmitt) then No. 1 (Mr. Neil Armstrong) is indeed the first, and No. 2 (Mr. Edwin Aldrin) is indeed the second. Golly, you could turn the clock-face upside-down – roll it down a hill even – and Mr. Neil Armstrong would still be the first. RESPONDENT: As one might say that all those x’s in that circle can be considered as having reached the condition of ‘pure intent’ of manifestation of life as a body ... RICHARD: One might not, repeat not, say that of pure intent (equate it, that is, with the buddhistic ‘tanha’) as what is said of pure intent on The Actual Freedom Trust web site has nothing to do with any spirit being craving existence/ manifestation ... with its resultant samsara (literally ‘running around’) and dukkha. RESPONDENT: ... that understands what it is (pure energy), being in that metaphorical circle can be considered as being on the condition of pure intent to end desire/ fear. RICHARD: As what is said of pure intent on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is unambiguously in regards to the extinction of identity in toto, and not the dissociation of same from its desire/ fear, your typical-of-spiritualists-trick of purloining – ‘making away with, taking by deception; stealing, filching’ (Oxford Dictionary) – what is otherwise a clearly-defined term and then bending it to your own self-serving interest has been a total waste of the time you took in doing so. RESPONDENT: As this metaphorical circle is not a circle but a condition, apparently x1, is likewise as x2, and so on, simultaneously existing as at this condition nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on. RICHARD: By way of example: it is patently obvious that No. 1 (Mr. Neil Armstrong) is not likewise as No. 2 (Mr. Edwin Aldrin), and so on, simultaneously existing as at a (purloined/ self-serving) condition where Mr. Neil Armstrong was not the first nor Mr. Edwin Aldrin the second nor Mr. Charles Conrad the third and so on. RESPONDENT: I may be the first though who actually has gained some understanding of how this happens ... RICHARD: Ha ... by your own logic (if that be the right word) you cannot be the first to have gained some understanding of anything as [quote] ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... [I may be the first though who actually has gained some understanding of how this happens] but then again as a possibility, I’m also open to the possibility that I may have misunderstood ... and again once more ... the myth of individuality is a rather persistent one and well may be so persistent, because when that condition is attained it is hardly conceivable that one is not the first that has attained it. RICHARD: Hmm ... so persistent that, directly after having just postulated that ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’, your very first words were [quote] ‘I may be the *first* though who actually has gained some understanding ...’ [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: So ... Richard is that perhaps that one little speck in the pristine purity in the actual world; blind nature after all not being blind instinctual, but perfectly intentional in ways we (if I so may take the liberty to use it all inclusively) not (yet) fully comprehend? Not (yet) fully comprehended (that is HOW, it is possible that any person arrives at that new condition) however possibilism is interested in developing a paradigm that could explain this big HOW. RICHARD: If I may point out? The word [quote] ‘new’ [endquote] kinda knocks your ‘nobody is the first nor the second nor the third and so on’ postulation for a six, does it not? RESPONDENT: For instance how come that there are no psychic footprints to detect ... RICHARD: There were no psychic footprints to detect for the very simple reason that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history. RESPONDENT: ... [For instance how come that there are no psychic footprints to detect] whilst there have been/ are/ will be others? RICHARD: There were no others prior to 1992 and, as far as is ascertainable since then, there still are no others but, as a well-documented cause-and-effect precedence has now been established, promulgated, and promoted, there is every reason why there will be. RESPONDENT: It could be, that there are simply no ‘footprints being made’ by those who are on that condition. RICHARD: Why could it be? Or, more to the point, what intimate knowledge do you have of such footprints to be able to make such a supposition? And even if it were so (which it is not) where are those others that you suppose made no psychic footprints, then? Look, it is this simple: any previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... which is why I keep on asking the simple question as to where such a person/ persons supposedly already actually free from the human condition prior to 1992 is/ are to be found. If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever I would be most pleased as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge. Thus far, however, and especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce such a person or persons.
(...) RESPONDENT: So ... make no mistake, I am dead serious about both of the issues [alcohol abuse and nuclear threat] and if anyone thinks this list is not the place to discuss these subjects then please let me know as I neither don’t wanna waste your time nor my own. RICHARD: This mailing list was not set up to discuss materialistic solutions to those subjects – such as non-proliferation treaty regimes/ alcoholic treatment regimes for instance – but, rather, as a venue for discussing the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... to wit: ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which or ‘being’ itself). Nor was it, by the way, set up to discuss spiritualistic solutions – such as being passed the Holy Spark by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and having some understanding of what the Eternal Soul entails – as those solutions inevitably involve the self-aggrandisement of that root cause, via some process of sublimation and transcendence (self-realisation), until there is only ‘Being’ (aka ‘That’). Viz.: (...) [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘There is only that’. [endquote]. And, just so there is no misunderstanding as to what ‘That’ (as in Tat Tvam Asi) is: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘I am God’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Just so that there is no misunderstanding as to what I have intended to convey with my report about the meeting I had with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, this was a meeting with K (as he referred to himself at the age of 90) it happened at August 1985 so ... that event to which I referred as being given the ‘Holy Spark’, happened one year earlier. RICHARD: So what (that it was one year earlier you were passed the spiritualistic solution all the
ills of humankind)? This mailing list was not set up to discuss same regardless of when you were sucked into such massive
delusions via the affective/ psychic network all identities are interconnected with RESPONDENT: May I ask: did you ever meet him in person?’ RICHARD: There was no need to ... the identity in residence at the time was already massively deluded of ‘his’ own accord (per favour the narcissism inherent in the instinctual passions). RESPONDENT: Also, though while ago you asked if I was furthering the work of Osho and Krishnamurti, I (perhaps somewhat sheepish) replied that I was not. RICHARD: This is how you actually replied (in context):
RESPONDENT: However as that could be called a lie in the context of the correspondence we have had over the years, I hereby publicly acknowledge the fact that I was lying. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate your acknowledgement of what has been blatantly obvious all along (that you do not have the slightest interest in what this mailing list was set up for). RESPONDENT: So ... the appropriate answer should have been: ‘I don’t know, but sure as hell I hope I do’. RICHARD: And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, continue on unabated – just as they did in the era of the Vedas – due to the narcissism inherent in the instinctual survival package bestowed by blind nature.
RESPONDENT: Just so that there is no misunderstanding as to what I have intended to convey with my report about the meeting I had with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, this was a meeting with K (as he referred to himself at the age of 90) it happened at August 1985 so ... that event to which I referred as being given the ‘Holy Spark’, happened one year earlier. RICHARD: So what (that it was one year earlier you were passed the spiritualistic solution all the ills of humankind)? This mailing list was not set up to discuss same regardless of when you were sucked into such massive delusions via the affective/ psychic network all identities are interconnected with. (...) RESPONDENT: Also, though while ago you asked if I was furthering the work of Osho and Krishnamurti, I (perhaps somewhat sheepish) replied that I was not. However as that could be called a lie in the context of the correspondence we have had over the years, I hereby publicly acknowledge the fact that I was lying. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate your acknowledgement of what has been blatantly obvious all along (that you do not have the slightest interest in what this mailing list was set up for). RESPONDENT: So ... the appropriate answer should have been: ‘I don’t know, but sure as hell I hope I do’. RICHARD: And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, continue on unabated – just as they did in the era of the Vedas – due to the narcissism inherent in the instinctual survival package bestowed by blind nature. RESPONDENT: I see ... so ... Richard ... it feels like that it is something like: The venom is in the tail. RICHARD: What it feels like to you and what it actually is are, of course, two entirely different things. RESPONDENT: (...) And then ... you load up the digital bullets on me eh. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: It is merely that lost and frightened entity inside that comes up with these dreams and schemes that you are targeting eh. RICHARD: Not with bullets (be they digital or otherwise), no. RESPONDENT: A fun ‘challenge’ so to speak eh. RICHARD: Not with bullets (be they digital or otherwise), no. RESPONDENT: Blathering about a psychic web ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... to impress your readers ... RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: ... and to score cheap points on me eh. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: And all what I have conveyed is of zero import/ value ... RICHARD: In terms of bringing to an end the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, which epitomise the human condition ... yes. RESPONDENT: ... and it is only the actualists that have it right ... RICHARD: If by that you mean only a person having, or being able to recall, the direct experience that matter is not merely passive, then ... yes, obviously. RESPONDENT: ... and it is only that method which will bring: [quote] ‘all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on’ [end quote] to an end. RICHARD: No, it is the only method that has worked so far. RESPONDENT: And we possibilists have it all wrong hey. RICHARD: If by [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] you mean your latest reinvention of yourself, then ... yes, obviously. * RICHARD: (...) there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence. For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that charismatic leaders ride to power on such ‘energies’. RESPONDENT: Golly! A network of invisible vibes and currents ... colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’. RICHARD: Why the expression of mild surprise or wonder RESPONDENT: As to: [quote] ‘one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity’ [endquote] why would that happen when there is interconnectedness? RICHARD: Because that is the nature of that psychic web (that network of invisible vibes and currents colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’). RESPONDENT: Your understanding of this ‘network’ of invisible vibes and currents, seems to me (and I’ll stress the word seems) somewhat misguided. RICHARD: Here is what I mean by that word:
RESPONDENT: Don’t you think that an expression like – ‘a network of invisible vibes and currents’ – doesn’t beg for an explanation? RICHARD: Not the one colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’, no. RESPONDENT: Look I will not say: ‘Richard your game is fundamentally based on a massive delusion of ‘your’ own accord (per favour the narcissism inherent in the instinctual passions)’. RICHARD: As there are no instinctual passions extant in this flesh and blood body (and thus no narcissism and all the rest) it is just as well you will not say that. RESPONDENT: (...) What I will say though is: If Actual Freedom is *not* Enlightenment by my definition, then what the actual meaning of the word n-a-r-c-i-s-s-i-s-m entails, is beyond my comprehension. RICHARD: Here is what I mean by that word:
And here is an example of it in context:
RESPONDENT: I think that it is precisely this narcissism that though it is well curbing the instinctual passions, yet fails in canalising them. RICHARD: As you have just said that what the actual meaning of the word entails is beyond your comprehension then what you think about something incomprehensible to you is beside the point. * RESPONDENT: So ... If you claim to be that notorious first and yet one and only, Fine with me. RICHARD: I do not [quote] ‘claim’ [endquote] any such thing. RESPONDENT: However as after all these years you seem to have failed to jog and pin Vineeto and Peter in a permanent PCE, so that they can respond from an actual freedom while writing their replies, I’m sorry to have to say, that I do not think that your Actualism qualifies for a substitute for KRajneezism, Startrek or even the Matrix. RICHARD: As it has been blatantly obvious all along you do not have the slightest interest in what this mailing list was set up for it is not at all surprising that you will grasp at any straw – up to and including the total ignoration of a truly remarkable virtual freedom – in order to justify same. RESPONDENT: Though it probably will go like water from a ducks back, I hope it will stick like chewing gum in your metaphorical feathers when I frankly tell you that in all my life I have yet to come across a more competitive person then you (give or take a few exceptions) and yet I begin to like you. RICHARD: Why do you want what you are frankly telling me to stick (and not slide off)?
CO-RESPONDENT: I suppose Vineeto could have asked [No. 18] ‘exactly what do you mean?’ ... RICHARD: Ha ... only to get an amplification like the following, perchance? Viz.: [snip]. CO-RESPONDENT: ... but perhaps that was unnecessary. RICHARD: Hmm ... because of the miasmal nature of the above-quoted amplification the word unwise could be a more appropriate than the word unnecessary. (...) RESPONDENT: (...) Given the fact that you have applied the word miasmal to label a particular fragment of a text written by yours truly, some could get the impression that such only could have been done in case if there were the possibility of an affective reaction. (...) So ... to make sure which meaning you have distilled out of the original writing which gave rise to labelling it as ‘miasmal’, I’m asking you which dictionary meaning did you have in mind when you wrote that? RICHARD: The meaning given in the Oxford Dictionary:
I made it crystal-clear to you, at 9:25 AM on Tuesday 13/06/2006 AEST, that this mailing list was not set up to discuss spiritualistic solutions to all the ills of humankind as those solutions inevitably involve the self-aggrandisement of the root cause – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which or ‘being’ itself) – via some process of sublimation and transcendence (self-realisation), until there is only ‘Being’ (aka ‘That’). And yet you took no notice whatsoever and have continued as before ... it is too late to now cry foul, so to speak, when I label your writing for what it is (as having a noxious, polluting, nature). Put pithily: spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment sucks ... big-time.
[... snip ...] CO-RESPONDENT: Person B answered ‘I got news for you – I am not enlightened and only enlightened being are without ego’ which is not a true statement ... RESPONDENT: No. 23 gives an actual report of what person B has answered and makes a note that the statement by B was not a true statement. Richards takes over again and a new set of bullets is fired of. RICHARD: Aye, a new-born baby is also without ego (until about age two); a person having an altered
state of consciousness (ASC) is also without ego (until returning to normal); a person having a pure consciousness experience
(PCE) is without both ego and soul (until returning to normal); a person actually free from the human condition is without both
ego and soul (permanently). [... snip ...] RICHARD: No. 18, I have deliberately snipped all the other text, above and below that small section, so as to get your engaged attention on one of your most egregious comments because there are occasions when I wonder whether I am interacting with escapees from some insane asylum. First, here is a dictionary definition:
And here is my question: how on earth can you construe both (a) my immediate agreement that it is not a true statement, and (b) my provision of a detailed account as to why it is not a true statement, as being me taking over and firing off a set of bullets? Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 3
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 |
