|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 23
Continued on from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 39 RESPONDENT: ... I speak with personal experience because I have been in two cults in the past. One of them was very similar to this one which is why I think I initially identified with this one so well. I have extreme reservations about sending this to this list because I am sure it will be denied .... RICHARD: Yes, as I understand it, from the information provided to this Mailing List by several concerned people, I cannot know that it is a cult because I am in denial ... so, given that you too see that I am in denial (‘I am sure it will be denied’), perhaps you can throw a little light on the matter for me if I share with you something from my personal life that I am currently involved in up to my neck (some would say obsessed with). Four-five years ago I purchased a computer for the first time: at the time I considered it a major achievement if I could manage to get cash out of an ATM and I was incapable of tuning my TV and VCR (I arranged to get them tuned from the shop I purchased them from as part of the deal) so I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me. So as to ensure anonymity I will call the person I found ‘Rachael’ and the name of the small company she was a director of ‘Bootstrap Computers’: I came to look upon Rachael as my mentor as she was only too happy to take the time to coach me through, not only the early stages of learning about the computer’s software programmes, but even through the more advanced stages wherein, thanks to her guidance and tutelage, I was coming into direct contact with the deeper aspects of the (to me at least) arcane world of computer hardware. For the sake of convenience she called the system she had devised to assist people like me ‘bootstrapism’ and digitally provided brochures, pamphlets, articles and books (there are even two that are for sale in paper-back form). However, I have since found out – the more I became drawn into the intricacies of the computer condition – that not only was there a coterie that had formed around Rachael and the Bootstrap Computers organisation – but that I was starting to use the same-same lingo as all these other bootstrapists that she had sucked into her ... dare I say it ... her cult. And to think that all this was because I was ignorant enough to take advice from another – to follow another’s advice – instead of starting off from scratch (painting symbols on cave walls with various iron oxides and subsequently inventing pencils, pens, paper, typewriters and thence computers) in isolation from my fellow human beings. Now, here is my problem: I have confronted her again and again – I have even hurled gutter invective against her and/or her followers using all the satirical criticism I can muster – but she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Obviously, seeing that she denies all the charges levelled against her, she is in denial too. What should I do ... especially as I still want to learn about computers?
RICHARD: ... as I understand it, from the information provided to this Mailing List by several concerned people, I cannot know that it is a cult because I am in denial ... so, given that you too see that I am in denial (‘I am sure it will be denied’ ), perhaps you can throw a little light on the matter for me if I share with you something from my personal life that I am currently involved in up to my neck (some would say obsessed with). Four-five years ago I purchased a computer for the first time: at the time I considered it a major achievement if I could manage to get cash out of an ATM and I was incapable of tuning my TV and VCR (I arranged to get them tuned from the shop I purchased them from as part of the deal) so I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me. So as to ensure anonymity I will call the person I found ‘Rachael’ and the name of the small company she was a director of ‘Bootstrap Computers’: I came to look upon Rachael as my mentor as she was only too happy to take the time to coach me through, not only the early stages of learning about the computer’s software programmes, but even through the more advanced stages wherein, thanks to her guidance and tutelage, I was coming into direct contact with the deeper aspects of the (to me at least) arcane world of computer hardware. For the sake of convenience she called the system she had devised to assist people like me ‘bootstrapism’ and digitally provided brochures, pamphlets, articles and books (there are even two that are for sale in paper-back form). However, I have since found out – the more I became drawn into the intricacies of the computer condition – that not only was there a coterie that had formed around Rachael and the Bootstrap Computers organisation – but that I was starting to use the same-same lingo as all these other bootstrapists that she had sucked into her ... dare I say it ... her cult. And to think that all this was because I was ignorant enough to take advice from another – to follow another’s advice – instead of starting off from scratch (painting symbols on cave walls with various iron oxides and subsequently inventing pencils, pens, paper, typewriters and thence computers) in isolation from my fellow human beings. Now, here is my problem: I have confronted her again and again – I have even hurled gutter invective against her and/or her followers using all the satirical criticism I can muster – but she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Obviously, seeing that she denies all the charges levelled against her, she is in denial too. What should I do ... especially as I still want to learn about computers? RESPONDENT: You don’t think it odd that the other Actualists use the exact same language and want to have the exact same experience as you including a turning over in the brain stem? I would hardly equate that to learning about computers. RICHARD: Presumably because I am still in denial I do not think it odd at all and, as it surely would be regressive for me to have to go and find a cave and scratch around for various iron oxides, I do indeed equate it to learning about computers. So, what should I do – my computer is making groaning noises – and once again I find I am in contact with Rachael. In fact, I am actually asking her at this very moment why she does not find it odd that the other bootstrapists use the exact same language and want to have the exact same experience. To wit: I want a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. Are you saying that I really do have to start from scratch in isolation from my fellow human beings?
RESPONDENT: You don’t think it odd that the other Actualists use the exact same language and want to have the exact same experience as you including a turning over in the brain stem? I would hardly equate that to learning about computers. RICHARD: Presumably because I am still in denial I do not think it odd at all and, as it surely would be regressive for me to have to go and find a cave and scratch around for various iron oxides, I do indeed equate it to learning about computers. So, what should I do – my computer is making groaning noises – and once again I find I am in contact with Rachael. In fact, I am actually asking her at this very moment why she does not find it odd that the other bootstrapists use the exact same language and want to have the exact same experience. To wit: I want a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. Are you saying that I really do have to start from scratch in isolation from my fellow human beings? RESPONDENT: No, I think you have an important message and I have learned a lot from you. I think you should encourage others to have there own experience and not to have the exact same experience that you did. RICHARD: Yes, Rachael also has an important message – that her computer runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking – and I have learned a lot from her (plus I can tune my TV and VCR all by myself now). She, however, is encouraging her fellow human beings to have the same-same experience ... whilst you are saying that I should have my own experience (my computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises now) and not have a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. Why is it that you are insisting that only Rachael can have the perfect computing experience?
RICHARD: ... are you saying that I really do have to start from scratch in isolation from my fellow human beings? RESPONDENT: No, I think you have an important message and I have learned a lot from you. I think you should encourage others to have there own experience and not to have the exact same experience that you did. RICHARD: Yes, Rachael also has an important message – that her computer runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking – and I have learned a lot from her (plus I can tune my TV and VCR all by myself now). She, however, is encouraging her fellow human beings to have the same-same experience ... whilst you are saying that I should have my own experience (my computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises now) and not have a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. Why is it that you are insisting that only Rachael can have the perfect computing experience? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that your experience is the only perfect experience and that we all need to have the exact same experience? Even all computers are not the same. Some are Apple and some are windows and there are many other variations. RICHARD: Four-five years ago, when I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me, the story I got again and again everywhere I enquired was that all computers are not the same – that they each have their own personalities (depending upon what programmes were installed) – and that some are of differing racial stock, such as Apple and IBM, or ethnic origin, such as Windows and Linux (complete with factory-configured default settings that were never to be touched) ... and that each computer had its own truth, as it were. The tried and true advice that I mostly got was that you cannot change computer nature and that I was to either become well-adjusted to that factoid or become detached from the whole sorry business entirely ... and see it all as a dream. Then I came across Rachael – thanks to the Bootstraps Computer organisation – who has a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking ... but because that is the experience I want to have, and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult. You say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two?
RICHARD: Rachael also has an important message – that her computer runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking – and I have learned a lot from her (plus I can tune my TV and VCR all by myself now). She, however, is encouraging her fellow human beings to have the same-same experience ... whilst you are saying that I should have my own experience (my computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises now) and not have a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. Why is it that you are insisting that only Rachael can have the perfect computing experience? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that your experience is the only perfect experience and that we all need to have the exact same experience? Even all computers are not the same. Some are Apple and some are windows and there are many other variations. RICHARD: Four-five years ago, when I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me, the story I got again and again everywhere I enquired was that all computers are not the same – that they each have their own personalities (depending upon what programmes were installed) – and that some are of differing racial stock, such as Apple and IBM, or ethnic origin, such as Windows and Linux (complete with factory-configured default settings that were never to be touched) ... and that each computer had its own truth, as it were. The tried and true advice that I mostly got was that you cannot change computer nature and that I was to either become well-adjusted to that factoid or become detached from the whole sorry business entirely ... and see it all as a dream. Then I came across Rachael – thanks to the Bootstraps Computer organisation – who has a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking ... but because that is the experience I want to have, and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult. RESPONDENT: My problem is that Rachel can’t help me because I want to learn about computers but I don’t want the exact same computer that Rachel has. Therefore, I am cut off from Rachel and Rachel has a VERY limited clientele. RICHARD: First, Rachael does not have a ‘VERY limited clientele’ at all: apart from the superficial distinctions already detailed (further above) such as racial stock (Apple and IBM), ethnic origin (Windows and Linux) and even gender issues (as is oft-times expressed as ‘my computer is a cranky bitch’ and/or ‘my computer is a real prick’) all computers are, at root, the same basic organism, as it were. Second, Rachael is in no way suggesting that each of her fellow human beings have ‘the exact same computer’ ... what she is saying is that we can all have the same computing experience irregardless. To wit: a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. * RICHARD: You say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two? RESPONDENT: I am not sure what you are asking here so I will not try to answer until you can clarify. RICHARD: Are we agreed on these two points: because I want the perfect experience that Rachael is experiencing (each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking) and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult? If so, and whenever I point this out to Rachael, she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Which means that, seeing how she denies that these two proofs of cultism are indeed proof that it is a cult, and seeing that she is obviously still in denial, we need some more proofs so as to help her see what she is doing in so blatantly sharing both her experience of perfection plus her expertise in how this came about with her fellow human beings. And, seeing as you say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two proofs?
RICHARD: ... why is it that you are insisting that only Rachael can have the perfect computing experience? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that your experience is the only perfect experience and that we all need to have the exact same experience? Even all computers are not the same. Some are Apple and some are windows and there are many other variations. RICHARD: Four-five years ago, when I searched around for someone who demonstrably knew about computing and who was willing to share their expertise with me, the story I got again and again everywhere I enquired was that all computers are not the same – that they each have their own personalities (depending upon what programmes were installed) – and that some are of differing racial stock, such as Apple and IBM, or ethnic origin, such as Windows and Linux (complete with factory-configured default settings that were never to be touched) ... and that each computer had its own truth, as it were. The tried and true advice that I mostly got was that you cannot change computer nature and that I was to either become well-adjusted to that factoid or become detached from the whole sorry business entirely ... and see it all as a dream. Then I came across Rachael – thanks to the Bootstraps Computer organisation – who has a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking ... but because that is the experience I want to have, and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult. RESPONDENT: My problem is that Rachel can’t help me because I want to learn about computers but I don’t want the exact same computer that Rachel has. Therefore, I am cut off from Rachel and Rachel has a VERY limited clientele. RICHARD: First, Rachael does not have a ‘VERY limited clientele’ at all: apart from the superficial distinctions already detailed (further above) such as racial stock (Apple and IBM), ethnic origin (Windows and Linux) and even gender issues (as is oft-times expressed as ‘my computer is a cranky bitch’ and/or ‘my computer is a real prick’) all computers are, at root, the same basic organism, as it were. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: Good ... because unless there is agreement about the basic, most fundamental fact, peoples will endlessly waste time arguing the pros and cons of superficial issues. * RICHARD: Second, Rachael is in no way suggesting that each of her fellow human beings have ‘the exact same computer’ ... what she is saying is that we can all have the same computing experience irregardless. To wit: a computer that runs perfectly, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking. RESPONDENT: Rachael is saying that we can all have the same computing experience if we do it her way only. RICHARD: Indeed ... this is because her way actually worked and delivered the goods (and with no warranty required). Perhaps this is an opportune time to re-post something that may have been overlooked? Viz.:
* RICHARD: You say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two? RESPONDENT: I am not sure what you are asking here so I will not try to answer until you can clarify. RICHARD: Are we agreed on these two points: because I want the perfect experience that Rachael is experiencing (each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking) and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult? RESPONDENT: You are if you want to be just like Rachael. RICHARD: As being ‘just like Rachael’ means experiencing perfection, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking ... then it is apropos to enquire just what it is that you want to be like (such a want as to motivate you to write to this Mailing List)? * RICHARD: If so, and whenever I point this out to Rachael, she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Which means that, seeing how she denies that these two proofs of cultism are indeed proof that it is a cult, and seeing that she is obviously still in denial, we need some more proofs so as to help her see what she is doing in so blatantly sharing both her experience of perfection plus her expertise in how this came about with her fellow human beings. And, seeing as you say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two proofs? RESPONDENT: I have the proof of my experience with Actualism. I came here and found that this exact way was how it had to be done and that is the only way ... RICHARD: May I take the liberty of adjusting your words so as to have them be in accord with what is actually going on? Viz.: ‘... this exact way is how it has been done and that is the only way it has been done so far’. RESPONDENT: ... or else I don’t belong here. RICHARD: Ahh ... is ‘belonging’ the next proof of cultism I asked you for?
RICHARD: Are we agreed on these two points: because I want the perfect experience that Rachael is experiencing (each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking) and because the word bootstrapism has ‘-ism’ at the end of it, I am now stuck in a cult? RESPONDENT: You are if you want to be just like Rachael. RICHARD: As being ‘just like Rachael’ means experiencing perfection, each moment again, day after day, without any further patching and tweaking ... then it is apropos to enquire just what it is that you want to be like (such a want as to motivate you to write to this Mailing List)? RESPONDENT: I don’t want to be exactly like someone else ... RICHARD: May I re-post something from earlier in this thread? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... and do it exactly in their predetermined way. RICHARD: May I re-post something from earlier in this thread? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I want to learn what I can and find my own unique way. RICHARD: May I re-post something from earlier in this thread? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I wrote to this mailing list to confront this issue. However, I have little hope that you or anyone else here will listen to anything that I say. RICHARD: I am reading all of your words with both eyes open ... are you? RESPONDENT: I see the futility of it but I appreciate the opportunity to say what I had to say for my own benefit. RICHARD: If I might ask it again? Do you read what you have to say ... for your own benefit? RESPONDENT: Do you want to be exactly like someone else and do it in their exact way? RICHARD: Yes (given that being exactly like Rachael is to be having the perfect experiencing and given that Rachael’s way is the only way that has worked so far). RESPONDENT: I am not free to come here and do it in my own way. RICHARD: Au contraire ... anyone can come here on this Mailing List and write whatever they wish to (including not writing at all). I have written about this before:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: I am mainly interested in learning about the instincts by observing them in action. This is one valuable thing that I have learned here. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: If so, and whenever I point this out to Rachael, she steadfastly maintains that bootstrapism is not a cult and that she is not a cult-leader ... and not even unknowingly a cult-leader being deviously used by her followers at that. Which means that, seeing how she denies that these two proofs of cultism are indeed proof that it is a cult, and seeing that she is obviously still in denial, we need some more proofs so as to help her see what she is doing in so blatantly sharing both her experience of perfection plus her expertise in how this came about with her fellow human beings. And, seeing as you say you have had experience of cults twice already ... what other proofs are there than these two proofs? RESPONDENT: I have the proof of my experience with Actualism. I came here and found that this exact way was how it had to be done and that is the only way ... RICHARD: May I take the liberty of adjusting your words so as to have them be in accord with what is actually going on? Viz.: ‘... this exact way is how it has been done and that is the only way it has been done so far’. RESPONDENT: So, you are saying that is the only way it has been done so far and I need to do it this way. RICHARD: May I re-post something from earlier in this thread? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: That doesn’t leave any freedom to discover my own way. I see blatant cultism in that and I am sure that no one else here does. RICHARD: Oh, there is at least one other person who does ... maybe you have missed seeing their posts? RESPONDENT: Like I said, I have already been in cults that weren’t a cult. This one has the hallmarks of cultism in my book. RICHARD: And it is what these ‘hallmarks of cultism’ are that I am endeavouring to ascertain in this thread. * RESPONDENT: ... or else I don’t belong here. RICHARD: Ahh ... is ‘belonging’ the next proof of cultism I asked you for? RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t say that ‘belonging’ is my next proof of cultism. RICHARD: Oh? Wanting to belong strikes me as being one of the main hallmarks of the cultic tendency in peoples. RESPONDENT: If you have refuted any proof I have offered so far then there is no other proof that I can come up with that you will listen to. RICHARD: May I re-post something from earlier in this thread? Viz.:
That looks to me like I am listening ... plus something from a post to another:
RESPONDENT: The issue of belonging has come up for me. Like I say I am not welcome to be here with the freedom to discover my own way. RICHARD: Is it at all becoming obvious that this ‘not welcome’ attitude you speak of has no existence outside of your mind? RESPONDENT: I don’t belong here because I don’t want to be a died in the wool Actualist who practices Actualism. I am not into religion. RICHARD: Is it at all becoming obvious that this ‘religion’ you speak of has no existence outside of your mind? RESPONDENT: I have an issue about not belonging but that doesn’t mean that what I said about Actualism is not a fact. RICHARD: You have an issue about ‘not belonging’ to ... to what? * RESPONDENT: I have pasted your reply to No. 12 ... so as to combine two posts into one: [Richard]: ‘This is what I have managed to ascertain so far as proofs of cultism: 1. Actualism is a cult because the word has ‘-ism’ at the end of it. 2. Actualism is a cult because a handful of people want to be free of the human condition’. [endquote]. If this is all that you have managed to ascertain so far about what I have offered as proofs of cultism, then I have failed miserably to communicate what I said or else you haven’t listened to what I said. RICHARD: Then please take the liberty of amending and/or adding to my list. RESPONDENT: Either way I see no hope in continuing. RICHARD: Whether you continue or not is entirely up to you ... it is you who is making the claim of cultism, when all is said and done, and not me. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘There was a stage where it appeared that speaking the same lingo might be a proof but that one sort of fizzled-out ... plus it is not clear whether not being able to belong to a mailing list(??) is a proof or not’. [endquote]. Speaking the same lingo hasn’t fizzled out. That is a hallmark of cultism. RICHARD: Ah, good ... I will add ‘speaking the same lingo’ to my list, then. Meanwhile ... perhaps you may be able to assist me in something rather important? My computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises and when I type in run-commands there is no response ... this is my take on what is going on: I figure that the wheelbarrow is conflicting with the scotch mist – both of which, as you would know, share the same chewing gum – and I am wondering whether it would be best to replace the wheelbarrow or the scotch mist. Do you have any suggestions, tips, hints or clues that might assist me? Maybe I should replace both? Or should I make adjustments to the chewing gum ... and if so, what would be the best way to go about it? I look forward to your response as I am relatively new to computers and would appreciate drawing upon your expertise. RESPONDENT: I can see why you said that it has fizzled out. I said that I don’t belong here if I don’t want to be a died in the wool Actualist who practices Actualism. That is proof enough for me. RICHARD: Okay ... I do appreciate your input as I am sure this discussion has thrown some light upon the issue of cultism. RESPONDENT: I think the lady from Spain said it well. You are saying things that I did not say to suit your own agenda. RICHARD: Perhaps you might be able to demonstrate where ‘the lady from Spain said it well’ (the last time someone tried that one on me they were remarkably silent when asked to put their money where their mouth is)? RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Needless to say I am currently still in denial’. [endquote]. Yes. Do you find it curious that after all these years there is only a small handful of Actualists? RICHARD: No ... I am pleasantly surprised that there be so many.
RESPONDENT: I feel we are becoming bogged down in past detail which keeps the dialogue from moving along. RICHARD: Okay ... I will cut to the chase, then, and leave all that has gone before where it lies. RESPONDENT: I hear you saying that it really is ok for me to be here to inquire about the instincts without wanting to become a bona fide Actualist even though this is not what I hear other keepers of the list saying. I also hear you saying that you may not reply to my messages and I have no problem with that. Right now I am trying to get to the bottom of my issue about belonging which I feel may be at the bottom of my issue about cultism. Is belonging tied to the nurture instinct or the fear instinct? RICHARD: It is rather nurture and aggression (caring and protecting) I would say ... but fear is at the base of it all, of course (basic survival). There is a herding impulse – some birds flock together, some fish form schools and so on – but when it comes to the issue of cultism in humans it has more to do with (a) a dominant male or female instinctively becoming the head of the pack for group survival reasons ... and (b) the pack instinctively being led by a dominant male or female for group survival reasons. This is the way that blind nature has operated for aeons ... this rough and ready approach has worked well enough to produce 6.0 billion human beings on this planet. Howsoever, it is high time that each and every human being took amenability for their own life and examined each and every aspect of what blind nature has endowed them with. The head of the pack is as much run by the instinctual passions as the pack is run by the instinctual passions ... nobody is at fault. Put simply: the victor is as much a victim of the instinctual passions as the vanquished is. Anybody who examines blind nature in action will readily ascertain for themselves what I have sketched out above ... and will comprehend that it is impossible for there to be an actualism cult as (a) there is no head of the pack being blindly run by instinctual passions ... and (b) there is no pack being blindly run by instinctual passions. Actualism is about autonomy ... the word is plastered all over the web site. Again I sincerely recommend that peoples actually read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site before shooting from the hip. It is quite possible that there really is no need for a mailing list as the questions and/or objections have already been answered again and again. Speaking personally, I am retired and on a pension and I am simply having a lot of fun here at the keyboard copy-pasting the same-same explanations to the same-same questions and/or objections until the questioner and/or objector either wakes up to what is going on and starts reading for themselves ... or goes away to more gullible pastures (there are those that do). However, the mailing list can serve as a useful venue to share experience ... to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: My issue is that I don’t want to belong because I feel that is a restriction to freedom. RICHARD: Good ... because there is nothing to belong to here. Continued on Mailing List ‘B’: No. 39
Continued from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 39 RESPONDENT No 27: U.G. Krishnamurti (I am aware there is only superficial similarity between you and he) says the eyes are interested in seeing, but not as beauty – and the ears are interested in hearing, but not as music. (snip). RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in a rather odd position – I read all that is on offer by him and by others associated with him when I first came on the internet in 1997 – as he is still basically spiritual whilst denying/decrying much of what spirituality has to offer ... nevertheless he comes the closest to what I have to report (of all the peoples I have read or spoken with). RESPONDENT: How is U.G. still basically spiritual? RICHARD: Here are some examples: he says that time and space and matter do not exist outside of the mind. Viz.:
And this is what he means by ‘our minds’:
An omnipresent mind, in other words ... here is a similar quote about an omnipotent energy that is quite explicit:
This omnipotent energy that he is an expression of is otherwise known as ‘Truth’ or ‘God’:
If that is not convincing enough this one is a classic spiritual teaching if there ever was:
Then there is the typical spiritual stance that thought is the problem:
And:
Again:
Once more ... short and to the point:
This will all sound so very familiar to anyone at all conversant with spirituality ... but I will finish with one more quote that is self-explanatory in regards to the marked distinction between spiritualism and actualism. Viz.:
There are many more quotes where these few came from.
RESPONDENT: Ok, thanks Richard. When I have read U.G. I certainly never thought of him as spiritual but I can clearly see your point in some of these quotes. This one for example: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as your mind and my mind. Mind is everywhere, sort of like the air we breathe’. It would be hard to explain this one away. RICHARD: It would indeed be hard to explain it away ... I appreciate your sensible response. Continued on Mailing List ‘B’: No. 39
Continued from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 39 RESPONDENT No 18: So ... what is it (the purpose/meaning/complexity to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are)? RICHARD: ... In short: this ambrosial paradise I refer to as ‘this actual world’ has been no further away, all the while, than coming to your senses. RESPONDENT: Just what I needed to hear Richard. ‘In short’ is right. This pretty much says it all. RICHARD: Aye ... this is my favoured way of saying it all:
RESPONDENT: It is enjoyable just to breathe. RICHARD: Exactly.
RICHARD: In short: this ambrosial paradise I refer to as ‘this actual world’ has been no further away, all the while, than coming to your senses. RESPONDENT: Just what I needed to hear Richard. ‘In short’ is right. This pretty much says it all. RICHARD: Aye ... this is my favoured way of saying it all:
RESPONDENT: The key part of the first sentence to me is ‘coming to your senses’. That seems like the gateway into the actual world. RICHARD: It is indeed – just as it is also the gateway out of the real world – and ‘tis only the price of admission/the cost of exit that hinders ingress/egress.
RICHARD: In short: this ambrosial paradise I refer to as ‘this actual world’ has been no further away, all the while, than coming to your senses. RESPONDENT: Just what I needed to hear Richard. ‘In short’ is right. This pretty much says it all. RICHARD: Aye ... this is my favoured way of saying it all: [Richard]: Step Out Of The Real World Into This Actual World And Leave ‘Yourself’ Behind Where ‘You’ Belong. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: The key part of the first sentence to me is ‘coming to your senses’. That seems like the gateway into the actual world. RICHARD: It is indeed – just as it is also the gateway out of the real world – and ‘tis only the price of admission/the cost of exit that hinders ingress/ egress. RESPONDENT: The ‘price of admission/the cost of exit’ must be ‘me’ which hinders exiting the real world and also hinders the direct contact of the senses to the actual world. Seeing exactly how the ‘me’ hinders this ‘ingress/egress’ diminishes the ‘me’. Can I leave ‘me’ at the gate? RICHARD: This is what I would suggest:
Such a felicitous/ sensuous state of wonder can do wonders (pun intended).
RESPONDENT: It is what they [Peter and Vineeto] say and the way they say it that I have a problem with. On a completely unmoderated list I would simply ignore them and go on because they are not somebody that I would want to talk to but here they have a certain authority because this is their list about their actualism so my problem may be about authority. There are certain things I would like to ask about such as seeing what is bothering me and seeing that it is my identity that is causing this problem and seeing that it is silly to be bothered by it yet why does it still bother me but it seems so impossible to talk to them that I don’t even want to ask. RICHARD: This mailing list *is* a completely unmoderated list: all e-mails posted are automatically duplicated and copies are sent out to all subscribers via a fully computerised process ... no posts are viewed, let alone vetted, by a human before release for mass publication (plus the archives are in the public domain where anyone can access them and subscription does not require approval). Viz.:
RESPONDENT No 71: I keep day-dreaming/ thinking and get into fears and anxieties ... my mind slips away from a simple state (awareness of the moment) to some complex state (memories, feelings, thoughts, recollections) and I get confused. RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good. RESPONDENT: What about when I find out what happened to end feeling good and I see that it is silly to keep worrying about it yet that doesn’t stop the worrying and I am not back to feeling good? RICHARD: Two things immediately leap to mind ... (1) you value feeling worry (a feeling of anxious concern) over feeling good (a general sense of well-being) ... and (2) you have not really seen it is silly to feel bad (a general sense of ill-being). What I would suggest, at this point
RICHARD: If the impact of pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) be not sufficiently enticing – an altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is not, of course, only for the benefit of other bodies – then maybe a goodly dose of back-pressure may provide the requisite incentive. I am, of course, referring to watching the evening news (or even soap-operas for that matter) and seeing – actually seeing – the human condition stripped-naked as it parades itself across the screen for those with the eyes to see ... and thus knowing that, essentially, there too goes oneself, no matter how diminished. I do know that it worked well for the identity inhabiting this body all those years ago when, being only human, the impulsion (being pulled from ahead) would, on occasion, lessen in its intensity and the propulsion (being pushed from behind) was most certainly helpful in vivifying a flagging intent to enable that which the PCE so magically evinced to occur 24/7. So ... what is it that permits one to not proceed? RESPONDENT: I don’t know how well I am proceeding or sometimes if I am proceeding at all but it is this ‘back-pressure’ that keeps me going. I see the human condition everywhere I look and also in myself. Just actually seeing this keeps me plugged in to wanting to free myself from it. The only impulsion (pulling) I have is that I do relax and enjoy a lot of the time but this propulsion (pushing) of ‘back-pressure’ is always there. RICHARD: For what it is worth I can recall the identity inhabiting this body all those years ago saying that ‘he’ would not be able to look ‘himself’ in the eye, in the mirror of a morning, if ‘he’ did nothing about the human condition and just fiddled, as it were, whilst everything burned ... for ‘him’ it was a matter of dignity (which is sorely lacking where there is procrastination). Essentially, all one has to do is to (unreservedly) say !YES! ... and the necessary events will unfold accordingly.
RICHARD: ... I was talking about having eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in. RESPONDENT: I see how the ‘good side’ combats the ‘dark side’ in my relationship with my mother. Does the good side hold the dark side in place? In other words, if I eliminate the good side (love) will the hate for her also disappear or must the dark side be eliminated first and then the good side goes with it? RICHARD: As both the ‘good side’ and the ‘dark side’ are the same (affective) energy, at root, it is not possible to eliminate the one without the other ... the entire package goes in one fell swoop. What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to direct all of that energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings.
RESPONDENT: I see how the ‘good side’ combats the ‘dark side’ in my relationship with my mother. Does the good side hold the dark side in place? In other words, if I eliminate the good side (love) will the hate for her also disappear or must the dark side be eliminated first and then the good side goes with it? RICHARD: As both the ‘good side’ and the ‘dark side’ are the same (affective) energy, at root, it is not possible to eliminate the one without the other ... the entire package goes in one fell swoop. What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to direct all of that energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings. RESPONDENT: Ok, then the way I am understanding it is to investigate either the good or bad feelings, whichever might be present, in order to eliminate those and get back to being ‘felicitous/ innocuous’. RICHARD: What I mean by [quote] ‘in the meanwhile’ [endquote] refers to the opportunity, each moment again, for the already always existing actual world to become apparent for the very asking, as it were, not being taken full advantage of. In other words, directing all of that affective energy (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) into being the felicitous/innocuous feelings is what can be done so as to effect what the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years lived circa March-September 1981, as a deliberate imitation of the actual experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), and which has become known as a virtual freedom ... to wit: being as happy and as harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’. Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight ... a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté. Naiveté, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest. All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful concurrence.
(...) CO-RESPONDENT: I also have a link to share with you and perhaps you will find it of some interest: www.selftransformation.org/purpose.html. RICHARD: The following words, from the second paragraph on that page, speak for themselves: [quote] ‘Transformation is the birth of a new human being, and it begins with speaking the truth about self to yourself. This will open the door to yourself, and when this transformational event happens in the individual, the old and trained conditioned self can die, and a new self can be born’. [endquote]. As do these: [quote] ‘Since that day November 19, 1979, and as I write these words, I have been living what could be called an in-the-body life, a life of living each second and watching every movement and emotion as they happen’. [endquote]. CO-RESPONDENT: Free from all beliefs. RICHARD: On the contrary ... here is the mother of all beliefs (also from that second paragraph on the page you provided a link to): [quote] ‘Transformation of self will birth a new consciousness on earth, and it is this consciousness that will ultimately save us from ourselves’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I’m glad you have broken down what he is saying Richard. I have told [name deleted] time and again that he is spiritual which he still denies because he says he doesn’t believe in God so he thinks he is not spiritual. The way you have taken apart what he is saying makes it easy to say how he is spiritual. The dead giveaway for me is when he talks about love and oneness. RICHARD: It only took me a few minutes to find the following (posted on Saturday, 25 Feb 2006):
CO-RESPONDENT: I also have a link to share with you and perhaps you will find it of some interest: www.selftransformation.org/purpose.html. RICHARD: The following words, from the second paragraph on that page, speak for themselves: [quote] ‘Transformation is the birth of a new human being, and it begins with speaking the truth about self to yourself. This will open the door to yourself, and when this transformational event happens in the individual, the old and trained conditioned self can die, and a new self can be born’. [endquote]. As do these: [quote] ‘Since that day November 19, 1979, and as I write these words, I have been living what could be called an in-the-body life, a life of living each second and watching every movement and emotion as they happen’. [endquote]. CO-RESPONDENT: Free from all beliefs. RICHARD: On the contrary ... here is the mother of all beliefs (also from that second paragraph on the page you provided a link to): [quote] ‘Transformation of self will birth a new consciousness on earth, and it is this consciousness that will ultimately save us from ourselves’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I’m glad you have broken down what he is saying Richard. I have told [name deleted] time and again that he is spiritual which he still denies because he says he doesn’t believe in God so he thinks he is not spiritual. The way you have taken apart what he is saying makes it easy to say how he is spiritual. The dead giveaway for me is when he talks about love and oneness. RICHARD: It only took me a few minutes to find the following (posted on Saturday, 25 Feb 2006):
RESPONDENT: I think I see your point here: What he is calling ‘unknown (creation/ intelligence)’ is God by any other name even though he says he doesn’t believe in God. RICHARD: That new human being (aka a new consciousness/a new self/the self outside of time/the self not of thought), born of that transformational event, does not need to believe in a deity because that being, that consciousness, that self, is the truth.
RICHARD: ... just as the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) has to die, for spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment (aka transformation) to occur, so too does the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. Put succinctly: an enlightened/awakened/transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless. (...) CO-RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment? RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: If the ‘feeler’ (spirit-self) still exists does this mean that one is still spiritual? RICHARD: When one is enlightened/awakened/transformed (or seeking enlightenment/awakenment/transformation) then ... yes. RESPONDENT: I obviously still have a feeler but I don’t have any spiritual beliefs left that I know of. In other words, is one still spiritual as long as they have a ‘feeler’ even though they don’t have any spiritual beliefs? RICHARD: That issue was extensively canvassed a couple of years ago ... most of which can be found at the following
URL: Just in case you cannot access that page here are the most relevant sections (edited for length):
RICK: Richard, you wrote:
RESPONDENT No. 74: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body? RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003
AEDST). (...) RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs. RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not? If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to ask you, having read somewhere that you walk to the CBD (because you are retired and on a pension and cannot afford a motor vehicle), whether it is good for the body to engage in regular exercise and you were to answer pithily, ‘No, what is good for the body is an absence of edacity’, then what are the odds that a couple of years after that some other person might miss the point and champion remedial regimens of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) instead?
RICK: Richard, you wrote:
RESPONDENT No. 74: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body? RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003
AEDST). (...) RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs. RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes, I am saying it is good for my body to be fifteen pounds lighter than it was. RICHARD: Thank you for your confirmation. * RESPONDENT: If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to ask you, having read somewhere that you walk to the CBD (because you are retired and on a pension and cannot afford a motor vehicle), whether it is good for the body to engage in regular exercise and you were to answer pithily, ‘No, what is good for the body is an absence of edacity’, then what are the odds that a couple of years after that some other person might miss the point and champion remedial regimens of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) instead? RESPONDENT: I don’t think I get your point here Richard. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: an absence of esurience would render any remedial regimen of artificial activity null and void. RESPONDENT: I was speaking of my own experience in which I was already overweight and my normal everyday activity is low. RICHARD: I was speaking of my own experience in which there is a total absence of stress and my normal everyday activity is completely carefree. RESPONDENT: Also, I can’t speak about being without a feeler which effects my bodily condition. RICHARD: Whereas I can ... and did (whereupon another person missed that point and championed remedial regimens of artificial activity, over and above normal everyday activity, instead). RESPONDENT: This is hard to admit but just yesterday and today I am dealing with another crisis situation with my mother and have become depressed and tried to make myself feel better by eating more and so I have gained back some of the weight I lost. RICHARD: Might I suggest you undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of your depression? Viz.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract That way you could speak from your own experiential evidence (about what those sixteen geriatrics had to say).
RICK: Richard, you wrote:
[Richard]: ‘No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress’. [endquote].  (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53a, 20 November
2003)
RESPONDENT No. 74: Just so that we are clear, Rick is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?. RICHARD: No, it was someone else who asked me that question (at 1:22 PM, on Thursday, the sixth of November, 2003
AEDST). (...) RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs. RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes, I am saying it is good for my body to be fifteen pounds lighter than it was. RICHARD: Thank you for your confirmation. * RICHARD: If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to ask you, having read somewhere that you walk to the CBD (because you are retired and on a pension and cannot afford a motor vehicle), whether it is good for the body to engage in regular exercise and you were to answer pithily, ‘No, what is good for the body is an absence of edacity’, then what are the odds that a couple of years after that some other person might miss the point and champion remedial regimens of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) instead? RESPONDENT: I don’t think I get your point here Richard. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: an absence of esurience would render any remedial regimen of artificial activity null and void. RESPONDENT: Yes, I agree that if I would have had an absence of esurience there would be no need for artificial activity. RICHARD: Yet instead of attending to what is not good for the body you would rather sanction that bandaid solution (by your very endorsement of same)? * RESPONDENT: I was speaking of my own experience in which I was already overweight and my normal everyday activity is low. RICHARD: I was speaking of my own experience in which there is a total absence of stress and my normal everyday activity is completely carefree. RESPONDENT: Yes, I was aware that you were speaking of your experience without a stressor which is different than my experience. RICHARD: Yet even so you presented your experience as an alternate proof and/or evidence that bandaid solutions are good for the body. * RESPONDENT: Also, I can’t speak about being without a feeler which effects my bodily condition. RICHARD: Whereas I can ... and did (whereupon another person missed that point and championed remedial regimens of artificial activity, over and above normal everyday activity, instead). RESPONDENT: Right, I didn’t miss your point which was why I was only speaking of my own experience. RICHARD: And yet by speaking of your own experience in such an endorsing/ sanctioning manner you are perpetuating a
factoid * RESPONDENT: This is hard to admit but just yesterday and today I am dealing with another crisis situation with my mother and have become depressed and tried to make myself feel better by eating more and so I have gained back some of the weight I lost. RICHARD: Might I suggest you undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of your depression? Viz.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract. That way you could speak from your own experiential evidence (about what those sixteen geriatrics had to say). RESPONDENT: I do get your point because if I had no stressor (depressor) there would be no need. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your modifier)? The point I am making here is that you are subjecting that body you are inhabiting to a regimen of artificial activity when, surely, even Blind Freddie could see that were you to attend to the issues you have with one of your biological progenitors there would be (a) no depression ... and thus (b) no eating so much in the first place ... and therefore (c) no need to punish your body for something it did not do. Given that the last three months (January-February-March) encompass winter-autumn, in the northern hemisphere, you would rather make your body walk through mist/ rain/ hail/ sleet/ snow, on occasion, than do something substantial about your (recurring) psychological/ emotional issues? RESPONDENT: ... [However], as a middle-aged human who has not lived with an ‘absence of esurience’ I am saying it is beneficial for this body to walk an extra 2.5 miles per day to offset what has already been done. RICHARD: Hmm ... and, quite possibly, those credulous geriatrics might also say it is beneficial for their bodies to undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of their depression, eh? As that is an example of scientific evidence it is no wonder (modern) science is in the parlous state it is.
RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs. RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes, I am saying it is good for my body to be fifteen pounds lighter than it was. RICHARD: Thank you for your confirmation. (...) RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity. RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity? RESPONDENT: Also, I agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with ones psychological issues. RICHARD: Do you also agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with eating so much in the first place? RESPONDENT: However, in my own situation walking an extra 2.5 miles per day is very beneficial to my physical well being. RICHARD: Being fifteen pounds lighter is really what is very beneficial to your physical well being, is it not? If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to persist in sanctioning a palliative regime of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity), by their continued endorsement of same from their own experiential evidence, would it be a fair comment to say they have completely missed the point ... albeit all the while claiming they get the point completely? Perhaps if I were to paraphrase the pithy question-and-answer sequence which prompted this entire thread? For example:
‘Tis such a simple point, non?
(...) RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/ depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity. RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity? RESPONDENT: There would be no need for extra activity if one’s normal activity is sufficient. RICHARD: I am only too happy to modify my query so as to take your proviso into account: do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much (such as to render one’s normal activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?
(...) RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/ depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity. RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity? RESPONDENT: There would be no need for extra activity if one’s normal activity is sufficient. RICHARD: I am only too happy to modify my query so as to take your proviso into account: do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much (such as to render one’s normal activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for extra activity? RESPONDENT: Not really because one needs sufficient normal activity even if one has not eaten too much. For example, one’s muscles would atrophy without sufficient normal activity. RICHARD: Unless a person is physically immobilised (such as being bedridden or quadriplegic for instance) then their normal everyday activity (such as getting out of bed/ making the bed, walking to the bathroom/ performing the necessary ablutions, walking to the kitchen/ preparing breakfast, sitting down and eating/ standing up and clearing away, washing the dishes/ drying the dishes, sweeping the floors/ dusting the furniture and/or going to and from and doing paid work/ remunerative service, and so on, and so forth) is entirely sufficient for the prevention of muscular atrophy. Therefore, and before I further modify my already modified query so as to accommodate your latest proviso, I will ask you this: are you physically immobilised? If not, then do you get the point completely that by you not eating so much (such as to render your normal everyday activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for you to engage in a remedial regimen of artificial activity?
(...) RESPONDENT: Richard, I got it. While eating as I was driving along in my auto this evening it dawned on me that if I did not eat so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity. RICHARD: Exactly. Over the years when I was working for a living – such as when running my own business and working 12-14 hour days 6-7 days a week – I ate three large meals a day (often with second helpings) ... and then some. Now that I am retired and on a pension – with a lifestyle so far past being sedentary as to be best described as indolent – I eat only one meal a day (with maybe a handful of nuts or a few crackers with a little cheese for supper) ... and sometimes even skip a day. I would have to be pretty silly to spend my declining years engaged in remedial regimens of artificial activity, day in and day out, just so that I could continue eating the prodigious amounts I consumed in my workaday life ... plus I have far, far better things to do than living a pigging-out/ working-out lifestyle. Things like sitting back with my feet up watching comedies on television.
CO-RESPONDENT: I went back to the original message: [... snip ...] Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No. 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else. RESPONDENT: No. 74, this is well said imo. Thank you for the courage to stand up to this hypocrisy. I have spoken up before but was beat down and gave up. RICHARD: No. 23, the difference between you and Vineeto is that when she speaks up she does not give up, when others seek to beat her down, as only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will do the trick. She has already written to No. 27
Incidentally, did you notice the sweeping generalisation in the midst of the last paragraph of this e-mail you responded to (the sentence with the colon in it)? If so, then why are you not jumping upon that author, from some great height, just as you did Vineeto (back when you last had moral support)? And even further to the subject of hypocrisy ... why is nobody jumping upon your sweeping generalisation (as in ‘only an ego needs to defend its words’), eh? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: So as to pre-empt the obvious rejoinder: nowhere has it ever been said that a virtual freedom (or an actual freedom) obviates one from making sweeping generalisations. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
CO-RESPONDENT: I went back to the original message: [... snip ...] Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No. 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else. RESPONDENT: No. 74, this is well said imo. Thank you for the courage to stand up to this hypocrisy. I have spoken up before but was beat down and gave up. RICHARD: No. 23, the difference between you and Vineeto is that when she speaks up she does not give up, when others
seek to beat her down, as only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will do the trick.
She has already written to No. 27 RESPONDENT: I admit I shot from the hip when I said ‘only an ego needs to defend its words’ and I wasn’t thinking in terms of correct actualism phraseology ... RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you did not say ‘only an identity needs to defend its words’ as that would not have been a true statement ... I, for one, do not balk from defending what I have to say and write, when some recalcitrant ego/compliant soul foolishly goes on the attack in lieu of having a sensible, sincere discussion, and neither would a person having a pure consciousness experience (PCE), either, because hackneyed religio-spiritual debating devices (such as ‘Mirror’s Up!’ for instance) are simply risible here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ... and it is a generalization. However, I do stand behind it as being a true statement. RICHARD: Here is just one example, amongst many, of a person without ego defending their words:
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 ... 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). I will put that into the original context (from the e-mail in question, sent on Sunday, 13/08/2006, at 11:21 PM AEST). For example:
Loaded up with all those qualifiers and conditioners that hackneyed reply (a typical rejoinder in religio-spiritual circles) to that hackneyed debating device (which is rife in religio-spiritual circles) does kinda lose its zip, eh? 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] and was never admitted to. RICHARD: As it was not a definitive statement (as in an exhaustive list of just who or what is without ego and when and how) there is no need to ... face it, No. 23, instead of attending to the topic being discussed – your allegations about Vineeto that part of a paragraph she wrote sounded like worship; that any religious worshipper could have written a similar passage; that three words in it were words any religious worshiper can identify with; that an obsession is an obsession; that a term used also has religious meaning – you shot from the hip with an untrue statement (a hackneyed debating device) and, upon being responded to in kind (with an equally hackneyed rejoinder), you chose to focus upon that response as if it was indeed a definitive statement about just who or what is without ego and when and how. If you wish to persist with that approach – such as now bringing in allegations of hypocrisy (further above) for instance – then that is entirely up to you as how you choose to conduct your correspondence is your business.
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] and was never admitted to. RICHARD: As it was not a definitive statement (as in an exhaustive list of just who or what is without ego and when and how) there is no need to ... face it, No. 23, instead of attending to the topic being discussed – your allegations about Vineeto that part of a paragraph she wrote sounded like worship; that any religious worshipper could have written a similar passage; that three words in it were words any religious worshiper can identify with; that an obsession is an obsession; that a term used also has religious meaning – you shot from the hip with an untrue statement (a hackneyed debating device) and, upon being responded to in kind (with an equally hackneyed rejoinder), you chose to focus upon that response as if it was indeed a definitive statement about just who or what is without ego and when and how. If you wish to persist with that approach – such as now bringing in allegations of hypocrisy (further above) for instance – then that is entirely up to you as how you choose to conduct your correspondence is your business. RESPONDENT: You didn’t address the other statements that Person B made later on in the discussion ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... and I now no longer have any intention of going through them, one-by-one, with you (more on this below). RESPONDENT: [... snip other statements ...] Also, would you mind addressing the actual statement below ... RICHARD: I already have ... here (from the section of this e-mail which you snipped-off from the top of this page):
Here is a dictionary definition:
Thus not only did I immediately agree with you, that it is not a true statement, I even provided a detailed account as to why it was not. RESPONDENT: Is this actual statement true or not?:
RICHARD: This is why I now no longer have any intention of going through anything else with you ... you snipped-off the section where not only had I immediately agreed with you, that it is not a true statement, but had even provided a detailed account as to why it was not, yet you now have the unmitigated gall to ask me if I would mind addressing the actual statement (as if I had not already done so). As this behaviour is virtually the same as the behaviour of the person writing under the name ‘No. 60’ (who snipped-away 99.42% of the e-mail where I had addressed ‘the pixels’, in quite meticulous detail and at some considerable length to boot, so as to zero in on a single 25-word sentence of mine) then all I can suggest is that you and he keep on consoling each other, commiserating about what a raw deal you both are getting from those hypocritical actualists, because you will be getting nothing more from me. I’m outta here. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 17
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 |
