|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 31
RICHARD: ... I look forward with avid interest to any suitably amended formulae so as to ascertain the degree of lived experiencing entailed in classifying oneself virtually free. RESPONDENT: Stagnancy takes on many forms. One Mr. Einstein has been suffice. RICHARD: It would appear that you have missed the joke – my co-respondent had indicated at the beginning of his post that it was to be [quote] approached in a pseudo scientific manner [endquote] and halfway through he had said that it was written in a [quote] tongue in cheek mode [endquote] – so I responded in kind (plus took the opportunity to include some experiential information in the body of the post). Of course there is no mathematical formula for peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Men everywhere seek practical direction to fullness of being, not theories and formulae. RICHARD: I do not know how much of The Actual freedom Web Page you have read so this may be an opportune moment to point out that an actual freedom from the human condition is all about the elimination of ‘being’ ... not the seeking of ‘the fullness of being’ which you speak of (above). RESPONDENT: Happy Easter and God Bless. RICHARD: As I am not a Christian (I am a thorough-going atheist through and through) your religious felicitations and your god’s blessings are wasted on me. Furthermore I do find it a bit odd that you would seek to sign off in this manner as the matter of an actual benediction (an actual blessing) was addressed by me in the body of the very e-mail that you took my last line from (at the top of this page) ... I will re-present it here for your perusal and considered deliberation:
You will notice that I did indeed provide a ‘practical direction’ in regards to triggering this actual blessing (in stark contrast to your god’s traditionally capricious bestowal of grace) by activating an innate catalyst ... the contacting and the cultivation of one’s original state of naiveté through the dedicated application of sincerity. I have always found that it pays to thoroughly read all of what one is responding to before clicking the ‘send’ button.
RICHARD: ... I have always found that it pays to thoroughly read all of what one is responding to before clicking the ‘send’ button. RESPONDENT: Boy I guess you told me Richard ... RICHARD: All I did was answer each of your comments, taking one at time, and pointing out where you were either mistaken or misunderstanding what was written and what was being referred to ... it is called having a discussion. The one line you have chosen to respond to was simply me offering some sensible advice. RESPONDENT: ... but having spoken my peace I sit content ... RICHARD: If you are content with holding on to your mistakes or misunderstandings then that is your business ... I can only suggest that you re-read my responses and perhaps see this time around that what I wrote is factual. RESPONDENT: ... yet must roll along always reading between the lines ... RICHARD: Try taking my words at face value ... it obviates making egregious mistakes and misunderstandings. RESPONDENT: ... lest I begin to gather moss too. RICHARD: I look askance at your usage of the word ‘too’ as it implies that somebody, other than yourself, is ‘gathering moss’ ... you will need to substantiate your allegations if you wish for me to take notice of anything you have to say in this respect. RESPONDENT: Happy Actual Freedom Day Richard and troops ... RICHARD: There is no such thing as an ‘Actual Freedom Day’ to be put aside as being special from any other day ... every day is perfect where there is an actual freedom from the human condition. Nor are there any ‘troops’ (outside of your imagination). RESPONDENT: ... and again God bless! RICHARD: Am I to take it that you really have nothing of substance to contribute to a discussion? The records show that you have been subscribed to this Mailing List for many, many months now ... yet it appears that you have absorbed little, if anything, of what is on offer. An actual freedom has nothing to do with gods and goddesses or religion and spirituality.
RESPONDENT: I’m curious as to why you, or anyone for that matter, feel that virtually no one has, can, nor will free themselves from the ‘human condition’? RICHARD: I do not ‘feel’ anything – let alone what you suppose I do – as there is no intuitive/imaginative faculty extant in this flesh and blood body (the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility vanished along with the affective faculty). May I ask where you gained the ‘virtually no one has, can, nor will’ notion from? RESPONDENT: And by the same token why it is that you have been able to accomplish this task? RICHARD: As you have entitled your e-mail ‘Many Are Called - Few Are Chosen’ it may be
apposite to your query to mention that, as there are no gods/goddesses here in this actual world, it was most certainly not a
matter of grace but rather a matter of daring to care ... and thus caring to dare. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I’m curious as to why you, or anyone for that matter, feel that virtually no one has, can, nor will free themselves from the ‘human condition’? RICHARD: I do not ‘feel’ anything – let alone what you suppose I do – as there is no intuitive/imaginative faculty extant in this flesh and blood body (the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility vanished along with the affective faculty). May I ask where you gained the ‘virtually no one has, can, nor will’ notion from? RESPONDENT: I think this is/was plain to see by the few who have been genuinely awakened. ‘The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation’. ‘One man among a thousand have I found ...’, etc. RICHARD: I see ... you are talking about a spiritual awakening – a ‘Self’-Realisation (by whatever name) – within the human condition and not about an actual freedom from the human condition. The reason why ‘virtually no one has, can, nor will’ become spiritually awakened is because it is incredibly difficult to live in such an hallucinatory state of being – a massive delusion wherein one intuitively knows one is god/goddess – twenty four hours of the day. * RESPONDENT: And by the same token why it is that you have been able to accomplish this task? RICHARD: As you have entitled your e-mail ‘Many Are Called - Few Are Chosen’ it may be
apposite to your query to mention that, as there are no gods/goddesses here in this actual world, it was most certainly not a
matter of grace but rather a matter of daring to care ... and thus caring to dare. Viz.: (snip link to ‘A Brief Personal History’ RESPONDENT: Be it (your good fortune) even by the hand of fate ... RICHARD: Yet it did not be my ‘good fortune’ – nor even ‘by the hand of fate’ – to dare to care and thus care to dare at all ... just as it was not by the hand of your god (by grace) either. RESPONDENT: ... I still find your answer shallow and rooted in the ‘self’. RICHARD: As you find anything not rooted in the ‘Self’ shallow I cannot say this surprises me.
RESPONDENT: I’m curious as to why you, or anyone for that matter, feel that virtually no one has, can, nor will free themselves from the ‘human condition’? RICHARD: I do not ‘feel’ anything – let alone what you suppose I do – as there is no intuitive/imaginative faculty extant in this flesh and blood body (the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility vanished along with the affective faculty). May I ask where you gained the ‘virtually no one has, can, nor will’ notion from? RESPONDENT: I think this is/was plain to see by the few who have been genuinely awakened. ‘The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation’. ‘One man among a thousand have I found ...’, etc. RICHARD: I see ... you are talking about a spiritual awakening – a ‘Self’-Realisation (by whatever name) – within the human condition and not about an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: OK rather than getting tangled up in words, terms, or phrases ... RICHARD: It is fascinating how clarity in communication is seen to be ‘getting tangled up in words, terms, or phrases’. RESPONDENT: [OK rather than getting tangled up in words, terms, or phrases], make mine ‘freedom from the bondage of self’, which is to be also free of the human condition, since the mass of men everywhere live in the bondage of self. RICHARD: As those who are ‘genuinely awakened’ – spiritually freed from the bondage of the small ‘s’ self – are still subject to anger and anguish (usually elevated to the status of a Righteous Anger and a Universal Sorrow by some-such name), and thus still subject to the antidotal pacifiers love and compassion (usually elevated to the status of a Love Agapé and a Divine Compassion by some-such name), one does not have to be a genius to suss out that they are not free of the human condition ... or to comprehend that to be actually free from the human condition one needs to be free of the bondage of the ‘Self’ (‘God’ or ‘Truth’ or ‘Being’ or ‘Presence’ by whatever name) as well. There are no affections here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Actually I borrowed the term from the text of Alcoholics Anonymous, and while I can surely be quite original and creative via my own talents, things don’t have to necessarily always be MY WAY, like some people I know. RICHARD: You must hang out with some very self-centred people, then. RESPONDENT: Although I don’t co-sign BS, so please don’t ask me to do so. RICHARD: If you wish for me to be cognisant what you are saying here could you re-write it in a way that makes sense? * RICHARD: The reason why ‘virtually no one has, can, nor will’ become spiritually awakened is because it is incredibly difficult to live in such an hallucinatory state of being – a massive delusion wherein one intuitively knows one is god/goddess – twenty four hours of the day. RESPONDENT: Yes so ‘incredibly difficult’, especially in the way you torture it, that I suggest we scrub the thought/idea immediately. RICHARD: Speaking personally I scrubbed the reality of living in such an hallucinatory state of being – a massive delusion wherein one intuitively knows one is god/ goddess – for twenty four hours of the day completely out of existence over a decade ago, now ... but if all you wish to scrub is the ‘thought/idea’ then that is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: And perhaps simply try being/living true to our own selves. RICHARD: Ahh ... there is the nub of the issue, you see, because those who do truly be their own selves – those who are ‘genuinely awakened’ or spiritually freed from the bondage of the small ‘s’ self – have only awakened within the human condition and are not actually free from the human condition. Which is why The Actual Freedom Trust web site, and its associated mailing list, is on-line. * RESPONDENT: You know Richard, I really think you got more stones to turn over (truths to discover and absorb) in order to be of any real value in helping your fellows become free of the human condition. RICHARD: Which ‘stones to turn over’ – which ‘truths to discover and absorb’ – would they be, then? RESPONDENT: Yet I don’t think you’ll ever get off that ‘pink cloud’ you’re on ... RICHARD: And what ‘pink cloud’ would that be? RESPONDENT: [Yet I don’t think you’ll ever get off that ‘pink cloud’ you’re on,] and get your hands dirty again ... RICHARD: What is it you want me to get my ‘hands dirty again’ with? RESPONDENT: [Yet I don’t think you’ll ever get off that ‘pink cloud’ you’re on, and get your hands dirty again], or might I say go through some more ‘fear and trembling’? RICHARD: Did you not read my response to your initial query? Here, I will copy-paste it down here to save you searching for it:
I have always found that it pays to thoroughly read all of what one is responding to before clicking the ‘send’ button.
RICHARD: ... I have always found that it pays to thoroughly read all of what one is responding to before clicking the ‘send’ button. RESPONDENT: Having spoken my peace, or perhaps I should say having planted some seeds, it’s become time to be silent, Richard. Too much clamour often serves only to glorify the ‘self’. RICHARD: Seeing it is more than a year and a half since you last dropped by, replete with glorified ‘self’
all a clamour, to speak your peace For thus does all the misery and mischief continue unabated.
RESPONDENT: Have you given any thoughts to making any New Year resolutions? RICHARD: As you are presumably referring to the Christian ‘New Year’ (decreed in 1582 to begin on the first day of January by the then head of the Roman Catholic religion) you may find the following exchange self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: Perhaps employing one along the lines of ceasing to rest on your laurels ... RICHARD: I do not have any ‘laurels’ to rest on. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... (4 million words – is it?) ... RICHARD: There is upwards of 4 million words available for free on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... all of which are the direct result of the identity, who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body, ‘self’-immolating in toto for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. And if it were not for ‘his’ altruistic action all those years ago this mailing list would not exist today for you to share your (borrowed) wisdom on. RESPONDENT: ... and getting into some real self-introspection, change, and maturing might be helpful to you. RICHARD: If I may point out? As there is no self extant in this flesh and blood body, to introspect, change, and mature, then any discussion about whether any such introspection, change, and maturation be real or unreal is irrelevant ... although what may very well be relevant would be to enquire as to just what it is you would have such a self mature into. RESPONDENT: Happy trails and trials. RICHARD: As you still have not told me what stones it is you would have the identity you are projecting into this flesh and blood body turn over, what truths you would have that identity discover and absorb, what pink cloud you would have that identity get off, what dirt you would have that identity get their hands in, and what fear and trembling you would have that identity go through, from the last time you offered unsolicited advice to that identity it is probably pointless to enquire as to what ‘trails and trials’ it is you are wanting that identity to happily have ... but I will ask anyway if only for the sake of the record. What ‘happy trails and trials’ would they be, then? RESPONDENT: P. S. I’ve recently learned that J.K’s ‘teachings’ have exceeded 100 million words, although I’m not overly impressed with him as having exemplified fullness of being-fullness of manhood either. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘either’ when I have made it clear on umpteen occasions that there is no ‘being’ extant in this flesh and blood body to have any fullness of for you to be impressed by? Apart from that ... am I to take it that this ‘fullness’ is what you would have a self mature into?
RESPONDENT: I notice you changed my original post title from ‘Hey Richie’ to ‘Hey Richard’ in your reply. RICHARD: This computer, being set-up for Australian English, automatically re-spells all words when I click the auto-format button in the word-processor I use ... howsoever, in view of it apparently being a matter of at least some importance to you, I have gone back and re-inserted it this time around (it is now underlined in the word-processor with a wavy red line). RESPONDENT: A bit touchy are we? RICHARD: Ha ... I am yet to come across a ‘touchy’ word-processor. RESPONDENT: Indeed I put it forth as a dig, yet with respect. RICHARD: Oh? Here is what the word ‘dig’ can mean:
RESPONDENT: Much like the old adage ‘it’s not what you say – but how you say it’. RICHARD: Your explanation becomes all the more fascinating the more you go on about it. RESPONDENT: Of course with this type of dialogue though, it’s not always easy to accurately discern another’s attitudes and motives. RICHARD: Just for the record, then, what was your attitude and motive when you respectfully put forth your sarcastic, taunting remark/your gibe/your remark directed against a person/your remark which is intended to criticise, embarrass or make a joke about someone/your aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect/your cutting remark/your cutting comment, taunt, jeer, unkind remark (or whatever the word means to you)? * RESPONDENT: Anyhow having been granted a reasonably integral and enduring freedom from the bondage of self, which includes having through long-suffering acquired the wisdom to realise the vanity of most debate or argument over things of a spiritual/religious/AF nature (especially with certain folks), I’ll sit content with simply offering you the following simple advice. RICHARD: Before you get too settled, sitting there contentedly with your simply offered simple advice, may I enquire as to just what ‘AF nature’ is (according to you)? I only ask because you have lumped it in together with religiosity and spirituality ... neither of which exist in actuality. RESPONDENT: Surrender, get humble, get honest, get real, and grow up! RICHARD: I will add them to the list:
RESPONDENT: And just maybe taking a long, hard look at AA’s 12 steps may be of help to you in this greatest of endeavours. RICHARD: Just in case it escaped your notice, when perusing The Actual Freedom Trust web site, I will re-post the following:
Put simply: as I am neither an alcoholic nor a recovering alcoholic, I have no need for a ‘Higher Power’ to maintain sobriety. RESPONDENT: It seems to me you are fast heading towards shipwreck just as J.K., Osho, F. Jones and many others lacking in real direction have ... RICHARD: As the ‘Higher Power’ of Alcoholics Anonymous is none other than the Christian/Judaic god there is no prize for guessing just what that ‘real direction’ is, eh? RESPONDENT: ... and likewise as a result being of little real value to your fellows along the way. RICHARD: I see ... whereas you would consider that your (borrowed) wisdom is of much ‘real value’ I presume ... even after 4,800 years or so of it having been amply demonstrated to be the ‘Tried and Failed’? RESPONDENT: Nevertheless and as always, happy trails and trials! RICHARD: What ‘happy trails and trials’ are you referring to?
RICHARD: ... may I enquire as to just what ‘AF nature’ is (according to you)? I only ask because you have lumped it in together with religiosity and spirituality ... neither of which exist in actuality. RESPONDENT: A genuine spiritual, religious, AF nature would be the condition of being beheld by one who has clearly and deeply seen both the vanity and the insanity of his involvement in the ways of the world, the status-quo, or the human condition and as a result has stepped out of all existing patterns of living and embarked upon an earnest and unending journey of self discovery. RICHARD: Do you not find it odd to describe the nature of an actual freedom from the human condition – for that is the condition which the acronym ‘AF’ refers to – as having a ‘spiritual, religious’ nature when it is writ large all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that it lies beyond enlightenment and has nowt to do with religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, or metaphysicality? Furthermore, are you aware you are corresponding with the person that formulated the name for that condition? For example:
Lastly, as you specifically refer to an ‘unending journey of self discovery’ then whatever it is that you are describing there is one thing for sure ... it ain’t an actual freedom from the human condition. And I ought to know as I coined the phrase.
RESPONDENT: You’ve said: [quote] ‘I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition’. [endquote]. Do you still hold to this view Richard? RICHARD: If you are asking whether I am still not taking the back seat (a colloquialism for occupying an inferior place) then ... yes, that is still so; and if you are asking whether it is still indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition then ... yes, that is still so too. Nothing has changed since 1997 when I first wrote those words.
RESPONDENT: You’ve said: [quote] ‘I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition’. [endquote]. Do you still hold to this view Richard? RICHARD: If you are asking whether I am still not taking the back seat (a colloquialism for occupying an inferior place) then ... yes, that is still so; and if you are asking whether it is still indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition then ... yes, that is still so too. Nothing has changed since 1997 when I first wrote those words. RESPONDENT: What’s the hold-up then Richard? RICHARD: In a word: yourself. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Everywhere I see men and women in chains. All except yourself of course. RICHARD: Oh? Then I am to disregard what you wrote a scant 60 hours ago? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Have you any views on psychological crystallization, ego encrustation, or hardness of the heart? RICHARD: Nope.
RESPONDENT: You’ve said: [quote] ‘I, for one, am not taking the back seat ... because it is indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition’. [endquote]. Do you still hold to this view Richard? RICHARD: If you are asking whether I am still not taking the back seat (a colloquialism for occupying an inferior place) then ... yes, that is still so; and if you are asking whether it is still indeed possible for any human being to be totally free from the human condition then ... yes, that is still so too. Nothing has changed since 1997 when I first wrote those words. (...) RESPONDENT: Have you any views on psychological crystallization, ego encrustation, or hardness of the heart? RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: You just may want to investigate the matter then Richard. RICHARD: As I have no interest in having or holding ‘views’ I will leave your style of investigation where it belongs ... in your hands. RESPONDENT: The genuinely ‘actually free’ man should have all the answers to all the questions, no? RICHARD: No ... and you may find the following exchange informative in this regard:
RESPONDENT: At least all of the psychological ones. RICHARD: I leave the psychological answers to the psychologists ... my expertise lies in the existential answers. RESPONDENT: One might say he would be all knowing ... RICHARD: You might say that ... I do not. RESPONDENT: ... or perhaps even that he had the mind of God. RICHARD: Your ‘genuinely ‘actually free’ man’ sounds more and more like a wankasaurus RESPONDENT: Old Bible Paul spoke of the spiritual man having insight into everything ... RICHARD: Yep, that sounds about right ... the latest failure in a long list of failures stretching back into antiquity, in other words. RESPONDENT: ... which bothered and baffled the man of the world as he didn’t have a clue. And you Richard sure as hell don’t have rightful insight into everything. RICHARD: Indeed not – nor do I have its concomitant wrongful insight into everything either – but, then again, I am not a ‘spiritual man’ ... for example:
As I remarked earlier I, for one, am not taking the back seat (a colloquialism for occupying an inferior place) as I lived that which you call ‘the fullness of being’, night and day, for eleven years ... and found it wanting. Your unsolicited advice is wasted on me ... you may as well save your time and fingertips typing it out.
RESPONDENT: [Richard] ‘Vanity, egoism, selfishness – all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ as ‘me’ being ceased to be’. [endquote]. I don’t doubt that the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be and transformation took place in you for a time or times ... RICHARD: Yet I never said ‘the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be’ as the quote of mine clearly states ‘I’ as ‘me’ *being* ceased to be (that which you describe, elsewhere, as ‘fullness-of-being’ has ceased to be) nor was there any ‘transformation’ take place as ‘ceased to be’ means extirpation, annihilation, extinction ... thus there was no ‘for a time or times’ about it as ‘self’-immolation in toto is the end, finish (as in there being no phoenix to rise from the ashes). As dead as the dodo, in other words, but with no skeletal remains.
RESPONDENT: May God bless Richard..... RICHARD: Which god?
RESPONDENT: May God bless Richard ... RICHARD: Which god? RESPONDENT: Personally it tis the One that lives within my heart. RICHARD: As you wished RESPONDENT: But certainly that’s got to be your own call Richard. RICHARD: No, it was definitely your call (I was not even there when it happened). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: How about as you understand him ... RICHARD: Ah, the first clue emerges (it is of the masculine gender). RESPONDENT: ... [How about as you understand him] or whatever the label may be? RICHARD: As that (masculine) god lives within your heart how about you do the necessary understanding and labelling? RESPONDENT: Perhaps it may just be fate. RICHARD: In which case what you are saying looks something like this:
Howsoever, as you have qualified your statement so as to express uncertainty
RESPONDENT: May God bless Richard ... RICHARD: Which god? RESPONDENT: Personally it tis the One that lives within my heart. RICHARD: As you wished RESPONDENT: But certainly that’s got to be your own call Richard. RICHARD: No, it was definitely your call (I was not even there when it happened). Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘May God bless Richard ...’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: How about as you understand him ... RICHARD: Ah, the first clue emerges (it is of the masculine gender). RESPONDENT: ... [How about as you understand him] or whatever the label may be? RICHARD: As that (masculine) god lives within your heart how about you do the necessary understanding and labelling? RESPONDENT: Perhaps it may just be fate. RICHARD: In which case what you are saying looks something like this: [example only]: ‘I wish
masculine fate would confer upon/ endow Richard with well-being/ happiness/ prosperity’. [end example]. Howsoever, as you have
qualified your statement so as to express uncertainty RESPONDENT: Please don’t hold your breath awaiting Richard. RICHARD: Ha ... there is no breath-holding happening in regards your masculine god’s conference/ endowment of that unsolicited supplication of yours either (in case it has escaped your notice he was, despite living within your heart, conspicuously recalcitrant when it came to carrying out what you wished). RESPONDENT: A living embodiment of Truth ... RICHARD: Ah, the second clue emerges (that masculine god goes by the label truth). RESPONDENT: ... [A living embodiment of Truth] has no time for such silly monkey-shines. RICHARD: If I might point out? ‘Twas you who speculated about how that masculine god might be understood and labelled ... not me. Viz.:
All I did was ask for your further clarification before proceeding. RESPONDENT: Shame on you for even trying! RICHARD: Hmm ... is that you reproaching me or is it that living embodiment of masculine truth flexing its muscle with a curse? Be that as it may: it becomes strikingly obvious that your invocation for blessedness has its unblessed
flip-side – as in an exclamatory imprecation for humiliation or distress RESPONDENT: [Addendum] I respectfully suggest that you pray (with the utmost sincerity and humility of course) ... RICHARD: Speaking of monkey-shines Altogether a rather strange business, non? If we could now get back to the topic at hand (your further clarification) it would be most appreciated as the last time I looked there were about 1200 gods/ goddesses (not counting the 33,000 in the Hindu pantheon) all around the globe and stretching back into antiquity ... to wit: just which masculine god/ truth is it that lives within your heart/ that you are the living embodiment of? Could it be, perchance, none other than the ‘Higher Power’ who presides over Alcoholics Anonymous
meetings
RESPONDENT: May God bless Richard ... RICHARD: Which god? RESPONDENT: Personally it tis the One that lives within my heart. RICHARD: As you wished RESPONDENT: But certainly that’s got to be your own call Richard. RICHARD: No, it was definitely your call (I was not even there when it happened). Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘May God bless Richard ...’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: How about as you understand him ... RICHARD: Ah, the first clue emerges (it is of the masculine gender). RESPONDENT: ... [How about as you understand him] or whatever the label may be? RICHARD: As that (masculine) god lives within your heart how about you do the necessary understanding and labelling? RESPONDENT: Perhaps it may just be fate. RICHARD: In which case what you are saying looks something like this: [example only]: ‘I wish
masculine fate would confer upon/ endow Richard with well-being/ happiness/ prosperity’. [end example]. Howsoever, as you have
qualified your statement so as to express uncertainty RESPONDENT: Please don’t hold your breath awaiting Richard. RICHARD: Ha ... there is no breath-holding happening in regards your masculine god’s conference/ endowment of that unsolicited supplication of yours either (in case it has escaped your notice he was, despite living within your heart, conspicuously recalcitrant when it came to carrying out what you wished). RESPONDENT: A living embodiment of Truth ... RICHARD: Ah, the second clue emerges (that masculine god goes by the label truth). RESPONDENT: ... [A living embodiment of Truth] has no time for such silly monkey-shines. RICHARD: If I might point out? ‘Twas you who speculated about how that masculine god might be understood and labelled ... not me. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Perhaps it [the One that lives within my heart] may just be fate’. [endquote]. All I did was ask for your further clarification before proceeding. RESPONDENT: Shame on you for even trying! RICHARD: Hmm ... is that you reproaching me or is it that living embodiment of masculine truth flexing its muscle with a curse? Be that as it may: it becomes strikingly obvious that your invocation for blessedness has its unblessed flip-side – as in an exclamatory imprecation for humiliation or distress to be my lot – and all because you were expressing uncertainty about your understanding, and thus labelling, of the (masculine) god which lives within your heart. RESPONDENT: [Addendum] I respectfully suggest that you pray (with the utmost sincerity and humility of course) ... RICHARD: Speaking of monkey-shines (...) RESPONDENT: Yep, I got the term ‘monkey-shines’ from my dear old dad, Richard. RICHARD: Ah, so you started such underhand tricks/ acts/ antics as the above at quite an early age, then? RESPONDENT: And in retrospect he really was a dear old dad. RICHARD: But quite ineffective in curbing you of that rather insidious habit, it would seem. RESPONDENT: Actually I was blessed with two good parents. They gave me a reasonably quiet, secure, warm, and loving home and a lot of freedom to be myself. RICHARD: Not all parents comprehend that what their function is, essentially, is to instead prepare their offspring well for adulthood. RESPONDENT: I’m grateful for the good, solid, well-balanced, foundation they gave me. RICHARD: Giving a child a lot of licence (aka the freedom to be themself as they instinctually are) is hardly the stuff of a good, solid, well-balanced foundation. RESPONDENT: Seems here that so many people are not so fortunate. How about yourself Richard? RICHARD: Oh, I was given very little (if any) licence as a child
(...) RICHARD: Speaking of monkey-shines RESPONDENT: Yep, I got the term ‘monkey-shines’ from my dear old dad, Richard. RICHARD: Ah, so you started such underhand tricks/ acts/ antics as the above at quite an early age, then? RESPONDENT: And in retrospect he really was a dear old dad. RICHARD: But quite ineffective in curbing you of that rather insidious habit, it would seem. RESPONDENT: Actually I was blessed with two good parents. They gave me a reasonably quiet, secure, warm, and loving home and a lot of freedom to be myself. RICHARD: Not all parents comprehend that what their function is, essentially, is to instead prepare their offspring well for adulthood. RESPONDENT: I’m grateful for the good, solid, well-balanced, foundation they gave me. RICHARD: Giving a child a lot of licence (aka the freedom to be themself as they instinctually are) is hardly the stuff of a good, solid, well-balanced foundation. RESPONDENT: Seems here that so many people are not so fortunate. How about yourself Richard? RICHARD: Oh, I was given very little (if any) licence as a child ... thus I was well-prepared for adulthood. RESPONDENT: Geez-o Richard, the more you write the more you continue to tell on yourself. Or perhaps I should say the more you show your true colours ... RICHARD: Come now ... that (retrospective) dear-old-dad/ blessed-with-good-parents/
warm-and-loving-home/ freedom-to-be-myself spiel Look, you are on record as saying that your adoptive dad, who stood on the tracks and let a speeding freight train knock him to pieces, had shortcomings; that he was a rather heavy drinker; that he had the view that life was about nothing but the almighty buck; that he was a man of few words; that you never really fully knew him; that your adoptive mom, a real pain in the neck who had you half-nuts with her near constant belly-aching, lived a life of quiet desperation; that you can recall, as far back as around age 4, that so often you felt (particularly at a fireman’s parade with your father) that everyone around you, including even other children, were basically unhappy; that you often experienced baffling and debilitating feelings of being so terribly alone until about 20 or so; that as an only child you were pampered and sheltered; that you grew up being quite a solitary observer, rather than being out running with the kids on the street; that you stole money out of the donation envelopes your grandmother had you take to church for her; that you hated yourself and your life so much that you cared not whether you lived or died; that you had shrink-visits, starting at age 28, for five years; that you punched one of them in the jaw after a session and had came close to a similar encounter with another one in a psyche-ward; that one assessed your thought content as being, on the one hand, a preoccupation with your own importance and potential grandiosity and, on the other hand, a function of dealing with your fear of your own worthlessness/ that you have beliefs about yourself and the world which are fixed and false (delusional) and that your mood is one of anger hidden by a superficial veneer of euphoria; that you had 3-4 years of mild to dark depression along with some persistently continuing thoughts about leaving the scene; that you took librium, triavil, melaril, and one or two others for around four years; that you were hooked on valium (30-40 mg. per day) and alcohol; that your best days ever were in a homeless shelter/ mission (after spending 60 days in the slammer where you became both chemically sober and saw the light); that you are seldom ever really completely satisfied with your efforts and present station in life ... and that there are times you long for death/ that you are weary of the world. What I would suggest, at this stage, is that you take your own advice:
* RESPONDENT: (...) NTL, sincerely hoping here that Grace may fall upon you Richard ... RICHARD: Whose grace?
RESPONDENT: Geez-o Richard, the more you write the more you continue to tell on yourself. Or perhaps I should say the more you show your true colours ... RICHARD: Come now ... that (retrospective) dear-old-dad/blessed-with-good-parents/ warm-and-loving-home/ freedom-to-be-myself spiel, coming as if right out of some saccharine pop-psychology tract, is positively dripping with unctuous sanctimony. (...) RESPONDENT: What’s was that old line, ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?’ RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this:
Although he goes on to blandly say [quote] ‘Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day’ [endquote] what he is specifically referring to does not hove into view until ten paragraphs later:
Of course, more than a few people take no notice of/ are ignorant of what he was indicating (the word divines refers to theologians/ clerics), drop off the inconvenient word foolish, and epigrammatically utilise only the mid-part of what he really said so as to, not only justify their everyday inconsistencies/ contradictions, but craftily imply that, by being inconsistent/ contradictory, they thus have big minds. RESPONDENT: In any case I think this shoe surely fits you Richard, and further reinforces my ‘law’, ‘letter’, ‘intellectual(ism)’, ‘stick in the mud’, ‘deadbeat’, take on you. RICHARD: Perhaps it is because your mind is so big that you cannot see its insularity (it is *your* thought that the misquoted line ‘consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds’ surely fits me, and that alone, which is further reinforcing *your* take on me). Howsoever, I do appreciate your de-facto acknowledgement that your (retrospective) take on your adoptive parents was indeed inconsistent with and contradictory to how they really were (according to you elsewhere). RESPONDENT: (...) ‘Few are chosen’, remember? And also your skirting long ago of this simple dictum and issue? RICHARD: I skirted nothing * RESPONDENT: NTL, sincerely hoping here that Grace may fall upon you Richard ... RICHARD: Whose grace? RESPONDENT: Who’s God you ask? RICHARD: No, you have already informed that you are RESPONDENT: How about the one who created this whole damn mess in the first place? RICHARD: And which one is that ... could it be Abba (aka Lord), that reinvented Elohim (aka YHWH, et al) of middle eastern lore and legend, perchance?
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 |
