|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 44
RESPONDENT: For me the universe is not always existing. I was born 1948, so the universe exist for me since then and until I die. Now if someone tells me that the universe was always existed, then he is a layer, because also for him the universe is existing since he was born. RICHARD: Having been on this planet well over half a century I have known of many people being born – and the universe had gone right on continuing to exist before they were alive – just as I have known of many people dying ... and the universe has gone right on continuing to exist without them being alive. There is no reason to suppose that when you die it will be any different ... perhaps you could put it in your will that someone who knows you is to write to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, upon your demise, to inform of the event and the peoples subscribed can confer with each other so as to ascertain whether the universe still exists without you? RESPONDENT: I am living now. Life is the price I pay for death. The more difficult my life is the bigger the price. RICHARD: Contrary to popular belief life is not the opposite to death ... birth is (life is what happens in between). RESPONDENT: No meaning in life. RICHARD: There is here in this actual world – the world of the senses (the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum) – where life is innately meaningful ... intrinsically purposeful. There is, however, no such innate/intrinsic meaning/purpose in the real world ... the world of the instinctual passions/ affective faculty/ human psyche. RESPONDENT: A random phenomenon. RICHARD: Here is what various resources have to say:
As life is not without aim, purpose or cause it is anything but ‘a random phenomenon’. RESPONDENT: Somebody is born, is striving to survive and then dies. Or is striving to grow up his children, so that they can also strive to grow up theirs and that’s all. RICHARD: There is much more to life than that ... much, much more. For example:
RESPONDENT: Consciousness, comes from unconscious matter. Unconscious matter products consciousness. RICHARD: Is it not amazing, marvellous, wonderful, that that which is neither alive nor dead, neither awake nor asleep, neither sensible nor insensible (comatose) can give rise to that which is in the state or condition of being conscious? RESPONDENT: The universe is experiencing itself as a human being. RICHARD: And as a cat, a dog, and so on. RESPONDENT: Why the universe decided to get rid from the self is an enigma. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was the identity within which decided to altruistically ‘self’-immolate, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... not the universe. RESPONDENT: The universe is unintelligent. The universe is not intelligent. Richard said that. RICHARD: You must be referring to this:
RESPONDENT: Now why the not intelligent universe decided to become free from the self, which itself has created is an enigma. RICHARD: As the universe did not decide anything of the sort such an enigma is purely of your own making. RESPONDENT: All the above is what AF is teaching. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition (which is what the acronym ‘AF’ is short for) is not teaching anything ... let alone what you read into the words written by this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: And I wonder freedom from what? RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is, of course, an actual freedom from the human
condition RESPONDENT: From randomness, from meaningless? From no meaning existence? Does it seems a little peculiar ...? RICHARD: Nope.
RESPONDENT: If you were enlightened as you declare for 11 years, that means that you supposed to have lost your self 11 years ago ... RICHARD: The ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) ... yes: 23 years ago. RESPONDENT: ... because I never heard about a person being enlightened genuinely and have a self. RICHARD: Have an ego-self ... indeed not. RESPONDENT: But the way you write in the web site, you give the impression that you lost your self through actual freedom. RICHARD: Lost the soul-self/spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) ... yes: 12 years ago. RESPONDENT: So Richard, you lost the self, the ‘I’ as ‘ego’, 23 years ago, while you was enlightened, that means through an ASC. RICHARD: The altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment came about as a result of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) dissolving into/merging with ‘being’ itself (aka ‘the feeler’) – the experience was that of dying – and not the other way around. RESPONDENT: Can you explain please, how is possible through an ASC, which is one illusory state, to arrive to something real? (Real being the loss of self as ego). RICHARD: Simple ... that which died/dissolved/merged was an illusion; the dying/dissolving/merging was an illusion; the resultant state of being was an illusion (only I usually describe it as a delusion as it is a grandiose state). It was not until identity altruistically ‘self’-immolated in toto that both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul became extinct ... as dead as the dodo (but with no skeletal remains). There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes here.
RICHARD: (...) allow the marvelling, that it is never not this moment, to unfold in all its wonderment. RESPONDENT No. 4: Yes, I will try to do it, but I think it is important for me first to understand what is meant by ‘it is never not this moment’, and as you see below, my understanding is quite different than what you mean. RICHARD: (...) presuming that you are seated at a computer screen situated against a wall in a room ... if you were to turn around, stand up, and look at the opposite wall whilst contemplating bodily moving to there and viewing the computer screen from that position such an event (standing with your back to the opposite wall) would be properly called a future event would it not? Now commence moving towards that (opposite) wall: at the first step ask yourself what time and what place it is ... and do so again at each subsequent step. On each occasion it will be seen that you are just here, at this location, right now, at this moment, all the while you are (supposedly) moving into your future (standing with your back to the opposite wall and viewing the computer screen from that position) ... and I have written about this before:
RESPONDENT: The example you gave about moving from here to there, etc., is exactly what dawned to me 10 years ago, and I used it to prove there is no time. Every moment I am in the now ... RICHARD: If I may interject? More than a few peoples have experienced being ‘in the now’ (aka being in the moment and/or being in the present and/or being in the here and now and so on) and have reported the feeling/intuition of being timeless – and that it proves there is no time (the word ‘timeless’ means ‘no time’ just as ‘deathless’ means ‘no death’) – yet that is not what I am reporting/ describing/ explaining at all ... let alone ‘exactly’. RESPONDENT: [Every moment I am in the now], and only memory says that I am passing from intermediate position in space. You are using exactly my words as in tape recorder. RICHARD: No, not at all. If you were to re-read what I wrote (further above), plus what I have written
elsewhere on this topic on many an occasion I even state categorically (further below in this post you are responding to) that time is actual. Viz.:
In short: the identity within is forever locked-out of time (time as an actuality, that is, and not time as a convention). RESPONDENT: Why though this did not change me? RICHARD: Going by your description – ‘what dawned to me 10 years ago’ – it was a realisation and, unless a realisation is acted upon, it remains just that ... a realisation. ‘Tis just as well though (otherwise you would have been yet another ‘Timeless One’), eh?
RESPONDENT No. 49: Assume the following statement is true: [if your flesh and blood body can be called a sort of ‘universe’ necessary to house your blood cells] then would it not be quite the dilemma if every single blood cell operated on instructions not given by your flesh and blood body? Yes or No? RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 49, nice try indeed. RESPONDENT: Richard, please stop this cliché, became very trivial … RICHARD: I copy-pasted <nice try indeed> into the search function of this computer and sent it through all I have ever written, since coming onto the internet seven years ago, and it only returned five (5) hits. RESPONDENT: … [please stop this cliché, became very trivial], even Respondent No 18 is imitating you to that. RICHARD: Let me see if I am understanding your line of thought: just because another subscriber to this mailing list used an expression I too have used (and, on average, less than once-a-year at that) I should, as a consequence, cease forthwith … even though it be apposite to the circumstances. Am I comprehending you correctly? If so, then am I to further understand that all somebody – anybody – has to do to have me desist using an expression – any expression – is to type it out and click ‘send’? RESPONDENT: You better give an answer, direct answer not escape though this idiot cliché. RICHARD: I did give an answer … less than half a day (11 hours 09 minutes in fact) prior to this particular variation on the same theme being posted. Viz.:
Moreover most, if not all, of my co-respondent’s e-mails to me have the same not-so-hidden agenda running through them – if I continue to ignore their god’s will/ rule/ instruction I do so at my direst peril – just look at what my usage of Mr. Eubulides’ example of a sophistical tactic unintentionally elicited a scant four weeks previous to this exchange.
There is no prize for guessing just what religious tradition it is that has its god’s alter-ego characterised as having horns.
RESPONDENT: Richard you can never agree with anyone … RICHARD: I have found it always pays to do a little research before making categorical assertions … for example:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
And:
There are many more instances in a similar vein (of me saying ‘agreed’ or ‘yes’ to what my co-respondent had to say) – 596 occasions in fact – but maybe that will do for now. RESPONDENT: … [you can never agree with anyone], this is your sickness. I don’t know how is called scientifically, but I will find out. RICHARD: While you are at it maybe you could look-up what the scientific name is for ‘egg on one’s face’? RESPONDENT: Is impossible for you to agree with anyone because you think you are the world teacher … RICHARD: As your basic premise – ‘you can never agree with anyone’ – has no substance any conclusions drawn are baseless. RESPONDENT: … if I say white you will say black, and if I say black you will say white. RICHARD: Ahh … could this be nub of the issue (Richard not agreeing with No 44), perchance?
RESPONDENT: There is the universe including millions of live species and so the universe IS experiencing itself AS so many species. RICHARD: Various estimates, based upon incomplete field research, have it that there is somewhere between 2.0 and 4.5 million currently living animal and plant species on planet earth. It has also been estimated, based upon incomplete fossil research, that something like 90% of all the species that lived in earlier periods became extinct long before the human species appeared on the scene. Any estimates of currently living and previously living extra-terrestrial species can only be extrapolations based upon the (incomplete) terrestrial cataloguing. RESPONDENT: Now, between these species, is also the human being. The human being is so. Happen to be as it is. What is happening now? RICHARD: The current human species is known as homo sapiens (tool-making fire-using symbol-writing hominids) dating back to perhaps 100 thousand BCE; prior to that was homo erectus (tool-making fire-using hominids) dating back to perhaps 1.6 million BCE; prior to that was homo-habilis (tool-making hominids) dating back to perhaps 2.0 million BCE; prior to that was the genus australopithecus (small-brained hominids) dating back to perhaps 5.0 million BCE: prior to that were the hominoids Strepsherinni/ Haplorini (from which hominids arose) dating back to perhaps 70 million BCE. RESPONDENT: Is the universe who is experiencing itself as a human being saying ‘I must change the way I am experiencing my self as a human being’? RICHARD: The universe is not a personality – as in your ‘who is’ phrasing – and, as such, does not say anything (or sense or think or feel or intuit). Apart from that ... nothing has changed since I last responded to a similar query. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Who created the human being? RICHARD: Nobody ... and, again, to personalise such a question is to be anthropomorphic. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If there is no creator, that means that human being always was existing. RICHARD: It does not mean that. RESPONDENT: And always existing means for infinite time ago. RICHARD: The very stuff the human body is comprised of is, of course, as old as the universe itself ... and the universe is eternal. RESPONDENT: If exist evolution, means something is creating this evolution. RICHARD: It does not mean that. RESPONDENT: If you say that evolution happens of itself, that is the same. RICHARD: It is not the same. RESPONDENT: Means evolution itself is the creator of evolution. RICHARD: It does not mean that. RESPONDENT: If evolution is a creator, then you must respect the intelligence of evolution. RICHARD: Since when has evolution – ‘a process by which different kinds of organism come into being by the differentiation and genetic mutation of earlier forms over successive generations, viewed as an explanation of their origins’ (Oxford Dictionary) – had the cognitive faculty of understanding and comprehending, as in intellect and sagacity, which means the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information so that coherent knowledge can accumulate)? RESPONDENT: You are a product of this evolution. As a product of evolution, you can not be more intelligent than evolution itself. If blind nature ... etc. made human being as it is, then the human being, want it or not must be like that. RICHARD: Ha ... that looks remarkably like being but a variation on the popular expression ‘you can’t change human nature’. RESPONDENT: Is programmed like that. Now is the program itself that wants to change the program? RICHARD: No ... it is intelligence (the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons) that is the generator of change. RESPONDENT: And can you prove to me why living in actual freedom, is a better way of living? RICHARD: What kind of proof do you want? RESPONDENT: Let’s say I am millionaire. I can have whatever I want. RICHARD: No millionaire (or billionaire for that matter) can have ‘whatever’ they want ... I, for one, am not for sale. RESPONDENT: I can have any woman I want. RICHARD: Are you really suggesting that each and every one of the 3.0+ billion females on this planet (as in your ‘any woman’ phrasing) will sell themselves ... albeit if only the price is right? RESPONDENT: I take my plane and fly here and there. RICHARD: Hmm ... there is such a thing as ‘airspace’ restrictions that no millionaire can circumvent. RESPONDENT: I can pay diet doctors and I am eating healthy. RICHARD: With the proliferation of media resources one does not have to be a millionaire to have access to dietary information. RESPONDENT: I will live probably more than you. RICHARD: Oh? Is quantity (longevity) better than quality, then? RESPONDENT: In the end both of us will die. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: How can you say that you had a better and happier life than me? RICHARD: Given that you prefaced all of the above criteria for ‘a better way of living’ with the proviso [quote] ‘let’s say I am millionaire’ [endquote] you are yet to provide any actual benchmarks. RESPONDENT: I can pay doctors if I am sick and you can not. RICHARD: I do not have to ... I currently reside in a country where both medical and hospital care is universal (funded by a levy). * RESPONDENT: Why are you caring about your fellow human beings? RICHARD: Put succinctly it is benevolence (a munificent well-wishing) ... the etymological root of the
word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like
species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what
is called ‘theory of mind’ RESPONDENT: You said that love does not exist. RICHARD: Not in actuality ... no. RESPONDENT: What makes you caring about your fellow human beings? RICHARD: Again, it is fellowship regard ... I like my fellow human beings and want only the best for them. RESPONDENT: After you die you go in oblivion ... RICHARD: Not ‘after’ I die ... death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: ... so why the hell you care? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: given that in the last 100 years 160,000,000 sane people were killed by their sane fellow human beings, in wars alone, there is the distinct possibility that the same or similar will happen in the next 100 years ... that is, some peoples now living and some peoples not yet even born, are going to kill and/or be killed in some battle, some conflict, some hostilities, at some place on this otherwise fair planet we all live on. For instance: there are 24 ‘major’ wars (wars with more than 1,000 casualties) currently occurring as you read this – wherein people are actually killing and wounding and maiming and being killed and wounded and maimed – and 22 ‘minor’ wars (wars with less than 1,000 casualties) also occurring ... and 22 recently concluded or suspended wars. Furthermore, all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides (in the last 100 years an estimated 40,000,000 people killed themselves) will continue on unabated unless radical change occurs: someone, somewhere is being murdered and someone, somewhere is murdering as these words scroll past you; someone, somewhere is being tortured and someone, somewhere is torturing (as detailed by ‘Amnesty International’) right now; someone, somewhere is being beaten up and someone, somewhere is doing the beating, in yet another case of domestic violence, at this very instant; somewhere some child is being brutalised, frightened out of their wits in yet another case of child abuse, at this very moment; and such suffering, as sadness, loneliness, grief, depression, and so on, is going on in uncountable numbers of utterly miserable lives all around the world ... and yet you ask why the hell care? Are you for real? * RESPONDENT: Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ramakrishna, Jean Klein, etc., all died from cancer. RICHARD: Thank you for providing this information. * RESPONDENT: Why you invented haietmoba ... RICHARD: I did not devise what has now become known as the actualism method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – it was the identity who inhabited this flesh and blood body in 1981 who did. RESPONDENT: ... and not invented a million years ago? RICHARD: Because I was born in 1947 (and not million years ago). * RESPONDENT: Are you charismatic? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Are you more clever that other human beings? RICHARD: Such a thing can never be known ... and is of no concern to me, anyway. RESPONDENT: May be you took this street to equilibrate your incapability in other areas? RICHARD: No. As a normal human being I had a successful life (according to the norms of the day). * RESPONDENT: Do you think Peter and Vineeto, should had to pay any attention to you, if they were not afraid of life and searching? RICHARD: I have never thought about it ... why not ask them (they are both subscribed to this mailing list)? RESPONDENT: They are unhappy, because if they were happy, they should not try to find happiness. RICHARD: Hmm ... truisms can be so trite, eh? * RESPONDENT: I spoke with friends of me, that consider their selves happy and asked me, what the hell is saying this imbecile, he supposed to be in mental hospital. RICHARD: I am not ‘supposed to be in mental hospital’ at all: I have been thoroughly examined, by two accredited psychiatrists and an accredited psychologist, and the very first thing they all ascertained (as is proper) is that I am harmless ... that is, neither a danger to myself or others. * RESPONDENT: Do you know any so called enlightened person that discovered anything in medicine, mathematics, music and science in general? RICHARD: No (nor any genuinely-called enlightened person) ... but, then again, such matters are outside their field of expertise. RESPONDENT: So you are using these persons. When you are sick, you buy one antibiotic, that took them one life to discover it, without it you should be dead. You see how parasite you are? RICHARD: As a parasite is ‘an animal or plant which lives in or on another and draws its nutriment directly from it, harming it in the process; a person who lives at the expense of another person or of society in general’ (Oxford Dictionary) I am somewhat nonplussed as to how buying an antibiotic constitutes parasitism. Viz.:
Incidentally, did you notice how you started-off discussing the universe ... and finished-off accusing me of being a parasite? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am pleasing you to contradict the following statements. It will be highly appreciate. [snip 200 quotes from Mr. Nisargadatta Maharaj that (purportedly) explain what the spiritual aspirant should do and the importance of practice and earnest application]. RICHARD: I can do more than just that: as an actual freedom from the human condition lies beyond spiritual enlightenment all the trillions upon trillions of words such self-realised beings have uttered over the centuries have no application whatsoever in this day and age ... none whatsoever. Thus they can be safely consigned to the trash-bin of history where they belong.
RESPONDENT: About two years ago, maybe a little bit more or less, I wrote one
email to Richard and I was discussing something about anhedonia.
As you never replied to my response that was the end of the matter (until now). RESPONDENT: This is a Greek word which means incapacity for pleasure. RICHARD: If I may ask? Is that the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the word, then, from the Greek medical texts? RESPONDENT: But this is not important. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the word is central to your question. RESPONDENT: The important thing is this: I spelled it wrong, because we still use this word in everyday vocabulary and I spelled it with the Greek sound, the Greek pronunciation. RICHARD: As I am only literate in the English language I had, and still have, no way of knowing how Greek words are spelt (hence, of course, my search for ‘unhidonia’ on the internet). RESPONDENT: I think I wrote anidonia. This is the original pronunciation, that made me sideslip. With both ‘i’ in the word pronounced like the ‘i’ in ‘inbox’. I think, that because of the subject I was discussing, about doctors that said to him, (as he wrote for himself in his journal), that he suffers from anhedonia, it should be easy for him to understand what I was meaning. He must have understood it from the direction of the discussion, from the line of the discussion. From the frame of what was told. RICHARD: Indeed I did understand that you were referring to the psychiatric diagnosis of anhedonia that features often on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... which is why I asked for the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote], from the Greek medical texts, so that the nature of your question might become clear. You may find the following reply of mine to be food for thought:
You see, to just say that anhedonia means the incapacity for pleasure (as you did further above) is not at
all scientific ... in the above exchange I am referring to sensate pleasure – such as the warming rays of the sun on the skin on
a cold day, for instance, or the cooling currents of a breeze on the skin on a hot day, for another – and not to affective
pleasure (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate Here is my first question: does the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the mental disorder, which you were asking your friends to accept and use, specify that it pertains to the absence of affective pleasure ... and not to an absence of sensate pleasure? Further to this point .... the following passage is how I have described the (affectless) experience of sensate pleasure:
Moreover, coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in childhood hurts, for example, or as in grief, for another) – even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ – which means that life is fun ... not at all serious. Viz.:
Here is my second question: does the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the mental disorder, which you were asking your friends to accept and use, specify that it pertains to the absence of affective pain, as distinct from sensate pain, as well ... and not just to the absence of (affective) pleasure? * RESPONDENT: His answer was like this. ‘I searched all over the internet and I could not find any word like this. I suppose you as a Greek, you know your language. Spell it well and then your question might be answered’. (The words might be slightly different, but the meaning is 100% exact). RICHARD: You may have gathered, by now, that my response was not at all like that ... let alone 100% exact. Here it is again (so that you need not scroll up to re-read what I actually wrote):
RESPONDENT: Now there is something subtly hidden in what he said. RICHARD: As a suggestion only ... try taking my words at face value, rather than looking for hidden subtleties, as I always say what I mean and mean what I say. RESPONDENT: I am asking him, in the moment he was dealing with one unknown word that does not even exist in the internet, so unknown word that he tried to find out by searching the internet, how he knew that this unknown word, is a Greek one? RICHARD: As I was not dealing with an unknown medical term I knew, of course, that it was derived from the Greek language per favour a dictionary. Viz.:
Also, the pronunciation guide has the ‘an-’ pronounced as an unstressed ‘un-’ (with the ‘u’ as in success) and has the ‘ë’ pronounced as the ‘i’ in the word sit ... or, in other words, precisely the the way you spelt it. Here is another instance (showing that it came from the Greek language):
RESPONDENT: And he referred in my native language? RICHARD: Given that you had entitled your e-mail ‘One Question From Greece’ – and had previously said you live on the Greek island of Corfu – it was reasonable to assume that Greek was your native language ... and that, therefore, you could provide the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the word, from the Greek medical texts, which you were asking your friends to accept and use. This is, after all, a discussion list ... and clarity in communication is vital to meaningful dialogue, is it not? RESPONDENT: ‘I suppose you as a Greek, you know your language’. RICHARD: I had no way of knowing that you [quote] ‘still use this word in everyday vocabulary’ [endquote] in Greece ... I assumed, because you specifically referred to the scientific definition of the word (four times in only three sentences), that you were making reference to the medical usage of the term. For your information, it is not a word in everyday use in the country where I currently reside. RESPONDENT: Conclusion: when he said that he did not understood the word, he was LYING. RICHARD: If you could point me to the text where I said I did not understand the word it would be most appreciated. Here it is again:
It is a telling indictment on the human condition, is it not, that a simple request for the [quote] ‘scientific
definition’ [endquote] from the Greek medical texts is taken to be turpitudinous RESPONDENT: Is obvious and brighter than the sun. RICHARD: On the contrary ... your conclusion is inevident and darker than pitchstone. * RESPONDENT: Many people also on the list understood the word, and that became a subject. RICHARD: I am only too happy to copy-paste the following:
As my co-respondent never replied to my response that too was the end of the matter ... discussion, it would appear, is the last thing some peoples want. RESPONDENT: Question: Is a liar FREE from the human condition? RICHARD: As your question is based upon an erroneous conclusion (as in your ‘he was LYING’ deduction) that you drew from a faulty premise – ‘when he said that he did not understood the word’ – which you predicated from a (non-existent) hidden subtlety, in a fabricated reply to your two year-old question you never followed-up on at the time, any query of that nature is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: The lie is the biggest human condition. RICHARD: Oh? And do wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, pale into insignificance when it comes to mendacity (according to you)? You will take little comfort from the following, then:
* RESPONDENT: I provoke him to put on the list the whole dialogue of this email. RICHARD: Presuming you meant that you invite me to do so – ‘provoke: invoke; summon, invite’ (Oxford Dictionary) – I have had no hesitation in acceding to your invitation ... two years later is not too late to have the nature of your question become clear, eh? RESPONDENT: He is very good in finding in his archives all the discussions. RICHARD: Of course ... if someone is concerned enough to spend their most precious asset – their time – by writing to me about a lingering issue it behoves me to ascertain just what has been said, by whom and when and how, if I am to respond meaningfully. RESPONDENT: Is a matter of morality and honesty to put it on the list. RICHARD: Whereas for me it is a matter of clarity in communication ... and, perchance, a furtherance of human knowledge. Speaking of which ... you posted the following extract, apropos of nothing, over five months later:
Given that you were asking your friends to accept and use not only the [quote] ‘scientific definition’
[endquote] of the mental disorder anhedonia I had even spelled it out for you only nine days prior ... with an abbreviated official definition, in parenthesis, preceding the manner in which I define my condition:
As you never replied to my response that was the end of the matter ... nevertheless do you now comprehend why your friends do not accept and use the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the mental disorders Richard has been diagnosed as suffering from? * RESPONDENT: So I repeat because human thought by nature flies and forgets, I repeat, IS A LIAR FREE FROM THE HUMAN CONDITION? RICHARD: So I also repeat, for similar reasons, that as your question is based upon an erroneous conclusion which you drew from a faulty premise, that you predicated from a (non-existent) hidden subtlety in a fabricated reply to your two year-old question you never followed-up on at the time, then any query of that nature is a non-sequitur. At this point in writing this response of mine to your current e-mail I took a short break so as to type <logic> into a search engine and send it through all of your 372 e-mails to this mailing list ... and it returned 478 hits (which includes ‘logically’ and ‘logical’): as this indicates that you might have more than a passing regard for logic, that you rate it quite highly, is it impertinent of me to ask if you have ever received formal training in that field? Just curious. RESPONDENT: CAN SOMEBODY TRUST A LIAR? RICHARD: I always advise to throw trust out the window (along with faith, hope, belief, and certitude) and ascertain experientially that what is being reported/described/explained is actual and, thus, factual. RESPONDENT: He claims that he is the first FREE person from the human condition for 12 years and still he is lying. RICHARD: If you could point out, in the text, where I lied it would be most appreciated. Here it is once more:
RESPONDENT: Has this AF any value? RICHARD: Not to you, obviously ... so much so that I wonder why you keep on subscribing to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (this is the third time now) RESPONDENT: Is up to anybody to think for himself about the above. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend just what it is you advise anybody to think for themselves about:
Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT: P.S.: The above is something very big and serious, not something to be bypassed. RICHARD: Not so ... the above of yours is, being but a flight of fancy from beginning to end, of no consequence at all. RESPONDENT: If one person claiming to be free for the first time in humanity from the human condition is lying, then bye-bye AF. RICHARD: As this person could cheerfully, and thus convincingly, lie through his back teeth So ... bye-bye, No 44, and may the god of your choosing smile upon you.
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 |
