|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RICHARD: I am not the first to say that the instinctual passions are biologically inherited and neither is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti ... it has been public knowledge for at least 145 years (since 1858 when Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. A. R. Wallace agreed to simultaneously publish their discoveries regarding evolution). Mr. Charles Darwin went on to publish a book expressly on that subject in 1899 entitled ‘The Expression Of The Emotions In Man And Animals’. In the topic under discussion (the deletion of the human condition itself and not just the deletion of the human conditioning instilled so as to keep it somewhat under control) it is what somebody does with that public knowledge which is what is important ... and the following is fairly representative of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is on about (that is, if anything he has to say can be). Viz.: (snip 11 referenced quotes). In effect he is saying that, as thought itself is the problem, all you have to do live your life in a thoughtless state ... and the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, will take care of everything else. RESPONDENT: Are you a lawyer by training or a television news editor? RICHARD: Neither. Although I had about fifty different part-time jobs at odd times during my working life my main occupation, having obtained a tertiary education in the fine arts in my mid-twenties, was as a practicing artist (mainly in ceramics). RESPONDENT: You are fond of taking one sentence out of a whole paragraph or page and drawing a conclusion from it. This is law 101. Or perhaps it is equivalent to the sound bites that are the current staple of news programming. One frame is snapped out of a whole sequence and you draw a conclusion from that. I object your honour. You can’t make a case beyond a reasonable doubt on a snapshot here and a snapshot there. RICHARD: If I may point out? You are not even making a mountain out of a molehill – there is nary a molehill to be found in what I wrote – as you are building a case upon nothing: I expressly stated [quote] ‘the following is fairly representative of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is on about (that is, if anything he has to say can be)’ [endquote] and, further to that qualifier and caveat, not only provided the book title, the book chapter, and the book publisher, for each quote, but an on-line link where each reference can be accessed so as to ascertain whether any of the quotes have been edited too much, taken out of context, or in any other way not really representative of what is being presented. Apart from which I have no intention whatsoever of exceeding the ‘fair-use’ copyright laws. Now here is an interesting thing: did you, in fact, follow-up the online references and establish that I was, in fact, not making a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that I was, in fact, taking a sentence/snapping a frame and drawing a ‘law 101’ conclusion from that? Is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti not saying that thought is the problem after all – in which case the book ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’ should be re-named ‘Thought Is Your Friend’ – and is he also saying that there are no instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, coursing through him, as a flesh and blood body only, to take care of everything else when thought is not operating? Or is all of what you have to say (above) about ‘law 101’ abstract theory which has no basis in fact? * RESPONDENT: Thanks for the reply. This is fun! In fact, I am rather having a ball here at my keyboard with you Richard. But the challenge is wearing off. RICHARD: Hmm ... and what ‘challenge’ would that be? So far this mailing list has attracted cult-busters, guru-busters, disciple-busters, clone-busters, method-busters – and even a myth-destroyer (albeit a one-poster though) – so perhaps you could declare your hand and establish yourself in the anti-peace hall of fame as ... um ... a prose-buster, perhaps? RESPONDENT: Not sure what a prose buster is ... RICHARD: Someone who busts open the prose and exposes it for the useless-words-saying-nothing it really is, upon closer examination, of course. For example:
Not that you did give them a closer examination, of course, but then again neither did the cult-busters, the guru-busters, the disciple-busters, the clone-busters, the method-busters and the myth-destroyer either, for that matter, as facts are not at all important to busters (and any response setting the record straight is swiftly dismissed as nit-picking, or being defensive, or yet more verbosity, and so on). RESPONDENT: ... but I think that is your gig. RICHARD: I think not ... here are some more examples of your prose-busting exposé:
Perhaps it would have been better to have suggested ‘wordy, verbose prose-buster’ then ... as this is what you have to say about clarity in communication:
However, as ‘wordy, verbose prose-buster’ is a ... um ... a wordy, or a verbose, way of putting it, then maybe ‘verbiage-buster’ would look better in the anti-peace hall of fame? RESPONDENT: So if the shoe fits .... RICHARD: Why not try it on for size and see if it does? * RESPONDENT: One other thing Monsieur Richard ... in one of my first mails to you, I mistakenly referred to actual freedom as a state and you let it be know in no uncertain terms that it was not a ‘state’. RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:
You will see that all what happened was that you had made three assumptions in one sentence – ‘obsession’ and ‘proving’ and ‘state’ – and I set the record straight on all three ... why you chose to make an issue out of one of the three has got me beat. RESPONDENT: Earlier today I was going through your 2nd in command’s (Peter) personal story ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You are doing exactly the same thing here – making an assumption – yet when I set the record straight in the earlier instance you told me I was nit-picking and made it into an issue that went on and on until it became a distraction in your eyes. In this instance, however, you cannot even say you ‘mistakenly’ referred to somebody being a second-in-command because of the following information:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... and he [Peter] had this to say: And I quote ... ‘I was fascinated to learn that Richard had been Enlightened and had now found a state that he said was vastly superior to Enlightenment’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Aye, that is from page 9 of ‘Peter’s Journal’ where he is describing what he was understanding [quote] ‘within a few short weeks’ [endquote] of first meeting me. RESPONDENT: I think my case that you are a nitpicker to the nth degree is now closed. RICHARD: Why? Just because a fellow human being, whom you elevate to the status of second-in-command in a non-existent hierarchy, is honestly describing what he made of what he was hearing in the first few weeks? Should he now modify his journal, rewrite history, so as to make out that he was savvy enough right from the beginning to comprehend that what Richard was talking about was not an altered state of consciousness (ASC) but something entirely different? If so, should he also revise his journal, modify history, where he says he took me to be yet another guru in those early days (else someone else should come along one day and say that, even though Richard says he is not a guru, here is his ... um ... chief disciple saying he is)? * RESPONDENT: The word ‘state’ was irrelevant to that discussion and you made it a distraction. RICHARD: If I may point out? You made it into a distraction by turning it into an issue – an issue you capriciously decided was ‘nitpicking’ – whereas all I did was set the record straight and got on with the discussion itself ... here it is, from your initial e-mail, complete with my direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply:
And your response? Here it is, from your second e-mail, complete with my direct, straightforward, and to-the-point reply:
And your next response? Viz.:
‘Tis no wonder you had said, in your initial e-mail, it did not matter to you if it were true or false and, furthermore, say you did not even care whether there was any way to verify same. You were not interested in finding out the facts of the matter right from the beginning, eh? * RESPONDENT: You have once again demonstrated your ability to avoid the subject at hand and make a distractive issue out of nothing. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying: you tell me that replying (with very little of substance for me to meaningfully respond to) to my substantial response to your previous e-mail was ‘fun!’ and that, in fact, you were ‘rather having a ball’ there at your keyboard with me but ‘the challenge’ was wearing off. Yet when I ask what challenge that might be, and provide some information about how The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list has attracted various peoples with a similar approach to yours, and suggest that you declare your hand – honestly acknowledge what your intent on this discussion forum is – by some similar epithet, then this somehow demonstrates my ‘ability to avoid the subject at hand’. Have I understood you correctly? If so, here is the subject at hand:
Perhaps you could show me where it demonstrates my ‘ability to avoid the subject at hand’ as I cannot see any such demonstration. RESPONDENT: The point this particular mail was to compliment you on your work with the part of the intro that I read ... RICHARD: Aye, I got that the second time around – when you corrected my assumption (that you were referring to the content) by letting me know it was the style and format you found ‘pretty impressive’ – and my response to that second e-mail shows that I now comprehended that point. Just as I now comprehend that you only read a ‘part’ of the ‘Introduction To Actual Freedom’. RESPONDENT: ... and ask why not have it as part of standard education. RICHARD: Indeed you did ... yet, as you had made no secret of the fact that what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is ‘a whole lotta useless words saying nothing’ and ‘whole lotta noise is all it is’ and ‘a bunch of nonsense’ and ‘psycho babble’ and ‘buzz words and marketing hype’ and ‘wordy, verbose prose’ and ‘crap’ in your eyes, it did seem particularly relevant to enquire what it was, exactly, you had in mind as [quote] ‘common food for the masses’ [endquote] in the standard education courses. RESPONDENT: You took the opportunity to knock me down a peg or 2 in your special happy and harmless way. RICHARD: Oh? I was not aware you had put yourself above others ... as this is what you had said about yourself:
How a worthless opinion can be knocked down a peg or two by a worthless opinion has got me beat ... here is another self-report you made:
How a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement can be knocked down a peg or two by a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement is beyond my ken ... and here is another:
How a preposterous statement can be knocked down a peg or two by a preposterous statement is about as clear as mud to me ... as is you saying, in the second passage quoted that, not only you do not put yourself on a plane with me you neither put me above nor below you or another, yet in this current e-mail can be making a big issue out of me (apparently) knocking you down a peg or two from your neither-above-nor-below plane from my neither-above-nor-below plane. RESPONDENT: I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not either have a ‘teaching’ nor am I a ‘teacher’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ from yet another bodiless ‘teacher’ then that person will be but pissing into the wind each and every time they write to me. RESPONDENT: ... just like your oft criticized punching bag, Jiddu Krishnamurti, said to his followers after screwing his best friends wife. RICHARD: So, just because you experienced your worthless opinion being knocked down a peg or two by a worthless opinion, or your neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement being knocked down a peg or two by a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement, or your preposterous statement being knocked down a peg or two by a preposterous statement, and despite not putting yourself on a plane with me nor putting me above or below you or another, still experienced being knocked down a peg or two by a person you do not put yourself on a plane with nor put above or below you or another, you somehow manage to liken me to a bodiless ‘teacher’ notorious for distancing themselves from their unliveable ‘teaching’ wherever and whenever the tyre met the road, eh? O what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive. RESPONDENT: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated. RICHARD: Ha ... you will find this to be of interest then:
When I typed ‘I am mortal’ into my search engine and sent it through all my correspondence it returned 71 hits ... which can only mean we are on the same plane after all and that I am, in fact, a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. And thus does another neither-this-nor-that-or-either Advaita Shuffle bite the dust.
RESPONDENT: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated. RICHARD: Ha ... you will find this to be of interest then: (snip ‘I am mortal’ quote). When I typed ‘I am mortal’ into my search engine and sent it through all my correspondence it returned 71 hits ... which can only mean we are on the same plane after all and that I am, in fact, a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. And thus does another neither-this-nor-that-or-either Advaita Shuffle bite the dust. RESPONDENT: You are a clever, intelligent fellow, attentive to details. RICHARD: Hmm ... my first wife is 4 points higher than me on the standard IQ scale, and she is nowadays of the ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ persuasion, so it takes more than being clever/intelligent to be free of the human condition, but you are right on the ball in regards attentiveness as it was being attentive to how this moment of being alive was experienced (the only moment one is ever actually alive) which ensured success. ‘Tis such a simple thing, non? RESPONDENT: Points well taken. RICHARD: Good ... and now that the mandatory verbal challenging, as per standard internet protocol, is out of the way perhaps you can see your way clear to attend to the purpose for which this mailing list was set-up for? Viz.:
How you wish to use the vital opportunity is up to you, of course, but perhaps it is pertinent to point out that I will not be here forever. RESPONDENT: You have cut & pasted me to death, Monsieur Harmless, and I don’t have the artillery or desire to combat your boring arsenal of search, snip & paste weapons. RICHARD: Oh? So your ‘points well taken’ comment was but a platitude after all and you would prefer to keep on challenging, eh? RESPONDENT: But I tip my hat to you. RICHARD: Is it almost needless to say that I am not looking for any hat-tipping (compliments, just as with insults, wash off me like water of a duck’s back) but, rather, sincerity ... and sincerity for your sake and not mine? RESPONDENT: But you just couldn’t help your no-self with that last barb, could you? RICHARD: If I may draw the following to your attention? Viz.:
Essentially the only difference between ‘no-self’ and ‘no self’ is the hyphen. RESPONDENT: Don’t know what that dagger means, nor do I care ... RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write me an e-mail and let me know of your concern. RESPONDENT: ... but I am sure it will look good as an exclamation point in your journal of respondents where, strangely enough, Richard must always come out smelling like a rose. RICHARD: If looking pathetic (which is what an Advaita Shuffle is) is what passes for looking good, in your neck of the woods, then what does Richard smelling like a rose pass for looking like, in your eyes? RESPONDENT: Have a nice day. RICHARD: I am, as always, having a perfect day.
RESPONDENT: ... I am sure it will look good as an exclamation point in your journal of respondents where, strangely enough, Richard must always come out smelling like a rose. RICHARD: If looking pathetic (which is what an Advaita Shuffle is) is what passes for looking good, in your neck of the woods, then what does Richard smelling like a rose pass for looking like, in your eyes? RESPONDENT: Is that a type of dance, that Advaita Shuffle? Like the fox trot or tango? RICHARD: No ... it is this type of ‘shuffle’:
It is a phrase which describes a particular discussional gambit (as in ‘there is no one here to either answer or not-answer your question’) which Mr. Andrew Cohen first drew attention to in 1992 when referring to Neo-Advaitists in general and Ms. Antoinette Varner in particular often resorting to a ‘who is asking the question’ type of fall-back position whenever their non-dual teaching was questioned in a way too close for comfort (that is, with sensible queries from everyday life). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I’ll assume the second part of that was a facetious question. RICHARD: No, I was not being facetious: when I say I am mortal, that death is the end, finish, I mean it; when I say I
am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/ affections in toto) I mean it; when I say I am not yet another bodiless teacher with yet another
unliveable teaching, I mean it; but when you gratuitously inform another, upon be queried about your modus vivendi
Hence my comment regarding another neither-this-nor-that-or-either discussional gambit biting the dust (falling flat on its face) because it is a fact we are on the same plane ... yet you take this as me, strangely enough, having to always come out smelling like a rose because you are sure it will look good in the archives. Whereas my interest lies only in my fellow human being, in this specific instance, becoming freed from a rhetorical In short: you are frittering away a vital opportunity.
RICHARD: ... my interest lies only in my fellow human being, in this specific instance, becoming freed from a rhetorical device – a ducking-the-question discussional gambit – which has the effect that [quote] ‘all desire and possibility for investigation, learning and change are destroyed’ [endquote]. In short: you are frittering away a vital opportunity. RESPONDENT: Your words here have been taken note of. Throughout my life, cynicism, mistrust (healthy or otherwise) has kept me away from many offerings, systems, groups, etc, for better or worse. It is no doubt the same view at work that I brought to AF. I had come to rely solely upon myself to figure things out. I have come to the conclusion that what you have to offer is worth a look/see. I have nothing to lose. It is a no risk proposition from my vantage point. RICHARD: This is what a dictionary has to say about cynicism:
RESPONDENT: In short, in the coming days, weeks, months ... I will be exploring in earnest what you have to offer here. I am not immune to an honest sincere helping hand. RICHARD: Whatever you do, do not swing over to trust and/or credulity, and thus gullibility, as such a course of action is decidedly unhealthy ... instead there is nothing more salubrious than a goodly dose of self-administered sincerity to flush the cynicism out of one’s system. This is because naïveté is the closest one can come to innocence (which is where integrity lies) whilst remaining a ‘self’ and sincerity is to key to unlocking this little-used innate capacity ... and it is little-used/ locked-away because in childhood being naïve and being gullible goes hand-in-hand (due to the trusting and credulous nature which reliance on nurturance evokes). However, with the maturity of self-reliance, in concert with adult sensibilities, it is possible to separate-out the two so as to be able to be naïve once more ... and only naïveté entertains the notion that not only is peace-on-earth possible, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, but that it is already always existing (meaning it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be). And naïveté ensures pure intent. RESPONDENT: I hope you’ll respond to any honest questions just as you have to my protestations. RICHARD: Sure, but for obvious reasons I cannot possibly respond to each and every e-mail from each and every person – and those peoples currently travelling the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition know far more than I do about the nuts and bolts of doing so anyway – plus there are many questions/ responses already available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Whilst on this topic: hundreds of people have been poking away at what is on offer, especially since coming onto the internet, trying to find the flaws they are convinced must be there – which is one of the reasons why all correspondence is archived – and this only goes to show how badly people have been sucked in for millennia by the many and varied snake-oil salespersons. I am not at all surprised that people be suspicious.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you have said that caffeinated coffee sets off a psychotropic experience for you. Can you elaborate please? RICHARD: As I understand it, and I am not a pharmacologist, caffeine is a chemical cousin to cocaine (having never ingested the latter I cannot provide an experiential comparison) in that its chemical sum formula is similar:
A psychiatrist (who, unlike a psychologist, has a medical degree) once explained to me that my on-going day-to-day experience is because of an excess of dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors – similar to the effect cocaine or amphetamine or lysergic acid diethylamide produce – hence my understanding is that to ingest caffeine on top of this moment-to-moment experiencing is somewhat similar to overdosing on those substances ... primarily the main symptom is a saturated sensuosity of such brilliance and vividity (as in psychedelic), which satiation can be likened to a television set receiving 4 or 5 channels all at once (inasmuch thought, and thus speech, is unable to keep up with the resultant cacophonic ‘white noise’), that the brain cells themselves undergo a non-volitional (chemical) excitation of such a magnitude as to be almost impossible for awareness to sustain itself (as in too much to bear). It is altogether unpleasant, to say the least. Some peoples I have spoken to about this have initially been rather envious (given that having a cup or two of strong java, then, is the equivalent of dropping a tab of acid (or snorting a line of coke) until I explain that to OD on LSD (aka ‘have a bad trip’) on maybe a thrice-daily basis is not a particularly pleasant way of living a life. As I have not taken either amphetamine nor methamphetamine, which are also classified as central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, I cannot make an experiential comparison there either but I have read, for example, that methylphenidate (such as ‘Ritalin’) – also a CNS stimulant – is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor ... which means that it increases the level of the dopamine neurotransmitter in the brain by partially blocking the transporters that remove it from the synapses. Consequently I have found the following to be of interest as I am also hypersensitive to adrenaline:
Here is an example of what dopamine can do in a normal person:
As there are no emotions/ passions operating in this flesh and blood body – no affective faculty at all – there is no ‘pleasure
centre’ (which should read ‘pleasure/pain centre’ RESPONDENT: Is this true for all humans? RICHARD: Not that I am cognisant of ... the normal symptoms of caffeine intoxication are restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal complaints, muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, and psychomotor agitation.
Some years ago, whilst undergoing caffeine intoxication, I attended an out-patients clinic and had all the vital signs tested – blood pressure, pulse rate, and so on – all of which were found to be normal and nor were there any palpitations, agitations, and so on, either ... let alone anxiety and/or panic. Caffeine, of course, is also present in brewed tea (2.5-3.5mg per ounce), cocoa/hot chocolate (0.5mg per ounce), caffeinated soft drinks (3-8mg per ounce), Guarana, (2.5mg per ounce), Yerba Mate (280-425mg per ounce), sports/energy drinks (10mg per ounce), and chocolate (25mg per ounce) ... and, as a matter of interest only, chocolate is very mildly psychoactive since, as well as caffeine, it contains theobromine, tryptophan, and small quantities of anandamide (arachidonylethanolamine), an endogenous cannabinoid compound found in the brain of mammals (the name anandamide is taken from the Sanskrit word ananda, which means ‘bliss’). An affective reaction, in other words, is the main attraction. * RESPONDENT: You have said that UGK has come the closest to what you report; then what condition is he in? RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in a rather odd position inasmuch his words do indicate a dichotomous nature (sometimes he speaks materialistically and at other times he speaks spiritualistically) yet, whilst denying/decrying much of what spirituality has to offer, he is still basically spiritual. I read all that is on offer by him and by others associated with him when I first came on the internet in 1997 with rapidly diminishing interest. Something fundamental had happened to him that I could relate to – the total annihilation of any psychological entity whatsoever – but he clearly states that he himself does not know what it was that happened, unfortunately. He makes it clear that he has nothing to offer to advance humankind’s knowledge about itself, which makes his a hapless condition. He makes no bones about considering himself as being a ‘sport of nature’, which is not about to be repeated, so therefore he concludes that no good will be obtained by talking with him. Of course, I am in accord with his oft-repeated statements about enlightenment being a waste of time, but it is one thing to speak out against something – whilst offering nothing in its place – and another thing entirely to propose a viable, liveable and delightful alternative to what one is knocking down. I did not read him saying anything about how deliciously enjoyable it is to be finally free of the human condition; what a pleasure it is to be alive at this moment in time; how life is an adventure in itself by the simple fact of being here; what a felicitous experience it is to be the universe’s experience of itself as an apperceptive human being; to be able to fully appreciate the infinitude of this physical universe by being alive as this flesh and blood body ... and so on. In fact he called what happened to him a ‘calamity’ ... and has this to say about his ‘natural state’:
RESPONDENT: Virtual freedom? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: He says there is no self, spirit, soul or mind. And if he is not in actual freedom, what is left there? From the U.G. book: ‘Thought is Your Enemy’:
Richard, is that correct, that ‘that statement also cannot stand any more’? RICHARD: For him ... yes. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Is that at odds with your statement that ‘I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being’? RICHARD: It is indeed. * RESPONDENT: You say, I as ego, me as soul. Is there and what’s the difference between I and me? RICHARD: The difference between ‘I’, as ego, and ‘me’, as soul, is that ‘the thinker’, as contrasted to ‘the feeler’, is to a large part made up of (feeling-fed) thought ... whereas ‘me’ at the core of my being (which is ‘being’ itself) is purely affective. Just as the ego dies, for enlightenment to occur, the soul also dies in order to go beyond enlightenment. * RESPONDENT: Has any of the practitioners of your method succeeded in irrevocable and complete self immolation? RICHARD: As far as I know nobody who has heard/read what I have to report has become actually free from the human condition. * RESPONDENT: How long will you continue writing and answering questions? RICHARD: I do not know ... somewhere along the line it would be more useful for me to go through all my words so as to re-present them in a book format, rather than adding more to the already almost labyrinthine web site, and I do have a vague plan to leave suburbia, some time before 2007, for a ready-made retreat where I can live out my days in paradisaical obscurity whilst doing just that (yet even so wireless computer technology is advancing at such a pace that by then a copper-wire connection to the internet will no longer be needed). * RESPONDENT: Have you met or had a discussion with fellow Aussie John Wren Lewis? RICHARD: I presume you mean ‘fellow human being’ (I am not an Australian) ... no, I have not met Mr. John Wren Lewis nor have I read much of what he has to report. * RESPONDENT: Is it good for the body to engage in regular exercise? RICHARD: No ... what is good for the body is an absence of stress.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I was sleeping last night and having some dream and I got the sense that something was gonna happen and something was happening and I got this tightening feeling in the back of my head and at the top of my neck. Its still there almost 5 hours later. Right about where the back of the head curves down to the neck. This happened at about 3:20am. I woke up instantly and it was like my friend, who I was, was gone. But I am still very much here but perhaps in a different way. So far it feels like something has changed but nothing has changed. Make sense? Maybe not. I could elaborate but I will let some time pass. Anyways, since you are an expert in these affairs, perhaps you could tell me what you make of it, if anything. RICHARD: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to ask the American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal, or any other
from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples you referred to in another e-mail It is your call.
RICHARD: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to ask the American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal, or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples you referred to in another e-mail, as that person, having already become actually free from the human condition long before I did will have far more expertise than I do as I have only been apparent for a little over a decade now. It is your call. RESPONDENT: My my my my my my ... how sarcastic and cynical are we today? RICHARD: Not at all ... I am entirely sincere: where is this (abstract) person, or persons, to answer such questions? RESPONDENT: Did I hurt your feelings in some way? RICHARD: This is such a waste of a question. * RESPONDENT: I was just asking since you have quite the experience in these matters from what I have read in your website. No problem, I don’t need any response. Thanks anyway. RICHARD: Whether you needed any response or not you got one anyway ... and look what you did with it, eh? * RESPONDENT: Apparently one must not question your authority or authenticity. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I do indeed welcome questioning:
RESPONDENT: You sure take things personally. RICHARD: If you want an impersonal discussion about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, you are at the wrong address: actualism is not a matter of abstract logic – be it arm-chair philosophising, vacuous intellectualising, amateur psychologising, academic analysing, theoretical hypothesising, or whatever – as it is a hands-on moment-to-moment experiential matter ... and it does not come any more personal than that. RESPONDENT: Perhaps that part of one’s personality remains. RICHARD: Does being impersonal, then, equate to what being free of the affections signifies to you (as in fictional characters such as ‘Star Trek’ for instance)? RESPONDENT: Just like the anger you quoted UGK as saying stays there after the I &/or me goes. RICHARD: Does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)?
RESPONDENT: My my my my my my ... how sarcastic and cynical are we today? RICHARD: Not at all ... I am entirely sincere: where is this (abstract) person, or persons, to answer such questions? RESPONDENT: Oh, that’s what you mean by sincerity. RICHARD: Indeed it is: your proposition, that there be someone, somewhere, somewhen, who had already become actually free from the human condition long before I did, is nothing but an intellectual creation – an abstract person – who has no existence outside of your skull ... an imaginative entity who is, of course, of no use whatsoever to you where the tyre meets the road (as in comparing notes in regards to what may or may not have happened at 3:20am 7-8 days ago). Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/ Mayan/ Incan/ Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Interesting. RICHARD: Aye ... there is nothing like a goodly dose of sincerity to flush the system of cynicism. RESPONDENT: Then there must be a cultural difference in the meaning of sincerity, cynicism & sarcasm between the north eastern seaboard of the US and your part of Australia. RICHARD: Not that I am cognisant of. RESPONDENT: How does that phrase go that you like so much and use so often: something like ‘the dreams we weave, when first we practice to deceive’?? RICHARD: This is where it originates:
Mr. J. R. Pope, in ‘A Word of Encouragement’, added to that the lines ‘but when we’ve practised quite a while how vastly we improve our style’ ... howsoever, I usually put it this way:
RESPONDENT: Did I get that right? RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: Close enough I suspect. RICHARD: Close enough for what? * RESPONDENT: Did I hurt your feelings in some way? RICHARD: This is such a waste of a question. RESPONDENT: Then that explains your waste of an answer. RICHARD: No, it is not a waste of an answer at all ... experience has shown me that a person indulging in smart-aleckry either eventually ceases doing so or moves on to more gullible pastures. Mostly they move on. * RESPONDENT: I was just asking since you have quite the experience in these matters from what I have read in your website. No problem, I don’t need any response. Thanks anyway. RICHARD: Whether you needed any response or not you got one anyway ... and look what you did with it, eh? RESPONDENT: Well then, why don’t you tell me what you think I did with it ... RICHARD: I do not have to ‘think’ what you did with it ... this is what you actually did:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... and what a good practicing actualist would have done with it ... eh? RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try looking-up the word ‘sincerity’ in a dictionary. * RESPONDENT: Apparently one must not question your authority or authenticity. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I do indeed welcome questioning: [Richard]: ‘I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: That is a good public relations line. RICHARD: Not so ... it is a statement of fact. RESPONDENT: Your actions speak otherwise at times. RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion I will most certainly attend to them. RESPONDENT: Not all the times ... just some times. RICHARD: Again ... if you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ I will most certainly attend to them. * RESPONDENT: You sure take things personally. RICHARD: If you want an impersonal discussion about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, you are at the wrong address: actualism is not a matter of abstract logic – be it arm-chair philosophising, vacuous intellectualising, amateur psychologising, academic analysing, theoretical hypothesising, or whatever – as it is a hands-on moment-to-moment experiential matter ... and it does not come any more personal than that. RESPONDENT: So, in a rather long-winded, round-about way, you’re rationalizing taking questions regarding your authority and authenticity, personally. RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not ‘rationalising’ (justifying with plausible but specious reasons) anything of the sort ... I am explaining that actualism is a very, very, personal matter. RESPONDENT: Ok. So much for having no feelings/emotions. RICHARD: How you can draw that conclusion from what I wrote has got me stumped ... perhaps that is why you had to first invent something I did not do in order to make it. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps that part of one’s personality remains [taking things personally]. RICHARD: Does being impersonal, then, equate to what being free of the affections signifies to you (as in fictional characters such as ‘Star Trek’ for instance)? RESPONDENT: No and very funny, as in you have an extremely dry sense of humour. RICHARD: What do you equate with taking things impersonally, then, if not dispassionately (given that the general thrust of both your responses has been to make the case that the feelings you are projecting into my words are coming from me)? RESPONDENT: Do you perhaps live in an arid climate? RICHARD: No, the area where I currently reside is well-known for its rain-forests and its climate is classified as sub-tropical. * RESPONDENT: Just like the anger you quoted UGK as saying stays there after the I &/or me goes. RICHARD: Does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Your question is not clear as I am not schooled enough in your particular brand of psychobabble or any school of psychobabble for that matter. RICHARD: This is what the word ‘psychobabble’ indicates to me:
In what way am I using the phrase ‘a feeling being’ that it is so much a departure from normal usage it signifies ‘your particular brand of psychobabble’ to you? RESPONDENT: ‘Feeling being’ means what? (according to your use). RICHARD: The same as it means in normal usage of course:
It is a more-inclusive phrase than ‘an emotional being’ as it includes the passions as well.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Three) 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 |
