|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RESPONDENT: And now you all know why Richard does not meet with his fellow humans whom he likes so much and values so highly ... RICHARD: As I do interact in-person with my fellow human being your hypothesis is without substance. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘I rarely socialise (...) nor go to parties, bars, dances, discos or any other similar social venue ...’. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912591871). RICHARD: I am pleased to see that you have provided the text from which you derived your claim that [quote] ‘Richard *does not* meet with his fellow humans’ [emphasis added] ... here is the full section you quoted from:
Here is what I have previously written about what I do instead of those kinds of things:
And I see that I have also written this:
‘Nuff said? * RESPONDENT: You had said previously that you do not meet with people interested in this sort of a thing (i.e. - No. 18) ... that you do not socialise, that you do not do dinner parties. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to what you have to say a little further below:
It is indeed one thing to go by memory (rather than the archives) ... memory is notoriously selective, on occasion, and your words above are such an occasion. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘... the socialisation I do is both minimal and casual (no
dinner-parties) and often eat out/ order in’. (actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf103a.htm#10Oct05). RICHARD: What has both minimal and casual (as in no dinner-parties) socialisation got to do with your claim about me saying that I [quote] ‘do *not* meet with people interested in this sort of a thing’ [emphasis added] and that I [quote] ‘do *not* socialise’ [emphasis added]? Did you not read what I said about memory being notoriously selective? * RESPONDENT: If you have since changed your tune, I stand (or sit) corrected. RICHARD: As what you have gone on memory by is not my tune then in order to either stand or sit corrected it is your tune which needs changing. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘I rarely socialise (...) nor go to parties, bars, dances, discos or any other similar social venue ...’. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912591871). RICHARD: What has that repeated quote of me saying I rarely socialise/ do not go to parties, bars, dances, discos, or any other similar social venue, got to do with your claim about me saying that I [quote] ‘do *not* meet with people interested in this sort of a thing’ [emphasis added] and that I [quote] ‘do *not* socialise’ [emphasis added]? * RESPONDENT: ... because he needs a computer to dig up old relevant or irrelevant quotes, to mount his offence & defence. RICHARD: I am doing no different, on-line, than in my face-to-face interactions – I often point out, for the sake of clarity in communication, what has been previously spoken – as I would be doing my fellow human being no favour to not draw to their attention what they have overlooked and/or ignored ... for what is the point of having a discussion, be it either verbal or written, on these matters if said discussion is not factually-based? It is a fact that actualism is not, repeat not, nondualism (aka advaita) ... never has been and never will be. RESPONDENT: It is one thing to go by memory & another to query a computer database. RICHARD: Aye, computer archives are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... and (c) undeniable. RESPONDENT: You are fond of saying that matter is not passive ... RICHARD: I report/ describe/ explain that, here in this actual world, matter is not merely passive ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: ... yet you hold any & all correspondents to their decaying words from yesteryear ... RICHARD: Hmm ... a classic example of what going by memory can do to comprehension and understanding (of what ‘not merely passive’ means) if there ever was. RESPONDENT: ... no matter how irrelevant or out of context. RICHARD: As the context is just sitting there in plain view, at the top of this page, rendering the quotes in question entirely relevant, your latest hypothesis is also without substance ... so much so that perhaps this may be an apt occasion to re-post the following: [Richard]: ‘Has it not dawned upon you by now that none of what you have had to say about an actual freedom from the human condition has been even worth the time and bandwidth you use to compose and send it ... not one word of it? [Respondent]: ‘Yes sir. I have no argument with that’. (Thursday, 1/04/2004 11:07 AM AEST). [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Your rearranging, cutting & pasting, cutting in half, pasting 1/2, cutting off, pasting on, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc etc etc ... has reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication. RICHARD: The original from which the quoted exchange [just above] was obtained can be found at the following URL: (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909818883). It will be seen that it has not been rearranged, cut & pasted, cut in half, pasted 1/2, cut off, pasted on, deconstructed or reconstructed (etceteras cannot be commented on) ... let alone having reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication. RESPONDENT: That 2 year old link you have above is not what you were responding to. RICHARD: I never said it was ... what I was responding to was both the e-mail you posted at 12:12 AM, on Saturday, 31/12/2005 AEDST and your follow-up e-mail which you posted at 1:19 PM (AEDST) on the same day as a reply to my response posted at 8:54 AM (AEDST). RESPONDENT: I will not even bother to go find the link that you were responding to ... RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your plaint, when all is said and done. RESPONDENT: ... but it was within the last few weeks, not the last few years. Thanks for making it even easier to prove my point that you are a serial cut & paster, rearranger, mis-re-presenter, etc etc. RICHARD: As you have neither proved anything nor have a point to do so with there is nothing to be thankful for. RESPONDENT: You construct fantasy conversations out of internet archives. RICHARD: I did no such thing: I responded in the first instance to your initial e-mail (which began with your baseless ‘And now you all know why Richard does not meet ...’ hypothesis further above) 4 hours and 22 minutes after it came into my mail-box and in the second instance to your follow-up e-mail (which began with your selective memory ‘You had said previously that you do not meet ...’ assertion further above) 3 days 23 hours 48 minutes after it came into my mail-box ... thus in neither instance did I access the internet archives. The only thing I obtained from ‘Topica’ was their URL for that quote ... all of the mailing list e-mails are automatically stored, after they come into my mail-box, on my hard-drive (and back-up storage) where they are able to be searched in a matter of seconds. RESPONDENT: You are slipping up big guy. RICHARD: No, if anything is slipping up it is your memory ... the advantage computer archives have over going by memory are that they are (a) accurate ... and (b) date-marked ... and (c) undeniable. RESPONDENT: Apparently my memory is not that bad. [snip repeats of the ‘rarely socialise/ minimal and casual socialisation’ quotes]. RICHARD: On the contrary ... your memory, at 4:05 AM on Sunday, 8/01/2006 AEDST, had it that the link I was responding to was [quote] ‘within the last few weeks’ [endquote] when it was only the previous weekend (Saturday, 31/12/2005 AEDST) you posted both the first e-mail I responded to and your follow-up e-mail (as a reply to my response posted at 8:54 AM AEDST) ... as detailed a little further above (immediately after my ‘I never said it was ...’ reply to your red-herring about a two-year old link being not what I was responding to). RESPONDENT: Nice try though. RICHARD: Ha ... did you really think it would escape being noticed that, out of the entire e-mail of mine you have written these current responses of yours into, the only section you snipped-out was those very details a little further above (immediately after my ‘I never said it was ...’ reply to your red-herring about a two-year old link being not what I was responding to). Viz.: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912802947 As compared to the entire e-mail of mine I sent: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912799842 To have to resort to cheating (as in trying to pass-off repeats of those already inadequate quotes as being refutations of such a trivial thing as my saying that if anything is slipping up it is your memory of when you posted your e-mails) demonstrates that you will do anything – up to an including outright confabulation – so as to avoid acknowledging that it is indeed your tune which needs changing in order to either stand or sit corrected. Never mind, though, because what is known colloquially, in this part of the world, as the ‘silly-season’ for
television programming will soon be over and you will once more be able to carry on posting your drivel
RESPONDENT: And here I thought Grace had dumped your supposedly free ass ... RICHARD: As you consider that thought to be important enough to type it out, and click ‘send’, let me see if I can comprehend how your thinking operates: Richard does not write to this mailing list (for seven weeks) therefore his companion is no longer living with him. Is that it? Have I understood your thought process correctly? RESPONDENT: Did Grace finally come to her senses and dump you or not? RICHARD: The problem with a loaded question is that it cannot be answered as-is ... whereas something like this can be: [example only]: ‘And here I thought, for no other reason than your seven-week hiatus from this mailing list, that your companion was no longer living with you. Did she stop living with you, during those seven weeks, or not?’ [end example]. No, the reason why I did not write to this mailing list was that I was engaged in the matters already set-out for you before you asked that question – such as (1) putting together a different version of the actualism screensaver (2) attending to a DVD burner/ reader causing the computer to freeze/ crash (3) getting the screensaver software to replay sound files (4) a matter of days then becoming weeks more than anything else (5) doing some detailed research so as to gather more background information for another project (6) interacting in-person with my fellow human being – and not because my companion was no longer living with me. (Editor’s note: The screensaver is no longer available due to its incompatibility with Windows 8) RESPONDENT: My God you are long winded! RICHARD: Well now ... you will ask loaded questions. RESPONDENT: Can you not just answer a simple question? RICHARD: Yes ... can you write one, though? RESPONDENT: All this phrasing, rephrasing ... just answer the fucking question! RICHARD: There is no way I am going to *just answer* a question which has a conditioner such as [quote] ‘finally come to her senses’ [endquote] in it. RESPONDENT: And you still have not answered it ... RICHARD: What is it about the word ‘no’ that you do not understand? RESPONDENT: ... all you have said is [Richard]: ‘No, the reason why I did not write to this mailing list was (...) and not because my companion was no longer living with me’. [endquote]. Which tells us that her dumping your long-winded boring ass was not the reason you did not write to this list. If you don’t feel like writing , then don’t fucking write. RICHARD: As I have no feelings any occasion of me not writing to this mailing list is a freely made choice. RESPONDENT: But these lame excuses, like DVD this and screen saver that & global warming whatever ... are simply excuses for rather doing something else. RICHARD: They are not excuses (let alone lame ones): the reason why I ceased writing, on Wednesday, the second of November, is exactly as already notified and the reason why I started writing, on Thursday, the twenty-second of December, is also exactly as previously advised ... and no amount of speculation on your part is going to alter that one jot. RESPONDENT: Perhaps you are losing interest in conversing with your fellow humans who don’t buy what you are selling. RICHARD: You may find the following to be informative, then:
RESPONDENT: Even the best salesmen lose motivation during a sales drought. RICHARD: No, there are more than a few people who have benefited from information elicited by those critical of what is presented – which information may not have ever seen the light of day otherwise – plus the way in which I respond provides a practical demonstration that facts knock fantasies for a six, any day of the week, no matter how they are lobbed. * RICHARD: May I ask? Just what is the connection you make, between not writing to a mailing list and a live-in companion no longer living with you, such as to occasion you to persist with that thought even after my provision of a relatively detailed account of what I was doing in that seven-week period? RESPONDENT: You were busy looking for another sperm receptacle. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
* RESPONDENT: ... and in return you revoked her virtually free status ... like you did to Irene. RICHARD: As I am on record as declining to be a probity policeman RESPONDENT: You are most certainly a probity cop when it suits your agenda. RICHARD: No, I most certainly do not determine and/or assess how a person is experiencing each moment of being alive ... and for a patently obvious reason: such a thing is a sheer impossibility. RESPONDENT: Your previous companion Irene, got her virtually free license revoked upon the demise of your relationship. Twasn’t that true? RICHARD: No, my previous companion changed her determination/ assessment of how each moment of being alive was to be experienced, after she stopped living with me, into it entailing her being free of [quote] ‘the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general’ [endquote] ... rather than her living in [quote] ‘something resembling that intimate place in some familiar time that I had visited and walked around in more than once before in various peak experiences’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Sorry bro, but she came to the conclusion that after testing out your theories for quite some time, that you were wrong. RICHARD: As my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations are not [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] your apologetic reply, to my response to your query about whether I revoked a determination/ assessment which I never made in the first place (for the patently obvious reason that such a thing is a sheer impossibility) cannot be commented on in its present form. Sufficient is it to say for the nonce that my previous companion’s own words re-quoted just above clearly demonstrate the extent to which she changed her determination/ assessment, of how each moment of being alive was to be experienced, after she stopped living with me (she used the term ‘peak experiences’ for what the term ‘pure consciousness experiences’, or PCE’s for short, nowadays refer to). And, as she had had a three-week PCE many years before ever meeting me – on the other side of the world where she lived prior to emigrating to the country I currently reside in – there is no way that your apologetic opinion (that she came to the conclusion, after testing out my reports/ descriptions/ explanations, that they were wrong) can even begin to come close to what actually happened. RESPONDENT: [Irene to Vineeto]: ‘When Richard used to come out with a statement that would
go totally against my own sense of right, true, correct, I would always do a scientific experiment: I would ask myself to go and find out who of us
was ultimately right. To be unbiased (which is the true meaning of scientific) I would allow, for a while, the possibility that I had been wrong so
that I could be indeed open to Richard’s statement being right. Often I was convinced by his common sense and logical approach and decided to
change my old mind, or I discovered, by giving him the benefit of the doubt, that his opinion was a result of repressed feelings. For a long while
I favoured his outlook over my own, but more and more I had to admit that it was not me who was wrong but Richard’.
(actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/commonobjections/CRO24a.htm) RICHARD: Now here is a notion for you to consider: why would those words (faithfully duplicated in ‘Commonly Raised Objections’ with my carte blanche permission) from my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – the portion only I have authorial access to and which I have total editorial control over – be publicly on display if they be so damaging (else why quote them) as to render what is on offer on the entire web site [quote] ‘wrong’ [endquote] in one short paragraph? A trifle curious, non? For your information: what my previous companion wrote in that quote (and elsewhere) was written whilst under the influence of
the love which occasioned her to no longer live with me ... and a transcript of a conversation betwixt the two of us on that very subject, recorded
only two weeks before she moved out, can be found at the following URL: And here is how I introduce that conversation in ‘Richard’s Journal’:
Speaking personally, I have found it always pays to research an issue thoroughly before mounting a critique.
(...) RESPONDENT: And now you all know why Richard does not meet with his fellow humans whom he likes so much and values so highly ... RICHARD: As I do interact in-person with my fellow human being your hypothesis is without substance. RESPONDENT: Why don’t you tell us just how much you meet with said fellow humans and how many different ones you meet with per month and year? RICHARD: Because how much and how many is beside the point – the point being your above hypothesis was without
substance – but it is pleasing to see that you have changed your tune and are no longer making an unsustainable assertion (...) RICHARD: ... did you really think it would escape being noticed that, out of the entire e-mail of mine you have written these current responses of yours into, the only section you snipped-out was those very details [which followed on] immediately after my ‘I never said it was ...’ reply to your red-herring about a two-year old link being not what I was responding to. RESPONDENT: Twas no red herring ... RICHARD: As I clearly responded in the first instance to your initial e-mail (which began with your baseless ‘And now you all know why Richard does not meet ...’ hypothesis) 4 hours and 22 minutes after it came into my mail-box, and in the second instance to your follow-up e-mail (which began with your selective memory ‘You had said previously that you do not meet ...’ assertion) 3 days 23 hours 48 minutes after it came into my mail-box, it was indeed a red-herring. RESPONDENT: [Twas no red herring] ... your cutting, snipping, splicing, arranging, rearranging ... RICHARD: As I neither cut nor snipped or either spliced or re-arranged any of those two responses of mine to your two e-mails it was most certainly a red-herring to claim that [quote] ‘your rearranging, cutting & pasting, cutting in half, pasting 1/2, cutting off, pasting on, deconstructing, reconstructing, etc etc etc ... has reached proportions of sheer fantasy & fabrication’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘that 2 year old link you have above is not what you were responding to’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... [your cutting, snipping, splicing, arranging, rearranging] is legendary and you have no second in that regard. RICHARD: As you are now simply out-and-out lying (the sequences in question are in plain view at the URL immediately below) then if anything is legendary it is the undeniable fact, as your 1000+ e-mails clearly show, that you have no second on this mailing list in regards just what you will do – up to and including outright confabulation – in order to achieve your agenda. Viz.: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912799842 * RICHARD: To have to resort to cheating (as in trying to pass-off repeats of those already inadequate quotes as being refutations of such a trivial thing as my saying that if anything is slipping up it is your memory of when you posted your e-mails) demonstrates that you will do anything – up to and including outright confabulation – so as to avoid acknowledging that it is indeed your tune which needs changing in order to either stand or sit corrected. RESPONDENT: You would know about cheating as that is most all you do in these sort of exchanges. RICHARD: That is a large steaming pile of male bovine faecal matter – as well you know – and no amount of juvenile throw-the-accusation-back-at-the-other obfuscation can ever disguise the fact you blatantly resorted to cheating so as to avoid acknowledging something so basic (that it is indeed your tune which needed changing in order to either stand or sit corrected). RESPONDENT: The fact remains that you said you rarely socialize and don’t do dinner parties ... RICHARD: And the fact remains you said that I *do not* interact in-person with my fellow human being. RESPONDENT: ... although your 7 week hiatus was chock full of socializing, including during dinner. RICHARD: As I never said it was [quote] ‘chock full’ [endquote] of socialising, including the dining out I mentioned, you are again indulging in fabulation. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You have yet to clear up just how much you meet with your fellow humans interested in your words? RICHARD: And as I maintain no diary of my day-to-day activities it will remain so: suffice is it to say it is more than what you erroneously claimed (which was that I *do not* interact in-person at all). RESPONDENT: I am sure there are a few here who may be interested in meeting with the One, the Only, free human this universe has ever had the privilege of hosting. RICHARD: Words are words whether they be spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. It is what is being conveyed by those words which is important, not the writer/ speaker. Anybody who meets me face-to-face only gets verification that there actually is a flesh and blood body living what these words say ... as there is no ‘energy-field’ here in this actual world it is impossible to get any charismatic enhancement of what is being said. * RICHARD: Never mind, though, because what is known colloquially, in this part of the world, as the ‘silly-season’
for television programming will soon be over and you will once more be able to carry on posting your drivel RESPONDENT: I’ll assume that asterisk is supposed to be one of your cheap, irrelevant, out of context put downs of one of those fellow humans whom you like so much. RICHARD: In which case you are assuming incorrectly ... and, by the way, just what context would that be (which you claim my reference to how you have classified your own contributions to this mail list is out of)? And the reason I ask is because the context I am referring to is none other than that of Vineeto correcting yet another one of your fabulations about me ... to wit: that a part of what I had previously said had been [quote] ‘stricken from the website for reasons unbeknownst’ [endquote] to even a regular contributor to the list, at that time, and including a warning to a newcomer on the list to therefore be [quote] ‘careful with this particular conman’ [endquote]. Your weak after-the-act defence of your fabulation – [quote] ‘Gotcha! you sexy thang you Vineeto ... was just checking to see if you read my drivel ... I see you do’ (Wednesday 22/12/2004 AEDST) – was just as transparently phoney as your current modus operandi is.
(...) RESPONDENT: ... and in return you revoked her virtually free status ... like you did to Irene. RICHARD: As I am on record as declining to be a probity policeman RESPONDENT: You are most certainly a probity cop when it suits your agenda. RICHARD: No, I most certainly do not determine and/or assess how a person is experiencing each moment of being alive ... and for a patently obvious reason: such a thing is a sheer impossibility. RESPONDENT: Your previous companion Irene, got her virtually free license revoked upon the demise of your relationship. Twasn’t that true? RICHARD: No, my previous companion changed her determination/ assessment of how each moment of being alive was to be experienced, after she stopped living with me, into it entailing her being free of [quote] ‘the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general’ [endquote] ... rather than her living in [quote] ‘something resembling that intimate place in some familiar time that I had visited and walked around in more than once before in various peak experiences’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Sorry bro, but she came to the conclusion that after testing out your theories for quite some time, that you were wrong. RICHARD: As my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations are not [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] your apologetic reply, to my response to your query about whether I revoked a determination/ assessment which I never made in the first place (for the patently obvious reason that such a thing is a sheer impossibility) cannot be commented on in its present form. Sufficient is it to say for the nonce that my previous companion’s own words re-quoted just above clearly demonstrate the extent to which she changed her determination/ assessment, of how each moment of being alive was to be experienced, after she stopped living with me (she used the term ‘peak experiences’ for what the term ‘pure consciousness experiences’, or PCE’s for short, nowadays refer to). And, as she had had a three-week PCE many years before ever meeting me – on the other side of the world where she lived prior to emigrating to the country I currently reside in – there is no way that your apologetic opinion (that she came to the conclusion, after testing out my reports/ descriptions/ explanations, that they were wrong) can even begin to come close to what actually happened. RESPONDENT: Oh sure, I’ll just have to take your word for what actually happened and not what she wrote. RICHARD: I do understand that you would rather take my previous companion’s word for it than mine ... yet I have never said that I want anyone to take my word for it (aka believe me). On the contrary:
And that is exactly what happened for my previous companion: she had had a three-week PCE many years before ever meeting me – on the other side of the world where she lived prior to emigrating to the country I currently reside in – and thus knew from that direct experience what my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations referred to ... hence her depiction of a virtual freedom (already quoted further above) as being where she was living in [quote] ‘something resembling that intimate place in some familiar time that I had visited and walked around in more than once before in various peak experiences [aka PCE’s]’ [endquote]. That she changed from depicting a virtual freedom that way, after she had fallen in love and consequently packed her bags and moved out, into it having been free of [quote] ‘the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general’ [endquote] demonstrates the extent to which her being in love coloured her recollection ... and which further demonstrates the value printed and dated words have inasmuch any attempt to rewrite history will amount to nothing. (...) RICHARD: ... for your information: what my previous companion wrote in that quote (and elsewhere) was written whilst
under the influence of the love which occasioned her to no longer live with me ... and a transcript of a conversation betwixt the two of us on that
very subject, recorded only two weeks before she moved out, can be found at the following URL: RESPONDENT: Sure Richard ... I guess that’s how actual intimacy works in your world; record a conversation so you can have some dirt on your fellow human being and throw it in their face should the need arise, and promote your agenda all at the same time. That’s just priceless. How intimate indeed! How insanely actually intimate. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate you taking the time to demonstrate how your mind works, when confronted with information such as I provided, the purpose of this discussion would be better served if I were to point out that it was at my previous companion’s request that our conversation be recorded (so as to have something factual – other than one’s notoriously unreliable memory of what it is to have come to one’s senses – to fall back upon in the times of love’s stress). ‘Twas all to no avail, however, as the power of love surging through the bloodstream was too strong to deny – as a body can be persuaded to produce quite an array of chemicals a veritable cocktail is available to the insidious entity who has a psychological and psychic residence within – and the salubrity of our eleven years together was swept away per favour the atavistic affective inheritance which persuades many an otherwise intelligent person that they are the latest and the greatest in a long line of massively deluded beings stretching back into the mists of prehistory. RESPONDENT: What is most apparent about your recorded conversation is your Svengali hold over her. You waited with your tape recorder for that moment where she would say what would further your own agenda. Apparently, little did she know of your pure intent. RICHARD: It is fascinating how the (archived) words a person typed out carry more weight with you than the (recorded) words they spoke. RESPONDENT: Her conclusion is what’s important and not some conveniently taped conversation by you at the exact moment where she would say what would work for you. RICHARD: Ha ... try this on for size and see if it fits:
(...) RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have found it always pays to research an issue thoroughly before mounting a critique. RESPONDENT: One of your favourite trite outros. RICHARD: No, it is what I tend to say whenever it becomes blatantly obvious that a would-be critic has not researched the very issue they are purporting to critique. RESPONDENT: Of course you can only speak personally ... which is why I will let Irene’s words speak for themselves ... RICHARD: And as it will be no surprise at all, as to just which words they might be, I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: ... and not the ones made while you were pressing a tape recorder button to record the actual intimacy your fellow humans experience in your presence of pure intent. However, those recorded words are symptomatic of all relationships where there is no actual intimacy, where the only thing actual, is one exploiting ones power over his fellow human being for personal gain. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the subject under discussion, what are you going to do with the words she typed (about a virtual freedom) where she was living in [quote] ‘something resembling that intimate place in some familiar time that I had visited and walked around in more than once before in various peak experiences’ [endquote] as contrasted to her other typed words where she recalled it (a virtual freedom) as being free of [quote] ‘the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general’ [endquote]? Or, to put that another way, which one of those two sets of typed words most closely fits how a virtual freedom is described on The Actual Freedom Trust web site? For instance:
(...) RICHARD: ... unless identity is in total abeyance there is no way it can be a PCE. RESPONDENT: Richard: ‘Only an identity can have a PCE’. RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Only an identity can have a PCE> into the search function of my computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the text where you obtained that quote from it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Mr. Self-described ‘Clarity in Communication’ strikes again. RICHARD: If you could provide the text to support your [quote] ‘again’ [endquote] assertion it too would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Your bullshit won’t float no boats Mr. I-am-Free. RICHARD: If you could provide the text which justifies your [quote] ‘bullshit’ [endquote] characterisation it would also be most appreciated.
RICHARD: ... unless identity is in total abeyance there is no way it can be a PCE. RESPONDENT: Richard: ‘Only an identity can have a PCE’. RICHARD: I copy-pasted <Only an identity can have a PCE> into the search function of my computer and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. If you could provide the text where you obtained that quote from it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘... and, secondly, only an identity can have a PCE ...’ (actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf96.htm) RICHARD: No, all what was needed was to take the tick out of the ‘Match Case’ box (and thus make it a ‘Case Insensitive’ search). * RESPONDENT: Mr. Self-described ‘Clarity in Communication’ strikes again. RICHARD: If you could provide the text to support your [quote] ‘again’ [endquote] assertion it too would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Your bullshit won’t float no boats Mr. I-am-Free. RICHARD: If you could provide the text which justifies your [quote] ‘bullshit’ [endquote] characterisation it would also be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘As there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE ...’. (actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-universe3.htm) RICHARD: Sure ... it is the word ‘have’, in the quote that you re-presented there from further above, which is the operative word. For example:
It is just a case of how the English language is commonly used ... by its very nature a PCE, being a temporary experience, is simply not possible where identity in toto is extinct. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Because only an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can have a PCE ...’ (actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf53j.htm#12Jan06). [Richard]: ‘... unless identity is in total abeyance there is no way it can be a PCE’. RICHARD: That new quote you provide actually comes from another URL. Viz.:
And again it is just a case of how the English language is commonly used ... there is both the word ‘have’ and the (past tense) word ‘had’ in that exchange. RESPONDENT: These should be enough examples of your double talk ... RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of double talk – ‘language or talk that is (usu. deliberately) ambiguous or obscure’ > (Oxford Dictionary) – as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used ... as you amply demonstrate yourself, in both the quote I provided further above and in the following exchange, by your own usage of the very same word in your question:
RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your lack in clarity of communication ... RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of lack in clarity of communication as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For instance:
And, just for the record, here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘had’:
RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your insincerity to own up to what you have written multiple times, for now. RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of insincerity as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For example:
(...) RESPONDENT: Perhaps you can explain how ‘only an identity can have a PCE’ yet ‘there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE’. RICHARD: Sure ... it is the word ‘have’, in the quote that you re-presented there from further above, which is the
operative word. For example: [Respondent]: ‘Do you or do you not have PCE’s? [Richard]: ‘I do not have PCE’s. RESPONDENT: And the difference in that period of time when identity is in TOTAL abeyance and where an identity in toto is extinct, is? RICHARD: The difference is as follows:
For the duration of a PCE identity is totally abeyant – ‘in a state of abeyance [a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as distinct from an actual freedom from the human condition where identity is totally extinguished. Or, put differently, for the duration of a PCE identity, in toto, is abeyant – ‘in a state of abeyance [a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as distinct from an actual freedom from the human condition where identity, in toto, is extinguished. The words extinct and extinguish come from the same Latin root: ex + stinguere (quench). (...) RESPONDENT: These should be enough examples of your double talk ... RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of double talk – ‘language or talk that is (usu.
deliberately) ambiguous or obscure’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as they are nothing other than the way
the English language is commonly used ... as you amply demonstrate yourself, in both the quote I provided further above and in the following
exchange, by your own usage of the very same word in your question: [Respondent]: ‘... but you have laid down the laws of the universe.
[Richard]: ‘No, it is the PCE which evidences what you are labelling as ‘the laws of the universe’ ... not me or my words. [Respondent]: ‘And
do you or do you not have this PCE which evidences the law of the universe which you have laid out for your fellow human? [Richard]: ‘I do not
have PCE’s, period. RESPONDENT: You say only an identity can have a PCE but identity must be in total abeyance else it is not a PCE ... RICHARD: As it is you who has joined two part-sentences of mine together with a modifying conjunctive – ‘but: on the contrary; nevertheless, yet, however; on the other hand, despite this’ (Oxford Dictionary) – then that is what you are saying I say and is not, as you make out, what I say. What I say is that the usage of the word have – and the word had – is nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you say you don’t have PCE’s ... RICHARD: As it is impossible for a PCE to occur where identity in toto is extinct/where identity is totally extinguished then your utilisation of another modifying conjunctive – ‘yet: nevertheless, and in spite of that, but for all that’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is even more pointless than your previous usage. RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity , yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. Furthermore, you are merely repeating what you have repeatedly said I say. For instance:
There are more instances than that ... but that should do for now. RESPONDENT: ... your words mean nothing ... RICHARD: No, it is the way you have joined my words together/joined my words to your fabrication which means nothing. RESPONDENT: ... you are a weaver of a tangled web. RICHARD: Ha ... it is you who is weaving a tangled web out of my words/out of your fabrication. (...) RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your insincerity to own up to what you have written multiple times, for now. RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of insincerity as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For example: [Respondent]: ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ... the sucker lasted many many hours ... basically from 4pm one day till waking the next morning’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: At that time I had been reading your words and had tried out your trick/device/method aka haietmoba ... that experience was couched in your words & your lingo and was exactly what you had written regarding what you labelled a PCE ... RICHARD: Are you saying that when you wrote [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] it was because you had read those two quotes you provided, where I say that only an identity can have a PCE, and couched it accordingly (albeit in the past tense)? If so, it is pertinent to point out that they were written on 12 August 2005 and 12 January 2006 respectively ... whereas your above account was written on 25 February 2004. RESPONDENT: ... previously, all my experiences were couched in the lingo handed down to me by my parents, teachers, culture, what I had previously read ... RICHARD: And did that lingo involve the usage of the word have, and the word had, or not (else why tell me about it)?
(...) RICHARD: ... by its very nature a PCE, being a temporary experience, is simply not possible where identity in toto is extinct. RESPONDENT: And the difference in that period of time when identity is in TOTAL abeyance and where an identity in toto is extinct, is? RICHARD: The difference is as follows: [quote] ‘temporary: lasting or meant to last for a limited time only; not permanent ...’. [endquote]. And: [quote] ‘extinct: ended, no longer existing ...’. [endquote]. For the duration of a PCE identity is totally abeyant – ‘in a state of abeyance [a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as distinct from an actual freedom from the human condition where identity is totally extinguished. Or, put differently, for the duration of a PCE identity, in toto, is abeyant – ‘in a state of abeyance [a state of suspension or temporary disuse; dormant condition liable to revival]’ (Oxford Dictionary) – as distinct from an actual freedom from the human condition where identity, in toto, is extinguished. The words extinct and extinguish come from the same Latin root: ex + stinguere (quench). RESPONDENT: Let me put it this way: Lets say you are with some friend of yours and the clock ticks 1pm. That friend currently is experiencing what you have termed a PCE and it lasts one hour until 2pm. What is the difference in consciousness between that person who is experiencing a PCE and you, who is not experiencing a PCE, for that one hour? RICHARD: The difference in consciousness between a person having a PCE and a person actually free from the human condition is that the dormant identity can, on occasion, cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced (whereupon it is no longer a PCE). The very fact that identity is latent, and not extinct, renders the PCE a potentially unstable condition – liable to degradation and/or dissolution at any moment – and bound to eventually cease happening anyway ... as such it can in no way be said to be identical in every respect, to an actual freedom from the human condition, but only virtually so. Furthermore, being potentially unstable a PCE is, by that very factor, subject to variation and fluctuation (wherein it momentarily ceases to be a PCE) from time-to-time. Moreover, the comprehension that it is, after all, a temporary condition casts a (barely perceptible) pall over the experience. RESPONDENT: Is their consciousness ‘pure’? RICHARD: A flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) during a PCE is indeed pure – as in being unadulterated, uncontaminated or unpolluted by any identity – else it not be a PCE (a pure consciousness experience). RESPONDENT: Is yours ‘pure’? RICHARD: The flesh and blood body typing these words is not adulterated, contaminated or polluted by any identity whatsoever. * RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you say you don’t have PCE’s ... RICHARD: As it is impossible for a PCE to occur where identity in toto is extinct/where identity is totally extinguished then your utilisation of another modifying conjunctive – ‘yet: nevertheless, and in spite of that, but for all that’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is even more pointless than your previous usage. RESPONDENT: Is your consciousness pure, pristine and all those other wonderful adjectives you use to describe a PCE? RICHARD: The following should be self-explanatory:
As is this:
* RESPONDENT: ... you say you have no identity, yet you insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person ... RICHARD: I have never even said that I am [quote] ‘the 1st, last & only’ [endquote] free person ... let alone insisted upon it as an identity. RESPONDENT: Are you not the first? Are there others? You may come clean here and now. RICHARD: You have omitted the central query ... for example:
And whilst I am at it ... this is what, in effect, you are saying I say:
RESPONDENT: In the meantime; you have indeed said you are the first and the only one ... which implies the last as well. RICHARD: That is a large steaming pile of male bovine faecal matter ... as well you know. * RESPONDENT: ... your words mean nothing ... RICHARD: No, it is the way you have joined my words together/joined my words to your fabrication which means nothing. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘only an identity can have a PCE’. [Richard]: ‘identity must be in total abeyance else it is not a PCE’. Is that better? RICHARD: Presumably you are asking if it is better than this:
Juxtaposing two part-sentences of mine is indeed better than joining them together with a modifying conjunctive – ‘but: on the contrary; nevertheless, yet, however; on the other hand, despite this’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and then saying that is what I say ... except that you have already done so only a couple of days ago. Viz.:
All you are doing is going over the same ground as before. RESPONDENT: These are two conflicting statements. One cancels the other out ... either statement renders the other null & void. RICHARD: It is just a case of how the English language is commonly used ... just as you did a couple of years ago (albeit in the past tense):
* RESPONDENT: ... you are a weaver of a tangled web. RICHARD: Ha ... it is you who is weaving a tangled web out of my words/out of your fabrication. RESPONDENT: Ha ... there is no fabrication going on here ... these contradicting quotes come directly from your keyboard. RICHARD: This is the fabrication I was referring to:
Telling me that I [quote] ‘insist on having the identity of the 1st, last & only free person’ [endquote] is indeed a fabrication of yours. * RESPONDENT: [These should be enough examples of ...] your insincerity to own up to what you have written multiple times, for now. RICHARD: The two quotes you provided are not examples of insincerity as they are nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used. For example: [Respondent]: ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ... the sucker lasted many many hours ... basically from 4pm one day till waking the next morning’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: At that time I had been reading your words and had tried out your trick/ device/ method aka haietmoba ... that experience was couched in your words & your lingo and was exactly what you had written regarding what you labelled a PCE ... RICHARD: Are you saying that when you wrote [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] it was because you had read those two quotes you provided, where I say that only an identity can have a PCE, and couched it accordingly (albeit in the past tense)? RESPONDENT: No ... RICHARD: In which case, then, your usage of the past tense of the word have – as in your [quote] ‘I had what I labelled as a PCE ...’ [endquote] phrasing – must surely be nothing other than the way the English language is commonly used, eh? RESPONDENT: ... I was using your terminology, your lingo. RICHARD: The word had – the past tense of the word have – is not my terminology, my lingo, at all ... it the way the English language is commonly used.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Thirteen) 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 |
