|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 56
RESPONDENT: Here are some quotes from a book ‘Living Zen’ by Robert Linssen published in 1958 Grove Press. (snip quotes). RICHARD: This is what Mr. Robert Linssen has to say about the essence of Zen thought: (snip quote). Altogether the search engine found 37 instances of the word ‘Divine’ ... here is but one other example: (snip quote). As to what their ‘true nature’ is (also referred to as ‘profound being’ and ‘profound nature’) he has this to say: (snip quote). And what is ‘the Reality’ (‘the Real’) that is the profound nature of his being? Viz.: (snip quote). So, just what is ‘Love-Intelligence’? The phrase ‘Love-Intelligence’ returned 21 hits. For an example: (snip quote). And the word ‘Love’ returned 48 hits ... for example: (snip quote). Here is how to become this Love (a state of being no longer distinct from Intelligence): (snip quote). And this ‘presence’ goes by many names: (snip quote). The phrase ‘Cosmic Mind’ returned 43 hits ... for example: (snip quote). And the phrase ‘Body of Buddha’ returned 22 hits ... for example: (snip quote). The phrase ‘Zen Unconscious’ returned 20 hits ... for example: (snip quote). And this ‘Totality-that-is-One’, outside of which absolutely nothing is, is none other than the ‘Divine’: (snip quote). Another phrase for the Divine, outside of which nothing else exists, is the phrase ‘Universal Mind’. It returned 28 hits: (snip quote). Lastly, and just as a matter of interest, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti returned 38 hits: (snip quote). RESPONDENT: It makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website. There seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts. RICHARD: You have to be joking, surely. RESPONDENT: Thanks for your reply, Richard. It’s what I expected – it confirms that you’re trapped in your own language construct. RICHARD: Oh? But that is not what you said you expected ... this is:
Be that as it may ... I have snipped-out all of Mr. Robert Linssen’s words (further above) leaving only my words: if you can show me where this ‘language construct’ is amongst them which you say I am trapped in it will be most appreciated. Further to this point, here is the first of the two quotes, from Mr. Robert Linssen, you claim ‘makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website’ as ‘there seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts’ ... Viz.:
I invite you to provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which means from any page on The Actual Freedom
Trust web site that has my name in the URL – which has/ have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of
Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine will have to refer to:
When, or rather if, you can satisfactorily provide the passage, or passages, of mine which has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to those 9 points we can then address the second quote of Mr. Robert Linssen which you chose as another example to demonstrate that what I have discovered is not entirely new to human experience. Over to you.
RESPONDENT No. 53: 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, 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: Nice answer, Richard. Is that the Actualist equivalent of a crack of the cane from the Zen master? RICHARD: Ha, the equivalence betwixt actualism and the form of spiritualism known as Zen Buddhism
exists only in your mind ... as is evidenced by your inability to successfully provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which
means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – that has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable
similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine would have to refer to:
‘Tis far easier to make an allegation than substantiate it, eh?
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. So as to assist in some rigour being put into your critique I will supply the query and response sequence in full where my above sentence first appeared (and the URL so that the entire e-mail can be read for further elucidation):
I see that, before making the statement in question, I wrote (a) a ‘it would seem to be so’ qualifier when suggesting that instincts are genetically encoded in deoxyribonucleic acid ... and (b) a ‘with the proviso’ conditioner that I am seeking an after-the act explanation for what happened in my situation (and not a before-the-act theory) ... and (c) that I was looking at scientific probes into the brain-stem rather than hypotheses (about the brain in general) ... and (d) how practical science (as contrasted to theoretical science) has to be empirically-grounded. Even a cursory glance at the material available in the area of instinctual behaviour shows that facts are indeed few and far between – the ability to conduct brain probes/ brain scans is relatively recent – and that today’s theory is soon to be discarded for tomorrow’s ... indeed you say so yourself (much further below in this very e-mail) although in another context:
Whereas a fact is not provisional ... else it be not a fact. I also see that, after the statement in question, I then provided an explanation (that scientists are
fallible, ego-ridden and soul-bound human beings trapped in the human condition like everybody else) as a cautionary note and gave
the example of last century’s theoretical physics so as to flesh out the dangers of taking the latest (supposedly) scientific
discovery to be fact ... and even pointed out who it was who was most influential in sending modern science down the path it has
gone in case further example was required Thus the planet I took my samples from was planet earth ... albeit from the ‘real-world’ planet earth (an intuitive/ imaginary place).
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for
what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major
point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’
as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis Perhaps if I were to put it as a direct question this time around:
When, or rather, if you can successfully demonstrate your assertion we can then move on to your hypothesis
itself – that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material
matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his
findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works – which, at this stage of
your presentation, has all the hallmarks of being yet another ‘straw man’ argument ‘Tis oh-so-easy to formulate hypotheses where facts are an idealisation
RESPONDENT: The Actualists have trained themselves in the art of ‘entity hunting’ in which they ‘ruthlessly’ undo that which stands between them and their freedom. [snip] You might be able to whittle an identity down far enough to enjoy an actual freedom or something very delightful indeed but I wonder about the nature of the residue. I’d class the ‘residue’ as clever enough to evade simple adversarial probing and ‘ruthless’ exposure. I’d say it would be canny enough to call itself an Actualist and step aside far enough for a lovely virtual or actual freedom. [snip] The quality and character of self observation is as important as the subject of the observation. To pursue matters ‘ruthlessly’ may ‘do the trick’ but I think it produces a fanatic. [snip] In my personal experience I was taught by a therapist (who happened to be a Buddhist) to use the same method. Each session was spent reporting the results of my observations and exploring material as it emerged from my body in this moment. I learnt that every feeling I had could be observed in my body. We experimented with different ‘probes’ or intents if you will and turned up some primal material at times. I’d say that I explored some instinctual material but I don’t really know how to tell the difference from other material. My therapist recommended a gentle approach to observation. I used to get frustrated and want to ‘cut to the chase’ but I saw the results of my hard-headedness in a few interesting sessions. My gentle minded therapist was able to coax a trapped and extremely scared ‘child’ from the depths of my guts. The child was terrified of me and would only emerge when the therapist was around. Why was that? Because at the time I was a cold hearted brute to myself and my observational capacity was limited by that. My therapist believed that the quality and character of observation was as important as the content of the observation. There may well be a ‘cunning alien entity’ hijacking your bodily resources in a parasitical manner but it’s probably good to be aware that while you can smash the entity ruthlessly on the head, your goolies may be caught in its mandibles. :-) Ruthlessness is a good way to send material underground. RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘ruthless’ means to me:
Where a Buddhist therapist recommends a ‘gentle approach to observation’ they would, more than likely, be advocating ‘metta’ (Pali for ‘loving-kindness’) and ‘karuna’ (Pali for ‘pity-compassion’) else they would not be in accord with the four fundamental Buddhist principles known as ‘brahma-vihara’ (divine-abidings) – the other two are ‘mudita’ (‘gladness at others’ success’) and ‘upekkha’ (‘onlooking equanimity’) – and needless is it to say that metta and/or karuna are as good a way as any for the cunning alien entity (an affective entity at root) to escape detection and survive to live yet another day in which to wreak its havoc in the world at large? And in a similar vein here is what the words ‘pitiless’, ‘merciless’, and ‘relentless’ mean to me:
Anyone who asks themself, each moment again, how they are experiencing this moment of being alive – the only moment one is ever alive – whilst under the influence of ruth (compassion, pity; the feeling of sorrow for another) and/or pity (compassion, sympathy; clemency aroused by the suffering or misfortune of another) and/or mercy (disposition to forgive or show compassion) and/or relent (yield; give up a previous determination or obstinacy; become merciful/ lenient, show mercy/ pity; abate; slacken, relinquish, abandon) is surely just wasting their time ... frittering away the opportunity of a lifetime on but more of the ‘Tried and Failed’ in yet another guise. ‘Tis not for nothing that the alien entity is described as ‘cunning’.
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most
scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology
arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation. I cannot say I am all that surprised as most scientists’ facts are few and far between and many of their
‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or
mind-set ‘Tis no wonder modern-day science is in the degraded state it is, eh?
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most
scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology
arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation. RESPONDENT: As you have so far refused to debate your flawed pseudo-scientific utterances ... RICHARD: If I may point out? As you are yet to demonstrate that my observation – that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set – is a ‘flawed pseudo-scientific utterance’ then any conclusion you may make (just as any conclusion anyone may make based upon an undemonstrated premise) cannot be taken as a valid conclusion. RESPONDENT: ... we can only conclude that you have more than adequately demonstrated your basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works. RICHARD: I do understand that you have made such a conclusion (you made this abundantly clear in your initial e-mail where you first formulated your hypothesis that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) yet you still have not demonstrated that the quote in question – the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) – shows anything of the sort.
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation. RESPONDENT: As you have so far refused to debate your flawed pseudo-scientific utterances ... RICHARD: If I may point out? As you are yet to demonstrate that my observation – that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set – is a ‘flawed pseudo-scientific utterance’ then any conclusion you may make (just as any conclusion anyone may make based upon an undemonstrated premise) cannot be taken as a valid conclusion. RESPONDENT: ... we can only conclude that you have more than adequately demonstrated your basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works. RICHARD: I do understand that you have made such a conclusion (you made this abundantly clear in your initial e-mail where you first formulated your hypothesis that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) yet you still have not demonstrated that the quote in question – the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) – shows anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: Your pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote. RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader I can only go by the information you type out on your keyboard and send to this mailing list ... and the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) is the ‘one quote’ in question. RESPONDENT: There is an entire thread of you demonstrating your scientific ignorance for all to see. I have posted a refutation (see ‘RE: Brouhaha Indeed’ 14th Jan 04) of your nonsense and you have so far refused to defend your utterances. RICHARD: I see ... you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published it, eh? Viz.:
And:
‘Tis no wonder I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ ... I lack prescience:
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation. RESPONDENT: As you have so far refused to debate your flawed pseudo-scientific utterances ... RICHARD: If I may point out? As you are yet to demonstrate that my observation – that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set – is a ‘flawed pseudo-scientific utterance’ then any conclusion you may make (just as any conclusion anyone may make based upon an undemonstrated premise) cannot be taken as a valid conclusion. RESPONDENT: ... we can only conclude that you have more than adequately demonstrated your basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works. RICHARD: I do understand that you have made such a conclusion (you made this abundantly clear in your initial e-mail where you first formulated your hypothesis that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) yet you still have not demonstrated that the quote in question – the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) – shows anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: Your pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote. RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader I can only go by the information you type out on your keyboard and send to this mailing list ... and the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) is the ‘one quote’ in question. RESPONDENT: There is an entire thread of you demonstrating your scientific ignorance for all to see. I have posted a refutation (see ‘RE: Brouhaha Indeed’ 14th Jan 04) of your nonsense and you have so far refused to defend your utterances. RICHARD: I see ... you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published it, eh? Viz.: ‘brouhaha indeed’; Respondent; Dec 30, 2003 20:00 PST; (snip URL). And: ‘Re: Brouhaha Indeed’; Richard; Jan 14, 2004 11:25 PST; (snip URL). RESPONDENT: Oh Richard, you are just like a dog kicking dirt to cover up his own stinking shit, only you prefer to kick a mound of verbiage. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend your line of thought: you present something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published your hypothesis so as to demonstrate that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works, yet because I point this after-the-act fact out to you that means I am the one doing a cover-up. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: That single quote was just me warming up, silly! There’s plenty more to come. You have spouted so much scientific drivel it’s hard to keep up with it all. Give me time. RICHARD: Hmm ... so you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that you have yet to find on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, then? I do appreciate the insight into how the mind of a working scientist
RESPONDENT: Here’s Richard disparaging ‘most scientists’: [quote] ‘Most scientists’ facts are rather far and few between, however, and many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set.’ [endquote]. I’d like to know which planet Richard visits for his sample of ‘most scientists’. This is an outrageous statement. If ‘most scientists’ chose to ignore facts then science would be in a big mess indeed. RICHARD: Yet I never said that most scientists ‘chose to ignore facts’ .... as I clearly stated that facts are few and far between for most scientists, and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set, your assertion that my statement is ‘outrageous’ remains to be demonstrated. RESPONDENT: Richard, that is a very minor point you have picked up on. RICHARD: It is not a ‘very minor point’ – to substitute something somebody never said for what they did say, and to then criticise that surrogate as being [quote] ‘an outrageous statement’ [endquote], is a major point (popularly known as a ‘straw man’ argument) in any discussion – nor is it something I have ‘picked up on’ as it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on ... which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument. RESPONDENT: It does not take away from the fact that you are scientifically naive. RICHARD: As it is the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on what it does take away is the very core of your entire e-mail and what is central to your argument (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) ... and to just stick the words ‘the fact’ in front of your (reworded) assertion adds nothing to your presentation. In what way do I show ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ – now reworded as me being ‘scientifically naïve’ – by making the observation that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set? If you could address yourself to the question, and not re-present your assertion in yet another form, it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Bollocks, Richard. Your physics is muddle headed and you don’t know what you are talking about. RICHARD: As you have chosen to but re-present your assertion in yet another form it would appear that your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) is not based on fact but interpretation. RESPONDENT: As you have so far refused to debate your flawed pseudo-scientific utterances ... RICHARD: If I may point out? As you are yet to demonstrate that my observation – that facts are few and far between for most scientists and that many of their ‘facts’ later turn out to be flawed methodology arising out of their expectations based upon their belief systems and/or mind-set – is a ‘flawed pseudo-scientific utterance’ then any conclusion you may make (just as any conclusion anyone may make based upon an undemonstrated premise) cannot be taken as a valid conclusion. RESPONDENT: ... we can only conclude that you have more than adequately demonstrated your basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works. RICHARD: I do understand that you have made such a conclusion (you made this abundantly clear in your initial e-mail where you first formulated your hypothesis that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) yet you still have not demonstrated that the quote in question – the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) – shows anything of the sort. RESPONDENT: Your pseudo-scientific buffoonery is not just based on one quote. RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader I can only go by the information you type out on your keyboard and send to this mailing list ... and the only quote of mine you provided to base your hypothesis on (which means it lies at the very core of your entire e-mail and is central to your argument) is the ‘one quote’ in question. RESPONDENT: There is an entire thread of you demonstrating your scientific ignorance for all to see. I have posted a refutation (see ‘RE: Brouhaha Indeed’ 14th Jan 04) of your nonsense and you have so far refused to defend your utterances. RICHARD: I see ... you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published it, eh? Viz.: ‘brouhaha indeed’; Respondent; Dec 30, 2003 20:00 PST; (snip URL). And: ‘Re: Brouhaha Indeed’; Richard; Jan 14, 2004 11:25 PST; (snip URL). RESPONDENT: Oh Richard, you are just like a dog kicking dirt to cover up his own stinking shit, only you prefer to kick a mound of verbiage. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend your line of thought: you present something that I did not write until fifteen (15) days *after* you published your hypothesis so as to demonstrate that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works, yet because I point this after-the-act fact out to you that means I am the one doing a cover-up. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: That single quote was just me warming up, silly! There’s plenty more to come. You have spouted so much scientific drivel it’s hard to keep up with it all. Give me time. RICHARD: Hmm ... so you based your hypothesis (that, even though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters, in order to try and weave an aura of authority Richard would have you believe he is like a scientist reporting his findings to the world but shows a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works) on something that you have yet to find on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, then? I do appreciate the insight into how the mind of a working scientist operates that you are providing with all of the above. RESPONDENT: And I do appreciate your sincere demonstration of cowardice in the defence of your own scientific nonsense. RICHARD: Now here is a turnabout if there ever was: you are now wanting me to add to your suspicion
CORRESPONDENT No. 56 (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 |
