|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 56
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 ‘an outrageous statement’, 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 RESPONDENT: That’s funny, Richard, now you are regressing. RICHARD: If it is indeed ‘funny’ it is not ‘funny-ha-ha’ but ‘funny-peculiar’ as you are quite prepared to change your approach as it suits you: if I do respond to your queries in the one instance I am being defensive and if I do not respond to your queries in the other instance I am being craven – a ‘damned if I do; damned if I do not’ situation – and when I draw this to your attention I am, apparently, ‘regressing’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). RESPONDENT: The truth is you will not defend your utterances because you cannot. RICHARD: Yet as soon as you 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) provides a valid basis for 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) we can move on to the other matters which arose out of my response to your initial e-mail. As we could have done long ago had you addressed yourself to the question (aka defended your utterances).
RESPONDENT No. 60: Richard, an uncluttered space in which to clarify some key issues: (snip). RESPONDENT: And while you’re at it, Richard, take the 3K Challenge. For convenience here’s a copy of the challenge issued 19 Jan 04: (snip). RICHARD: Seeing that you have enough spare time to issue challenges why not address yourself to the question raised on Tue 6/1/04 9:54 AM AEST, and re-presented on Sat 10/1/04 9:05 AM AEST, and again on Fri 16/1/04 1:06 PM AEST, and again on Fri 16/1/04 3:54 PM AEST, and again on Tue 20/1/04 8:53 AM AEST, and again on Tue 20/1/04 2:17 PM AEST, and again on Tue 20/1/04 4:37 PM AEST, and again on Tue 20/1/04 7:31 PM AEST, and again on Wed 21/1/04 6:23 PM AEST? For your convenience here is a copy of the latter part of the last re-presentation:
And while you are at it you could also 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 ‘remarkable similarity’ to that
passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine would have to refer to:
This makes it the third occasion I have presented this for your attention ... ‘tis far easier to make an allegation/ formulate an hypothesis than substantiate it, eh? And perhaps you might now comprehend why I say 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? Or in your case
RESPONDENT: The truth is you will not defend your utterances because you cannot. RICHARD: Yet as soon as you 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) provides a valid basis for 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) we can move on to the other matters which arose out of my response to your initial e-mail. As we could have done long ago had you addressed yourself to the question (aka defended your utterances). RESPONDENT: Richard, this is the only address you will get on your pointless and repeated question. RICHARD: It is indeed repeated but is in no way pointless: your hypothesis itself had, and has, nothing to with what is actually happening ... I am in no way trying to weave an aura of (scientific) authority by having you believe I am like a scientist reporting my findings to the world. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I am not relying on your single post to show that you have ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’. RICHARD: You just do not seem to ‘get it’ that it makes no difference whatsoever whether you show that I have ‘a basic philosophical misunderstanding of science and how it works’ or not as I am not trying to weave an aura of (scientific) authority by having you believe I am like a scientist reporting my findings to the world. Just about everything I write about is experiential ... and the only proof I offer is the pure consciousness experience (PCE). Viz.:
As that passage is on the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site I am being right up-front and out-in-the-open about what it is that I am doing ... and which is nothing at all like what you are making it out to be. RESPONDENT: I have just begun to demonstrate it. RICHARD: As what you are demonstrating is a predilection for tilting at windmills I have re-titled the thread ... maybe that way you will ‘get it’. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT: PS: The Linssen stuff: boring. I’m over it. RICHARD: Is this your way of saying that an actual freedom from the human condition is not re-branded Zen Buddhism after all? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RICHARD: Your hypothesis itself had, and has, nothing to with what is actually happening ... I am in no
way trying to weave an aura of (scientific) authority by having you believe I am like a scientist reporting my findings to the
world. RESPONDENT: Rubbish. You assert all manner of findings based on ‘PCE evidence’ and even go as far as to assert a steady state universe. RICHARD: First and foremost: I copy-pasted the words <steady state universe> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits; I copy-pasted the words <steady state> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. In short: I make no mention of ‘a steady state universe’ ... let alone ‘assert’ one. Second, I will refer you to the following:
In other words I do not ‘assert’ (I provide a report/description) and, as already mentioned in the previous e-mail, invite my fellow human being to ascertain for themselves – experientially – that what I have to say is in accord with the fact. Third, since when has what you call ‘PCE evidence’ ever been considered scientific evidence? Lastly, your entire sentence (above) – including the preliminary word ‘rubbish’ – is what an assertion looks like in action ... and most, if not all, of my responses to you involve correcting what you invent about what I said, what I am, what I do, why I do it, how I do it, and so on. RESPONDENT: You make assertions about Relativity and Einstein based on your own narrow worldview. RICHARD: I provided a referenced quote of Mr. Albert Einstein reminiscing, in 1920, about the birth of his relativity theory in 1907, which shows in his own words that his theory is not based on fact ... if pointing this out really is me making ‘assertions’ – and from a ‘narrow worldview’ at that – then modern science is in a more parlous state than I have previously taken it to be. RESPONDENT: You are basically saying that you can assert whatever you like, without the need for scientific grounding. RICHARD: No ... you are saying that, not me. RESPONDENT: That’s fine ... RICHARD: And here you are agreeing with your latest invention as if you were agreeing with me. RESPONDENT: ... we can agree then that you are a purveyor of science fiction .. RICHARD: Not ‘we’ ... you; you can agree, then (as you invented that fantasy you can, of course, agree with it all you like). RESPONDENT: ... but you are creating the impression that you have scientific knowledge and have the grounds to critique Relativity, Einstein and quantum mechanics when in actuality you do not. RICHARD: I am doing no such thing as I have made it quite clear that I am but a layperson when it comes to physics ... as well you know from a quote of mine you posted only two and a half hours before you posted this e-mail,. Viz.:
As you have now reduced yourself to blatantly inventing things about me there is no need for me to make any further comment. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RESPONDENT: PS: The Linssen stuff: boring. I’m over it. RICHARD: Is this your way of saying that an actual freedom from the human condition is not re-branded Zen Buddhism after all? RESPONDENT: It’s my way of saying ‘yawn’. RICHARD: And thus does another invention of yours bite the dust. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RICHARD: ... what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French
Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican,
in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma It is the ASC which informs that consciousness gives rise to matter. Or, to put that differently, what I am saying is that the ‘Big Bang’ (a theory first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre at the behest of the then pope Mr. Pius XI in a Conference on Cosmology, which was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma) depends upon there not being anybody actually free from the human condition (a permanent PCE). It is the PCE which informs that matter gives rise to consciousness. RESPONDENT: You’ve probably noticed how Richard belabours the point that the Big Bang theory was first proposed, in 1927, by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre. Presumably he does this to somehow ‘taint’ the theory with spiritual contamination. Are there spiritualists under your bed, Richard? RICHARD: No, and I did not repeat the point, that the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre first proposed, in 1927 at the behest of the then head of the Roman Catholic religion, a theory which later became known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory, so as to taint it with spiritual contamination ... for how can repetition taint a spiritually inspired mathematical theory? I repeated it for the sake of emphasising the nature of what is being discussed. RESPONDENT: It’s interesting to note that scientists ignored Georges Lemaitre because at the time because there was no data (aka facts) to support his theory [quote] ‘He had no data to prove this, so many scientists ignored it’. [www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html]. RICHARD: It is interesting to note, at the web page you provided a link to, that what you call the ‘data (aka facts)’ to support his ‘universe expanding in all directions’ theory came in 1929 when Mr. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of red-shifted galaxies brought about the theory that galaxies were moving away at high speeds. In other words what you call the ‘data (aka facts)’ to support his theory is a theory itself (‘red-shifted galaxies’ is the data; ‘galaxies moving away at high speeds’ is the theory). RESPONDENT: Also interesting to note is that the theory was, in fact, proposed by a Soviet scientist a few years earlier than Georges Lemaitre. [quote] ‘Another scientist, Soviet Alexander Friedmann, had come to the same conclusion independently, a few years earlier’ [endquote]. Does that remove the spiritual taint, Richard? RICHARD: What does the word ‘independently’ convey to you? Furthermore, as the Roman Catholic religion has a creator god at the very core of its raison d’être why would it instigate/support something – anything at all – which would render them a secular organisation (which is what ‘remove the spiritual taint’ implies). Golly, even the web page you provided the link to acknowledges the obvious right up front ... here it is, from the top of the page, in the very first sentence of the article:
RESPONDENT: Maybe Richard will stop repeating his Vatican conspiracy and give rightful credit to Alexander Friedmann? RICHARD: Ha ... as even the web page you provided the link to credits Mr. Georges LeMaitre for showing that ‘religion and science – or at least physics – did not have to be incompatible’ I do wonder why you call it my ‘Vatican conspiracy’. I do appreciate you providing the link as clarification is always welcome.
RICHARD: I copy-pasted the words <steady state universe> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits; I copy-pasted the words <steady state> into my search engine and sent it through everything I have ever written ... only to return nil hits. In short: I make no mention of ‘a steady state universe’ ... let alone ‘assert’ one. RESPONDENT: Your pedantry can’t help you here. RICHARD: If by ‘pedantry’ you mean clarity in communication you will find it stands me in good stead ... just as it does for anybody interested in conveying what they have to say accurately. RESPONDENT: Just because you don’t use the term ‘steady state’ does not
mean your cosmology is not classified as one. Here’s the Actualist position: [quote] ‘Time: time is eternal – as in
beginningless and endless time – which means only now is actual. Space: space is infinite – as in limitless and boundless
space – which means only here is actual. Form: form is perpetual – as in continuously rearranging itself – which means only
this is actual. [www.actualfreedom.com.au/sundry/frequentquestions/FAQ3.htm]. RICHARD: Interestingly enough the web page you provide the link to says, in the sentence immediately preceding the first sentence you quote (above), that the ‘steady-state theory’ is based on an extension of something called the perfect cosmological principle. Here it is (with the sentences you quoted highlighted):
A theory based upon an extension of a principle (which is itself an extension of another principle) is in no
way the same thing as the direct experience of infinitude You would have to be grasping at straws to present the above as some after-the-act demonstration 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) was in any way valid when you first published it on December 30, 2003 at 20:00 PST. I do appreciate you providing the link as clarification is always welcome.
RICHARD: You would have to be grasping at straws to present the above [a theory based upon an extension of a principle which is itself an extension of another principle] as some after-the-act demonstration 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) was in any way valid when you first published it on December 30, 2003 at 20:00 PST. I do appreciate you providing the link as clarification is always welcome. RESPONDENT: (...) You are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RESPONDENT: (...) You are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. RESPONDENT: Oh bullshit, Richard, you distorting, dirty propagandist. I’ll put back what you have cut out – [Respondent] ‘You are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’. You do it better than I ever could with your own actions and very loud words’. [endquote]. The meaning of this statement is vastly different to your manufactured statement attributed to me. RICHARD: Oh? Are you saying that your sentence ‘you are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’’ does not mean that Richard is quite right to point out that Respondent has not demonstrated his hypothesis unless it is accompanied by your ‘you do it better than I ever could with your own actions and very loud words’ sentence? RESPONDENT: You must have particularly strange form of self-aggrandizement at work if you are satisfied by a Stalinesque manufactured admission. RICHARD: I am not even going to try and work that one out ... I am only too happy to modify my response so as to include the sentence you say the omission of which makes for ... um ... for distorting, dirty propaganda. Viz.:
I have no further questions.
RESPONDENT: You are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. RESPONDENT: You do it better than I ever could with your own actions and very loud words. RICHARD: As you have just acknowledged that you have not demonstrated your hypothesis (that, even
though you would not expect a scientific method to work in matters of human freedom beyond mundane material matters RESPONDENT: Richard you are a bigger dickhead than I originally thought. I have made NO such acknowledgement. For the record – I believe that I am demonstrating my hypothesis and that my demonstration is a work in progress. RICHARD: Thank you for explaining how you use the English language ... it does throw a lot of light upon your vigorously expressed reply to know that ‘you are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’ really means I was quite wrong to point out that you have not demonstrated it as you believe you are demonstrating it and that your demonstration is a work in progress. RESPONDENT: Given your way with words I have no doubt at all that you fully understood the meaning I intended to convey. RICHARD: I had no understanding whatsoever that the meaning you intended to convey by saying ‘you are quite right to point out that I have not demonstrated my ‘hypothesis’ was that I really was quite wrong to point it out when you believe you are demonstrating it and that your demonstration is a work in progress. RESPONDENT: You have edited what I have said to suit yourself. I cannot believe that you would resort to such a deliberate distortion and then be satisfied with that. You’re a propagandist. It really surprises me because I never believed you were capable of this kind of dishonesty. Whatever else I thought of you, I really believed you at least had honest intentions. Thanks for disabusing me of that little illusion. RICHARD: As I have no idea at all how it was that I disabused you of ‘that little illusion’ I really cannot accept your thanks ... but I appreciate the gesture, anyway. I have no further questions.
CORRESPONDENT No. 56 (Part Four) 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 |
