|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 56
RESPONDENT: <exit lurker mode> This list makes for interesting reading. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... this list does indeed make for ‘interesting reading’ as many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed. Sometimes a practical manifestation is worth a thousand words. RESPONDENT: I’ve been poking my head in for a look every now and then at the funny characters on display. RICHARD: I see ... and now that you have un-lurked you have all of your being in, eh? RESPONDENT: It’s like watching a bunch of carnies pressed behind monitor glass. RICHARD: Well then ... welcome to the carnival. RESPONDENT: What really makes me laugh is seeing these people without malice getting hyper-defensive in the face of some pretty damn funny provocation. RICHARD: Whilst I would not categorise a run-of-the-mill defence in the face of run-of-the-mill attacks it is pleasing to notice that you both recognise and acknowledge ‘provocation’ – ‘a challenge to fight’ (Oxford Dictionary) – when you see it ... maybe you could throw some light upon why many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists have a propensity towards such challenges (rather than discussion)? RESPONDENT: No. 53 is a seriously funny master manipulator! (...) Guys, don’t you realise that your twangers (and twangees) are being seriously pulled (or pushed)? RICHARD: As you have twice used the word ‘seriously’ this may be an apt moment to draw to your attention to the passage which triggered-off this latest outbreak of challenges to a fight from a couple of the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists who choose to subscribe to this list, and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time:
What the cyber-space personality you describe as being a ‘master manipulator’ fails to realise is that those words are not mere words – it is a living actuality for this flesh and blood body that nothing really matters in the long run – and, consequently, they also fail to realise they are simply frittering away both their time and bandwidth on a futile tilting at windmills. And I bring all this to your attention because that is precisely what you have sucked yourself into doing for the remainder of your e-mail.
RESPONDENT: <exit lurker mode> This list makes for interesting reading. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... this list does indeed make for ‘interesting reading’ as many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed. Sometimes a practical manifestation is worth a thousand words. RESPONDENT: Well I guess 74 members on a mailing list is counted by you to be a pretty darn successful alternative to the tried and failed. RICHARD: No, it is an actual freedom from the human condition which is the alternative to religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality ... which is why the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, are welcome on this list. Sometimes a practical manifestation is worth a thousand words. * RESPONDENT: What really makes me laugh is seeing these people without malice getting hyper-defensive in the face of some pretty damn funny provocation. RICHARD: Whilst I would not categorise a run-of-the-mill defence in the face of run-of-the-mill attacks [as being hyper-defensive] it is pleasing to notice that you both recognise and acknowledge ‘provocation’ – ‘a challenge to fight’ (Oxford Dictionary) – when you see it ... maybe you could throw some light upon why many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists have a propensity towards such challenges (rather than discussion)? RESPONDENT: I guess they have (...) unresolved malice. RICHARD: Which is why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, eh? RESPONDENT: If you were at peace you wouldn’t even bother to respond to those challenging religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists. RICHARD: Oh, it is no ‘bother’ at all ... I like my fellow human being, no matter what mischief they get up to, and prefer only the best for them. RESPONDENT: Why do you add to the noise? RICHARD: Presuming that you are asking why I discuss the challenges (there is no ‘noise’ here in this actual world), which those challenging-to-a-fight religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists present from time-to-time, I would have considered the answer to be quite self-evident ... to wit: this is a discussion list. RESPONDENT: What are you defending against? RICHARD: The run-of-the-mill attacks, of course. RESPONDENT: How can a No. 53 even touch you without your participation? RICHARD: A challenging-to-a-fight religionist, spiritualist, mystic, or metaphysicalist never, ever, touches me ... all
their commentitious allegations are generated by their own transference-whimsy It is this simple: actualism is an entirely new paradigm – unlike religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, there is no ‘being’ whatsoever upon an actual freedom from the human condition – and, like any new paradigm, it requires thinking outside of the box (to use a popular colloquialism). * RESPONDENT: No. 53 is a seriously funny master manipulator! (...) Guys, don’t you realise that your twangers (and twangees) are being seriously pulled (or pushed)? RICHARD: As you have twice used the word ‘seriously’ this may be an apt moment to draw to your attention to the passage which triggered-off this latest outbreak of challenges to a fight from a couple of the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists who choose to subscribe to this list, and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time:
RESPONDENT: Were you having fun when you heard about the tsunami? RICHARD: Life here in this actual world, the world of the senses, is much too much fun to be serious – sincere, yes, but in no way serious – irregardless of what occurs in the course of daily life because, in the long run, nothing really matters ... it is a fact of life/of being born that everybody alive today is going to die somewhere, somehow, sometime (nobody gets out of here alive). Statistically over 54,000,000 people die each year and that figure (54,000,000) includes deaths from *all* causes (including from seismic sea-waves) ... for example Mr./Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, died at the very moment any of the millions of words of mine on The Actual Freedom Trust web site were being written and yet life here in this actual world did not cease being fun for even a fraction of a second. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Did you lift a finger to help? RICHARD: I do more than merely ‘lift a finger’ to assist my fellow human being ... my fellow human being gets all of me (and all of the time, as well, and not just on occasion). * RICHARD: What the cyber-space personality you describe as being a ‘master manipulator’ fails to realise is that those words are not mere words – it is a living actuality for this flesh and blood body that nothing really matters in the long run – and, consequently, they also fail to realise they are simply frittering away both their time and bandwidth on a futile tilting at windmills. RESPONDENT: If nothing really matters, then why should ‘frittering away bandwidth’ matter? RICHARD: If I may take the liberty of rewriting your query (so that it be in accord with what I actually wrote)? For example:
It does not matter in the long run ... it matters in the short run (inasmuch my fellow human being is suffering needlessly). * RICHARD: And I bring all this to your attention because that is precisely what you have sucked yourself into doing for the remainder of your e-mail. RESPONDENT: It seems that you’ve been sucked into to the pit with me. RICHARD: It seems that a fanciful/fantasy ‘me’, who has no existence outside of your skull but which phantasm you are (intuitively) convinced resides in this flesh and blood body, has been sucked into (your) pit with you ... I have been just here, right now, in this actual world all the while simply having a ball. RESPONDENT: Why do you even bother to respond? RICHARD: Oh, it is no ‘bother’ at all ... I like my fellow human being, no matter what mischief they get up to, and prefer only the best for them. RESPONDENT: Aren’t you literally wasting bandwidth? RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT: (...) I guess 74 members on a mailing list is counted by you to be a pretty darn successful alternative to the tried and failed. RICHARD: No, it is an actual freedom from the human condition which is the alternative to religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality ... which is why the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, are welcome on this list. RESPONDENT: I see. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, if nothing else, this matter has been cleared up. RESPONDENT: I guess the practicality of reaching out to billions of people doesn’t much matter to you. RICHARD: If the practicality of sharing my experience of life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are did not matter much to me then both The Actual Freedom Trust and The Actual Freedom Trust web site would not exist, now, would they? RESPONDENT: You provide a list and 74 show up. RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list was set up, purely as an adjunct to The Actual Freedom Trust web site, in July 1998 and since then many peoples have subscribed (on average 15-20% of whom post an e-mail), stayed for a period of time, and then unsubscribed ... the number you mention is how many are *currently* subscribed and not how many have actually shown up. RESPONDENT: I call that tried and failed. RICHARD: Whereas I point out what is really the tried and failed (the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical solution to all the ills of humankind) ... and I say ‘tried and failed’ as it has been tried assiduously by billions of people over thousands of years and has failed abysmally on each and every occasion to bring about peace-on-earth, in each and every lifetime, for each and every flesh and blood body. The reason why is, of course, no great secret ... such a peace (an actual peace) is not on the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical agenda. * RESPONDENT: If you were at peace you wouldn’t even bother to respond to those challenging religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists. RICHARD: Oh, it is no ‘bother’ at all ... I like my fellow human being, no matter what mischief they get up to, and prefer only the best for them. RESPONDENT: So your replies are demonstrations for your followers? RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘followers’ (actualism is neither religious/spiritual nor mystical/metaphysical) your query cannot be answered as-is. RESPONDENT: When you wrestle with sceptics it provides you with an opportunity to shine. RICHARD: No, when I provide a run-of-the-mill defence to the run-of-the-mill attacks by the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, it provides them with an opportunity to do what they will with it. Mostly they just fritter a way the opportunity. * RESPONDENT: Why do you add to the noise? RICHARD: Presuming that you are asking why I discuss the challenges (there is no ‘noise’ here in this actual world), which those challenging-to-a-fight religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists present from time-to-time, I would have considered the answer to be quite self-evident ... to wit: this is a discussion list. RESPONDENT: Sure. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been cleared up too. RESPONDENT: You come across as defensive ... RICHARD: That would be because the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, come across as aggressive, non? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [You come across as defensive] and malicious. RICHARD: Oh? Yet in your initial e-mail you clearly categorised me as being [quote] ‘without malice’ [endquote] ... here:
RESPONDENT: Your answers are formulaic ... RICHARD: I typed a question mark into this computer’s search engine and sent it through all I have ever written and of the 40,923 hits returned it is reasonable to assume that maybe a half of them are mine (I too ask questions): as you could not possibly be characterising 20,460-odd answers as being ‘formulaic’ you must be referring to my run-of-the-mill defences to the run-of-the-mill attacks by the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed. If so, then could it be because those challenges to a fight (aka ‘provocations’) are formulaic? You may find the following to be illuminative:
And:
RESPONDENT: [Your answers are formulaic] and repetitive. RICHARD: Now here is a curious thing: I had been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for more than 15 years before I went public on the internet ... and not one of the many and various objections to being happy and harmless, which the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, has been one that was not presented to me before I went on-line. Not one of them ... I have heard them all before. * RESPONDENT: What are you defending against? RICHARD: The run-of-the-mill attacks, of course. RESPONDENT: Why are defending against run-of-the-mill attacks? RICHARD: So as to set the record straight. For instance:
And again:
RESPONDENT: What needs defending? RICHARD: That which is being attacked, of course. * RESPONDENT: How can a [Co-Respondent] even touch you without your participation? RICHARD: A challenging-to-a-fight religionist, spiritualist, mystic, or metaphysicalist never, ever, touches me ... all their commentitious allegations are generated by their own transference-whimsy and are not aimed at me but a fanciful/fantasy ‘me’, who has no existence outside of their skull, but which phantasm they are (intuitively) convinced resides in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Okay so you cannot be touched. RICHARD: Ah, but there is more to it than just that (than being unable to be touched): being untouchable I can participate in whatever fight the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk from time-to-time so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, may choose to have (rather than a discussion), with full impunity. Veritably, an actual freedom from the human condition is a wonderful freedom. RESPONDENT: So I’m curious to know what you are defending. RICHARD: That which is being attacked, of course. * RICHARD: Life here in this actual world, the world of the senses, is much too much fun to be serious – sincere, yes, but in no way serious – irregardless of what occurs in the course of daily life because, in the long run, nothing really matters ... it is a fact of life/of being born that everybody alive today is going to die somewhere, somehow, sometime (nobody gets out of here alive). Statistically over 54,000,000 people die each year and that figure (54,000,000) includes deaths from *all* causes (including from seismic sea-waves) ... for example Mr./Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, died at the very moment any of the millions of words of mine on The Actual Freedom Trust web site were being written and yet life here in this actual world did not cease being fun for even a fraction of a second. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: So would life continue to be grand if you lost someone close to you? RICHARD: As I have lost somebody, who could be classified in real-world terms as ‘close to me’ (there is no separation here in this actual world), I can answer from experience and not supposition: yes, life did indeed continue to be grand. RESPONDENT: Would you mourn for a second or longer? RICHARD: I did not ‘mourn’ at all – let alone for a second – as grief has no existence in actuality. * RESPONDENT: Did you lift a finger to help? RICHARD: I do more than merely ‘lift a finger’ to assist my fellow human being ... my fellow human being gets all of me (and all of the time, as well, and not just on occasion). RESPONDENT: Sounds good. RICHARD: Tastes even better. RESPONDENT: What exactly are we getting when we get all of you? RICHARD: Just for starters: an opportunity to bring to an end, once and for all, needless suffering. * RICHARD: What the cyber-space personality you describe as being a ‘master manipulator’ fails to realise is that those words are not mere words – it is a living actuality for this flesh and blood body that nothing really matters in the long run – and, consequently, they also fail to realise they are simply frittering away both their time and bandwidth on a futile tilting at windmills. RESPONDENT: If nothing really matters, then why should ‘frittering away bandwidth’ matter? RICHARD: If I may take the liberty of rewriting your query (so that it be in accord with what I actually wrote)? For example: [example only]: ‘If it is indeed a living actuality for the flesh and blood body called ‘Richard’, that nothing really matters in the long run, then why should ‘frittering away bandwidth’ matter? [end example]. It does not matter in the long run ... it matters in the short run (inasmuch my fellow human being is suffering needlessly). RESPONDENT: I see. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that this matter has been cleared up as well. RESPONDENT: You have the answer to their suffering. RICHARD: As I have never been reticent about the fact that an actual freedom from the human condition is the answer for all the ills of humankind – all the needless suffering – that should surely come as no surprise too you ... after all that is why The Actual Freedom Trust and The Actual Freedom Trust web site exist. * RICHARD: And I bring all this to your attention because that is precisely what you have sucked yourself into doing for the remainder of your e-mail. RESPONDENT: It seems that you’ve been sucked into to the pit with me. RICHARD: It seems that a fanciful/fantasy ‘me’, who has no existence outside of your skull but which phantasm you are (intuitively) convinced resides in this flesh and blood body, has been sucked into (your) pit with you ... I have been just here, right now, in this actual world all the while simply having a ball. RESPONDENT: Glad you’re enjoying yourself. RICHARD: Not only am I having a ball so too is the flesh and blood body you are residing in ... as are, perhaps, 6.0 billion flesh and blood bodies. RESPONDENT: I was speaking metaphorically. RICHARD: Whereas I was speaking literally ... you were indeed frittering away both your time and bandwidth on a futile tilting at windmills for the remainder of your initial e-mail RESPONDENT: There is no pit. RICHARD: Not in this actual world ... no; in the real-world ... yes (as you so willingly demonstrated, on this very mailing list, in the remainder of your initial e-mail). RESPONDENT: Every exchange is an opportunity for you to demonstrate something to your followers RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘followers’ (actualism is neither religious/spiritual nor mystical/metaphysical) your query cannot be responded to as-is.
RICHARD: (...) many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed. Sometimes a practical manifestation is worth a thousand words. RESPONDENT: Well I guess 74 members on a mailing list is counted by you to be a pretty darn successful alternative to the tried and failed. RICHARD: No, it is an actual freedom from the human condition which is the alternative to religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality ... which is why the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists, who choose to subscribe and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, so as to provide a real-life demonstration of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed, are welcome on this list. RESPONDENT: I see. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, if nothing else, this matter has been cleared up. RESPONDENT: I guess the practicality of reaching out to billions of people doesn’t much matter to you. RICHARD: If the practicality of sharing my experience of life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are did not matter much to me then both The Actual Freedom Trust and The Actual Freedom Trust web site would not exist, now, would they? RESPONDENT: You provide a list and 74 show up. RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list was set up, purely as an adjunct to The Actual Freedom Trust web site, in July 1998 and since then many peoples have subscribed (on average 15-20% of whom post an e-mail), stayed for a period of time, and then unsubscribed ... the number you mention is how many are *currently* subscribed and not how many have actually shown up. RESPONDENT: I have no idea how many list members have unsubscribed but if you were to take a ratio of currently subscribed to all who have ever subscribed it would give an interesting measure open to some interesting interpretations. My guess is that the ratio is pretty low. Another interesting ratio would be the number of subscribers against the world population. That ratio would be very low indeed, even if you include all those who ever subscribed to this list. By any standard this is an abject failure. RICHARD: The only standard – ‘a yardstick, benchmark, gauge, measure, criterion, guide, guideline, norm, touchstone (...) by which quality is judged’ (Oxford Dictionary) – worthy of the name is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as an actuality. RESPONDENT: At least the ‘tried and true’ gets bums on seats. RICHARD: Yet the ‘Tried and True’ (the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical solution to all the ills of humankind) has had billions of bums on its seat over thousands of years and has failed abysmally on each and every bum-sitting occasion to bring about peace-on-earth, in each and every bum-sitting lifetime, for each and every bum-sitting flesh and blood body. The reason why is, of course, no great secret ... such a peace (an actual peace) is not on the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical agenda. RESPONDENT: You cannot count more than a handful of people under the influence of actualism. RICHARD: I can count one person living in the already always existing peace-on-earth – in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body – as an actuality and, as that is one more than the ‘Tried and True’ has ever delivered (despite having billions of bums on its seat over thousands of years), by any standard, yardstick, benchmark, gauge, measure, criterion, guide, guideline, norm, touchstone, that is an outstanding success. Put graphically the score looks like this:
And, just for good measure, not to forget this:
RESPONDENT: You are a walking demonstration of the ‘tried and failed’. RICHARD: I was for eleven years (1981 to 1992) ... yes; for the last 12+ years (1992 to 2005) ... no. * RESPONDENT: I call that [you providing a list and 74 showing up] tried and failed. RICHARD: Whereas I point out what is really the tried and failed (the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical solution to all the ills of humankind) ... and I say ‘tried and failed’ as it has been tried assiduously by billions of people over thousands of years and has failed abysmally on each and every occasion to bring about peace-on-earth, in each and every lifetime, for each and every flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Given the rate of actualism uptake it must also be rated as tried and failed. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
And to this (from the previous email):
And to this (from the e-mail prior to the above):
As more than a few people do not seem to get it, when I say I am simply sharing my experience of life, the universe, and what it is to be living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, for my fellow human being to do what they will with I will re-post the following:
As there is no point in continuing this e-mail until all of the above is taken on board (the remainder of your e-mail more or less revolves around the same theme) I will leave it at that for now.
RESPONDENT: Every exchange is an opportunity for you to demonstrate something to your followers RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘followers’ (actualism is neither religious/ spiritual nor mystical/ metaphysical) your query cannot be responded to as-is. RESPONDENT No. 53: Let everyone take note – and that includes you No 37 – who aspire to respond to your fellow human like this chimp just responded to No. 56. (snip). RICHARD: This e-mail of yours makes it 695 you have posted, so far, in your anti-peace campaign ... and it is, of course, no mere coincidence that my co-respondent (above) is a back-slapping buddy of yours from way back, eh? Viz.:
That very effusive ‘and buddy ... a BIG BIG HUGE MONGO UP to you’ of yours was in response to this:
Here are a few of the back-slaps your buddy No. 56 gave to their mate No. 53:
Not to forget this fulsome praise:
And thus does the human condition parade itself across the screen in all its naked self-conceit ... and for no other reason than because yours truly advises his fellow human beings that it is possible for all the ills of humankind (all the needless suffering and savagery) to come to an end, totally and completely, once and for all. How odd it is that such a simple thing would provoke such compound reactions as are being demonstrated daily on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Hehehe. Richard, I wondered how long it would take you to look up your subscriber list and correlate the email addresses with your hit list ;). RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (for background information):
As I found your initial e-mail (the one I responded to) sitting in the folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Silly’ it was a computer which did the correlating ... I was not even there when it happened. RESPONDENT: It beautifully illustrates my point ... RICHARD: It does no such thing ... as you have no point (a point requires substance) there is no way it could illustrate anything at all. RESPONDENT: ... [It beautifully illustrates my point ] – you are a malicious, cranky old bastard who holds grudges and you cannot tolerate dissent. You’ve worked out the identity you’re dealing with based on past experience. RICHARD: You may find the following informative:
Spelled-out in detail: it matters not if ‘Jack’, aged 25, from London, is really ‘Jill’, aged 65, from New York, as it is a living, and thus a hurting and hurtful, human being who is sitting at the keyboard communicating with me. RESPONDENT: Now you’ve pulled out your history of grudges against the identity formally known as <No. 56> ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have)? You do appear to have overlooked the following:
‘Tis oh-so-easy to tap out those four letters – ohh-kay-aye-why – which convey the impression of have read *and* comprehended yet still go on trying out the same run-of-the-mill attacks as virtually everyone else does, eh? RESPONDENT: ...[ Now you’ve pulled out your history of grudges against the identity formally known as No. 56] and you’ve terminated the discussion with Respondent No. 56. Don’t give up, Richard, your followers need you to show them how to deal with sceptics. RICHARD: Oh? Is that why you trot out these run-of-the-mill attacks, then? RESPONDENT: Sorry, you don’t like the term ‘followers’ – what’s your preferred term RICHARD: As actualism is neither religious/ spiritual nor mystical/ metaphysical there is no such category (as what the word ‘followers’, by whatever name, is delineated by) for my fellow human being who reads/ listens with both eyes/ ears ... thus there is nothing for me to have a preferred term for. RESPONDENT: I know, it was a cheap shot but it was fun. RICHARD: If it is cheap fun that you get your rocks off with then I was well-advised to have my e-mail programme automatically put your e-mails in a folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Silly’ nearly a year ago.
RESPONDENT: I call that [you providing a list and 74 showing up] tried and failed. RICHARD: Whereas I point out what is really the tried and failed (the religious-spiritual-mystical-metaphysical solution to all the ills of humankind) ... and I say ‘tried and failed’ as it has been tried assiduously by billions of people over thousands of years and has failed abysmally on each and every occasion to bring about peace-on-earth, in each and every lifetime, for each and every flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Given the rate of actualism uptake it must also be rated as tried and failed. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
RESPONDENT: Well that’s the rub isn’t it? RICHARD: No, not at all because, as I explained in the passage which triggered-off this latest outbreak of challenges to a fight from a couple of the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists who choose to subscribe to this list, and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time, it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious!
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 53): (...) it is, of course, no mere coincidence that my co-respondent above [now snipped] is a back-slapping buddy of yours from way back, eh? Viz.: (snip eleven quotes). And thus does the human condition parade itself across the screen in all its naked self-conceit ... and for no other reason than because yours truly advises his fellow human beings that it is possible for all the ills of humankind (all the needless suffering and savagery) to come to an end, totally and completely, once and for all. How odd it is that such a simple thing would provoke such compound reactions as are being demonstrated daily on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: Hehehe. Richard, I wondered how long it would take you to look up your subscriber list and correlate the email addresses with your hit list ;). RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (for background information):
As I found your initial e-mail (the one I responded to) sitting in the folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Silly’ it was a computer which did the correlating ... I was not even there when it happened. RESPONDENT: It beautifully illustrates my point ... RICHARD: It does no such thing ... as you have no point (a point requires substance) there is no way it could illustrate anything at all. RESPONDENT: ... [It beautifully illustrates my point ] – you are a malicious, cranky old bastard who holds grudges and you cannot tolerate dissent. You’ve worked out the identity you’re dealing with based on past experience. RICHARD: You may find the following informative:
Spelled-out in detail: it matters not if ‘Jack’, aged 25, from London, is really ‘Jill’, aged 65, from New York, as it is a living, and thus a hurting and hurtful, human being who is sitting at the keyboard communicating with me. RESPONDENT: Now you’ve pulled out your history of grudges against the identity formally known as <No. 56> ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have)? You do appear to have overlooked the following ... RESPONDENT: Don’t feel you have to protect me ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have)? You do appear to have overlooked the following:
And especially this:
Apart from the obvious implication (in your automaton ascription/android attribution and your rhetorical query/smart-aleckry answer), that peace-on-earth in this lifetime is not on your agenda, you are quite capable of comprehending that there is no affective faculty extant in this flesh and blood body when it suits your modus operandi to do so, yet when the tire meets the road you automatically revert to assuming that my caring for my fellow human is identical to yours. Put simply: an actual caring is vastly different to a feeling of caring. RESPONDENT: ... [Don’t feel you have to protect me] from being a bigger fool than I already am. RICHARD: I am pleased to see that, if nothing else, you now realise how pathetic your tittering cover-up for resorting
to fraudulency and outright mendacity RESPONDENT: I aspire to being a fool in your eyes. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is what you are being in *your* eyes which really counts – in the final analysis only you can know your every instinctual impulse and, thus, your every feeling-fed thought – and the impression conveyed is that you, perhaps somewhat smugly, consider yourself to be quite the smart one. * RESPONDENT: Don’t give up, Richard, your followers need you to show them how to deal with sceptics. RICHARD: Oh? Is that why you trot out these run-of-the-mill attacks, then? RESPONDENT: Sorry, you don’t like the term ‘followers’ – what’s your preferred term RICHARD: As actualism is neither religious/spiritual nor mystical/metaphysical there is no such category (as what the word ‘followers’, by whatever name, is delineated by) for my fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears ... thus there is nothing for me to have a preferred term for. RESPONDENT: Tosh ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is indeed nothing in actualism, of the religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical category which the word ‘followers’ (by whatever name) falls under, for me to have a preferred term for. RESPONDENT: ... [Tosh] – clearly there is something to have a preferred term for. RICHARD: Aye, but there is nothing of the religious/spiritual/mystical/metaphysical category, which the word ‘followers’ (by whatever name) falls under, in actualism for me to have a preferred term for. Nothing whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Your preferred term is ‘fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears’. RICHARD: My preferred term for [quote] ‘followers’ [endquote] is *not* ‘my fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears’ ... you are persisting with what is quite clearly a category error. RESPONDENT: Seems a bit wordy. Why can’t we simplify by calling them ‘chums’? RICHARD: It makes no difference whatever word you propose – even ‘qwerty’, a made-up word with no previous associations, for instance – as there is no such (spiritualist) category in actualism. It is this simple: actualism is an entirely new paradigm – unlike religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, there is no ‘being’-to-‘being’ connection/ relationship whatsoever upon an actual freedom from the human condition – and, like any new paradigm, it requires thinking outside of the box (to use a popular colloquialism). * RESPONDENT: I know, it was a cheap shot but it was fun. RICHARD: If it is cheap fun that you get your rocks off with then I was well-advised to have my e-mail programme automatically put your e-mails in a folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Silly’ nearly a year ago. RESPONDENT: And yet you still reply. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
I will say it again for emphasis: an actual caring is vastly different to a feeling of caring.
RICHARD: ... nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! RESPONDENT: It’s clearly far too much fun for you to bother answering serious questions. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
As you are still revolving around the same theme I am indeed leaving it at that for now ... and will continue to do so until all that being referred to is indeed taken on board.
RESPONDENT: Every exchange is an opportunity for you to demonstrate something to your followers RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘followers’ (actualism is neither religious/spiritual nor mystical/metaphysical) your query cannot be responded to as-is. (...) RESPONDENT: Sorry, you don’t like the term ‘followers’ – what’s your preferred term RICHARD: As actualism is neither religious/spiritual nor mystical/metaphysical there is no such category (as what the word ‘followers’, by whatever name, is delineated by) for my fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears ... thus there is nothing for me to have a preferred term for. (...) RESPONDENT: Your preferred term is ‘fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears’. RICHARD: My preferred term for [quote] ‘followers’ [endquote] is *not* ‘my fellow human being who reads/listens with both eyes/ears’ ... you are persisting with what is quite clearly a category error. RESPONDENT: Category error? RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: (...) Richard needs to get out more and read more widely. He could read a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off for a start. RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony is such as to easily earn him, in some
quarters at least, the soubriquet ‘wankasaurus As is his contribution to the field of linguistics
RESPONDENT: (...) Richard needs to get out more and read more widely. He could read a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off for a start. RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony is such as to easily earn him, in some quarters at least, the soubriquet wankasaurus of the century. As is his contribution to the field of linguistics for that matter ... but that is another subject. RESPONDENT: Just what I would expect from you, Richard. Name calling without substance. RICHARD: The name-calling without substance came from (for example) the editorial departments of The New Yorker, The
New York Times, and The Guardian For just one instance of Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony one needs look no further than, when the National Liberation Front was trying to take control of South Vietnam, him telling a forum in New York on December 15 1967 that [quote] ‘I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this – and I think we should – we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified’. [from ‘The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?’: www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm]. The all-up ‘comparative costs’ of the political terror unleashed under the leadership of Mr. Nguyen That Thanh (aka Ho Chi
Min) – which terror Mr. Noam Chomsky rationalises as being justifiable – was of the magnitude of 1,670,000 citizens of Vietnam being murdered
by their government Do you really want to pursue the topic of which one of us has ‘complacent blinkers’ on ... or would this be an
opportune moment to do an abrupt about turn and discuss what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site It is your call.
RESPONDENT: No actualist disciples here ... no way. [quote]: ‘Q: Both Richard and I came to
this conclusion independent of each other. But we found each other ... and thank goodness that we did! Q(1): Of course you did. Q: How could we
not? Because I always thought: ‘How could we not?’. I always thought that I would go to the end of the earth to find that man – it had to be
a man, of course. I was not going to do it in a group ... and with the Masters, I would be just one of the many, many disciples ... and we would
all be doing it the same way. I thought: ‘There must be another way’. And I simply could not rest until I found it. And I found it in Richard.
I couldn’t do it by myself.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/audiotapeddialogues/theydonotlikebeingexposed.htm). RICHARD: By way of explanation: the person arbitrarily designated as ‘Q’ in that transcript is my previous
companion – my second wife – and, as I am also on record as saying I could not have done it on my own Our intimate association was the most enterprising partnership either of us could have ever wished for ... and I have written about this before. For just one instance:
To put it even more explicitly: if it were not for her you and I would not be having this discussion today ... an actual freedom from the human condition would be still yet to be discovered.
RESPONDENT: (...) Richard needs to get out more and read more widely. He could read a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off for a start. RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony is such as to easily earn him, in some quarters at least, the soubriquet wankasaurus of the century. As is his contribution to the field of linguistics for that matter ... but that is another subject. RESPONDENT: Just what I would expect from you, Richard. Name calling without substance. RICHARD: The name-calling without substance came from (for example) the editorial departments of The New Yorker, The
New York Times, and The Guardian RESPONDENT: It was your complacency we were discussing ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It was not complacency per se being discussed but [quote] ‘complacent blinkers’ [endquote] ... and there is a distinct difference between the two. RESPONDENT: ... [It was your complacency we were discussing] not Mr Chomsky’s contribution to world peace. Clumsy side track. RICHARD: Your (unsolicited) suggestion, on a mailing list specifically set-up to discuss peace and harmony, was that Richard could read ‘a little Noam Chomsky to rip his complacent blinkers off’ ... how staying with the raison d’être of this mailing list can be construed as a side-track (let alone a clumsy one) simply defies comprehension. RESPONDENT: Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions ... RICHARD: It is not a matter of whether or not I agree or disagree with anything Mr. Noam Chomsky has, or has had, to say ... it is a matter of whether or not I have ‘complacent blinkers’ on in regards what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly) for that is the article you are basing your critique upon. Viz.:
If you do not find what human beings have achieved physically, despite the human condition, to be truly amazing then the thrust of the entire article will elude you ... for instance (the last four lines):
RESPONDENT: [Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions] there is one thing that you cannot dispute about Mr Chomsky – he digs up unpalatable facts about this world that do not reflect well on those in power. He delves into freely available and reliable sources of information that very few people bother to look into. Disturbing facts about the abuse of power around the world emerge ... RICHARD: It is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. Nowhere have I been able to find Mr. Noam Chomsky addressing this, the root cause of all the ills of humankind, anywhere at all ... if you could provide a book reference, an article, a web page, or something of that ilk, it would be most appreciated. And I say this because any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges; variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change that is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on this earth, in this era. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: ... [Disturbing facts about the abuse of power around the world emerge] and you crap on about shopping ... RICHARD: What I actually talk about, in that article, is how amazing it is what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition) ... all of which seems to have passed you by. Now, I fully realise that I live in a western society – a consumer society it is belittlingly called – but even the developing countries, with assistance from the west, are usually able to feed themselves these days ... when they are not at war, that is. With this proviso in mind, it is heartening to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made this century in terms of material well-being, compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting this planet. Long gone are the days of the hunter-gatherer; days wherein the human race was at the mercy of the elements for their physical survival. Long gone are the times when humans had to eke out an animal-like existence; full bellies in a time of plenty, and starvation in a famine. Nowadays, when famine strikes one part of the world, aid in the form of basic provisions comes in from other areas experiencing plenty. In terms of the supply of goodies, I find that I am literally living in a veritable ‘Garden of Eden’. My every physical need is met with a bewildering array of abundance; it is a time of cornucopia, of which I am pleased to take full benefit as is my due ... and I am extremely happy to be here, partaking of the goods that are the result of human endeavour. RESPONDENT: ... [you crap on about shopping] with gay abandon (‘It is always a joy to come shopping, so prolific is the supply of food available to all and sundry, at a reasonable cost’) ... RICHARD: Since when has it been a crime to enjoy and appreciate what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly)? I am oft-times astonished at the lack of appreciation displayed so vehemently by peoples I meet – either face-to-face or via the internet – and articles I read about in the press. Why do the peoples of this country not realise they are well-off, luxuriating in the freedom from want? Why is there dissatisfaction, both on the faces and in the words, of my fellow human beings? Why do they have the temerity to complain when they are living in the land of plenty? Is there no way of pleasing these people? Fancy complaining about ‘having to do the shopping’ when it is such a delight to share in the benefits of human inventiveness; ingenuity in the face of the vagaries of the natural world. I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my ‘daily bread’... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works. It is truly amazing what has been achieved despite the ‘Human Folly’. RESPONDENT: ... and imply that third world countries have themselves to blame for their conditions (‘... but even the developing countries, with assistance from the west, are usually able to feed themselves these days ... when they are not at war, that is’). RICHARD: If I may suggest? Try reading what is actually written (rather than invent implications). RESPONDENT: It’s obvious that you are cocooned in an actual bubble of your own creation. RICHARD: Hmm ... and will reading what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say about the abuse of power around the world have the effect of getting me out of this actual world, then, and back into the real-world (else why write all this)? RESPONDENT: You’ve bought into media propagated power dogma ... RICHARD: Oh? It is ‘media propagated power dogma’ is it, then, which persuades me that it is amazing what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (and not the evidence of these eyes)? RESPONDENT: ... [You’ve bought into media propagated power dogma] and you claim an actual freedom. RICHARD: I do indeed report being actually free from the human condition ... maybe, just maybe, that is why accusations of having bought into media propagated power dogma (for instance) do not deter me from staying with the subject of that article ... to wit: that it is truly amazing what has been achieved despite the human condition (aka the human folly) RESPONDENT: Africa is a basket case because of exploitation from Western powers. RICHARD: Ahh ... is this an example of how reading a little of Mr. Noam Chomsky rips complacent blinkers off, perchance? RESPONDENT: You’re still well and truly in the Matrix. RICHARD: Am I to take it you are well and truly out of the ‘Matrix’ (whatever that is)? * RICHARD: (...) Do you really want to pursue the topic of which one of us has ‘complacent blinkers’ on ... or
would this be an opportune moment to do an abrupt about turn and discuss what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site RESPONDENT: Nice little rhetorical gesture, Richard, but it’s a ruse. RICHARD: It is neither rhetorical nor a gesture (let alone a ruse) ... it is, after all, what this mailing list is set-up for. RESPONDENT: I’ve tried discussing with you what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... RICHARD: I beg to differ ... your whole thrust has been to dismiss an actual freedom from the human condition on the unsubstantiated grounds that it is not new to human experience/human history (as early as only your second e-mail to this mailing list you were proposing that Ms. Byron Katie was among many such peoples already actually free). RESPONDENT: ... and you just get cut when your status as the one and only is questioned. RICHARD: And here you are again coming out with the same egocentric charges
Put succinctly: if you want to continue flogging that same old ‘one and only’ line that is your business ... all I can do is let you know here and now, up-front and out-in-the-open, that you will be wasting both your time typing it out and your bandwidth in sending it. It is your call.
RESPONDENT: No actualist disciples here ... no way. [quote]: ‘Q: Both Richard and I came to
this conclusion independent of each other. But we found each other ... and thank goodness that we did! Q(1): Of course you did. Q: How could we
not? Because I always thought: ‘How could we not?’. I always thought that I would go to the end of the earth to find that man – it had to be
a man, of course. I was not going to do it in a group ... and with the Masters, I would be just one of the many, many disciples ... and we would
all be doing it the same way. I thought: ‘There must be another way’. And I simply could not rest until I found it. And I found it in Richard.
I couldn’t do it by myself.’ (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/audiotapeddialogues/theydonotlikebeingexposed.htm). RICHARD: By way of explanation: the person arbitrarily designated as ‘Q’ in that transcript is my previous
companion – my second wife – and, as I am also on record as saying I could not have done it on my own Our intimate association was the most enterprising partnership either of us could have ever wished for ... and I have written about this before. For just one instance:
To put it even more explicitly: if it were not for her you and I would not be having this discussion today ... an actual freedom from the human condition would be still yet to be discovered. RESPONDENT: Here’s the answer to your stalled actualist efforts ... RICHARD: No, it is the answer to your ‘no actualist disciples here ... no way’ attempt to make out that the master/disciple union, so prevalent in spiritualism, also applies to actualism when it does not ... the events referred to above happened prior to the discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition and never need to be repeated. RESPONDENT: ... [Here’s the answer to your stalled actualist efforts] – you need to buddy up. RICHARD: No, there is no ‘need’ whatsoever to buddy up (aka chum up) ... the code has been cracked, once and for all, and the way now lies wide open, and wondrously so, for anybody and everybody irregardless of their marital status. RESPONDENT: There’s a burgeoning market for Actualism ... RICHARD: Due to the fellowship regard which abounds here in this actual world the exploitative entrepreneurialism, which is so endemic in spiritualism as to be well-nigh ubiquitous, has no place in actualism ... as is evidenced by the millions of words available for free on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list. For instance:
RESPONDENT: ... [There’s a burgeoning market for Actualism] – get an Actualist Life Coach ™! RICHARD: Due to the fellowship regard which abounds here in this actual world the exploitative entrepreneurialism, which is so endemic in materialism as to be well-nigh ubiquitous, has no place in actualism ... as is evidenced by the millions of words available for free on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list. For instance:
It is this simple: actualism is an entirely new paradigm – unlike spiritualism and materialism one’s fellow human beings are not treated as commodities ripe for exploitation upon an actual freedom from the human condition – and, like any new paradigm, it requires thinking outside of the box (to use a popular colloquialism).
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 |
