|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) I am chipping in here because I think Richard will play with you as a cat plays with mice. If you want a straight answer, here it is: Richard is promoting something entirely different from what you are living/ teaching ... RICHARD: And I am chipping in here because of what you think ... my very first e-mail to your co-respondent is to be
found at the following URL: Just in case you cannot access it here it is in its entirety:
If you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me playing [quote] ‘as a cat plays with mice’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) He has tried to tell you this, albeit in a teasing roundabout way ... RICHARD: My second e-mail to your co-respondent is to be found at the following URL: Just in case you cannot access it here is how it begins:
Again, if you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me trying to tell it in a [quote] ‘teasing roundabout way’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): ... He does not / will not hesitate to make a fool of you, and you are the only one who is not noticing it. RICHARD: Here is what follows the exchange already quoted just above:
Once again, if you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me not hesitating to [quote] ‘make a fool’ [endquote] of my co-respondent it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) Richard will tell you all this ... just ask him, and don’t let him toy with you. RICHARD: Here is the very next exchange which follows the exchange already quoted a little further above:
Yet again, if you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me toying with my co-respondent it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) ask Richard, he will tell you all this in no uncertain terms if you only you can get him to give it to you straight. RICHARD: Here is what follows on from that very next exchange which follows the exchange already quoted somewhat further above:
Even yet again, if you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me not giving it straight to my co-respondent it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) it is painful to see an apparently well-meaning, loving person being played for a fool, and that is what he does with you. RICHARD: Here is what follows on from that which follows on from that very next exchange which follows the exchange already quoted quite a way further above:
And yet even yet again, if you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me playing my co-respondent [quote] ‘for a fool’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated.
CO-RESPONDENT: Reported saying of the Buddha, in Bahiya Sutta: ‘Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress’. ‘Monks, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related to the Dhamma. Bahiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound’. Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed’. [endquote]. I like Buddha, because (some of) what he says has just the right mix of matter-of-fact-ness an poetry. As it all has been said so often, as I think I have found the form of life that makes the problem of life disappear, as I can only thank all the people on this list – and so many other, in fact, the whole universe – there’s nothing left to say. What a lovely holiday. RESPONDENT: Yeah, me too. When all’s said and done, it really is very simple. It’s about finding out, from experience, whatever it is one needs to know. Then it’s only a matter of being it, doing it, living it. Nice to have ‘met’ you, No 103; you sure livened things up around here! RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of the following perspicacious words (deliberately left un-attributed for reasons which may become apparent):
RESPONDENT: The way you have restructured these messages, it reads like No. 103 praising Buddha for disappearing up his own ring ... RICHARD: The text starting with the words ‘reported saying ...’ and finishing with the words ‘... end of stress’ was posted at 1:35 AM AEST Friday 7/10/2005 and 13 minutes later (at 1:48 AM on Friday 7/10/2005) the text starting with ‘Monks ...’ and ending with the words ‘... he is freed’ was added on so as to succeed that text whilst the text starting with the words ‘I like Buddha, because ...’ and ending with the words ‘... a lovely holiday’ was added on so as to precede that original text (the text starting with the words ‘reported saying ...’). Put simply: all I did, as the text starting with the words ‘I like Buddha, because ...’ was added simultaneous to the text starting with ‘Monks ...’ being added (which is the text wherein Mr. Gotama the Sakyan exclaims about scarpering off to the place where the sun don’t shine as a way of dealing with the human condition) was to re-present it in its chronological sequence. In just what way does my chronologically-sequenced re-presentation make it read like it did not already read? RESPONDENT: ... and me offering my heartfelt agreement. That is not at all what happened. To set the record straight, my ‘me too’ was a reference to the subject line ‘I’ll shut up now’ (which I thought would be obvious because all other text was stripped). RICHARD: I was well aware (for that very reason) that what you were agreeing to was the subject line ... what I was responding to was your exclamatory encouragement. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Why you would deliberately make it seem like an endorsement of Buddha’s dextrous disappearing act, which I do not endorse or aspire to emulate, is quite beyond me. RICHARD: Hmm ... what you say there exemplifies why I emphasised the words [quote] ‘When someone else says it ... not a murmur’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: (Actually, it isn’t entirely. I do take your point, but the means of making it are dodgy to say the least). RICHARD: The point I am making is your encouragement of an ex-pantheist’s (purported) livening-up of exchanges on this mailing list ... an ex-pantheist whose interest is [quote] ‘not in newness’ [endquote] and who has a demonstrated penchant for posting religio-spiritual/mystico-metaphysical quotes and links. May I ask? In what way is Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s dextrous disappearing act [quote] ‘just the right mix of *matter-of-fact-ness* an poetry’ [emphasis added] such as to not bring forth even the slightest murmur from you?
RESPONDENT: The way you have restructured these messages, it reads like No. 103 praising Buddha for disappearing up his own ring ... RICHARD: The text starting with the words ‘reported saying ...’ and finishing with the words ‘... end of stress’ was posted at 1:35 AM AEST Friday 7/10/2005 and 13 minutes later (at 1:48 AM on Friday 7/10/2005) the text starting with ‘Monks ...’ and ending with the words ‘... he is freed’ was added on so as to succeed that text whilst the text starting with the words ‘I like Buddha, because ...’ and ending with the words ‘... a lovely holiday’ was added on so as to precede that original text (the text starting with the words ‘reported saying ...’). Put simply: all I did, as the text starting with the words ‘I like Buddha, because ...’ was added simultaneous to the text starting with ‘Monks ...’ being added (which is the text wherein Mr. Gotama the Sakyan exclaims about scarpering off to the place where the sun don’t shine as a way of dealing with the human condition) was to re-present it in its chronological sequence. In just what way does my chronologically-sequenced re-presentation make it read like it did not already read? RESPONDENT: You have got to be kidding right? RICHARD: No, you averred that the way I had restructured those messages it [quote] ‘reads like No. 103 praising Buddha for disappearing up his own ring’ [endquote] so I explained, in detail, how all I did was to re-present the text of those two e-mails in the chronological sequence it was written in. RESPONDENT: You took two separate messages and then spliced them together in a format that makes it appear as if the one is a reply to the other ... RICHARD: If I might point out? The second of those two e-mails (which arrived in my mail-box 13 minutes after the first) was an add-on to the first and all I did was re-present the added-on text in the chronological sequence it was written in. Here, see for yourself:
RESPONDENT: ... and now you ask just in what way your ‘re-presentation’ makes it read like it did not already read? RICHARD: Of course I do ... my chronologically-sequenced re-presentation does *not* make it read any different to what it already read. RESPONDENT: Backtrack a sec please. Why did you find it necessary to ... uhmmm ... dick around ‘re-presenting’ and rearranging them to make it look like one was a reply to the other when you might just as easily have made your point without doing so? RICHARD: As all I did was re-present the text of two e-mails in the chronological sequence it was written in then your characterisation – ‘to spend time idly; fool around; to be sexually promiscuous’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – is entirely un-called for. I notice that you wrote the following only recently:
Quite frankly, you would be far better off not liking any of what you see, of the actualist solution in practice, as what you see sucks big-time.
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 36): (...) I am chipping in here because I think Richard will play with you as a cat plays with mice. If you want a straight answer, here it is: Richard is promoting something entirely different from what you are living/teaching ... RICHARD: And I am chipping in here because of what you think ... my very first e-mail to your co-respondent is to be found at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=905191077 Just in case you cannot access it here it is in its entirety:
If you could explain just how that up-front and out-in-the-open response of mine is me playing [quote] ‘as a cat plays with mice’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated. CO-RESPONDENT: Don’t mind me chirping in ... thankyou ... now that unnecessary formalities are out of the way ... No. 60 was spot on; instead of answering No. 36, you have answered No. 60 .... is that because you & your team of researchers are still doing the necessary research to counter No. 36’s accusations? You know: dig up old, out of context quotes in an attempt to malicely-free render her integrity/credibility null & void? Do you play cat & mouse with No. 60 &/or No. 36 because more work is required for you to have No. 36 come out a pathetic second best in this debate, if that? RICHARD: (01) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909714749 RESPONDENT: I’ve gotta say, it all sounds pretty much like ‘dicking around’ to me. It strikes me as somewhat peculiar that things that are critical of you and/or actualism tend to draw a very prompt, very thorough and doggedly persistent response (until the last line of the dialogue can read something like: good, I’m glad that has been sorted out then – or words to that effect, even if it clearly has not been sorted out at all) ... whereas, you show a good deal less persistence in finalising the matter when you and/or actualism are not directly being criticised (even if the matter is of much greater import ... as in someone being, according to you, the subject of a ‘massive delusion’, and teaching others how to become ‘massively deluded’ as well). RICHARD: (01) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912506827 (02) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912509095 (03) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912510320
RICHARD: (...) I notice that you wrote the following only recently:
Quite frankly, you would be far better off not liking any of what you see, of the actualist solution in practice, as what you see sucks big-time. RESPONDENT: Good, I am glad the matter has been sorted out now, and I appreciate you acknowledging this. I have no further questions. RICHARD: Excellent ... I will now get on with attending to some other e-mails which have been awaiting my attention all this while.
RESPONDENT: The way you have restructured these messages, it reads like No. 103 praising Buddha for disappearing up his own ring ... (...) RICHARD: As all I did was re-present the text of the two e-mails in the chronological sequence it was written in then your characterisation – ‘to spend time idly; fool around; to be sexually promiscuous’ (American Heritage® Dictionary) – is entirely un-called for. I notice that you wrote the following only recently:
Quite frankly, you would be far better off not liking any of what you see, of the actualist solution in practice, as what you see sucks big-time. RESPONDENT: Do you see a notable difference between these two statements: 1) I’ll shut up now. 2) I heartily endorse disappearing up one’s own anus as a solution to the ills of the human condition. RICHARD: I have already clearly indicated that I could right from the get-go:
The whole point of my response is your encouragement of an ex-pantheist’s (purported) livening-up of exchanges on this mailing list – an ex-pantheist whose interest is [quote] ‘not in newness’ [endquote] – and who has a demonstrated penchant for posting religio-spiritual/mystico-metaphysical quotes/ links complete with a commentary ... such as observing that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s discourse on scarpering off to the place where the sun don’t shine is [quote] ‘just the right mix of *matter-of-fact-ness* an poetry’ [emphasis added], for example, and which discourse-plus-commentary you snipped-out completely, without even the slightest murmur, so as to exclaim that your co-respondent sure livened things up on this mailing list. And, as virtually all you have been doing ever since is to tilt at every windmill that you see looming large upon the horizon, my guess is that it may very well be that both flaming and encouraging same is what you have nowadays reduced yourself to. ‘Tis only a guess, mind you.
RICHARD: I notice that you wrote the following only recently:
Quite frankly, you would be far better off not liking any of what you see, of the actualist solution in practice, as what you see sucks big-time. RESPONDENT: Do you see a notable difference between these two statements: 1) I’ll shut up now. 2) I heartily endorse disappearing up one’s own anus as a solution to the ills of the human condition. RICHARD: I have already clearly indicated that I could right from the get-go:
RESPONDENT: So ... in the messages’ original format, my words clearly meant (1), and you knew that at the time. Yet, in the way you chose to ‘re-present’ it, it implies (2), and you know that at the time, too, because you actually intended it. RICHARD: Golly, I go away from the computer for seven-eight hours or so only to come back and find you still trying to
get blood out of a stone There is no way I intended it to read that you [quote] ‘heartily endorse disappearing up one’s own anus as a solution to the ills of the human condition’ [endquote] as I was clearly making the point – as highlighted in the quoted text in that e-mail – that if Richard said a person is freed when they know what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan knows (the dimension where water, earth, fire, and wind have no footing and where the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found) you would object loud and clear yet when someone else says it there is not a murmur from you ... only an exclamatory encouragement about a (purported) livening-up of exchanges on the mailing list. Can you not comprehend by now that just because you read the following devious motive (further on in your e-mail) into my words it does not follow that what you see, as being my intention, somehow miraculously makes that seeing a fact? Viz.:
As it is preposterous
Not only to whose end but to what end (as in how on earth would it serve the very purpose of me going public in the first place were I to really resort to misrepresentations)? The entire thrust of your argument is totally absurd
RICHARD: (...) I notice that you wrote the following only recently: [Respondent]: ‘(...) I don’t like much of *what I see* of the actualist solution either, quite honestly, as it is in practice’. [emphasis added]. Quite frankly, you would be far better off not liking any of what you see, of the actualist solution in practice, as what you see sucks big-time. RESPONDENT: Good, I am glad the matter has been sorted out now, and I appreciate you acknowledging this. I have no further questions. RICHARD: Excellent ... I will now get on with attending to some other e-mails which have been awaiting my attention all this while. RESPONDENT: Oh okay. I really appreciate your defence of your reputation Richard ... RICHARD: So that is what you have been busily attacking all this while ... a will-o’-the-wisp which exists only in
the eyes of the beholders Has it not occurred to you that as reputation is dependent upon the same thing as fame is – other people’s opinions – one has to first value those opinions? Furthermore, has it not occurred to you that an identity’s opinion, no matter how well-informed, is of no significance whatsoever to a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto? Moreover, has it not occurred to you that reputation, just like fame, being dependent as it is upon the fickle nature of identities and their opinions, has no substantial worth? More to the point, has it not occurred to you that the reputation you are attacking is the reputation you ascribe? In other words, not only are you attacking your own ascription ... you are taking my words to be a defence of that (your ascription). RESPONDENT: ... you’ve done me a big favour donating your time to such a cause. RICHARD: No, you were having a dialogue with yourself – going it alone full-throttle – on that topic ... I was not there whilst it was happening. RESPONDENT: Good stuff mate. RICHARD: Hmm ... and when all else fails drop back onto the rugged appeal of ockerism (as in c’mon now, fall into line and/or do the right thing and/or wake up to yourself and/or don’t be a wanker all your life and/or you’re not god almighty you know), eh? Just because somebody happens to live/reside on the landmass known as Australia it does not necessarily make them an Aussie.
RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body back in 1981] was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious [i.e., affectively aware] of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about. RESPONDENT: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not. RESPONDENT No. 68: It does sort of give that impression. RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:
RESPONDENT: That being the case, all that would be necessary is to stay aware, stay alert to what is felt, and if one catches oneself feeling something less than <good, excellent, perfect> one could just elect to feel <good, excellent, perfect> again. Gosh. No wonder you say this method is so simple, and you wonder what all the fuss is about. RICHARD: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand ... for instance:
Or that its utter simplicity escapes them:
RESPONDENT: Speaking for myself alone now ... it does not work/has not worked that way. Why I do not know, but I would like to find out. RICHARD: Simply this: the method you have been applying is not the method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. (...) RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment. RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to [quote] ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to [quote] ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you? Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by [quote] ‘throwing a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you?
RESPONDENT: Nay. Feelings happen involuntarily ... RICHARD: You may have missed the following yesterday as it was in a post to another:
RESPONDENT: ... incidentally, Richard, how can they be ‘an hereditary occurrence’ and be of my choosing at the same time? RICHARD: You do comprehend that you are your feelings/ your feelings are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) do you not? Viz.:
And again there is a reference to how ‘almost too easy’ actualism is. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Just as a matter of interest: your own answer to that ‘screaming feedback loop’, which was such an issue for you in May-June this year (2005), has been sitting there in that October 2004 post all along. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: Richard, *IF* it is possible for anyone to feel excellent simply by choosing to feel excellent, why aren’t they? RICHARD: Why ask me (and not them)? RESPONDENT: It is not as if people through the ages have not wanted/ tried to feel good, is it? RICHARD: No ... yet mostly when I have asked others they generally come out with some variation on the hoary ‘you can’t change human nature’ adage. RESPONDENT: What was the difference between you and them? RICHARD: I am none too sure there was any difference: I was a normal person; I was born of normal parents; I had normal siblings; I had a normal upbringing; I attended a normal (state) school; I obtained a normal occupation; I had a normal wife; I had normal children ... and so on and so forth. RESPONDENT: The way you describe it, it wasn’t even that much of a struggle for you (found the secret to life inside the first three months???). RICHARD: It was inside the first few weeks, actually, of putting into action what was startlingly evident in the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which had finally provided the direction my otherwise following-the-herd way of living was singularly lacking (although there was a six-month incubation period between the PCE and the application thereof). I distinctly recall informing my then-wife at the time that I had ‘done it their way’, for 34 years and to no avail, and that it was high-time I did it my way (and when she asked what way that was I said that I did not know but that it would become progressively apparent with each step I took). RESPONDENT: So why haven’t millions of others discovered that they can feel excellent by choosing to ... RICHARD: Quite possibly – and I am not being facetious here – they were/ are waiting for someone else to do it/ show the way (for, despite many peoples huff-and-puff about leaders, there have always been pioneers, who have blazed the trails others follow, and always will be). RESPONDENT: ... unless, of course, they can’t ... RICHARD: It is not so much a case of they can not but, rather, that they will not. RESPONDENT: ... [unless, of course, they can’t] without a radical shift in their understanding of self/ world/ reality *engendering* such change? RICHARD: My experience with the peoples who have chosen to give felicity/ innocuity a go is, as a generalisation, that the necessary paradigm shift has usually been a gradual process of comprehension – not necessarily an instantaneous shift – and which paradigmatical change commences because of that choice ... and that choice mainly comes after a gestation period (which itself follows intelligent appraisal/ thoughtful consideration). And, by way of personal example, I need only point to the six-month incubation period already mentioned. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: For what it is worth: a true rebel wears their motorbike helmet (for instance) without any protest/ without any resentment whatsoever. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are right. I am wrong. This is one of those occasions when I am happy to be an ass. I am my feelings, my feelings are me. And most importantly: yes, I can choose how I feel. This is how I’m grokking it now: Experiencing myself/ thinking of myself as an entity who has feelings is indicative of being in a mildly dissociative state. The ‘normal’ state is mildly dissociative, right? RICHARD: It is indeed ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: From that mildly dissociated state, feelings are something that happen, something that I react to. The dissociated ‘I’ is indeed quite powerless to reach in and change the feeling substrate because that ‘I’ is insubstantial; it is a cluster of images/ ideals/ identifying tokens etc, whereas feelings (although not actual) constitute the real, organic, living ‘being’ itself. So a mildly dissociated person trying to change an underlying feeling state is roughly analogous to a shadow trying to exert physical force upon a real-world object. And because I am identified with the one who is trying to exert this force, and because this force is quite ineffectual, it generates frustration, and eventually exasperation and anger. RICHARD: To the point of it escalating, on occasion, into that ‘screaming feedback loop’ which was such an issue for you in May-June this year (2005), eh? RESPONDENT: (I could, and did for a while, get relief from this frustration by being further dissociated, less inclined to try to change anything, more inclined to just happily accept whatever must be). RICHARD: And that method – gaining relief by being further dissociated/ by not changing anything/ by accepting whatever must be – is, in a nutshell, the essence of the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical approach to the human condition/ the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: But if I understand that I am this whole package, the whole feeling being, as opposed to identifying with just the fragment of self who is assumed to have feelings, then choosing the way I feel is equivalent to simply OPTING TO BE A DIFFERENT WAY at this moment in time. And that is a different ball-game altogether. That is do-able. That is easy! RICHARD: It is indeed easy ... and, when the choice to give felicity/ innocuity a go becomes (via its ensuing paradigmatical change) the default position, as it were, opting to be a different way at this moment is then as simple as letting go of whatever other way of being may have inadvertently crept in under the radar, so to speak, and !Hey Presto! happiness/ harmlessness appears of its own accord. And that happiness/ harmlessness readily enables a straight-forward sussing out of where, when, how, why – and what for – that other way of being came about. RESPONDENT: Instead of paying attention to feelings, trying to somehow induce (or allow or facilitate) felicitous ones and avoid other ones, I can just choose to BE different in the way I approach the living of this moment. IOW, feeling-as-‘me’ and ‘me’-as-feeling are not passive and helpless like they are in a dissociative state. A feeling being isn’t powerless to influence itself, but a dissociated fragment thereof is quite powerless. RICHARD: Sometimes to the point of being so powerless that submission/ surrender becomes the only option. RESPONDENT: In practical terms this insight is only about 40 minutes old, so I’m not totally sure about all the details ... and I hope I’ve expressed it in a way that is comprehensible. I would appreciate some feedback here because if this is roughly how it works, and it seems to be so far, it would explain a lot. Any comments welcome. RICHARD: Just this: seeing the fact (that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’/ that it is ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment) enables sincerity, as to be in accord with the fact/ being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity is what being sincere is (being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous), and to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté ... an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, which one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton. Yet without naiveté – the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Nine) 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 |
