|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 60
(...) RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:
And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:
Finally, here is my response to that reply:
If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. RESPONDENT: If you are not amenable to the explanations, nobody can ever explain. RICHARD: I am clearly referring to you about your explanation – or rather the marked absence of same – and your futile attempt to shift the focus off yourself by recourse to a generalisation about peoples in general regarding a hypothetical lack of amenability is both a waste of your time typing it out and the bandwidth used to send it. I will say it again: if you cannot explain it – that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – in the January 2004 exchange you cited it never happened. It is your call. RESPONDENT: My ‘call’ is that you are talking in pixels ... RICHARD: I am referring to the text of mine reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper. RESPONDENT: ... No. 87 and I are talking in pictures. RICHARD: As I do not send [quote] ‘pictures’ [endquote] then what you and your contemporary identity see, when my as-in-print words appear on your respective monitors, has nowt to do with what I type out. RESPONDENT: You can’t see the picture by looking at the individual pixels. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try looking at the as-in-print words rather than the pixels (or ink-dots were they printed-out) themselves. RESPONDENT: To see the truth of this situation you have to be able to see the larger pattern, and if you can see that you’ll see it being instantiated again and again. RICHARD: At this stage all I am asking for is your explanation as to how the as-in-print words, in that January 2004 exchange you cited, is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets. RESPONDENT: You could take a stab at any piece of your archived correspondence at random, and the chances are you’ll find an instance of that pattern ... RICHARD: That January 2004 exchange you cited as being [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – will do just fine for now (else why cite it). RESPONDENT: ... and fail to recognise it. RICHARD: Could that possibly be, perchance, simply because no such picture/pattern has any existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility? RESPONDENT: So be it, Richard. RICHARD: That does not have to be it at all ... if you were to explain how that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets, in the January 2004 exchange you cited as being a [quote] ‘particularly shitful episode’ [endquote], without resorting to vague generalities about pixels/ pictures and individual pixels/ a larger pattern you will know, once and for all, whether or not Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation. RESPONDENT: There is apparently nothing I or anyone else can do about that. RICHARD: There is indeed something you (never mind anyone else for now) can do about that: all it takes is for you to explain how that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote], as what my co-respondent interprets, in the January 2004 exchange you cited (else why cite it). RESPONDENT: Since you’re repeating yourself now ... RICHARD: I only repeated myself because instead of sending a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, by return mail you futilely attempted to shift the focus off yourself by recourse to a generalisation about peoples in general regarding a hypothetical lack of amenability. RESPONDENT: ... allow me to repeat myself also: if you can’t already see it, you never will. RICHARD: In which case I will also repeat myself: if you cannot explain it – that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – in the January 2004 exchange you cited it never happened. It is still your call.
(...) RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:
And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:
Finally, here is my response to that reply:
If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: If you can’t see it already, you never will. RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened. RESPONDENT: If you are not amenable to the explanations, nobody can ever explain. RICHARD: I am clearly referring to you about your explanation – or rather the marked absence of same – and your futile attempt to shift the focus off yourself by recourse to a generalisation about peoples in general regarding a hypothetical lack of amenability is both a waste of your time typing it out and the bandwidth used to send it. I will say it again: if you cannot explain it – that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – in the January 2004 exchange you cited it never happened. It is your call. RESPONDENT: My ‘call’ is that you are talking in pixels ... RICHARD: I am referring to the text of mine reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper. RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do? RICHARD: He corrects your misrepresentation, of course, as he is not [quote] ‘talking in pixels’ [endquote] but is clearly referring to the text of his, reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper, which exchange you characterised as being [quote] ‘a particularly shitful episode’ [endquote] ... presumably because of the picture you see (in lieu of taking my words at face value). RESPONDENT: Goes straight to the ‘pixels’ again. RICHARD: Golly ... next you will be telling me that I speak in sound waves RESPONDENT: Nice demonstration of a pure intent not to understand. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I took particular note of what you had to say in your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: ... No. 87 and I are talking in pictures. RICHARD: As I do not send [quote] ‘pictures’ [endquote] then what you and your contemporary identity see, when my as-in-print words appear on your respective monitors, has nowt to do with what I type out. RESPONDENT: You can’t see the picture by looking at the individual pixels. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try looking at the as-in-print words rather than the pixels (or ink-dots were they printed-out) themselves. RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do ... he goes straight to the pixels again. RICHARD: That is just preposterousness masquerading as an explanation: I clearly and unambiguously say look at the words rather than the pixels ... and, so as to forestall an obvious rejoinder, I will re-post the following:
RESPONDENT: You can squint at the dots all you like ... RICHARD: I neither squint nor look at dots ... I look at what the words, when taken literally, actually convey. RESPONDENT: ... you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing ... RICHARD: I am looking at the words I wrote (the identical words I speak when communicating with my fellow human being in-person) in the exchange you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... and the thing you are seeing has no existence outside of your intuitive/imaginative facility. RESPONDENT: ... [you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing,] and No. 87’s seeing, and lord knows how many have seen before us. RICHARD: Do you really expect a person sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto – which includes its intuitive/ imaginative facility – to be able to see the picture you, your contemporary identity, and some unnamed/ uncounted other identities, see (instead of taking my words at face value)? RESPONDENT: The way you’re approaching this is silly. RICHARD: The way I am approaching this is to ask for your explanation as to how the as-in-print words,
in that January 2004 exchange you cited, is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... if to
ask you to explain, with a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, is a
[quote] ‘silly’ [endquote] approach then obviously sensible, rational, down-to-earth discussion is not a feature in your
current game of ego RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.
(...) RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated. CO-RESPONDENT: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent), No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc. He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer. And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being. RESPONDENT: That’s it in a nutshell. RICHARD: Just in case you had not noticed: the person who started the flame war you are conducting has left the building (like all good flamers do once the desired effect is set in motion). Viz.:
RESPONDENT (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957). (...) RICHARD: Just in case you had not noticed: the person who started the flame war you are conducting has left the building (like all good flamers do once the desired effect is set in motion). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: For my part this is not a flame war. RICHARD: It has all the hallmarks of one (as in unsubstantiated/ unsustainable allegations/ accusations, repeated by rote, along with unsubstantiated/ unsustainable support from the sidelines for instance). RESPONDENT: I did (and do) agree with what No. 87 said about your communication style ... RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding:
In other words, you did (and do) agree that Richard is not free from the human condition at all (either actually or virtually)? RESPONDENT: ... based on long experience and observation. RICHARD: Well now ... here is your opportunity to give the person concerned the benefit of your long experience and observation: please explain how any of any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004). RESPONDENT: What you do with that information is up to you. RICHARD: What I do with that information is, of course, to ask you to explain how any of any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004). RESPONDENT: As for this bunch of malcontents hanging out together for mutual security as they take pot-shots at Richard out of pure perversity and spite ... RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to the following:
That was posted a scant 1 hour and 51 minutes before this e-mail of yours was posted yet already, in that remarkably short period, ‘mutual support’ has changed into ‘mutual security’ and (and this is a big ‘and’, by the way, as in quite indicative) a mix of ‘pure perversity and spite’ has been gratuitously added. Is that a real-life demonstration of your uncanny ability to see the big picture ... or did you write privately to each and every one of those denizens of the peanut-gallery, in that 1 hour and 51 minute period, and ask just what exactly is motivating them? RESPONDENT: ... why not see it as several people who independently see you in pretty much the same light ... RICHARD: Ha ... just what is the point of taking any notice of what purely perverse and spiteful people see? RESPONDENT: ... based on what we’ve observed and experienced over the months or years? RICHARD: If you could explain, with a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, just what you and several people have observed and experienced it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: I never suggested there was any novelty in what I am saying ... RICHARD: I never suggested that what you were saying is novel ... on the contrary, I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for a quarter of a century now and have had that particularly insidious argument of yours (that the devil is not in the detail) presented to me on many an occasion. RESPONDENT: ... and I’m not at all surprised if/that people have been saying similar things to you for 25 years or more. RICHARD: Oh, it has not only been said to me: it is an argument which has been used by many a person over many a year (currently getting a re-run under the nom de guerre ‘seeing holistically’). RESPONDENT: What I wonder, though, is whether you have ever taken /their/ words at face value ... RICHARD: I have most certainly taken their words at face value (just as I do with anyone’s words) and still do: wherever someone – anyone – explicitly states that their words refer to, for example, what I [quote] ‘seemed’ [endquote] to be doing with my communication and/or to what they [quote] ‘saw’ [endquote] and/or to the [quote] ‘impressions’ [endquote] they had and/or to what they [quote] ‘infer’ [endquote] from, and/or [quote] ‘read into’ [endquote], my words I take them literally (as in them meaning what they said and saying what they meant). For instance: as my previous co-respondent (the one who has left the building) explicitly stated, and more than just a few times at that, that what they were referring to was their interpretations of what my words actually convey I, of course, took their words at their face value (as being just that) and never took them to be referring to facts and actuality. Indeed that co-respondent repeatedly re-posted their initial assertion that subjective interpretations is [quote] ‘all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise’ [endquote] – for them, for me, for you, and for each and every person either living or dead – and I took those words at their face value too (as in them meaning what they are saying and saying what they mean). RESPONDENT: ... and wondered whether you might have a blind spot? RICHARD: As what you are asking is if I have ever wondered whether that which others see in my words/
infer from my words/ read into my words/ interpret from my words – the impressions they have as to what I seem to be doing –
has any validity over the facts and actuality of my 13+ years, night and day, of being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity
in toto (which includes its intuitive/ imaginative facility) such as to have me go trotting off to some duly qualified
professional and be tested for anosognosia I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly.
CO-RESPONDENT: ... in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being. (...) RICHARD: Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in. RESPONDENT: I happen to know that No. 74 appreciates all of this. RICHARD: How on earth can someone – anyone – appreciate the words and writings spoken and written
by a prick RESPONDENT: Why are you so resistant to feedback regarding the *way* you try to help people? RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? By my count I have asked you to explain just what that way is, which you are referring to, seven times in the preceding thirty-six hours ... but to no avail. RESPONDENT: If you give this some consideration, is it not clear that *we* are the experts in how your modus operandi affects ordinary people, and we are the ones who can give you valuable feedback on that. RICHARD: I did not need to give it any consideration: I immediately provided the URL to my response to your take on what you characterised as [quote] ‘a particularly shitful episode’ [endquote] in January 2004, and the URL to what your co-respondent was replying to, plus the URL my response to that reply, and asked you to explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interpreted – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) ... but to no avail. What is particularly telling is that the e-mail at that URL you provided included no text of mine at all – none whatsoever – but instead contained only the words of two identities rabbiting on about what they felt/ intuited/ imagined my words to be conveying. Viz.: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957 Here is a particularly useful word-of-the-day for you:
RESPONDENT: But you don’t seem to want that. RICHARD: In light of my repeated requests for said feedback that is simply a preposterous statement ... but do go on because this latest character assassination attempt of yours has become quite fascinating the more it unfolds. RESPONDENT: You seem to want to deny that there’s anything less than perfect in your current way of doing things ... RICHARD: And you derive that seeming from ... from what? Certainly not from my repeated requests for such a simple thing as a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer with reference to the text in question. RESPONDENT: ... whereas from my/our perspective there is plenty that could be improved ... RICHARD: So you say ... getting you to divulge just what that is which you see from that perspective is another thing entirely, though. RESPONDENT: ... plenty of unnecessary crap that could be avoided ... RICHARD: I do understand that to be what you see ... what I do not understand (although by now I can make an educated guess) is why you will not spell it out. RESPONDENT: ... if you did not behave in a manner that needlessly alienates people. (And you do). RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that unless/until the substance for what you assert gets typed out it remains just that (an unsubstantiated assertion)? RESPONDENT: If you are at all amenable to suggestions on that level, I have a few. RICHARD: If I might point out? You have already used-up that argument:
RESPONDENT: Somehow I don’t think you will be though. RICHARD: And you think that because ... because what? Certainly not because of my repeated requests for such a simple thing as a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer with reference to the text in question. RESPONDENT: It’s your call now. RICHARD: It is no such thing ... it has been your (unsubstantiated/ unsustainable) call all along and, as you are the one who made it, you are the one who gets to live with it.
RESPONDENT: I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc. Never have. I do think it would be possible to do all of that in a friendly and peaceful way though. I think the impression I have of him being a ‘prick’ in his interactions with his fellow humans is separate/different from all of that ... RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you think your impression of Richard being an
unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating, ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean and/or an
inadequate and/or a spiteful person RESPONDENT: ... but will keep my eyes/ears open to see if I’m wrong. RICHARD: Good ... because just how being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, and so on and so forth, in a non-friendly and non-peaceful way can be all that separate/ different from being an unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating, ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean and/or an inadequate and/or a spiteful person has got me beat. RESPONDENT: Maybe it is, after all, the whole actualist paradigm that is wrong in my eyes, and Richard embodies it. RICHARD: Have you ever heard the colloquialism ‘either poop or get off the pot’? And the reason I
ask is because you get (metaphorically) all red in the face about a lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) experience you have had –
as contrasted to me writing directly from my 13+ years of experiencing, night and day, of what a pure consciousness experience
(PCE) evidences – and pooh-pooh what I have to report/ describe/ explain (as in your ‘the whole actualist paradigm is wrong in
my eyes’ phrasing) as if a potential way of living, replete with [quote] ‘psychic adumbrations of a personal and transpersonal
quality’ [endquote] as a matter of course RESPONDENT: But the way it seems at the moment is that Richard does indeed act like a prick, whether his discovery is what it seems to be or not. RICHARD: For what it is worth, my previous companion also went about bad-mouthing both me and actualism after she changed direction completely (so much so that I went to some considerable endeavour and expense to get at least some of that blackguarding into print both for the benefit of others and the sake of posterity) as if painting something black (the PCE) would somehow makes the substitute (the ASC) look white by comparison. Is there any chance you will now be devoting an equal number, and length, of e-mails to painting your LSD experience black (they are your pictures you are busily painting, dot by dot/ pixel by pixel and each complete with carrot/ donkey, when all is said and done)? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you may or may not find this interesting. This is Alan Watts describing an LSD experience: [begin quote] ‘(...) But the strange part of this apparent sensation of my own senses was that I did not appear to be inspecting them from outside or from a distance, as if they were /objects/. I can say only that the awareness of grain or structure in the senses seemed to be awareness of awareness, of myself from inside myself. Because of this, it followed that the distance or separation between myself and my senses, on the one hand, and the external world, on the other, seemed to disappear. I was no longer a detached observer, a little man inside my own head, /having/ sensations. I was the sensations, so much so that there was nothing left of me, the observing ego, except the series of sensations which happened -- not to me, but just happened -- moment by moment, one after another. To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. [end quote]. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? RICHARD: Why does it sound awfully familiar to you? RESPONDENT: I wonder if this is a case of cryptomnesia, or whether you have consciously and deliberately used almost identical words because you found them so appropriate. RICHARD: Where have I used almost identical words? RESPONDENT: The latter seems a bit unlikely to me because I also recall you saying you had read numerous accounts of LSD experiences, but none of them seemed to match your experience. RICHARD: You must be referring to this:
A quick search of the internet showed that the quote you provided comes from an essay, in ‘This is It and Other Essays on Zen and Spiritual Experience’, entitled ‘The New Alchemy’ and goes on to say, immediately after where you ended it, the following:
That polarity of subject/ object, knower/ known, feeler/ feeling, experiencer/ experience is an unmistakable description of mystical experiencing wherein the polar opposites unite (aka non-duality) – known in some mystical literature as ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites) ‘or coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites) – and thus shows that my counselling of very careful and considered use of psychotropic substances is a well-advised monition. Here in this actual world neither duality nor non-duality have any existence.
RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): What matters to me is not whether I (or you [No. 66], or anyone else) appear foolish in dialogue with Richard. What I’m interested in is why he does what he does, per example [below]. Meaning that ... Richard made his valid point in the first paragraph ... Here:
But then he chose to go on and put the boot in ... thus:
And I’d like to simply know why? Why would someone who has no malice would choose to do that, when it was not at all necessary for or related to the point he was making in refutation of being a ‘prick’. (Indeed, one might argue that it refutes his refutation). RICHARD: As I have sent off my response to your initial e-mail (twice now) – the first at 1:07 PM today (Wed 15/02/2006) and a duplicate copy at 4:00 PM – I would suggest you cease shooting from the lip until it arrives after its sojourn in whatever cyber-space pipeline it is currently caught-up in. Suffice is it to say for now that the valid point I made in my first paragraph was in response to my first
co-respondent’s impression; I did not put the boot in with the succinct point I made to my second co-respondent; I was not
making a refutation of allegedly being an unpleasant or despicable and/or a stupid or contemptible and/or an irritating,
ridiculous or disagreeable and/or a mean and/or an inadequate and/or a spiteful person (I was specifically referring to the cheap
shot one-liner about saviourhood/ martyrdom); your latest arraignment against that phantom ‘Richard’, who has no existence
outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility, is based solely upon what seems to be so/ what is apparently so to you
RICHARD: As I have sent off my response to your initial e-mail (twice now) – the first at 1:07 PM today (Wed 15/02/2006) and a duplicate copy at 4:00 PM – I would suggest you cease shooting from the lip until it arrives after its sojourn in whatever cyber-space pipeline it is currently caught-up in. RESPONDENT : It’s still there ... so while we’re waiting for it to free itself, allow me to ask a few questions that can be easily answered with a series of simple yes-es or no-s at the top of the message: When you said ‘Put succinctly: you would have to take your snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so’ ... 1. Did you intend to hurt, embarrass or otherwise discomfit No. 107 in any way whatsoever? RICHARD: I will send another duplicate copy then – maybe it will arrive sooner than the other two – and whilst I am at it I might as well also send a duplicate copy of the ‘Re: Cryptomnesia’ response I sent at 4:30 PM AEDST yesterday (Wednesday 15/02/2006) as it has not yet arrived, either. Suffice is it to say for now that hurting/ embarrassing or in any other way discomforting my fellow human being is not (and never has been nor ever will be) my intention and of course I care whether or not they choose to have my words bring about such an effect ... if I did not care about how my fellow human being experiences this moment of being alive (the only moment they are ever actually alive) neither The Actual Freedom Trust website nor The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would exist in the first place. Here are a couple of questions for you: 1. Do you intend to continue reading into my words things which are simply not there? 2. Do you not care about continuing to feel foolish Perhaps seeing the same or similar in action elsewhere might do the trick ... a classic example can be found
at the following URL’s:
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 74): Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’
[endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the
case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist? I am retired and on a
pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day,
year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification,
denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing,
backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so
on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings
pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible
totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come
anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my
declining years in. CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, if you ever need help getting that last nail in, don’t you be a martyr now, just ask! RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your alacrity (within 34 minutes flat) in providing a real-life
verification, with this latest cheap shot of yours, that I am not mistaken about often being the recipient of derision,
disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, and so on and so forth, the whole point of my response is to bring to
attention something far more indicative, and reliably so as well, of character/ disposition than prone-to-error impressions and/or
erroneous conclusions gleaned from reading into my words things which are simply not there ... to wit: that were it to actually be
the case that Richard was [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], both The Actual
Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist. Put succinctly: you would have to take your
snappy one-liners elsewhere, in order to make a fool of yourself in public with, if that were indeed so. RESPONDENT: If I may ask, Richard? What is it about an actual freedom from the human condition that makes you attempt to humiliate your correspondent (unnecessarily/ gratuitously) after making your point? RICHARD: As there is no text written by me whatsoever – no words of mine at all – after the point
I am making for my co-respondent to mull over if they be so inclined (that they would have to take their snappy one-liners
elsewhere in order to make a fool of themself in public with if what both you and your erstwhile interlocutor read into my words
RESPONDENT: Richard, you may or may not find this interesting. This is Alan Watts describing an LSD experience: [begin quote] ‘(...) But the strange part of this apparent sensation of my own senses was that I did not appear to be inspecting them from outside or from a distance, as if they were /objects/. I can say only that the awareness of grain or structure in the senses seemed to be awareness of awareness, of myself from inside myself. Because of this, it followed that the distance or separation between myself and my senses, on the one hand, and the external world, on the other, seemed to disappear. I was no longer a detached observer, a little man inside my own head, /having/ sensations. I was the sensations, so much so that there was nothing left of me, the observing ego, except the series of sensations which happened – not to me, but just happened – moment by moment, one after another. To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release’. [end quote]. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? RICHARD: Why does it sound awfully familiar to you? RESPONDENT: Why wouldn’t it? RICHARD: Just for starters ... because Mr. Alan Watts is describing a spiritual experience (the above quote you provided comes from an essay in ‘This is It and Other Essays on Zen and Spiritual Experience’) and clearly refers to the awareness of grain or structure in the senses as being an awareness of [quote] ‘myself from *inside* myself’ [emphasis added] which, in concert with his report of it being the ego which there was nothing left of, leaves no doubt whatsoever as to what the nature of the remaining, and non-detached observer, is. In short: the feeler. In some detail: ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – and most certainly not the flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto). RESPONDENT: Doesn’t it to you??? RICHARD: Given that [quote] ‘awfully’ [endquote] is a colloquial way of saying ‘exceedingly; very much’ (Oxford Dictionary) then ... no. * RESPONDENT: I wonder if this is a case of cryptomnesia, or whether you have consciously and deliberately used almost identical words because you found them so appropriate. RICHARD: Where have I used almost identical words? RESPONDENT: Here’s one instance: From www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-ramana.htm ... RICHARD: As discussing my words in absentia is an exercise in futility I appreciate that you have provided the text of mine you are referring to this time around. RESPONDENT: Let’s compare: Alan Watts: ‘the distance or separation between myself and my senses, on the one
hand, and the external world, on the other, seemed to disappear’ RICHARD: Here is the full version (with the sections you selected highlighted for convenience):
And the reason why I provide the full version is because Mr. Alan Watts clearly reports that it is [quote] ‘because’ [endquote] of the awareness of himself, from inside himself, that the distance or separation (between himself and his senses, on the one hand, and the external world, on the other) seemed to disappear ... as contrasted my report that it is [quote] ‘with’ [endquote] the end of both ‘I’ and ‘me’ that the distance or separation (between both ‘I’ and ‘me’ and these sense organs and thus the external world) disappears. In other words, with no identity whatsoever there is no-one to be either in a state of separation (aka duality) or in a state of union (aka non-duality). RESPONDENT: [Let’s compare]: Alan Watts: ‘I was no longer a detached observer, a little man inside my own head
...’ RICHARD: Again here is my full version (with the section you selected highlighted for convenience):
Again the reason why I provide the full version is because to be living *as* the senses (as a flesh and blood body only) is a vast cry from a remaining, and non-detached observer, having *become* the sensations (as in having identified with and/or having arrogated them). RESPONDENT: [Let’s compare]: Alan Watts: ‘ ... /having/ sensations. I was the sensations’ RICHARD: And again here is the full version (with the sections you selected highlighted for convenience):
And again the reason why I provide the full version is because of the marked distinction between an egoless observer/ feeler/ experiencer (aka identity) having become the sensations and a flesh and blood body only being the very senses. RESPONDENT: [Let’s compare]: Alan Watts: ‘[I was the sensations], so much so that there was nothing left of me,
the observing ego, except the series of sensations which happened – not to me, but just happened – moment by moment, one after
another’ RICHARD: And yet again here is my full version (with the section you selected highlighted for convenience):
And yet again the reason why I provide the full version is because of the remarkable difference betwixt a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty (and thus identity in toto) and an identity, replete with the full suite of emotions/ passions/ calentures it is comprised of, having identified with and/or having arrogated bodily sensations. RESPONDENT: [Let’s compare]: Alan Watts: ‘To become the sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the
most astonishing sense of freedom and release’ RICHARD: Here is what I go on to say immediately following:
And here is what Mr. Alan Watts goes on to say immediately following:
(...) RICHARD: That polarity of subject/ object, knower/ known, feeler/ feeling, experiencer/ experience is an unmistakable description of mystical experiencing wherein the polar opposites unite (aka non-duality) – known in some mystical literature as ‘complexio oppositorum’ (union of opposites) ‘or coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites) – and thus shows that my counselling of very careful and considered use of psychotropic substances is a well-advised monition. Here in this actual world neither duality nor non-duality have any existence. RESPONDENT: I agree that there are differences, psychic adumbrations, in Watts’ description RICHARD: As I never used the term [quote] ‘psychic adumbrations’ [endquote] anywhere at all in this e-mail you are responding to one thing is for sure ... it is not me you are agreeing with. RESPONDENT: I was, and am, struck by the almost identical theme ... RICHARD: If I might interject? What [quote] ‘almost identical’ [endquote] theme are you referring to? If nothing else did the words [quote] ‘*feeler* and feeling’ [emphasis added] not stand out like an outhouse in the arid region when you read them? RESPONDENT: ... and phrasing in the selected passages, and wonder whether you were aware of having virtually duplicated (word for word in parts) what Watts wrote all those years ago, or whether you did it without being aware of it. RICHARD: The quote of mine you provided is from an on-line version of what I wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’ circa 1995-97 ... and, by way of explanation, I will first draw your attention to the following:
What would have happened is that somewhen prior to stringing-together the ad hoc collection of undated jotted notes and scraps of writings into becoming some of the miscellaneous articles eventually published under the title ‘Richard’s Journal’ I must have come across the text in question and made an (un-referenced/ un-attributed) note of it in the midst of myriads of other notes of mine ... because not having a photographic memory there is no way it could have been cryptomnesia and/or unconscious plagiarism. Just so there is no misunderstanding regarding your original query (about a found appropriateness): for there to be [quote] ‘psychic adumbrations’ [endquote] there must, perforce, be a psyche ... and where there is a psyche there is an identity (albeit aware of itself, from inside itself, as having become the sensations). Put succinctly: an egoless identity is still an identity, nevertheless (replete with the full suite of emotions/ passions/ calentures it is comprised of).
CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (Part Eleven) 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 |
