|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 70
RESPONDENT No 44: Dear friends, usually you are answering to emails by using dictionary and scientific definitions. Why shall then we must not accept the scientific definition that Richard is suffering from many mental deceases like unhidonia etc? When is convenient to you, you are using scientific definitions then why you are not accept the scientific definitions that Richard is seek? RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word ‘unhidonia’ into a search engine and nowhere on the internet did it score a hit ... as you have entitled this e-mail ‘One Question From Greece’ (and have previously said you live on the Greek island of Corfu) it is reasonable to assume that Greek is your native language. Therefore, if you could provide the ‘scientific definition’ of the word ‘unhidonia’ from the Greek medical texts then maybe the nature of your question will become clear. RESPONDENT: I don’t know why No 44 misspelled it but he obviously meant ‘anhedonia’, a word used often on the website. Richard either could not or would not recognise this. Once this was cleared up, Richard still did not answer No 44’s question. RICHARD: The way e-mail exchanges operate goes like this:
... and so on, and so on, until one or the other of the parties cease to respond (for whatever reason). If you could provide a copy of reply No. 3 in the above e-mail exchange, just like you provided a copy of reply No. 2, I would be only too happy to continue the exchange. RESPONDENT: Boring, n’est ce pas? RICHARD: If you could provide the [quote] ‘scientific definition’ [endquote] of the word ‘anhedonia’ from the English medical texts then maybe the nature of your boredom will become clear.
RESPONDENT No 44: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old? My kindly asking was Can you make one overview [one abridgement in sort of your invention so we don’t have to read all these actual freedom sites and correspondences]? Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter. RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/ describe/ explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me. You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old. In short: he was ripe and ready for something new. RESPONDENT No 44: Can you do it once more? RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)? RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you want Respondent No 44 to be Peter? RICHARD: Presuming that you mean why I am asking my co-respondent whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – the answer is quite simple: they would be ripe and ready for something new ... rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old. In case you missed the import of ‘listen with both ears/ listen afresh RESPONDENT: Are you trying to create actualist clones? RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are wanting to know: my co-respondent asked me to explain to them that which I have already reported/ described/ explained, both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, just as I had done with Peter and Vineeto before both the web site and the mailing list existed ... only in an abridgement/ overview format (a précis, or a synopsis, in other words) this time around instead of the fully-fleshed report/ description/ explanation Peter and, later, Vineeto were regaled with. So I described how Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to the exact same thing I had reported/ described/ explained to others before him – that which is nowadays available for all to read free of charge on both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (a précis of which is also available for all to read free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) – and enquired, when asked by my co-respondent whether I could do that exact same thing again with them, whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old ... and because of this query of mine you want to know whether I am trying to create actualist clones. Am I understanding you correctly?
RESPONDENT No 44: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old? My kindly asking was Can you make one overview [one abridgement in sort of your invention so we don’t have to read all these actual freedom sites and correspondences]? Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter. RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/describe/explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me. You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old. In short: he was ripe and ready for something new. RESPONDENT No 44: Can you do it once more? RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)? RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you want Respondent No 44 to be Peter? RICHARD: Presuming that you mean why I am asking my co-respondent whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... RESPONDENT: No, you presume wrong. RICHARD: Okay ... not being a mind-reader I cannot know, of course, what another’s intentions are when they type out a query. RESPONDENT: Read with both eyes, Richard, and there will be no need for you to presume. RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that assurance is worth to you, I am not one-eyed RESPONDENT: You asked Respondent No 44 if he could be another Peter. I asked you why you why you wanted Respondent No 44 to be Peter. RICHARD: Hence my presumption (that you had inadvertently left out the word ‘another’ in your response) as to presume otherwise (that you had deliberately left out the word ‘another’ in your response) would be to presume deviousness. RESPONDENT: You presumed that I meant something other than what I had clearly written. Why? RICHARD: Mainly because you are writing under the name ‘Respondent’ and not ‘Richard Cranium’. * RESPONDENT: Are you trying to create actualist clones? RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are wanting to know: my co-respondent asked me to explain to them that which I have already reported/ described/ explained, both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, just as I had done with Peter and Vineeto before both the web site and the mailing list existed ... only in an abridgement/ overview format (a précis, or a synopsis, in other words) this time around instead of the fully-fleshed report/ description/ explanation Peter and, later, Vineeto were regaled with. So I described how Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to the exact same thing I had reported/ described/ explained to others before him – that which is nowadays available for all to read free of charge on both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (a précis of which is also available for all to read free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) – and enquired, when asked by my co-respondent whether I could do that exact same thing again with them, whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old ... and because of this query of mine you want to know whether I am trying to create actualist clones. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: No. I am using on you the technique that you use on others, namely: (i) snip a post in order to remove context (ii) read the residue out of context and give it a meaning that was clearly not intended by the original writer, often replacing the original figurative meaning with a literal one (iii) respond to the changed meaning that was never there in the first place. RICHARD: First: I never, ever snip a post ‘in order’ to remove context ... you are presuming that such deviousness is the reason why I would snip a post. Second: I never, ever read the residue of a snipped post ‘out of context’ ... you are presuming that I read a post in such a devious manner. Third: as I never, ever arrive at ‘the changed meaning’ resulting from steps No. 1 and No. 2 I never, ever have such a meaning to respond to ... you are presuming that the deviously-derived meaning is what I have to respond to. RESPONDENT: Pointless waste of time, isn’t it? RICHARD: As I do not do what you presume I do your query is a non-sequitur.
RESPONDENT No 44: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old? My kindly asking was Can you make one overview [one abridgement in sort of your invention so we don’t have to read all these actual freedom sites and correspondences]? Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter. RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/ describe/ explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me. You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old. In short: he was ripe and ready for something new. RESPONDENT No 44: Can you do it once more? RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)? RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you want Respondent No 44 to be Peter? RICHARD: Presuming that you mean why I am asking my co-respondent whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... RESPONDENT: No, you presume wrong. RICHARD: Okay ... not being a mind-reader I cannot know, of course, what another’s intentions are when they type out a query. RESPONDENT: You did not presume as to my intention. RICHARD: Hmm ... as the word ‘mean’ – ‘have as one’s purpose or intention, have in mind’ (Oxford Dictionary) – comes from the Old English/ Old Saxon ‘menian’ (‘intend’, make known’) you are but digging yourself deeper into a hole of your own making by persisting with this approach. RESPONDENT: You presumed as to my meaning, (‘Presuming that you mean ...’) which was actually quite clear if you had simply read what I wrote. RICHARD: When I read what you wrote I presumed you had inadvertently left out the word ‘another’ in your response as to presume otherwise (that you had deliberately left out the word ‘another’ in your response) would be to presume deviousness. Obviously I presumed incorrectly. * RESPONDENT: Read with both eyes, Richard, and there will be no need for you to presume. RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that assurance is worth to you, I am not one-eyed (‘narrow in outlook; prejudiced, narrow-minded’). RESPONDENT: I was simply using a metaphor which you have used in the past to mean ‘reading closely and clearly’ or ‘reading what is actually there, all of what is there, and nothing that is not there’. RICHARD: Where I use the phrase ‘read with both eyes open’ I am meaning it as an antidote to being one-eyed ... and I have been unable to find either of the meanings you quote (above) anywhere. Maybe this is the metaphor you are referring to:
RESPONDENT: (Just one example of many, Richard May 08, 2004 14:31 PDT ‘Re: A Second Question’ <snip> Richard replying to Respondent No 67 about previous correspondence with Respondent No 44: ‘If you had read the response I gave to my co-respondent with both eyes open you would have seen that I never implied anything of the sort ... that implication is what you make of it’). Now you pretend not to know what I mean in using a metaphor that I picked up from you in the first place ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Are you suggesting that, by the phrase ‘reading with both eyes open’, I am really meaning ‘reading closely and clearly’ or ‘reading what is actually there, all of what is there, and nothing that is not there’ ... and not what I say I mean by it? The above quote of mine would look like this under your meaning:
Or:
Instead of this:
In short: my co-respondent, having already stated that they were ‘specifically trained’ in a buddhistic way of comprehension, was patently prejudiced (or indeed narrow in outlook/ narrow-minded) about the topic being discussed ... to wit: their inferred implication, from my use of the term pure consciousness experience (PCE), that consciousness exists on its own side as a constant could only be the outcome of a one-eyed reading of what I have to report/ describe/ explain. Here is an instance of where I have used the ‘one-eyed’ meaning to a particular effect:
This is such fun, eh? RESPONDENT: ... and you think that I am saying that you are ‘narrow in outlook; prejudiced, narrow-minded’. Why are you doing this? RICHARD: Perhaps if you could provide the source of your quoted meanings of the phrase (further above) it would throw some light upon this issue? * RESPONDENT: You asked Respondent No 44 if he could be another Peter. I asked you why you why you wanted Respondent No 44 to be Peter. RICHARD: Hence my presumption (that you had inadvertently left out the word ‘another’ in your response) as to presume otherwise (that you had deliberately left out the word ‘another’ in your response) would be to presume deviousness. RESPONDENT: You presumed that I meant something other than what I had clearly written. Why? RICHARD: Mainly because you are writing under the name ‘Respondent’ and not ‘Richard Cranium’. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand this. Would you please explain? RICHARD: Sure ... as you have been subscribed to this mailing list for around three years I did not consider you would be so foolish as to try a stunt like the above with me. * RESPONDENT: Are you trying to create actualist clones? RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are wanting to know: my co-respondent asked me to explain to them that which I have already reported/ described/ explained, both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, just as I had done with Peter and Vineeto before both the web site and the mailing list existed ... only in an abridgement/ overview format (a précis, or a synopsis, in other words) this time around instead of the fully-fleshed report/ description/ explanation Peter and, later, Vineeto were regaled with. So I described how Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to the exact same thing I had reported/ described/ explained to others before him – that which is nowadays available for all to read free of charge on both on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (a précis of which is also available for all to read free of charge on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) – and enquired, when asked by my co-respondent whether I could do that exact same thing again with them, whether they too can listen with both ears (aka listen afresh) – whether they are able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all their spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning – rather than, for instance, telling me with (borrowed) wisdom that the words I am saying, after they leave my mouth, are already old ... and because of this query of mine you want to know whether I am trying to create actualist clones. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: No. I am using on you the technique that you use on others, namely: (i) snip a post in order to remove context (ii) read the residue out of context and give it a meaning that was clearly not intended by the original writer, often replacing the original figurative meaning with a literal one (iii) respond to the changed meaning that was never there in the first place. RICHARD: First: I never, ever snip a post ‘in order’ to remove context ... you are presuming that such deviousness is the reason why I would snip a post. Second: I never, ever read the residue of a snipped post ‘out of context’ ... you are presuming that I read a post in such a devious manner. Third: as I never, ever arrive at ‘the changed meaning’ resulting from steps No. 1 and No. 2 I never, ever have such a meaning to respond to ... you are presuming that the deviously-derived meaning is what I have to respond to. RESPONDENT: Perhaps I was wrong to implicitly ascribe motive by using the words ‘in order to’. RICHARD: There is no ‘perhaps’ about it ... you are so way off the mark as to be risible. Furthermore, it is not only the words ‘in order to’ but your entire presumption ... as in your ‘I am using on you the technique that you use on others’ intro (for instance). Put simply: you are presuming that I use the technique you used when I do no such thing. RESPONDENT: Whether or not you have a motive, devious or otherwise, the fact is, however, that you do actually do all of the above. RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not ‘actually do all of the above’ at all ... you are presuming that I do. RESPONDENT: Perhaps you are sincere but your comprehension of written English is not very good unless the English writing is very simple. RICHARD: Golly ... by your own admission you deliberately and with intent aforethought used on me a technique (which you delineate as snipping a post in order to remove context/reading the residue out of context/ responding to the changed meaning) yet have the audacity to then tell me that my comprehension of written English is not very good unless it be simple. How about ‘unless it be non-devious’? * RESPONDENT: Pointless waste of time, isn’t it? RICHARD: As I do not do what you presume I do your query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Since my query referred not only to your actions ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? There is a vast difference between my actions and what you presume my actions indicate/ signify as to intent/ meaning. RESPONDENT: ... but [referred] to my demonstration of what I have described, it is not a non-sequitur. RICHARD: If I may point out? Your ‘demonstration’ is a demonstration of a deviousness that
has no existence outside of your skull ... as such your conclusion, that I am pointlessly wasting time, just does not rationally
follow RESPONDENT: Richard, you have created something of great value in the Actual Freedom website. RICHARD: As the bulk of what is available on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site is comprised of correspondence from this (and other) mailing lists I do look askance at your avowal that it is of ‘great value’ whilst in the next breath, as it were, you arraign same like all get-out. And I say ‘arraign’ definitively as it is no minor matter to, not only allege that a fellow human being uses a devious technique (such as snipping a post in order to remove context/ reading the residue out of context/ responding to the changed meaning), but to persist in the accusation of such deviousness .... albeit now under the asseverated guise of simplism (as in your ‘you do actually do all of the above’ phrasing further above). RESPONDENT: It is a pity that your participation in the mailing list is less constructive, possibly for no other reason than that you are not good at comprehending written English. RICHARD: If you were to cease reading into my words devious techniques which are simply not there you might find that my command of the English language is more than adequate. Put simply: the stunt you tried to pull fell flat on its face (where it belongs) and no amount of lamentation/ remonstration on your part will ever alter that.
RESPONDENT: Pointless waste of time, isn’t it? RICHARD: As I do not do what you presume I do [snip a post in order to remove context/read the residue out of context/respond to the changed meaning] your query is a non-sequitur. RESPONDENT: Since my query referred not only to your actions ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? There is a vast difference between my actions and what you presume my actions indicate/signify as to intent/meaning. RESPONDENT: ... but [referred] to my demonstration of what I have described, it is not a non-sequitur. RICHARD: If I may point out? Your ‘demonstration’ is a demonstration of a deviousness that has no existence outside of your skull ... RESPONDENT: It was not a demonstration of deviousness, which is a motive which you may or may not have ... RICHARD: There is no ‘may’ about it ... you are so way off the mark as to be risible. RESPONDENT: ... it was a demonstration of action, as I clearly wrote but you ignored or missed. RICHARD: I neither ignored or missed anything of the sort ... you are presuming that is what I did. Here is what you say is a technique I use on others:
Here is the action (stripped of the motive you presumed):
RESPONDENT: As you say, there is a difference between an action and the meaning or intention of the actor. RICHARD: Aye ... as you so amply demonstrated in regards to my (incorrect) presumption that you had inadvertently left out the word ‘another’ in your initial query to me. RESPONDENT: I do not know that you have a devious motive ... RICHARD: Good ... I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
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 |
