|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 97
RESPONDENT: Richard, my patience has an end. RICHARD: Did you know your patience has an end before reaching for the keyboard to inform me that you would like to remind me who the phrase [quote] ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’ [endquote] is by? Furthermore, did you know it had an end before asserting that such an all-dismissive phrase it is a quote which I fondly and regularly use? Moreover, did you know it had an end before claiming you have not anywhere seen me giving credit to the author of such an all-dismissive quote? Even more to the point, did you know it had an end before alleging that what Mr. Plato has Mr. Socrates say is [quote] ‘the original’ [endquote] of some, as yet unprovided, texts of mine wherein you averred I too had seen fit to use such all-dismissive terminology (as in ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’) with ‘for man’ replaced with ‘second-rate living’? RESPONDENT: The structure of the necessary word-by-word operation in order to transform Plato’s phrase into yours is by now (for the first time, I admit) correctly explained. RICHARD: May I ask? What occurs when you read the following: [Richard]: ‘Having never studied philosophy, *and being thus unfamiliar with the quote*, I wanted to ascertain if the crux of the phrase – the blanket assertion that such a life is [quote] ‘not worth living’ [endquote] – was consistent throughout various renditions or but a vagary of the translation process ... because nowhere have I ever said that the unexamined life/life without enquiry (aka a normal life) is any such thing for any person irregardless of gender’. [emphasis added]. (...) RESPONDENT: Now then, to cut this long story a little shorter (...) The sentence ‘the unexamined life is second-rate living’, which you used in some documents 8 years ago ... RICHARD: Here is the first instance (transcribed from a tape-recording):
As can be seen the transcript begins with me saying ‘when one starts examining things that one has taken for granted, life becomes infinitely more interesting’ and after some conversation – including a detailed example of what I mean by examining things – that section concludes with me saying that ‘an unexamined life is second-rate living’. RESPONDENT: (...) reminds one at first glance of Plato’s phrase ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man’. RICHARD: By virtue of now being cognisant of Mr. Plato having Mr. Socrates say that in ‘Apology’ I can see why it could to a person familiar with philosophical works ... provided, that is, they had not read another rendering (such as ‘life without enquiry is not worth living for a man’ for instance). RESPONDENT: While a first association could lead to the conclusion that you allude to this sentence without giving reference to Plato, proper investigation has shown that you had no idea who it was from ... RICHARD: No, what I had no idea about was that Mr. Plato had ever written any such thing as ‘the unexamined life is not worth living for man/life without enquiry is not worth living for a man’. RESPONDENT: ... and formulated it either inspired by general culture or by yourself. RICHARD: It was not something I formulated ... it was simply an obvious comment to make following on from first saying that when one starts examining things that one has taken for granted – by becoming conscious of the little tricks one gets up to, the little points, each moment again – life becomes infinitely more interesting. RESPONDENT: Proper investigation has also shown that in no way would you like to be associated with a quote which is all-dismissive regarding the worth of an unexamined life ... RICHARD: No, what there is no way about is me [quote] ‘giving credit to the author of this quote which you fondly and regularly use’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... but insist on the more balanced qualification of such a life as second-rate. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with [quote] ‘a more balanced qualification [endquote] than what Mr. Plato wrote ... that concluding comment of mine stands on its own. RESPONDENT: Other matters are waiting. RICHARD: I am well aware that the other questions you put to me are awaiting my attention ... there was just no point in discussing matters experiential whilst you could not grasp such a simple thing as me having never read, let alone studied, any philosophical works whatsoever. Nor any theologian’s/metaphysician’s works for that matter ... the books I scoured over the years were, of course, first-hand accounts. Viz.:
Incidentally, it bodes well for any further discussion to see that what you previously portrayed as [quote] ‘going through endless email exchanges again and again picking at minutiae’ [endquote] is now described as ‘proper investigation’. Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT: For reasons unbeknownst to me, since my last message I am no longer receiving any messages and have also lost the ability to post messages to actualfreedom@topica.com :-). RICHARD: The reason why you are no longer receiving any messages/are unable to post messages to actualfreedom@topica.com is because your subscription has been automatically disabled (twice now) due to your designated e-mail address being unreachable by Topica’s mail delivery system. This is what Topica has to ‘say’:
Your subscription has just now been re-enabled (for the second time) ... if the problem persists then it would be advisable to consider re-subscribing with a different e-mail address. * RESPONDENT: I am not certain whether you, Vineeto or Peter have anything to do with it, and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, will not think of such a thing. RICHARD: Given that, despite your declaration to the contrary, you do indeed think of such a thing (else why write that and its follow-up sentences) it may be apposite to point out that Topica’s system has to handle literally millions of e-mails each day ... it is amazing there are not more problems than there are. The last time I checked the figures (in 2002) the fee-based Topica service was home to over 1,200 mailing lists with nearly 13 million subscribers whilst the free Topica service hosted over 130,000 newsletter and discussion lists with more than 14 million subscribers. For what it is worth ... my e-mail address has been disabled on several occasions over the years. RESPONDENT: I suppose it has nothing to do with trouble or anger my commentaries might have caused ... RICHARD: What you choose to call your [quote] ‘commentaries’ [endquote] have not caused, are not causing, and will not cause, any trouble or anger whatsoever here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ...as such things can by definition not be known in AF-land. RICHARD: Not by definition, no ... by virtue of the fact that trouble-makers and anger-invokers (aka identities) have no existence in actuality. RESPONDENT: Although, having thrown trust, faith, hope and belief right out of the window as you advised, I might reconsider it sometime. RICHARD: You are, of course, free to both suppose and re-consider your suppositions as much as you will ... either way it makes no difference at all to the fact that no identity whatsoever has any existence outside of the human psyche. * RESPONDENT: I have nothing against being unsubscribed and will look up the Topica website from time to time to see whether I can find any answers from you there, Richard. RICHARD: Okay ... I have entitled this e-mail [quote] ‘For Respondent’ [endquote] so that it cannot be overlooked. RESPONDENT: However, if there is a way to inform me directly when such an answer is given (which I doubt will be anytime soon, but who knows), it would be welcome, in order to continue the discussion in a timely manner. RICHARD: As a generalisation I do respond chronologically (aka in a timely manner) to the e-mails
coming into my mail-box from Topica; as a particularisation I do, on occasion, put aside such timeliness so as to persist with a
particular issue where such pursuance is conducive to further comprehension ... such as this e-mail of yours, for example, wherein
you are still speculating, in absentia, about something that does not exist/ never happened RESPONDENT: Maybe someone from the list would be willing to pass them on, or the administrators could re-suscribe me then. RICHARD: Experience has shown that the most advisable option is to re-subscribe with a different e-mail address ... perhaps even a web-based one.
RESPONDENT: Richard, got a new email-address, apparently works better with Topica. I am pleased to see that you are working through the backlog of questions and have just reached No. 32’s on partners. Do you consider our discussions on my hasty statements satisfactorily settled so that you can move on to writing on the topics I inquired about? RICHARD: In regards to the topics you inquired about:
Incidentally, what Mr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls the ‘Flow’ is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... and neither is what martial arts practitioners refer to, either.
(...) RICHARD: In regards to the topics you inquired about: 1. What I call my puritan period (1982-1986) had nothing to do with the event in the abandoned cow-paddock (1992). 2. This flesh and blood body’s caffeine hypersensitivity is most probably idiosyncratic. 3. I read an article about an awakened/enlightened female who experienced The Absolute as masculine. RESPONDENT: Do you still remember where you read that article? RICHARD: It was an article in the ‘What Is Enlightenment?’ magazine circa 1996 ... as a furtherance to this topic you may find the following to be of interest:
CO-RESPONDENT: What is TLE? RESPONDENT: No. 25’s proposal for explaining Richard’s state: Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. For such inquiries, the best thing is to look for it in google the following way: TLE site:www.actualfreedom.com.au. It gives you all the background you want in no time at all – if the background has found its way from the mailing list onto the AF website, that is. Which in some cases happens only selectively – if it gets too close, I guess (for example, the piece about animals staying away from Richard has remained only on topica AFAIK). RICHARD: You guess wrong: nothing, repeat nothing, ever [quote] ‘gets too close’ [endquote] here in this actual world ... furthermore, all of my correspondence, without exception, is archived as-is on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.
RESPONDENT: While not subscribed to the list, I have browsed the records on Topica. These are my favourites: [snip links]. At some point of my reading, I wondered whether it would not be possible to create an actualism algorithm, ELIZA-style. It would be fed the contents of the AF website for referencing purposes. It would inform people that there is no room for feeling in this flesh & blood body sans identity whenever the program recognizes a word of emotional content. A random function would occasionally report a vast stillness and/or abundant yet unmoving vitality all around. A little more programming would have do be done in order to achieve a proper deconstruction of the correspondent’s position. This distortion loop would end if and only if the correspondent’s answer can be found in the AF database. Insiders would call this the PARARE – ‘PArroting Recognition And Rewarding Engine’. After a particularly successful operation, it would state, instead of ‘q.e.d.’: Ain’t life grand. (...) RESPONDENT No. 60: No, no really an Eliza. Just a quick python script that generates random actualistic whimsy. Very crude and rudimentary, but she does unwittingly come out with the occasional beauty. [snip script]. RESPONDENT: Brilliant! (...) I just copy-pasted the script from ‘import random’ to the last line and have no clue about programming. Any ideas about what went wrong or hints how to run it from IDLE? RESPONDENT No. 60: Hardly worth it mate, she only generates nonsense ... but what you could do is copy/paste the text from ‘import random’ down to the last line into a *new* idle buffer, then select ‘run’ from the menu. It’ll prompt you to save the file, then it’ll take you to the interactive Python interpreter prompt (...). RESPONDENT: It worked! But the interactive version seemed even cooler. Can you put it on the list + describe how it must be handled? RESPONDENT No. 60: Sure. Just copy the code into an IDLE buffer as before, select ‘run’ from the menu (which will prompt you to save, as before). This time you shouldn’t need to type anything at the prompt – you should be put straight into an endless dialogue that continues until you enter a blank line. If it doesn’t start automatically, just type: run() <Enter> at the prompt. It *will* be fun to give her some ears and some ‘intelligence’ eventually, but for now she’ll just talk right through you! RESPONDENT: Couldn’t resist playing with it. This is what I got: [snip]. RESPONDENT No. 60: Her next trick will be to try to make some inferences about your intentions. Then for an added touch of realism, she will completely ignore them, and give you a piece of her mind instead. Or maybe on second thoughts she should pick a keyword and veer off obliquely but persistently, so you feel like the conversation’s kinda like bouncing off walls. RESPONDENT: You programmers just amaze me. Cool! What a simple exasperated remark (Richard, are you a Robot?) can lead to. RICHARD: The programmers you find amazing could have saved themselves a lot of trouble were they to have read what I wrote over four years ago (just as you could have yourself of course). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Whenever you listen to a CD or your computer, think of old Max Planck ... RICHARD: Or, and more usefully in regards reconsidering what Richard says about quantum mechanics, you could think of what Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré has to say about mathematical models (search it yourself with a search engine of your choice). RESPONDENT: I will reconsider what Richard says about quantum mechanics when he can explain to me how a CD/DVD player (laser) works without using concepts derived from quantum mechanics. RICHARD: In what way would another mathematical model of how a laser works – such as, for instance, the principle behind the laser (stimulated emission) being understood in terms of a classical field – motivate you to reconsider what Richard says about quantum mechanics? More to the point: just what is it that Richard says about quantum mechanics (and, for that matter, any other mathematical model), anyway? RESPONDENT: Take this nonsense from Richard (search it yourself with a search engine of your choice): ‘And quantum theory, for an instance of this, is most definitely based on a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator and never intended to be taken as being real (...)’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Why is it [quote] ‘nonsense’ [endquote] to cite quantum theory as being an instance of physics having departed from being a study of the natural world (the physical world) and having entered into the realm of the mathematical world – an abstract world which does not exist in nature – when, for example, peoples far more knowledgeable on the topic than this layperson have described it as being [quote] ‘strictly phenomenological’ [endquote]? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: The way in which there is no ‘perfect black-box radiator’ is the same way there is no ‘perfect circle’ ... RICHARD: Here are what some encyclopaedia articles have to say:
And:
RESPONDENT: ... mathematics has this inconvenience if you start using it for describing things. RICHARD: But I am not using mathematics for describing things ... on the contrary I (repeatedly) say
that mathematics do not describe the universe/have no existence outside of the ratiocinative
RESPONDENT: It was not at all a ‘hypothetical problem’ that the quanta solved ... RICHARD: All that is required is to type ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’ into an internet search-engine ... for example:
RESPONDENT: ... but very actual measurements which contradicted the existing theory and which were perfectly explained by introducing the ‘quanta’. The OBSERVED spectrum of black body radiation could NOT be explained with Classical electromagnetism and statistical mechanics. The first sentence of Planck’s 1901 paper, which got quantum physics started, makes this abundantly clear: ‘The recent spectral measurements made by O. Lummer and E. Pringsheim1, and even more notable those by H. Rubens and F. Kurlbaum2, which together confirmed an earlier result obtained by H. Beckmann,3 show that the law of energy distribution in the normal spectrum, first derived by W. Wien from molecular-kinetic considerations and later by me from the theory of electromagnetic radiation, is not valid generally.’ (http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html). RICHARD: Just for starters ... according to Mr. Max Planck, in his ‘Nobel Lecture’, of June 2, 1920, the measurements of Mr. Heinrich Rubens and Mr. Ferdinand Kurlbaum, which he refers to in the above quote, were of the [quote] ‘infrared residual rays of *fluorite and rock salt*’ [endquote]. Needless is it to add that, whilst fluorite and rock salt may be a quite lot of things, perfect blackbody radiators they are not?
(...) RICHARD: But I am not using mathematics for describing things ... on the contrary I (repeatedly) say
that mathematics do not describe the universe/have no existence outside of the ratiocinative RESPONDENT: I’m completely with you here ... RICHARD: Good ... because that, in a nutshell, is [quote] ‘what Richard says about quantum mechanics’ [endquote] – and any other mathematical model of course – and nothing else.
CO-RESPONDENT: What is TLE? RESPONDENT: No. 25’s proposal for explaining Richard’s state: Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. For such inquiries, the best thing is to look for it in google the following way: TLE site:www.actualfreedom.com.au. It gives you all the background you want in no time at all – if the background has found its way from the mailing list onto the AF website, that is. Which in some cases happens only selectively – if it gets too close, I guess (for example, the piece about animals staying away from Richard has remained only on topica AFAIK). RICHARD: You guess wrong: nothing, repeat nothing, ever [quote] ‘gets too close’ [endquote] here in this actual world ... RESPONDENT: Certainly, certainly. RICHARD: Good ... yet another speculation, in absentia, about something that does not exist/never happened cleared up, eh? * RICHARD: ... furthermore, all of my correspondence, without exception, is archived as-is on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: All of what YOU write, yes ... RICHARD: No, all of what I write *as well as* what my co-respondent wrote such as to occasion me to respond.
RESPONDENT: While not subscribed to the list, I have browsed the records on Topica. These are my favourites: [snip links]. At some point of my reading, I wondered whether it would not be possible to create an actualism algorithm, ELIZA-style. It would be fed the contents of the AF website for referencing purposes. It would inform people that there is no room for feeling in this flesh & blood body sans identity whenever the program recognizes a word of emotional content. A random function would occasionally report a vast stillness and/or abundant yet unmoving vitality all around. A little more programming would have do be done in order to achieve a proper deconstruction of the correspondent’s position. This distortion loop would end if and only if the correspondent’s answer can be found in the AF database. Insiders would call this the PARARE – ‘PArroting Recognition And Rewarding Engine’. After a particularly successful operation, it would state, instead of ‘q.e.d.’: Ain’t life grand. (...) RESPONDENT No. 60: No, no really an Eliza. Just a quick python script that generates random actualistic whimsy. Very crude and rudimentary, but she does unwittingly come out with the occasional beauty. [snip script]. RESPONDENT: Brilliant! (...) I just copy-pasted the script from ‘import random’ to the last line and have no clue about programming. Any ideas about what went wrong or hints how to run it from IDLE? RESPONDENT No. 60: Hardly worth it mate, she only generates nonsense ... but what you could do is copy/paste the text from ‘import random’ down to the last line into a *new* idle buffer, then select ‘run’ from the menu. It’ll prompt you to save the file, then it’ll take you to the interactive Python interpreter prompt (...). RESPONDENT: It worked! But the interactive version seemed even cooler. Can you put it on the list + describe how it must be handled? RESPONDENT No. 60: Sure. Just copy the code into an IDLE buffer as before, select ‘run’ from the menu (which will prompt you to save, as before). This time you shouldn’t need to type anything at the prompt – you should be put straight into an endless dialogue that continues until you enter a blank line. If it doesn’t start automatically, just type: run() <Enter> at the prompt. It *will* be fun to give her some ears and some ‘intelligence’ eventually, but for now she’ll just talk right through you! RESPONDENT: Couldn’t resist playing with it. This is what I got: [snip]. RESPONDENT No. 60: Her next trick will be to try to make some inferences about your intentions. Then for an added touch of realism, she will completely ignore them, and give you a piece of her mind instead. Or maybe on second thoughts she should pick a keyword and veer off obliquely but persistently, so you feel like the conversation’s kinda like bouncing off walls. RESPONDENT: You programmers just amaze me. Cool! What a simple exasperated remark (Richard, are you a Robot?) can lead to. RICHARD: The programmers you find amazing could have saved themselves a lot of trouble were they to have read what I wrote over four years ago (just as you could have yourself of course). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I did indeed not get around to reading this, as I was struck by a certain redundancy of the website. RICHARD: You may find the following quite illuminative in regards what you describe as a certain redundancy, then:
(...) RESPONDENT: And the programmer you are sneering at ... RICHARD: Woof, woof.
RESPONDENT: Unfortunately it’s a little difficult in Topica to get to a certain period in the history of a mailing list fast, so it’s probable people will only see the mutilated exchanges on the AF website, with all of the protagonist’s writings but not all of the correspondent’s. RICHARD: So that there is no misunderstanding ... is what you mean by [quote] ‘mutilated exchanges’ [endquote] such as to be found at the following URL (towards the end of the page)? Viz.:
And, just for the record, here are the URL’s for what that e-mail (numbered as being No. 6 for convenience) was in response too:
Plus:
Also, here is the URL for the e-mail which those two e-mails (numbered as being No’s 5 and 4) are in response to:
Here is a question for you: which one of the two correspondents answered each and every point which their co-respondent raised, in detail and leaving out nothing but the preliminary salutations, that their co-respondent wrote – the one who posted No. 6 above or the one that posted No’s 5 and 4 above (in response to No. 3) – and which one responded to truncated versions of only some parts of what their co-respondent wrote? And here is a supplementary question: which one of the two correspondents thus set the pace for the ensuing exchanges?
RESPONDENT: I just discovered No 89’s messages. I agree with him in what he writes about eastern mysticism – having done more or less the same reading circuit – but not on his scientific opinions on evolution apparently close to ‘intelligent design’ should I not have misunderstood something there, which is quite possible. I didn’t look into it closely. No 89 gives a short resumé of the essentials at: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911984875 RICHARD: Did you notice that the e-mail at that URL has, towards the beginning, the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method – after stating that an actual freedom from the human condition is not at all beyond what the different traditions teach – yet finishes with references to [quote] ‘the Principle or Self. Itself is undying and never born but it brings everything into existence’ [endquote] by any chance? RESPONDENT: And at: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911934389 RICHARD: What part of my response to those assertions about amorality, altruism, others, and self, is it that is not clear to you? Viz.:
Here it is for your convenience:
To save you searching through Topica for my co-respondent’s reply to the above detailed response of mine ... there was none. RESPONDENT: Discussion No. 66-No. 89: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911935055 RICHARD: Here are the key words at that URL:
Speaking of intellectual understanding ... do you comprehend the difference between the Paraclete and the Parousia? If so, what do you make of the following? Viz.:
‘Nuff said?
RESPONDENT: I myself am off the list, for the reason No. 68 just pondered – better off practicing than reading and discussing all the time, though occasionally laughing my ass off. RICHARD: If I may ask? Better off practicing ... what? And the reason I ask is because of what you say five sentences later (in the same paragraph):
RESPONDENT: No. 53, No. 87 & the Nos.60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what an intellectualist RESPONDENT: It’s very easy to get lost on the website. RICHARD: Possible translation: it is very easy to get sucked into giving experientialism a try. RESPONDENT: It was great fun to read your contributions – well, the longer ones. I had a lot of fun especially with RIPEETO and Jackboot [python scripts that generate random mutilations]. I might chat with her from time to time if I miss actualism. Well, that’s a big if. RICHARD: Just by way of contrast here are the very first words you wrote to this list:
O how the turn has wormed, eh? RESPONDENT: Keep up the common sense ... RICHARD: You have to be kidding, right? RESPONDENT: ... sense even if you’re sneered at by the RIPEETO-clones of this world. RICHARD: As this is the second occasion you have used that word here are some synonyms:
RESPONDENT: – No. 60, I don’t know if anybody else shared our kind of nonsensical humour, but I had some great fun with you. RICHARD: Ha ... what is the difference between [quote] ‘our kind of nonsensical humour’ [endquote] and ... um ... and scoffing at, scorning, being contemptuous of, holding in contempt, disdaining, mocking, jeering at, gibing at, ridiculing, deriding, taunting, insulting, and slighting? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: No. 98, keep up the concerns for the just causes; they might yet get you and/or the world somewhere ... RICHARD: As [quote] ‘just causes’ [endquote] have not got anyone and/or the (human) world anywhere remotely looking like peace on earth (let alone to the meaning to life), despite at least 3,000-5,000 years of dutiful endeavour by myriads of well-meaning peoples doing their best, then what you are advising a fellow human being to do is yet more of the same ... in a word: Sisyphism. RESPONDENT: – but don’t let them spoil your day, it’s the only one you have, and nobody will profit from your day spoilt. To the contrary. No 25, this (http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911967383) gave me some doubt about the purity of your own snow. Well, keep on wu-weiying on, but don’t let yourself get caught by Richard. RICHARD: Possible translation: do not let yourself get sucked into experientialism RESPONDENT: No. 68, may your patience last ten years (http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911938135). RICHARD: As you presumably missed the import of what is at the bottom of that page (else why bless your fellow human being with a decade of patience) I will re-quote it here:
RESPONDENT: No. 74, No. 78, No. 90 and all other kind people around here who have still not lost patience and/or faith completely, be happy and may the answers you receive be useful to your life or may they at least entertain you, as long as there are still questions. Just keep diggin’! RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of the ‘do as I say; not what I do’ cliché. RESPONDENT: I myself have nothing more to say (and I’m saying it). RICHARD: And I am responding to it – with each and every word you wrote intact – so that an unexpurgated version of your concluding summary, of what you have made of actualism and actualists during your 25-day perusal, can be found in the correspondence archives of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (thus saving anyone having to look for it in the Topica archives). RESPONDENT: Everything, it appears to me, has been written about more than twice on this list, every confession made, so many cards have been laid on so many tables to no avail, and although I agree with those who think that many answers from Richard are far from satisfactory, I doubt there will ever be better ones. RICHARD: As vague generalisations are meaningless without substance your fellow human beings would have been better served had you actually provided those instances where you allege my answers are far from satisfactory ... even one example would have sufficed. RESPONDENT: To HIM, everything is crystal-clear. RICHARD: Indeed so ... it is a trifle strange, is it not, that you do not ask for some clarification from that crystal-clear clarity but choose instead to merely cast aspersions? RESPONDENT: In my conversations with Richard, I was sometimes reminded of a Star Trek episode where some form of intelligence goes up in smoke when the emotional, crazy humans show it to have committed a logical error. I somehow, subconsciously, probably expected something similar to happen to Richard ... RICHARD: Now here is a radical notion for you: why not provide the text wherein you imply Richard has committed what you classify as a [quote] ‘logical error’ [endquote] as a re-read of all of our correspondence, just now, has shown nothing of the kind coming from this keyboard. RESPONDENT: – but it will never, ever. He will keep the copy & pasted arguments flowing as long as this mailing list exists. RICHARD: No ... only for as long as corespondents continue to mount ill-informed critiques. For just one example:
RESPONDENT: Infinite ‘benevolence’ forever. RICHARD: As I have more than a few times delineated what I mean by the word ‘benevolence’ (a munificent well-wishing) – the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’), and well-wishing stems from fellowship regard (like species recognise like species throughout the animal world), for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called ‘theory of mind’ – there is indeed an infinite benevolence irregardless how ill-informed a co-respondent’s critique may be ... but only for, at most, the remainder of my life (and not forever). RESPONDENT: Maybe somebody will still look into his obsessive distinction between dirt and purity ... RICHARD: As it is all-too-easy to say ‘obsessive’ – without any attempt to substantiate same – your baseless assertion will be treated with the ignore it deserves. RESPONDENT: – some nasty things might turn up. RICHARD: As your usage of the auxiliary verb ‘might’, in a context such as this, also includes its opposite then what you are saying there looks something like this:
Just as a matter of interest ... what does the word ‘nasty’ mean to you, then, if not the same as what the colloquial usage of ‘dirty’ does? RESPONDENT: I might be oversensitive here; but the fact that Vineeto, being of German origin, is so responsive to it, makes me suspect otherwise. RICHARD: So as to have something on the table to look at here is how I have typically used the word ‘dirty’:
For your information: at root an identity born and raised in Germany is essentially no different to an identity born and raised anywhere else. RESPONDENT: To put is most neutrally: this distinction, which I took seriously in the beginning, appears to me closest to his ‘blind spot’ aka cognitive dissonance. RICHARD: I am only too happy to couch the above in your terminology by way of illustrating something of import:
What now of that ‘blind spot’ (aka cognitive dissonance) you doubt you are being oversensitive about, eh? Speaking of which ... I will leave you with the following description (deliberately left un-attributed and un-referenced for reasons which may become obvious upon a search for the original):
CORRESPONDENT No. 97 (Part Four) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
