|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 97
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):
RESPONDENT: Richard, as you would have it, I’m off to more gullible pastures. RICHARD: Never mind how I would have it ... how do you have it? RESPONDENT: Have fun at the keyboard. RICHARD: I already am ... but thank you for your post-factum blessing, anyway. RESPONDENT: However, if you feel the sudden urge to put my challenge regarding quantum physics on your website in its entirety – and not only your part, even if you choose not to respond – it would make the evaluation of AF easier for potential newcomers. RICHARD: Ha ... if you want to have each and every thing, which each and every person chooses to write irregardless of its relevancy, on a website then how about you get your act together and spend the time, the application, and the money, in establishing, maintaining, and managing, a website of your own with its own associated mailing list? RESPONDENT: I’m sure you agree with this ... RICHARD: Your surety is entirely misplaced for I have no intention whatsoever of archiving irrelevant distractions away from what I have to say about mathematical models in general and quantum theory in particular ... that you chose to ignore my clear expression of what [quote] ‘Richard says about quantum mechanics’ [endquote] at the very top of my response is your business, not mine, and any attempt on your part to make it my business will fall on deaf ears. Here it is again:
How on earth my quote of what Mr. Jules-Henri Poincaré has to say about mathematical models can possibly be misconstrued (such as for you to waste your time needlessly typing out both a pointless challenge and your codicil to same in this e-mail) has got me stumped. Here it is (in context):
RESPONDENT: ... although with 180 degrees different opinion about the potential effects on new readers. So be it. RICHARD: It has nowt to do with opinion (and to be calling it a ‘180 degrees different’ opinion is to be but displaying your ignorance in public for the sake of a cheap shot). RESPONDENT: And if you do find the classical explanations for quantum phenomena, let the list now – and put it on your science part of the website, which to my mind it is one of the major AF PR catastrophes. RICHARD: Maybe you will have gathered by now that whatever it is, which is to your mind catastrophic, it holds no interest for me whatsoever? RESPONDENT: At least for people who have read more than just David Bohm (aka J. Krishnamurti-inspired interpretations) or Encyclopaedia Britannica articles on quantum physics (and relativity, by the way) ... RICHARD: No amount of expertise in theoretical physics is ever going to make one iota of difference to the fact that mathematical models do not describe the universe/have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. RESPONDENT: ... and can tell that here is a particularly evident case of taking down a strawman you first put up yourself. RICHARD: There is not, and there never was, a straw man (other than the one you put up that is). RESPONDENT: Well, the experienced AFer will understand that I have it 180 degrees wrong here. So be it. RICHARD: You do not have it 180 degrees wrong – you just have it plain old ordinarily wrong – and speaking of which ... have you noticed that none of the points you have raised, in your e-mails to me over these last 25 days, about me and/or my understanding/ experience have been correct? Not a single one. RESPONDENT: Peter, Vineeto, may you not find your lives completely wasted but profit in the best possible way from your ‘big leap’. RICHARD: As there is no [quote] ‘big leap’ [endquote] in actualism – that is the stuff of religionists/ spiritualists/ mystics/ metaphysicians and their ilk (theoretical physicists for instance) – your condescensive blessing is entirely uncalled for. RESPONDENT: I’m certain you will enjoy life with Richard. RICHARD: As the three of us socialise only for a few hours on an, at most, weekly basis are you also certain they will enjoy life for the remaining 165 hours ... or is a virtual happiness and harmlessness (according to you) dependent upon being with me? RESPONDENT: For taste’s sake, try not to be too hypocritical about honesty – and don’t, if possible to avoid, tell people you’re just being honest about honesty. RICHARD: Hmm ... so taste is to be the determiner of what a virtually free person may or may not inform their fellow human being about, eh? RESPONDENT: Well, I guess it’s impossible to avoid. RICHARD: Your guess is, not all that surprisingly by now, grossly incorrect RESPONDENT: Caveat emptor. RICHARD: As the honesty referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is self-honesty (being scrupulously honest with oneself) perhaps ‘caveat venditor’ might have been a more applicable finale to your dismissive summary of what you have made of actualism and actualists during your 25-day perusal. And I mention this because, in the final analysis, the only person one ever ends up fooling is oneself.
RESPONDENT (to Vineeto and Peter): For taste’s sake, try not to be too hypocritical about honesty – and don’t, if possible to avoid, tell people you’re just being honest about honesty. RICHARD: Hmm ... so taste is to be the determiner of what a virtually free person may or may not inform their fellow human being about, eh? RESPONDENT: Well, I guess it’s impossible to avoid. RICHARD: Your guess is, not all that surprisingly by now, grossly incorrect ... hypocrisy is remarkably easy to avoid (provided there be pure intent of course). RESPONDENT: Caveat emptor. RICHARD: As the honesty referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is self-honesty (being scrupulously honest with oneself) perhaps ‘caveat venditor’ might have been a more applicable finale to your dismissive summary of what you have made of actualism and actualists during your 25-day perusal. And I mention this because, in the final analysis, the only person one ever ends up fooling is oneself. RESPONDENT: Automorphism? RICHARD: Here is what that word can mean:
It is entirely up to you to determine whether or not your ascription of hypocrisy – plus the impossibility of its avoidance – to Vineeto and Peter is but an assignation of your own onto them (plus your own inability to avoid same) as I cannot know your every thought, your every feeling, your every instinctual impulse ... nor ever know all the nuances of your ethnic background, all the intimate details of your familial upbringing, all the subtleties of your peer-group aspirations and so on, and so forth. RESPONDENT: Happy & harmless, I’d rather say, uh? RICHARD: You can rather say [quote] ‘uh?’ [endquote] all you will yet it will not alter the fact one iota that such felicity and innocuity as referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is already always here in this actual world for anyone to enable into being apparent at this very moment ... nor the fact that no-one but that person themself is standing in the way. In short: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands ... and your hands alone. RESPONDENT: Woof, woof! RICHARD: Again, it is entirely up to you to determine whether you rather saying [quote] ‘uh?’ [endquote] is a conditioned response or not.
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 résumé 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 No. 89: There is no contradiction here; the words ‘Self’ resp. ‘Principle’ are not identical with your usage of the word ‘Self’ (passionate instincts etc.); they denote that (‘noumenon’) from which everything (‘phenomenon’) arises. RICHARD: Here the text at that URL which I was referring to by pointing out (further above) that there is ‘the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method’ in that e-mail:
There is an enormous difference between merely stopping instinctive and affective behaviour and eliminating the [quote] ‘passionate instincts etc.’ [endquote] themselves ... for the extinction of the latter is the end of the noumenon from which everything (supposedly) arises. RESPONDENT: I don’t agree with that. RICHARD: As you explicitly stated (at the top of this page) that you agree with what my co-respondent writes about eastern mysticism – having done [quote] ‘more or less the same reading circuit’ [endquote] yourself – it is not at all surprising your book-learnt understanding is at variance with my experiential report/ description/ explanation that the extinction of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto is the simultaneous ending of the Self or Principle (noumenon) from which everything (phenomenon) supposedly arises. RESPONDENT: I say: the noumenon is the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, having done more or less the same reading circuit around eastern mysticism as my co-respondent, your book-lore knowledge persuades you to say that. For instance:
RESPONDENT: It is the condition for any ‘experience’, not different from matter. RICHARD: Just because a transcendental experience, as in the altered state of consciousness (ASC)
popularly known as Self-Realisation (aka spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment), is of dedifferentiated spirit/ matter
being the thing on whose existence the very experience of spirit/ matter being undifferentiated depends RESPONDENT: This condition will not disappear together with the passionate instincts. RICHARD: As there is no spirit outside of the human psyche there is no such thing, upon whose existence the very experience of spirit/matter being undifferentiated depends, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Glad to have put our disagreement in a nutshell. RICHARD: It is not [quote] ‘our’ [endquote] disagreement ... all what is happening is that your bookwork is at odds with actuality.
(...) RESPONDENT: Rhetorically speaking, in the following ‘actual experiment’ of Richard’s there is a variant of the ‘argumentum ad lapidem’ aka ‘argumentum ad alapam’, mostly used in education when answers run out because a child has entered a loop of infinite regress (and why x? Because y, my child. And why y? Because z, my child. And why z? Because – slap). Richard models this into an actual experiment to be performed on yourself: [quote] ‘1. Place a large spring-clip upon your nose. 2. Place a large piece of sticking plaster over your mouth. 3. Wait five minutes. Now, as you rip the plaster from your mouth and gulp in that oh-so-sweet and actual air, I ask you: Do you still believe in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s revered wisdom? Exit: spirituality and religiosity. Enter: facts and actuality. Seeing the fact will set you free to live in actuality’. [endquote]. RICHARD: That simple experiment was not provided as a variant of the ‘appeal to the stone’/‘it just is’ argumentation: it was provided to demonstrate that no thought at all is required to demonstrate objective reality’s self-evident factuality ... let alone thought needing to [quote] ‘take a leap of faith to impute the objective world’ [endquote]. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Richard’s dismissal of all of ‘Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s revered wisdom’ ... RICHARD: Except that Richard did not dismiss [quote] ‘all’ [endquote] of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s revered wisdom in the above exchange which you abstracted that quote from ... my ‘do you still believe in Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s revered wisdom’ query was specifically targeting the arrant absurdity of saying, on the one hand, that Buddhism starts from an awareness of un-divided, unchanging absolute and yet, in the very next breath, implying that Empiricism does not start from an awareness of self-existing, objective reality but, rather, requires (a) thought ... and (b) a leap of faith. ‘Tis no wonder you started off with [quote] ‘rhetorically speaking’ [endquote], eh? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Correspondent No. 30 is a wonderful example of brainwashing. RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding of what you are referring to I will provide the following examples of what that word can mean:
RESPONDENT: I wonder how he did it. While on the first page he asks some very sensible questions about AF and science – knowing the usual popularized canon ... RICHARD: For an example, from that page, of the first definition (enumerated, for convenience, as No. 1 above):
As an example of an intensive and forcible indoctrination aimed at destroying my co-respondent’s basic convictions and attitudes, and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs, my technique does appear to need a lot of polishing, non? For an example of definition No. 2 (also from that first page):
As an example of a forcible indoctrination to induce my co-respondent to give up their basic beliefs and attitudes, and to accept contrasting regimented ideas, my methodology does seem to leave a lot to be desired, eh? For an example of definition No. 3 (again from that first page):
As an example of systematically and forcibly replacing established ideas in the mind of my co-respondent by new ideas my performance does look to be severely lacking in efficacity, does it not? For an example of definition No. 4 (yet again from that first page):
As an example of making my co-respondent believe only what I want them to believe, by continually telling them that it is true and preventing any other information from reaching them, would it be fair to say that my modus operandi does give the impression of being far from perfect? For an example of definition No. 5 (still from that first page):
As an example of imposing a set of beliefs on my co-respondent by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of their prior beliefs, it could be said that my tactics could do with a major overhaul, could it not? RESPONDENT: ... he then goes on, after 4 years, to write: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Just thought I should express my appreciation for these discussions on modern science ... Richard’s answers and Respondent No. 60 & Respondent No. 27’s questions throw a lot of light on these matters. Very stimulating. What I understood (from Richard’s mails mainly) so far is that: a direct experience is the final arbiter and while logic/mathematics can sharpen the directly experienced, they are subservient to the direct experience. This is in contrast to the theoretical physicist/mathematician’s viewpoint which is: logic/mathematics is the final arbiter – direct experience is prone to error. Please correct this appraisal if necessary’. [Richard]: ‘No correction necessary ... you have hit the nail right on the head’. [endquote]. RICHARD: As you seem to have overlooked the inclusion of my clarifying postscript I will re-post it here for reasons of integrity in communication:
RESPONDENT: Correction is indeed necessary. RICHARD: Perhaps it might be handy to first ascertain just what my co-respondent made of my full response? Here are the relevant portions of what they wrote 26 days later (they wrote the above on Friday, January 23 2004 AEDST) to another:
And again 4 days later (also to somebody else):
Bearing in mind that English is not my co-respondent’s first language is it nevertheless clear enough that they grasped what was conveyed (that mathematical models have no existence in actuality) by the comparison of empiricism with rationalism ... as exemplified by their usage of the word ‘standalone’? Furthermore, as the topics being specifically referred to – the subjects which the co-respondents numbered as 60 and 27 were querying – were, respectively, the origin of the Einsteinian relativity theory (and, thus, the ‘Big Bang’ ex nihilo/ ‘Big Crunch’ ad nihil’ theory) and the situation that, facts being rather thin on the ground, it is mainly the hypothesis/theory which gets most of the attention, are you so sure a correction regarding what was plainly categorised for convenience as the rationalist position, that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge (rather than concepts and statements having meaning only in relation to sense-experience), is indeed necessary? RESPONDENT: While theoretical physicists aim for elegance and simplicity and let themselves guide by intuition, these are by no way the final arbiters. RICHARD: Here is what those questions and answers being referred to – the subjects which the co-respondents numbered as 60 and 27 were querying – more or less revolve around:
RESPONDENT: Every theory strives to make a prediction which can be empirically measured. RICHARD: Whereas what I was pointing out, in those questions and answers being referred to, is epitomised by a particular query and response (re-posted further above):
The initial premise in question is, of course, that happiest thought which Mr. Albert Einstein ever had in his life ... because an edifice erected on quicksand, no matter how ornately adorned, is bound to eventually sink without a trace. RESPONDENT: The science game involves the promise that when the prediction is not in accord with reality, the theory will be regarded as ‘refuted’ and dismissed. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to something else re-posted further above (from that first page on which, you claim, some very sensible questions were asked):
And the reason why I draw your attention to it (if it be not already blatantly obvious that there is a vast difference between a theory being useful and being in accord with the facts) is also because of what you go on to say immediately below. RESPONDENT: To use No. 60’s story of the poor dogs, metaphorically: At the beginning, in 2001, correspondent No. 30 still could distinguish a circle from an ellipse. In 2005, he can’t anymore. Woof, woof! RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this article:
How that example of operant conditioning/instrumental learning even remotely relates to my co-respondent comprehending that mathematical models do not describe the universe/ have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process simply defies sensibility. Perhaps a personal anecdote may be of assistance: when I was but a lad in high school (at 12-15 years of age), when learning about atomic theory, it was expressly explained that the model then being taught – a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons – was just that (a model) and was not, repeat not, to be taken as really being the case. And then came, thick and fast, in the ensuing years a bewildering array of sub-atomic postulates with peculiar names and properties wherein they were sometimes matter and sometimes energy – which otherwise causeless state apparently depended upon the human observer – only to be followed by the ‘String Theory’ ... a ‘string’ of energy so tiny that if it were to be compared with the magnitude of the known universe it would be but the size of a tree (if it had form). Predictably, it was being posited as being the smallest ... um ... ‘thingamajig’ beyond which there is no smaller and it, too, was to be the ultimate source of all things (if only it were real). Your commentitious allegation regarding ‘a wonderful example of brainwashing’ (not to forget your distinctly pointed operant conditioning/ instrumental learning allusion) rather begs the question as to who it is indeed that is thus brainwashed/ conditioned – and by whom and how and when – rather than anything else.
(...) RESPONDENT: How does the extinction of that survival package [blind nature’s rough and ready survival package] translate at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... it does not translate. RESPONDENT: What changes? RICHARD: Again presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... there are no changes. RESPONDENT: And where’s the evidence? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: when a software programme in a computer is deleted, not
only does that deletion not translate at the level of a computer’s hardware/not make any changes to a computer’s hardware,
there is no evidence – were there no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence.
(...) RESPONDENT: How does the extinction of that survival package [blind nature’s rough and ready survival package] translate at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... it does not translate. RESPONDENT: What changes? RICHARD: Again presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... there are no changes. RESPONDENT: And where’s the evidence? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: when a software programme in a computer is deleted, not
only does that deletion not translate at the level of a computer’s hardware/not make any changes to a computer’s hardware,
there is no evidence – were there no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from RESPONDENT: So nothing changed at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘at the level of brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... nothing changed. RESPONDENT: Not only no major re-wiring, but no re-wiring at all took place, nothing changed in the way your neurons function – nothing observable from the outside. Did I get that correctly? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘re-wiring’ [endquote] you mean the way the brain’s dendrites receive information from its axons ... nothing either privately or publicly observable changed. Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence. RESPONDENT: So, to stay in the computer analogy, nature’s rough and ready survival package is not like a bios chip ... RICHARD: No ... if anything it would be akin to the ROM (software) programme of a bios chip. RESPONDENT: ... which, when it has been taken out and replaced, you can recognize from the outside as changed, but rather a software on a hard-disk which can be erased in a way so as to leave no trace at all and leave the hard disk exactly as before? RICHARD: Have you never flashed a (EEPROM) bios chip?
RESPONDENT: How does the extinction of that survival package [blind nature’s rough and ready survival package] translate at the level of brain architecture? RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... it does not translate. RESPONDENT: What changes? RICHARD: Again presuming that by [quote] ‘brain architecture’ [endquote] you mean the brain’s neurones (nerve cells) ... there are no changes. (...) RESPONDENT: Is the demise of ‘me’ a simple (un-)learning process involving the neural network in its structure (...) RICHARD: No ... put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence.
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 |
