|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RICHARD: Bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because then equity and parity will be artless and free. RESPONDENT: This Arianna knows not of what she speaks ... RICHARD: Okay ... but what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and where and how? RESPONDENT: What makes the difference about what she said in 1973, I just responded given you posted it to prove your rightness. RICHARD: I am well aware that you ‘just responded’ ... yet you responded with a blanket dismissal (‘this Arianna knows not of what she speaks’) of what she observed. What I am asking is: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Here and now Richard, she was just expounding her theory, for the profit, or other gain she was looking for RICHARD: Yet the question is not about what you think her motives for writing are, the question is this: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Richard I do not care about quotes taken out of context ... RICHARD: Allow me to refresh your memory as in regards context Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ [endquote]. [Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos]: ‘Women are the carriers of society’s values ... Women’s Lib portrays society and morality as a male invention to coerce and punish women ... [yet] women are a virtuous group seeking to impose their moral standards on men’. [endquote]. [Richard]: ‘whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. [endquote]. Do I have to have ‘Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation’ in order to ‘see’ with the clarity of that ‘Intelligence’ that this quote is taken ‘out of context’? Seeing that I do not have your advantage, will you point out just where you ‘see’ that this is ‘out of context’ ... and how? RESPONDENT: Not only is it out of context, (meaning taken from a longer statement) ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The phrase ‘out of context’ does not mean ‘taken from a longer statement’ at all. [Dictionary Definition]: ‘to take out of context: quoting a statement out of its frame of reference, subject, theme, topic; out of the part or parts immediately preceding or following the quote which would determine its contextual relevance or help to reveal its meaning’. So, unless you have read ‘the part or parts immediately preceding or following the quote’ you cannot say ‘quotes taken out of context’ in regards this quote from Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos. Therefore, the question is this: what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ ... and whereabouts in the quote do you see this? * RESPONDENT: ... it is stupid. RICHARD: Okay ... and in what way is Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos’ observation ‘stupid’ and whereabouts in the quote do you see this? * RESPONDENT: Nor do I care what walkie talkies are saying to one another. RICHARD: Yet even what you call ‘walkie talkies’ can have an insight every now and then. Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. So the question still is this: what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Here and now, we cannot start anywhere else ... RICHARD: Okay ... then ‘here and now’, I am asking you what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and whereabouts in the quote do you see this? * RESPONDENT: ... something you do not know about, for you are of the past, Richard. RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I am is ‘of the past’ ... is this not just cliché on your part. Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘seeing’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? * RESPONDENT: [This Arianna knows not of what she speaks] ... nor do you I say. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts in the few lines I wrote do I know not of what I speak according to you? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I said you know not of what you speak given you do not. RICHARD: Oh? Who decided that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: Me. RICHARD: Okay, seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain (and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) how can you possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: It is easy Richard I just say it, what you do with it is 100% up to you. RICHARD: Yet I did not ask how you ‘say’ it, I asked how you can possibly ‘see’ it ... and what I am 100% doing with what you ‘say’ is to ask you (seeing that I am aware moment-to-moment of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) how you can possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: Hum are you an Indian (American) for you ‘how’ quite a bit. RICHARD: No, I am not ‘an Indian (American)’ but I am only too happy to re-phrase the question: seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain (and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) in what way can you possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? * RESPONDENT: Your statement above seems correct and is why the male and female cannot unite. RICHARD: Are you saying that the overt/covert power battle between man and woman is the reason that ‘the male and female cannot unite’? RESPONDENT: No, it is only a tiny part. RICHARD: Okay, what is the major part? RESPONDENT: The fact that each person does not have 100% of themself, instead we are ego machines. RICHARD: But by ‘we’ you do not mean yourself as well because you certainly have ‘100% of yourself’ and you certainly are not an ‘ego machine’ and yet you have ‘failed to ‘join’ your partner 100%’. Therefore, it cannot the ‘major part’ which is preventing you and your partner uniting, eh? Could it be that you have inadvertently overlooked the ‘tiny part’ (the overt/covert power battle between man and woman) through your dedicated focus on the major part? Just so as there is no misunderstanding about what I am proposing here, allow me to re-phrase your statement (‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?’) and ‘see’ what it looks like. Viz.: ‘this is my world put together by me for me and to be maintained by me, my partner must ‘fit in’ and get by using my rule ...can my partner and me ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?’ How do you ‘see’ this ‘pointing’... does this sentence display and/or reveal the overt/covert power-battle between the sexes? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: Okay ... seeing that you say that ‘Intelligence’ and you are the same, allow me to re-phrase your statement (‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?’) another way and ‘see’ what it looks like. Viz.:
Or, seeing that ‘Truth’ and ‘Intelligence’ are the same, I could re-phrase it this way:
And as ‘Truth’ and ‘God’ are also the same:
Do these sentences enable you to ‘see’ the overt/covert power-battle between you and your partner? * RESPONDENT: It shows your extreme need to be right, no matter what, for you must always ‘look good’ to yourself and as much as possible to others. RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I have is an ‘extreme need to be right’ and that I ‘must always look good ...’ and so on. Is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘seeing’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? * RESPONDENT: The men’s club and the women’s club are not very well known, you know! RICHARD: Every woman I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the men’s club’ and every man I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the women’s club’ ... plus it is written about in books, newspapers, magazines and on the internet as well as being talked about on radio and television and in seminars. Therefore, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? RESPONDENT: Yes Richard I do not belong to either club. RICHARD: Yet you have ‘failed to ‘join’ your partner 100%’ ... so not belonging to either what you call ‘the men’s club’ or what you call ‘the women’s club’ is not going to enable other men and women to unite either, eh? So, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? RESPONDENT: Yes, drop out of the club, (either one) and ‘see’ what is outside of them. RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already made it clear that you have already ‘dropped out of the club, (either one)’ by stating further above that ‘I do not belong to either club’. Therefore, as you have ‘failed to ‘join’ your partner 100%’ by being able to ‘see what is outside of them’ then ‘dropping out of the club, (either one) and seeing what is outside of them’ is not going to enable other men and women to unite either, eh? So, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? * RESPONDENT: To ‘unite’ all thought must be gone, and love from intelligence which has been created must be in order. RICHARD: May I ask? Why is it, then, that you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’? RESPONDENT: There is no reason Richard, reason is for the thoughtful ones, those lost in reason, justification and explanation. RICHARD: Okay, let me put it this way: (1) has ‘all thought gone’ for you? (2) has ‘love from intelligence which has been created in order’ for you? RESPONDENT: All control that thought had is gone, thought is still here otherwise I could not respond. Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation is Creating. RICHARD: Okay, I take it from this that you fit your own detailed requirements to ‘unite’ ... yet it has not happened. Can you ‘see’ what is preventing ‘uniting’ from happening vis a vis you and your partner? RESPONDENT: Yes Richard, my failure to ‘join’ my partner 100%. RICHARD: Okay ... can you ‘see’ what is causing your ‘failure to ‘join’ your partner 100%’? RESPONDENT: Yes, my own ignorance, I do not know what to do. RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? Why not examine whether it is accurate that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and then see what happens, eh? * RESPONDENT: I know not what to do to put this in a ‘thought’ spoken way so it can be understood ... RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? First explain why you consider that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and then see what happens, eh? You must have some explanation for having come to this conclusion ... or else you are just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind (which would make you a fool). RESPONDENT: Perfect Richard, you have hit upon it, I am a fool, a perfect one at that! RICHARD: Good ... now that it has been established that you are a fool who was sucked in badly by some ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the ‘sixties we can proceed. Am I to take it that you now agree that power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite and not because ‘it’s a man’s world’ after all? RESPONDENT: Why do you add to my words? RICHARD: Where did I ‘add to your words’? I had said that unless you had an explanation for your conclusion that it is ‘a man’s world’ it would make you a fool to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind ... and you replied that I had ‘hit upon it, I am a fool’. Where, may I ask again, am I adding to your words? RESPONDENT: The sucked in badly part. RICHARD: Fair enough ... as you were not ‘sucked in badly’ then, in what way were you a ‘perfect fool’ to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind? RESPONDENT: I have been a perfect fool for 20 + years now, among highly knowledgeable people who know everything, while I know nothing, now that is a perfect fool, one who knows nothing. RICHARD: Good ... now that it has been established that you are a ‘perfect fool’ to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind because you have been a ‘perfect fool for 20+ years’ we can proceed. Am I to take it that you now agree that power itself is what is preventing man and woman from uniting and not because ‘it’s a man’s world’ after all? * RESPONDENT: Do you not know that knowledge cannot add to Intelligence? RICHARD: Are you telling me that you are ‘Intelligence’ itself now? The last time we corresponded you said you were an ‘empty vessel’ for ‘Intelligence’ to come through ... have you been taken over completely these days? RESPONDENT: They are the same, and there is nothing to take over, that would be force. RICHARD: Okay ... seeing that you are saying that you and ‘Intelligence’ are the same, then what you are saying (above) is that ‘knowledge cannot add to Intelligence/you’. Therefore, when ‘Intelligence/you’ writes ‘this is a man’s world’ and Richard points out that this is ‘radical feminist propaganda’, then this bit of knowledge ‘cannot add to Intelligence/you’ (irregardless of how vital to understanding the overt/covert power battle betwixt man and woman it is). In other words: ‘Intelligence/you’ has the knowledge that ‘this is a man’s world’ and the knowledge that ‘this is radical feminist propaganda’ cannot be added to the knowledge that ‘Intelligence/you’ already has. Am I ‘seeing’ this correctly? RESPONDENT: Well Richard, only an idiot would subscribe to ‘knowledge’ for knowledge is the act of insanity moving ... RICHARD: Okay ...as you have subscribed to the knowledge that ‘this is a man’s world’ this means you are saying that not only are you a ‘perfect fool’ but also ‘an idiot’ because the knowledge that ‘this is a man’s world’ that you have subscribed to is ‘the act of insanity moving’. Do you ‘see’ this? * RESPONDENT: ... and you are full of knowledge! RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I am is ‘full of knowledge’ ... is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘truth’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? * RESPONDENT: Power which the male has thus far is the cause of this insanity, if the power were to be given to the female the same result would be. RICHARD: How is this response of yours different from what I wrote (above)? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite’. RESPONDENT: You used the word reason. RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that ‘power itself’ is not the reason why man and woman cannot unite? Because if so, why did you say ‘power destroys’ in a recent post? Viz.: ‘if this world is ‘ruled’ by either the male or female the result would be the same, failure, for to rule is to have power and power destroys’. Where you say that ‘power destroys’, do you also ‘see’ that power prevents man and woman uniting ... or not? RESPONDENT: No, it is the need for power invented by thought invented belief which has ‘ruled’ this world for thousands of years ... RICHARD: Okay ... in what way is this ‘it is the need for power’ response of yours different from what I wrote (way up above)? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source’. * RESPONDENT: ... and of which you are a part. RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I am is ‘a part’ of the power-ruled world ... is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘truth’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? * RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do! RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? RESPONDENT: No truth can be demonstrated you either see it or not, Richard. RICHARD: Okay ... I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’. What do you see? RESPONDENT: I ‘see’ that you are thinking your way through and failing! RICHARD: Okay ... so there are two ‘truths’ (your truth and my truth). Seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection ... which ‘truth’ is correct? RESPONDENT: I do not see two truths if there are two of them then yours is, (if there is a correct). RICHARD: Where you say ‘I do not see two truths’ (even though there are two ‘truths’) are you not conveying the impression that the ‘Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation’ has made you blind? Can you ‘see’ this? RESPONDENT: Hum, what foolishness you are Richard, the statement was a description, not who I am ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I never mentioned ‘who you are’ at all ... I asked whether love has made you blind because you said ‘I do not see two truths’ where there clearly are two ‘truths’. However, I am happy to re-phrase the question: Where you say ‘I do not see two truths’ (even though there are two ‘truths’) you are providing a description of the way your ‘seeing’ operates that conveys the impression of the blindness that ‘Love’ bestows. Can you ‘see’ this? * RESPONDENT: ... (and perhaps I am blind, I don’t know). RICHARD: May I suggest? Simply re-read the exchange (just above) and see for yourself. Viz.: (‘Truth’ No. 1): I said that ‘I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... and (‘Truth’ No. 2): you said ‘I ‘see’ that you are thinking your way through and failing!’ So ... are there two ‘truths’ (your truth and my truth) ... or not? * RESPONDENT: Thought cannot find the other side, for all thought is blind/dead, just as you are. RICHARD: Hmm ... you cannot possibly know that what I am is ‘blind/dead’ ... is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘truth’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is? RESPONDENT: Hum repeat, repeat. RICHARD: Indeed ... and I will keep on repeating it just as long as you keep on repeating your ‘just as you do!’ and your ‘just as you are’ clichés. It is entirely up to you as to whether you wish to have an intelligent conversation or not. RESPONDENT: Are you saying we are not? RICHARD: Not ‘we’ ... you. I asked whether you wished to have an intelligent conversation because the conversation you have had so far looks like this:
And, as I said, I will keep on repeating just as long as you keep on repeating your clichés. It is entirely up to you as to whether you wish to have an intelligent conversation or not. * I do so look forward to your response ... it is so fascinating to be having a conversation with the ‘Intelligence’ that brought about a ‘Transformation’ which is ‘beyond enlightenment ... not better just beyond’ [quote]: ‘Transformation ... allows a ‘clear’ view of the internal working of and for each human. Out of the happening I call Transformation comes a new human with a new consciousness ... he/she will be new and simultaneously be able to ‘see’ all of the old consciousness. There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure’. [endquote]. It is your ‘clear view of the internal working of and for each human’ and your ‘new consciousness’ which makes you ‘simultaneously able to ‘see’ all of the old consciousness’ that I am so fascinated with.
RESPONDENT No 19: Everything is *now*, inside; outside. It doesn’t matter where you start. I’m not talking about some discarnate, bodiless, incorporeal thing in some no-time-no-space sort of existence. RESPONDENT No. 12: LOL – Richard is that you? That is a dualistic interpretation. What is corporeal is an aspect of what is incorporeal if you want to use that term. They are not separate. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend: Richard has said repeatedly there is nothing other than the
infinite, eternal and perpetual ‘corporeal’ and you say (in effect if not specifically) ‘that is a dualistic
interpretation’. You then say ‘what is corporeal is an aspect of what is incorporeal’ (as if that is somehow not
a dualistic interpretation) ... and then propose a solution to the dualistic dilemma you thus create by restating the eastern
cultural truth that ‘they are not separate’ (which non-separative altered state of consciousness requires thoughtless
meditation in order to have come into being)? Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT No. 12: If we can understand the nature of the centre as time, it may be possible to understand the nature of what is centreless or timeless. When we say time in this context we mean the past as accumulated knowledge and experience that is moving toward a projected future. In this field of the known, there is a gap between here and there, between observing subject and the objects observed. And by separating from what is observed we say we are looking objectively at what we observe including the body we call our own. It is as if we are a localized awareness apart from the body looking at it. What is looking? One part of the brain that is the accumulated past is looking at phenomena that is divided into mine and not mine. It is as if we are an isolated centre that looks and controls. So we say I have a body, I have thoughts and feelings, etc. and there is always that duality of the separate subject apart from object. There is the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experience, the knower and the known, the mind and the body. Can we agree that although there are variations, this is the common human experience? RESPONDENT: While I do not care for this kind of Idiot conversation, I do have a question. RICHARD: Oh? Would that not make your question an ‘Idiot’ question then? RESPONDENT: If the mind and body have fused (a HUGE if) is there still in your thinking mind a separation? RICHARD: Of course ... only it is conveniently covered-over by the feeling of unison. RESPONDENT: What I am saying is the mind is the body, and the body is the mind, moving in unison, if that happens, is there division, or just ‘thought’ dividing, and you guys expounding. RICHARD: Ahh ... no need to answer as I see that it was indeed an ‘Idiot’ question you asked.
RICHARD: The discussions about the dreamer and the dream are, of course, not about night-time dreaming
but discussions about an eastern mystical analogy (and in this case specifically the religio-spiritual philosophies of the Indian
sub-continent) wherein the ‘Awakened One’ has awakened in the dream (samsara) and has found everything (all time and space and
form) to be only apparently real and that everything is nothing but an illusion (maya) brought into being by a craving for
spatial, temporal and material existence (karma). The ‘Awakened One’ then spends the remainder of their samsaric days (their
dreamed days) burning off the remaining karma (the residual craving) that caused the maya (the illusion) in the first place ...
until their karma runs out, samsara dries up, maya ends and they enter into (physically die) the ultimate reality (Mahasamadhi or
Parinirvana). RESPONDENT No. 12: When you read all that into a discussion, it works as a block to communication, not an aid. Am I interfacing only with the knowledge and conclusions you have accumulated? If karma, samsara, maya, and samadhi, etc are to mean anything, it is necessary to discover that directly and not get caught up in metaphysics which is after all just conceptualisation. It seems helpful to leave the metaphysical baggage behind and discuss in functional terms. RESPONDENT: (dreaming about the answer) Why then Richard, are you dreaming, THAT you are not dreaming? RICHARD: As I never said that I was dreaming in the first place (that is nothing but your
intrapolation), and as your question about me dreaming that I am not dreaming is therefore a non-sequitur
RESPONDENT No. 20: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only.
RESPONDENT No. 20: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, and if want is present, where is the person? RICHARD: First of all, is ‘want’ currently ‘present’ somewhere in the flesh and blood body typing the (above) sentence or is this yet another ... um ... ‘Idiot’ question? Second, did you notice the word <sincerely> immediately preceding the word ‘want’ that your eagle eye fastened upon? Lastly, when you wrote ‘when do we end the ‘play’’ were you sincere in asking that question ... or were you typing single-handedly?
RESPONDENT No. 20: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, and if want is present, where is the person? RICHARD: First of all, is ‘want’ currently ‘present’ somewhere in the flesh and blood body typing the (above) sentence or is this yet another ... um ... ‘Idiot’ question? Second, did you notice the word <sincerely> immediately preceding the word ‘want’ that your eagle eye fastened upon? Lastly, when you wrote ‘when do we end the ‘play’’ were you sincere in asking that question ... or were you typing single-handedly? RESPONDENT: Damn Richard I always use two hands and two finger to type, why are you saying single handily? RICHARD: ‘Tis but a figure of speech ... intellectual masturbation requires no hands at all, of course. Needless to say the question still stands (slightly amended for clarity):
RESPONDENT: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want. RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so as to accommodate both your own definition plus your current circumstances:
Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only.
RESPONDENT No 20: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, and if want is present, where is the person? RICHARD: First of all, is ‘want’ currently ‘present’ somewhere in the flesh and blood body typing the (above) sentence or is this yet another ... um ... ‘Idiot’ question? Second, did you notice the word <sincerely> immediately preceding the word ‘want’ that your eagle eye fastened upon? Lastly, when you wrote ‘when do we end the ‘play’’ were you sincere in asking that question ... or were you typing single-handedly? RESPONDENT: Damn Richard I always use two hands and two finger to type, why are you saying single handily? RICHARD: ‘Tis but a figure of speech ... intellectual masturbation requires no hands at all, of course. Needless to say the question still stands (slightly amended for clarity): When you wrote ‘when do we end the ‘play’’ were you sincere in asking that question (or does your use of the word ‘we’ not include yourself)? RESPONDENT: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want. RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so to accommodate both your own definition plus your current circumstances: [Respondent]: ‘... when do we end the play’. [Richard]: ‘The play ends whenever your ‘sincerely wanting’ it to end is ‘almost a need’ (as in ‘just at the edge between need and want’) even if it ‘remains a want’ for it to end, for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself inasmuch as it no longer ‘remains a want’ (as in ‘almost a need just at the edge between need and want’) for you to be emotionally hurt again and again ... by a female partner’s peccadilloes, for example. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, the human ignorance is always displayed by the memory and reminder of the other. RICHARD: Okay ... in light of this, your latest observation, allow me to run your own words past you for your considered appraisal:
I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue with the previous one ... plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway.
RESPONDENT No. 19: [Richard to No. 10]: I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question [No. 19: when will we end it?] off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue [No. 19: which is?] with the previous one [No. 19: want?]. Plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity [No. 10: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want] even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway. [No. 19 getting lost]: Is the issue here ‘sincerity,’ or is the issue ‘want?’ Or, is the issue really that No. 10 not only saw that ‘want’ was in a need of a person to ‘want;’ or, even beyond that, is it that No. 10 saw that ‘sincerely wanting’ still remains a ‘want’ – demanding an ‘ego’ ‘wanting’ – even though it is ‘barely a want’? What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last
week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when
will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: So is the play, Richard, for me. RICHARD: You are not dealing with an impressionable tyro here as I lived that/was that Enlightened/ Transformed state, night and day for eleven years ... so I know the play you are currently involved in intimately. The difference is that I was willing to learn from the lessons of history.
RESPONDENT No. 19: [Richard to No. 10]: I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question [No. 19: when will we end it?] off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue [No. 19: which is?] with the previous one [No. 19: want?]. Plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity [No. 10: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want] even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway. [No. 19 getting lost]: Is the issue here ‘sincerity,’ or is the issue ‘want?’ Or, is the issue really that No. 10 not only saw that ‘want’ was in a need of a person to ‘want;’ or, even beyond that, is it that No. 10 saw that ‘sincerely wanting’ still remains a ‘want’ – demanding an ‘ego’ ‘wanting’ – even though it is ‘barely a want’? What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last
week’s play) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when
will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: So is the play, Richard, for me. RICHARD: You are not dealing with an impressionable tyro here as I lived that/was that Enlightened/Transformed state, night and day for eleven years ... so I know the play you are currently involved in intimately. The difference is that I was willing to learn from the lessons of history. RESPONDENT: When we learn from history Richard, we repeat it in a different way ... RICHARD: Speak for yourself – I am not repeating history in a different way – as there is no precedent for an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: ... however it is always a step away from what we ‘thought’ it would be. RICHARD: I am none too sure of what you are wanting to convey here: could you clarify what it is that is ‘always a step away’ from what you ‘‘thought’ it would be’ ... history, the lessons of history, or your repetition of history? RESPONDENT: Learning is a function of non action, we see, we intake, act, then we see, we intake, act. RICHARD: Whereas where learning is a function of action, to see is to act ... there is no ‘inner’ to necessitate such an ‘intake’ in actuality. RESPONDENT: To learn from history is to study, make a choice, then act, a robots way, and the way of our world. RICHARD: Where there is only the one option there is no choice ... there is immediate and irreversible action.
RESPONDENT No. 19: What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last
week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when
will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: So is the play, Richard, for me. RICHARD: You are not dealing with an impressionable tyro here as I lived that/was that Enlightened/Transformed state, night and day for eleven years ... so I know the play you are currently involved in intimately. The difference is that I was willing to learn from the lessons of history. RESPONDENT: When we learn from history Richard, we repeat it in a different way ... RICHARD: Speak for yourself – I am not repeating history in a different way – as there is no precedent for an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: ... however it is always a step away from what we ‘thought’ it would be. RICHARD: I am none too sure of what you are wanting to convey here: could you clarify what it is that is ‘always a step away’ from what you ‘‘thought’ it would be’ ... history, the lessons of history, or your repetition of history? RESPONDENT: Learning is a function of non action, we see, we intake, act, then we see, we intake, act. RICHARD: Whereas where learning is a function of action, to see is to act ... there is no ‘inner’ to necessitate such an ‘intake’ in actuality. RESPONDENT: To learn from history is to study, make a choice, then act, a robots way, and the way of our world. RICHARD: Where there is only the one option there is no choice ... there is immediate and irreversible action. RESPONDENT: Where there is one option, there is one choice, the idiot chooses the one option. RICHARD: You may continue to play your word games The most obvious example is physical death.
RICHARD: ... how on earth can you actually care unless you be free of cares yourself? Otherwise it is but the blind leading the blind. RESPONDENT No. 33: I carefully read what you wrote and thought a good deal about it. For example, the following: [Richard]: ‘Not at all ... I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Here it is again (slightly amended): not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the phrase ‘love is pure feeling’ above)’ [endquote]. My question: someone like Mother Theresa (reportedly) had a lot of passion for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate. She (apparently) spent a lot of time caring for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate. Do you think she really, deep down, cared for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate? RICHARD: Of course ... anyone who ‘really, deep down’ has ‘a lot of passion for the
poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’ most certainly ‘really, deep down, cares for the poor, the downtrodden, the
unfortunate’. There are people (and their organisations) all over the world who have ‘a lot of passion for the poor,
the downtrodden, the unfortunate’ who ‘really, deep down, care for the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’
and not just the particular person (and their organisation) which you mention. Many, many material benefits (improved living
conditions, access to education, improved health through hygiene and medicines, many and various welfare measures to alleviate
crippling poverty and disease and so on) are the direct result of this passionate caring by many passionate peoples. None of them
can actually care, though because they are not carefree. Hence all the misery and mayhem goes on – despite their well-meant
passionate efforts – which means that a new generation of passionately caring peoples will emerge to carry on the good works in
order to patch-up the bleeding wound that is the human condition in action. And so down through the centuries will it go on ...
and on and on. RESPONDENT No. 04: Thank you. Absolutely true. RESPONDENT: Well then, what do you say we can do ‘now’ to no longer bring our history into our future, or to end the ‘on and on’? Asking all of you! RICHARD: The ‘on and on’ ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only.
RESPONDENT No. 21: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’. RESPONDENT: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what? RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind.
RESPONDENT No. 21: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’. RESPONDENT: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what? RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind. RESPONDENT: Agreed 100% Richard, Thanks. RICHARD: You are welcome ... after all, to discuss how to become a totally agreeable person, to be and to associate with, is what this Mailing List is for, is it not?
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
