|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 14
RESPONDENT No. 12: The original has no image of originality. RESPONDENT: Then from where did the image of originality originate? RESPONDENT No. 12: It never was from the first. RESPONDENT: A further question if you please, the first of what? RESPONDENT No. 33: First of the first. Which, as Richard might agree, is also the first of the last. And also the first of the middle, etc. Ask Richard if you don’t trust me. RESPONDENT: As to Richard, our past discussions have been very thorough and have included some of the most imaginative name calling! He thinks me a wanker (an Australian term for masturbator), and I TRUST he remains to be pigheaded stubbornness (a characteristics he relishes being). Though thorough and imaginative, our communications have netted very little. RICHARD: Oh dear ... is this all that you can recall of our long and thoughtful discussions about
life, the universe and what it is to be a human being? Is all you remember that Richard ‘thinks me a wanker’ Also – as a point of order – I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label ... and attach ‘the most imaginative name calling’ that my fertile mind can dream up. If you, or anyone else, wishes to identify with an image ... then you will feel attacked. Just to be sure, I typed ‘wanker’ into my search-engine and sent it scrolling through all my posts to the Mailing List – not just those to you – and these quotes are the only references to ‘wanker’ made by either of us:
RESPONDENT: As to Richard, our past discussions have been very thorough and have included some of the most imaginative name calling! He thinks me a wanker (an Australian term for masturbator), and I TRUST he remains to be pigheaded stubbornness (a characteristics he relishes being). Though thorough and imaginative, our communications have netted very little. RICHARD: Oh dear ... is this all that you can recall of our long and thoughtful discussions about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being? RESPONDENT: No. To say that this is all that is remembered would not be accurate. The point mentioned, however, was appropriate in the conversation. RICHARD: This is the conversation wherein the point was mentioned:
I must be particularly dense ... for the life of me I cannot see where it was ‘appropriate in the conversation’. What I do see, however, is a gratuitous – and revealing – disparagement of our long and thoughtful discussions about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. It is revealing in that it smacks of a puerile attempt to promote and maintain your specious high moral ground ... such conduct is unbecoming in one who first came onto this Mailing List proclaiming: Viz.:
Then again ... unbecoming or not, it is quite typical. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I gained immeasurably from our discussion. (...) Our communications netted heaps of valuable and revealing information for me ... which I have put to good use. RESPONDENT: That is Wonderful. Perhaps you will share with me some of the profit you uncovered during our conversations. (...) It being put to good use would never be in doubt. RICHARD: Golly ... to list all the benefit I gained would be far too long for this post. What
immediately comes to mind, however, is being able to share with other would-be pacifists what wanking And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point ... pacifism * RICHARD: Is all you remember that Richard ‘thinks me a wanker’ and that Richard indulged in ‘the most imaginative name calling’? (...) I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label ... and attach ‘the most imaginative name calling’ that my fertile mind can dream up. If you, or anyone else, wishes to identify with an image ... then you will feel attacked. RESPONDENT: Very well said. A personal note if I may; no offence was created in the course of our discussion and presently no ill will is harboured. RICHARD: Why? Have you stopped having an image about yourself that you are harmless when you are not? Have you ceased ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ and faced up to the fact that sublimated malice is what created the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place? RESPONDENT: Please Richard, if I may, I did not indicate that you indulged in imaginative name calling. My comment was that our conversation ‘included some of the most imaginative name calling’. RICHARD: This is called back-pedalling ... because you did ‘indicate that [Richard] indulged in imaginative name calling’. Viz.:
The word ‘indicate’ does not mean ‘expressly stated’ ... it means ‘hint’, imply, ‘suggest’, ‘insinuate’ and so on. RESPONDENT: As your ambitious research proves out, either of us could be indicted on the charge of casting disparaging monikers. RICHARD: Indeed. I make no bones about it ... except that it is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label and ‘cast disparaging monikers’ upon and not the person. I have too much regard for my fellow human being to even contemplate doing that. RESPONDENT: I am grateful for the attention paid the matter Richard. If a conversation arises that another mention of the matter need be made, I will be certain to handle it with greater accuracy and deeper sensitivity. RICHARD: Whoa-up there ... what is this ‘if ... another mention of the matter need be made’ statement? It did not need to be made in the first place ... it was highly gratuitous and self-serving. In the jargon it would be said to be ‘ego-boosting’. RESPONDENT: It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Aye ... but, once again, I see that it has ‘netted very little’ for you.
RESPONDENT: The point mentioned, however, was appropriate in the conversation. RICHARD: This is the conversation wherein the point was mentioned:
I must be particularly dense ... for the life of me I cannot see where it was ‘appropriate in the conversation’. RESPONDENT: Your identification as dense is noted, Richard. Your life will not be required. RICHARD: Hmm ... is the context of your point (in the above conversation) also noted? You do seem to be avoiding an issue, here. * RICHARD: What I do see, however, is a gratuitous – and revealing – disparagement of our long and thoughtful discussions about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. It is revealing in that it smacks of a puerile attempt to promote and maintain your specious high moral ground ... such conduct is unbecoming in one who first came onto this Mailing List proclaiming: Viz.:
Then again ... unbecoming or not, it is quite typical. RESPONDENT: Ahh, what a lovely passage! Thank you, Richard for bringing up. RICHARD: I am pleased that you find it lovely ... now, will you – can you – address yourself to the issue? I only ask because avoidance does seem to be your modus operandi. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I gained immeasurably from our discussion. (...) Our communications netted heaps of valuable and revealing information for me ... which I have put to good use. RESPONDENT: That is Wonderful. Perhaps you will share with me some of the profit you uncovered during our conversations. (...) It being put to good use would never be in doubt. RICHARD: Golly ... to list all the benefit I gained would be far too long for this post. RESPONDENT: Really? What would determine this? RICHARD: Going by past experience ... E-Mails from a few of the people subscribed to the Mailing List who have pointed out to me that my posts are too long for their comfort zone to handle. RESPONDENT: Why, Richard have you determined that it is more important to go writing about your thoughts on hypocrisy than to offer some points of understanding you have gained? RICHARD: Goodness ... I am constantly offering points of understanding that I gain – and have gained – out of my on-going experience of being alive each moment again. How on earth could you possibly miss them? Cognitive dissonance, perchance? Let me re-present just one of them here for your perusal: ‘sublimated malice is what creates the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place’. RESPONDENT: Why is it important to you to have me know all this information you put here? RICHARD: Are you for real? I am simply responding to your request (further above). Viz.:
Call it common courtesy, if you will. * RICHARD: What immediately comes to mind, however, is being able to share with other would-be pacifists what wanking looks like in print. May I ask? Are you still ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ whilst skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world? RESPONDENT: No sign, Richard. Quite happy, however, with the amount of harm done today. Thank you for asking. Did you have a good day? RICHARD: I already always have perpetually perfect days ... not merely a good day. But here you are starting to do this ducking and weaving and slipping and slithering that typifies the vast majority of your posts. You cannot or will not answer a direct question with a direct answer. Plus you have done this – and still do – with other posters ... you clearly demonstrate a distinct disinclination to engage in reasoned discourse. Here are some direct questions:
* RICHARD: Not to mention the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on who go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge – your fellow human beings – and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. But I noticed that I locked and bolted my doors and windows and I noticed that I kept my money in a bank – and thus protected by armed security personnel – and not out in the open on a tray on the kitchen table for anyone on the street to see through the open front door. I noticed that I wound up the windows and locked the doors of my car in a public car-park ... and removed the keys from the ignition. I noticed that when I dispensed with the car and took to riding my bicycle that I chained it to a lamp-post ... it was becoming aware of minutiae like these that showed me how silly I was to allow principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who declared that they were not the body – to rule my life. Because I am this body living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and the military personnel and custom officers are the locks on the doors and the bars on the windows (the borders) of the country one lives in. It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. RESPONDENT: Richard, as we had discussed previously, whether one feels guilty about their chosen profession is decided as them. RICHARD: Of course ... but, as well you know, that is not what I was referring to. I was saying that hypocrisy enables a pusillanimous pacifist to adopt an ‘holier-than-thou’ approach ... whilst reaping the benefits of the other person’s intestinal fortitude. Given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. This will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition. It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as-they-are, then war is here to stay. Anyone in a state of denial about this just does not understand the human condition. This is why pacifism is hypocritical idiocy. RESPONDENT: As often repeated to the children here, if I could make anyone anything, I would make them happy and smart ... alas, I can not bring about, guilt, happiness, intelligence nor malice in anyone. RICHARD: You do not have to bring about malice ... the passionate survival instinct endowed per favour of genetic inheritance sees to that. As for guilt ... well-meant but uninformed peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning does that for you (and the pusillanimous pacifist gets a ego-boosting free ride on said conditioning). And, as happiness, harmlessness and a freed intelligence comes about upon the elimination of the cause of malice and sorrow, so long as you maintain your godly delusion ... Alas! and Alack! your hands are tied. So much for ‘infinite responsibility’ ... it must be such a shame that omnipotence did not come with the package, eh? RESPONDENT: That I have chosen to be soldiers, Richards, pacifists, apes, fishes, Ghandi’s, criminals, and lady bugs (that is our new dog’s name by the way! She is Lovely. A retired greyhound. She is only two years old. Believe it or not, she didn’t even know how to walk up steps when she came to us! She is an interesting partner for our bull mastiff ‘Manfred’) is alright with me. That, as you, I have chosen to lock doors and windows and keep money in the bank is fine. RICHARD: Are you really saying that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ‘is alright with me’ ? Do you not care about the plight of your fellow human being at all? There is a name for this uncaring and callous attitude (which shows through despite all the delusions of grandeur dressed up as divine indifference): fatalism. RESPONDENT: Here, the doors are not locked (sometimes, if Beautiful Wife is last to bed they are locked), Kathy has the van right now so I can not say where the keys are presently, however, when she arrives home, the keys will be over the visor for the night, and for those interested my money (about $150.00) is in my day-timer on my desk. Part of the money is mine through fiduciary responsibility to the father of one of the young ladies staying with us while father recoveries in hospital from surgery. Our house is currently shared with two teenage criminals (both convicted of violent larcenies). As me, this is what is, as you, it is different – that is fine. The truth of the matter is, I invite the criminals in. I live with the thugs you are hoping to be safe from. RICHARD: I have no need to hope to be safe from thugs ... the police force has dedicated career personnel who do a remarkably effective job of maintaining law and order when morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. But in case one does slip through the net ... I have household insurance. Hope is as futile a means for achieving results as is worry. Just in case you missed it ... that is one of my numerous ‘points of understanding’ that you need to have your attention drawn too ... and there were a couple more above as well. RESPONDENT: Here, I wish no one any harm, and will avoid doing harm to the extent that I reason is appropriate. I am certain that several lives were lost here this day in food preparation and in the processing of the clothing I choose to wear. Likewise, although I did not drive today, I did run the weed whacker, which is violent to the insect community that works in the garden as well as nasty to the air others breathe. RICHARD: Aye ... insects and bacteria and some hydro-carbons in the atmosphere are one thing but your fellow human being is another. Do you, or will you, defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being ... to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death? That is another direct question, by the way, just in case you do not know what they look like. RESPONDENT: Now, with that being said, as you, I may have done more violence today or less, and this is known as you. RICHARD: Very slick ... you do try hard to make your borrowed eastern mystical philosophy work. Yet it has not ever been lived successfully, is not currently being lived successfully and never will be lived successfully ... because it can never be lived successfully. This is what comes from allowing principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who clearly state that they are not the body – to rule one’s life when one is this body. How would a ‘Teaching’, conceived, hatched and propagated by bodiless entities, be of any use to flesh and blood bodies living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? This is what I realised whilst being deluded all those years ago. Their wisdom has not ever worked, is not currently working and never will work – because it can never work – if only because it is predicated upon ‘I am not this body’ ... hence the unliveable injunctions that abound in all scriptures. RESPONDENT: Likewise, as a bomber pilot over Belgrade, I may have done more harm, and this is known as the pilot. Each instance of harm (killing insects to maintain the garden I wish, eating a steak, or dropping a bomb on Belgrade) is fine to the extent I believe it so as each experience. RICHARD: And (dare I ask) do you so believe? Because the fact is, you are not a ‘bomber pilot over Belgrade’ and, being a vegan, nor do you ‘eat a steak’ ... which leaves you culpable only of the heinous crime of inadvertently ‘killing insects to maintain the garden’. * RICHARD: The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point ... pacifism means that the bully-boys get to rule the world. RESPONDENT: Richard, there are no bully-boys. RICHARD: There is a name for this attitude: denial (in your case: a massive denial). Burying your head in the sand does nothing to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. RESPONDENT: There may be obstructions to your desire to be a particular way (living, painless, wealthy, poor, loved, etc.) The children here are only a threat to what I may wish to be. If this body is put asunder, so be it. If this money is taken from the desk, so be it. That I feel differently as you, is OK as me. RICHARD: Here again is your borrowed eastern mystical philosophy ... does avoidance and denial and fatalism and delusion look as silly to you – when viewed sensibly in print – as it does to me when I read what you say? * RICHARD: Is all you remember that Richard ‘thinks me a wanker’ and that Richard indulged in ‘the most imaginative name calling’ ? (...) I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label ... and attach ‘the most imaginative name calling’ that my fertile mind can dream up. If you, or anyone else, wishes to identify with an image ... then you will feel attacked. RESPONDENT: Very well said. A personal note if I may; no offence was created in the course of our discussion and presently no ill will is harboured. RICHARD: Why? Have you stopped having an image about yourself that you are harmless when you are not? RESPONDENT: Stopped having an image? Yes this would be so. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... here is a good opportunity to repeat my direct questions (in case you fudge the issue above):
* RICHARD: Have you ceased ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’? RESPONDENT: Apparently see no sign. RICHARD: How about an unequivocal ‘yes’? Just to be sure, I will repeat my direct questions:
* RICHARD: Have you faced up to the fact that sublimated malice is what created the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place? RESPONDENT: Richard ... there is no concern here to be identified as anything, pacifist nor pacific ocean. That I am known as anything outside of these words is of no concern. RICHARD: But the question was (and still is despite your non-answer):
* RESPONDENT: Please Richard, if I may, I did not indicate that you indulged in imaginative name calling. My comment was that our conversation ‘included some of the most imaginative name calling’. RICHARD: This is called back-pedalling ... because you did ‘indicate that [Richard] indulged in imaginative name calling’. Viz.:
The word ‘indicate’ does not mean ‘expressly stated’ ... it means ‘hint’, imply, ‘suggest’, ‘insinuate’ and so on. RESPONDENT: I am grateful for the attention paid the matter Richard. If a conversation arises that another mention of the matter need be made, I will be certain to handle it with greater accuracy and deeper sensitivity. RICHARD: Whoa-up there ... what is this ‘if ... another mention of the matter need be made’ statement? It did not need to be made in the first place ... it was highly gratuitous and self-serving. In the jargon it would be said to be ‘ego-boosting’. RESPONDENT: You are correct Richard. The wording was poor. Perhaps this; if I choose to make reference to the matter again, I will do so with deeper sensitivity. Better still, I will commit to not making mention of that aspect of our conversation again. RICHARD: You just do not get it, do you? Superficially altering outward behavioural patterns is merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Aye ... but, once again, I see that it has ‘netted very little’ for you. RESPONDENT: As me, ’tis true. RICHARD: Why is that, do you think? If it is not cognitive dissonance ... then is it ... um ... ‘pigheaded stubbornness’, perchance? RESPONDENT: It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that.
RICHARD: Are you still ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ whilst skulking behind the most enormous military machine in the world? RESPONDENT: No sign, Richard. Quite happy, however, with the amount of harm done today. Thank you for asking. Did you have a good day? RICHARD: I already always have perpetually perfect days, No.14 … not merely a good day. But here you are starting to do this ducking and weaving and slipping and slithering that typifies the vast majority of your posts. You cannot or will not answer a direct question with a direct answer. Plus you have done this – and still do – with other posters … you clearly demonstrate a distinct disinclination to engage in reasoned discourse. Here are some direct questions: 1. Are you a pacifist? RICHARD: Here is a direct question: Are you a pacifist? RESPONDENT: ‘Pacifism. n: 1. The belief that disputes between nations can be settled peacefully’. ... utter non-sense. A dispute is the lack of peace, thus the settling of a dispute is never peaceful, it is simply the outcome of the violence. 2. ‘Opposition to violence as a means of resolving disputes’. ... nope, no opposition here. 3. ‘Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action’. ... nope, no opposition here. RICHARD: Unless you are saying, in the No. 2 and No. 3 answers that you presented above, that you have ‘no opposition to [personally using] violence as a means of resolving disputes’ and that you have ‘no opposition to [personally] participating in military action’ then I see that you are ducking and weaving and slipping and slithering with the words that you found in your dictionary. Therefore, would you care to examine the definition from the ‘Oxford Dictionary’:
I do this because you do seem to have fastened rather cleverly on the word ‘opposition’ in the No. 2 and No. 3 definitions that you presented above and all you have said is that there is ‘no opposition here’ , which, having had lengthy correspondence with you before, I take to mean that if physically attacked by an assailant, you would offer no opposition ... and thus you do not address the question at all. As for your comments on the No. 1 definition, given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. As this will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition, it does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as-they-are, then war is here to stay. Therefore, seeing that you live on a piece of land known as the US of A, do you ‘believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war’. And I only ask this in this way so that you do not fasten on the Oxford’s use of the word ‘rejecting’ and reply: ‘nope, no rejecting here’. I am sure that you will have a field day with the words ‘believe in’ and ‘advocate’ ... Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein has left a rather beguiling legacy, has he not? * RICHARD: Here is a direct question: Do you practise non-violence (‘ahimsa’)? RESPONDENT: Directly, yes, however I am not familiar with the entire ahimsa doctrine. I believe that Jains will not travel in the rainy season for fear of harming insects, and all other travel includes the constant sweeping of the path directly in front to remove, gently, any insects that might be harmed by foot fall. No similar exercise is practised here. RICHARD: Put simply, the ‘ahimsa’ doctrine is the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain ideology that there should be no violence or killing. Some do take it to the extremes of no violence or killing of insects, as you pointed out, whilst others only extend it to animals – like a vegetarian – or to animals plus animal products ... as a vegan like yourself. So, when you say ‘directly, yes’ to the question ‘do you practise non-violence’ would you be saying: ‘Yes, I am actively living, in my daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings or any other animal’? * RICHARD: Here is a direct question: Do you, or will you, defend yourself with physical force? RESPONDENT: No physical force here now, sans that which is applied to the keyboard. RICHARD: Never mind the keyboard ... are you saying: ‘No, I do not, nor will not, defend myself with physical force’? RESPONDENT: Moreover, I can not defend myself, I am myself. RICHARD: Hmm ... so if and/or when an assailant physically attacks you, he and/or she is really you physically attacking you, eh? I am sure that the borrowed ‘Cosmic Dance of Shiva’ spiritual philosophy brings you more than just a little comfort ... but it is a silly philosophy, is it not? Because it means that you are actively condoning all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that abound on this fair planet we all live on. RESPONDENT: Perhaps the whole problem would meet its end if the hypnosis of poorly used language was examined more carefully. RICHARD: If I may point out? The whole problem would begin to meet its end if the hypnosis of a borrowed eastern mysticism was examined more carefully. * RICHARD: The Military personnel, the State Police troopers, the FBI agents, the CIA operatives and so on go out of their way to enable you to preserve your body and keep your possessions. These are all people behind the badge – your fellow human beings – and wearing a pacifist badge is but a public demonstration of hypocritical idiocy. And I do understand pacifism ... I was deluded enough to be a pacifist myself for eleven years. (...) It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all the action whilst the pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something about maintaining law and order at the point of a gun where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. (...) Hypocrisy enables a pusillanimous pacifist to adopt an ‘holier-than-thou’ approach ... whilst reaping the benefits of the other person’s intestinal fortitude. Given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. This will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition. It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as-they-are, then war is here to stay. Anyone in a state of denial about this just does not understand the human condition. This is why pacifism is hypocritical idiocy. RESPONDENT: Okay Dokey, Richard. From what I read here of the philosophy, I tend to agree with your opinion of pacifism. RICHARD: Yet is it an opinion ... or is it a clear statement of fact? And what does ‘tend to agree’ mean?
I do so look forward to your considered response to all of these very direct questions. * RESPONDENT: As often repeated to the children here, if I could make anyone anything, I would make them happy and smart ... alas, I can not bring about, guilt, happiness, intelligence nor malice in anyone. RICHARD: You do not have to bring about malice ... the passionate survival instinct endowed per favour of genetic inheritance sees to that. As for guilt ... well-meant but uninformed peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning does that for you (and the pusillanimous pacifist gets a ego-boosting free ride on said conditioning). And, as happiness, harmlessness and a freed intelligence comes about upon the elimination of the cause of malice and sorrow, so long as you maintain your godly delusion ... Alas! and Alack! your hands are tied. So much for ‘infinite responsibility’ ... it must be such a shame that omnipotence did not come with the package, eh? RESPONDENT: Oh no, Richard you have misunderstood. Please allow me to re-state. I can do nothing, but I do everything. Omnipotence not only comes with the package, it is the package. I am infinitely responsible for I am responsible for each I that I create. I am responsible for being the action that are you, and I am responsible for the action that is I. RICHARD: In that case ... why did you kill yourself 160,000,000 times in ghastly wars this century? Why do you murder and rape and torture yourself ... and wreak havoc with all that appalling domestic violence and child abuse and suicides that you inflict upon yourself? There are 6.0 billion human beings suffering because they do not realise that they are you doing gruesome things to yourself ... is it because you are a sick god? Do you need some treatment, god? RESPONDENT: That I have chosen to be soldiers, Richards, pacifists, apes, fishes, Ghandi’s, criminals, and lady bugs (...) is alright with me. That, as you, I have chosen to lock doors and windows and keep money in the bank is fine. RICHARD: Are you really saying that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ‘is alright with me’? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Then may you continue to be non-effective in converting people to your hideous – and borrowed – spiritual philosophy ... or else all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will roll on down unto the twenty first century. * RICHARD: Do you not care about the plight of your fellow human being at all? RESPONDENT: Oh, yes I do, and I am confident that when infinite responsibility is acknowledged, every aspect of it that is not consciously desired will cease. RICHARD: Where you say ‘I am confident that when infinite responsibility is acknowledged’ are you saying that when every man woman and child bows down to you (as god) – because they are you (as god) – then all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides will cease? And in case you play games with the ‘bows down’ phrase, allow me to demonstrate with a quote from another deluded man, a man who was, is and always will be:
Now, I only include this quote (and I have many, many more on my hard drive in case this one does not fit) because you came onto this Mailing List saying:
* RICHARD: There is a name for this uncaring and callous attitude (which shows through despite all the delusions of grandeur dressed up as divine indifference): fatalism. RESPONDENT: ‘Fatalism. n.: The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and therefore unalterable by man’. There is no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience, recognized here, thus no fatalism. When you (I) want to feel differently you (I) will. RICHARD: If, as you say, there is ‘no fate, nor any agency that might predetermine experience’ then why are 6.0 billion human beings suffering (as in malice and sorrow) in the first place? Because if the end of human suffering is so simple, as you go on to say, that all that they (as you) have to do is to ‘want to feel differently’, then what is determining that 6.0 billion human beings should want to feel the way that they currently do? What I am getting at is: why are you doing this? Why are you (as god) wanting to hurt yourself (as god) so atrociously that you (as god) currently do hurt yourself? Are you (as god) a sadomasochist? RESPONDENT: Our house is currently shared with two teenage criminals (both convicted of violent larcenies). As me, this is what is, as you, it is different – that is fine. The truth of the matter is, I invite the criminals in. I live with the thugs you are hoping to be safe from. RICHARD: I have no need to hope to be safe from thugs ... the police force has dedicated career personnel who do a remarkably effective job of maintaining law and order when morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. RESPONDENT: In that instance, then I am a part of that which keeps you safe and free from worry. RICHARD: I would hazard a guess that the dedicated career personnel in the police force would hardly thank you for taking all the credit for their diligent and dangerous work in maintaining law and order when morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’ that lurks deep within the human breast. And I am ‘free from worry’ because of my own diligence and application in undoing the well-meant but uninformed peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning that I received from the moment I first emerged as a baby into the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. Then I dug deep into my affective feelings, deep down past the superficial emotions into the depths of my being and found malice and sorrow antidotally generating love and compassion ... and in ignorance I found myself as malice and sorrow sublimating myself into Love and Compassion – I ceased having my feelings happen to me and instead became those sublimated feelings as an on-going transcendent State Of Being – I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. It took me eleven years to get out of the delusion that I was God On Earth and finally become free of the human condition ... thus my being ‘free from worry’ has nowt to do with you and your grisly fantasy. Which means that the pathetic posturings of the Gurus and God-men have contributed zilch towards enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent. RESPONDENT: Here, I wish no one any harm, and will avoid doing harm to the extent that I reason is appropriate. I am certain that several lives were lost here this day in food preparation and in the processing of the clothing I choose to wear. Likewise, although I did not drive today, I did run the weed whacker, which is violent to the insect community that works in the garden as well as nasty to the air others breath. RICHARD: Aye ... insects and bacteria and some hydro-carbons in the atmosphere are one thing but your fellow human being is another. RESPONDENT: Interesting thought. It is not shared here. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... you clearly state (further above) that you do differentiate between insects and animals:
Thus, ‘interesting thought’ or not ... it is ‘shared here’ after all. * RICHARD: Do you, or will you, defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: If I may point out? Neither will the people who, not being as sly as you are, clearly identify themselves as being pacifists. * RICHARD: Do you, or will you, defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being ... to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death? RESPONDENT: No. RICHARD: May I ask a question? Why would you (as god) attack you (as god) in the first place? Is it so that you (as god) can go around being all ‘goodie-goodie’ by not defending yourself with physical force to the point of serious physical damage or even death? Does it enable you (as god) to feel the warm glow that the ‘holier-than-thou’ feeling brings to your bosom? That is: the self-same bosom that you nurse sublimated malice and sorrow in? What I am getting at is: is ‘non-violence’ nothing but a salve to a conscience that realises that one is as covertly guilty of malice as one’s assailant is overtly guilty of malice? RESPONDENT: As a bomber pilot over Belgrade, I may have done more harm, and this is known as the pilot. Each instance of harm (killing insects to maintain the garden I wish, eating a steak, or dropping a bomb on Belgrade) is fine to the extent I believe it so as each experience. RICHARD: And (dare I ask) do you so believe? RESPONDENT: I can not speak of your courage and how it will determine what you ask, but since you seemed to have summoned enough fortitude to put forth the question (were you just being theatrical or did you really struggle with a fear of asking the question?) the answer is yes, I so believe. RICHARD: Just to be sure ... with your ‘the answer is yes, I so believe’ statement, do you realise that you are saying that you believe that ‘each instance of harm is fine’? Which means that you believe that each instance of war is fine; you believe that each instance of murder is fine; you believe that each instance of rape is fine; you believe that each instance of torture is fine; you believe that each instance of domestic violence is fine; you believe that each instance of child abuse is fine and you believe that each instance of suicide is fine? And no, I did not ‘struggle with a fear of asking the question’ ... it was that I did not expect a reply in the affirmative. You do have an amazing gall ... or else you are just plain stupefied. Does ‘Beautiful Wife’ know that you believe that each instance of rape is fine? Who knows ... maybe you also believe that rape is a good learning experience for women in that they may come to realise that they are ... um ... god raping god? * RICHARD: But the fact is, you are not a ‘bomber pilot over Belgrade’ and, being a vegan, nor do you ‘eat a steak’ ... which leaves you culpable only of the heinous crime of inadvertently ‘killing insects to maintain the garden’. RESPONDENT: Thank you, however I will ask that you forgive me, for I will not rely on the thoughts from there to inform me accurately of my responsibility. RICHARD: Oh, I am well aware that you do not ... being so deeply entrenched in your borrowed eastern mystical philosophy as you are, you are incapable of seeing the sense of relying upon commonsense. * RICHARD: The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point ... pacifism means that the bully-boys get to rule the world. RESPONDENT: Richard, there are no bully-boys. RICHARD: There is a name for this attitude: denial (in your case: a massive denial). Burying your head in the sand does nothing to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. RESPONDENT: Of course it does not. What does, however, is an acknowledgment of responsibility. Just as, as you, I can take responsibility for feeling the way I do (as you) about all the ‘wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides’, and change it if I wish, I can take responsibility for my feelings about everything and thus avoid all ‘wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides’ by feeling differently about my possessions and the station I have created as life. I have no need to feel sad, nor violent, nor horny, nor depressed. I can become suicide if I like, but I need not feel as though I am compelled to be suicide. I have no need to beat the child, I can simply change how I feel about the circumstance I have created as anger. Such things are done here daily, and since that which chooses as me is what chooses as all beings (that being I), it can be done anywhere, anytime. These things you speak of, ‘wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides’, are not due to the human condition, they are due to not acknowledging responsibility for what one creates. RICHARD: If, as you so clearly state, that human suffering is not due to the human condition but is due to ‘not acknowledging responsibility for what one creates’ then what, may I ask, causes one (as god) to create it in the first place? And secondly: why is one (as god) so reluctant to acknowledge responsibility for what one (as god) creates? What with you (as god) being omnipotent and all that ... I am sure that you (as god) know the answer already. Would you care to give forth of your wisdom to a benighted humanity? What I am getting at is: why are you (as god) doing all this mayhem and misery? RESPONDENT: There may be obstructions to your desire to be a particular way (living, painless, wealthy, poor, loved, etc.) The children here are only a threat to what I may wish to be. If this body is put asunder, so be it. If this money is taken from the desk, so be it. That I feel differently as you, is OK as me. RICHARD: Very slick ... you do try hard to make your borrowed eastern mystical philosophy work. Yet it has not ever been lived successfully, is not currently being lived successfully and never will be lived successfully ... because it can never be lived successfully. This is what comes from allowing principles decreed by Gurus and God-men – who clearly state that they are not the body – to rule one’s life when one is this body. How would a ‘Teaching’, conceived, hatched and propagated by bodiless entities, be of any use to flesh and blood bodies living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? This is what I realised whilst being deluded all those years ago. Their wisdom has not ever worked, is not currently working and never will work – because it can never work – if only because it is predicated upon ‘I am not this body’ ... hence the unliveable injunctions that abound in all scriptures. Does avoidance and denial and fatalism and delusion look as silly to you – when viewed sensibly in print – as it does to me when I read what you say? RESPONDENT: As to fatalism, yes, it appears to be a rather silly philosophy. As to denial, there is none here. RICHARD: May I offer the following exchange for your elucidation?
I classify that answer as being in a state of denial about what is happening in this world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: The only meaningful denial is denial of responsibility, and denial of responsibility is the only delusion. RICHARD: Okay ... I will run with this and see where it goes (and please correct me if I have got it wrong): upwards of 1.0 million Tibetans (as you) were brutally slaughtered by the Chinese (as you) because the Chinese (as you) were in a state of denial – ‘the only meaningful denial’ – about being you (as god). And, furthermore, this ‘denial of responsibility’ (the denial of the responsibility of being the one who creates such mayhem and misery by denying that one is god all along) is, you say, ‘the only delusion’. Have I understood you? Which is: god is doing brutal things to god because god is in denial about being god ... thus creating all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? How does that sound to you? Have I got it right? If so, does it look as silly to you – when viewed sensibly in print – as it does to me when I read what you say? * RICHARD: Have you faced up to the fact that sublimated malice is what created the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place? RESPONDENT: Nope. RICHARD: Hmm ... having just waded through the convolutions of your mind (above) I can readily understand why you have not faced up to the fact that sublimated malice is what created the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place. * RICHARD: Is all you remember of our long and thoughtful discussions about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being that Richard ‘thinks me a wanker’ and that Richard indulged in ‘the most imaginative name calling’ ? I would never stoop so low as to name-call any person, least of all you ... for I have too much regard for my fellow human being. It is identities – images about oneself – that I categorise, judge, label ... and attach ‘the most imaginative name calling’ that my fertile mind can dream up. If you, or anyone else, wishes to identify with an image ... then you will feel attacked. RESPONDENT: Please Richard, if I may, I did not indicate that you indulged in imaginative name calling. My comment was that our conversation ‘included some of the most imaginative name calling’. RICHARD: This is called back-pedalling ... because you did ‘indicate that [Richard] indulged in imaginative name calling’. Viz.:
The word ‘indicate’ does not mean ‘expressly stated’ ... it means ‘hint’, imply, ‘suggest’, ‘insinuate’ and so on. RESPONDENT: I am grateful for the attention paid the matter Richard. If a conversation arises that another mention of the matter need be made, I will be certain to handle it with greater accuracy and deeper sensitivity. RICHARD: Whoa-up there ... what is this ‘if ... another mention of the matter need be made’ statement? It did not need to be made in the first place ... it was highly gratuitous and self-serving. In the jargon it would be said to be ‘ego-boosting’. RESPONDENT: You are correct Richard. The wording was poor. Perhaps this; if I choose to make reference to the matter again, I will do so with deeper sensitivity. Better still, I will commit to not making mention of that aspect of our conversation again. RICHARD: You just do not get it, do you? Superficially altering outward behavioural patterns is merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’. RESPONDENT: And saving the Titanic is merely rearranging ships on the ocean. RICHARD: You still do not get it, do you? Superficially altering outward behavioural patterns clearly indicates a refusal to face up to the fact that sublimated malice is what created the desire to identify as a pacifist in the first place. May I suggest? Take a good look into your feelings – deep down below the superficial emotions – into the depths of your being. You never know ... you may discover the source of your delusion that you are God On Earth. RESPONDENT: It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Aye ... but, once again, I see that it has ‘netted very little’ for you. RESPONDENT: As me, ’tis true. RICHARD: Why is that, do you think? If it is not cognitive dissonance ... then is it ... um ... ‘pigheaded stubbornness’, perchance? RESPONDENT: Either way you care to imagine it is fine. RICHARD: No, I do not ‘care to imagine’ what goes on in your brain at all ... speculating about another person’s convoluted thought-process is such a waste of time. That is why I asked you to elucidate for me why you were inspired to explain to another poster that ‘As to Richard, our past discussions (...) though thorough and imaginative, have netted very little’ . Why this reluctance to examine what goes on in your head and heart? Why? RESPONDENT: It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Why?
RICHARD: Do you, or will you, defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being ... to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death? RESPONDENT: I find it much clearer to say; I will not harm in order to avoid being harmed. Moreover, I can not defend myself, I am myself. RICHARD: So if and/or when an assailant physically attacks you, he and/or she is really you physically attacking you, eh? RESPONDENT: Without question, yes. RICHARD: Why would you (as god) attack you (as god) in the first place? RESPONDENT: That is known as me in each instance. * RICHARD: As happiness, harmlessness and a freed intelligence only comes about upon the elimination of the cause of malice and sorrow, so long as you maintain your godly delusion your hands are tied. So much for ‘infinite responsibility’ ... it must be such a shame that omnipotence did not come with the package, eh? RESPONDENT: Please allow me to re-state. I can do nothing, but I do everything. Omnipotence not only comes with the package, it is the package. I am infinitely responsible for I am responsible for each I that I create. I am responsible for being the action that are you, and I am responsible for the action that is I. RICHARD: In that case ... why did you kill yourself 160,000,000 times in ghastly wars this century? Why do you murder and rape and torture yourself ... and wreak havoc with all that appalling domestic violence and child abuse and suicides that you inflict upon yourself? There are 6.0 billion human beings suffering because they do not realise that they are you doing gruesome things to yourself ? RESPONDENT: That was known, is known, as me each time it happens. RICHARD: And are you really saying that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ‘is alright with me’? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: You said that you believe that ‘each instance of harm is fine’. Which means that you believe that each instance of war is fine; you believe that each instance of murder is fine; you believe that each instance of rape is fine; you believe that each instance of torture is fine; you believe that each instance of domestic violence is fine; you believe that each instance of child abuse is fine and you believe that each instance of suicide is fine? RESPONDENT: Yep. RICHARD: Does ‘Beautiful Wife’ know that you believe that each instance of rape is fine? RESPONDENT: Yes – she chooses to feel differently – that is fine too. * RICHARD: Pacifism means that the bully-boys get to rule the world. The Tibetan situation is a particular case in point. RESPONDENT: Richard, there are no bully-boys. RICHARD: I classify that answer as being in a state of denial about what is happening in this world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: Yes, you do Richard – your opinion is noted (...) the only meaningful denial is denial of responsibility, and denial of responsibility is the only delusion. RICHARD: Okay ... please correct me if I have got this wrong: upwards of 1.0 million Tibetans (as you) were brutally slaughtered by the Chinese (as you) because the Chinese (as you) were in a state of denial – ‘the only meaningful denial’ – about being you (as god). And, furthermore, this ‘denial of responsibility’ (the denial of the responsibility of being the one who creates such mayhem and misery by denying that one is god all along) is, you say, ‘the only delusion’. Have I understood you? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Which is: god is doing brutal things to god because god is in denial about being god ... thus creating all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? How does that sound to you? Have I got it right? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Does it look as silly to you – when viewed sensibly in print – as it does to me when I read what you say? RESPONDENT: Nope (...) It is a pleasure to speak with you again. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: The only possible reason there could be – I want it to be. Again, if I can be of assistance to you, please ask. RICHARD: I will, and thank you for your offer ... I do appreciate the time and effort you put into patiently answering my numerous queries. I have nearly finished, though ... there are only a few points that I would like to be absolutely clear on. If I may impose upon your patience one or two more times? I wonder if I may have some clarification on this point first? When I asked:
... you answered, unequivocally:
And when I asked:
... you answered, unequivocally:
And when I asked:
... you answered, unequivocally:
And when I asked:
... you answered, unequivocally:
Thus, by my count I make that four times that you unequivocally stated that you will not use physical violence against another human being if physically attacked. In fact, you clearly stated that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’. I find that very clear and unambiguous ... and I thank you again for you time and your patience. Yet when I asked:
... you answered:
And when I asked:
... you answered:
And when I asked:
... you answered:
And when I asked:
... you answered:
Thus, by my count I make that four times that you replied that you had no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes or personally participating in military action and that you did not believe in and advocate peaceful methods as being feasible and desirable alternatives to war. I am sure that by now you will be appreciating the point that I wish to become clear on ... which is: how would you ‘personally participate in military action’ , given that you have ‘no opposition to personally using violence as a means of resolving disputes’ and that you are no longer ‘gladly wearing a sign that says ‘I will do you no harm’’ ... yet all the while ‘actively living, in your daily life, the doctrine of no violence or killing of human beings’ ... given that you found it much clearer to say that you ‘will not harm in order to avoid being harmed’ and that you would not defend yourself with physical force against a flesh and blood human being to the point of serious physical damage to them or even death’? Now, I know that when I mused about this before, you replied:
But I needed to ponder a little more and mull over the information just to be sure that my name was not really ‘Richard Cranium’. So, given as you were so generous to offer ‘again, if I can be of assistance to you, please ask’ ... then I will take you up on your offer and ask you this: Will you clarify this dichotomy (above), by explaining how to ‘examine more carefully’ and demonstrate what you mean by the ‘hypnosis of poorly used language’? Just a suggestion, mind you, but if you could use a more useful explanation than, say: ‘If you would like to know why, the answer is with you’ or ‘That is decided as me in each instance’ or ‘The explanation is in the action’, then I would certainly appreciate it.
CORRESPONDENT No. 14 (Part Five) 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 |
