|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RICHARD: And, not only was I interested as to why a ‘unmanifest, non-existent ... no-thing’ would be called ‘actual’, I had intended to query what the word <real> means, in your use of language, in your ‘matter is real but not actual’ sentence ... but you have already explained that ‘real’ indicates that space and time and matter are not fact, not actual and are but illusions or concepts. Vis.: [Respondent No. 4]: ‘It is only the manifestation of energy as materiality that I regard as impermanent and therefore as illusion, as non-actuality. Illusion is real, time-bound, ever-changing, arising and vanishing. Actuality is not real, not time-bounding, not ever changing’. <snip>. There is really nothing else I wanted to ask you about. I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’, which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’ because the ‘me’ as soul, who was parasitically inhabiting this body, was that non-material consciousness night and day for eleven years (only ‘he’ called it ‘The Absolute’) ... so there is nothing I am not already aware of, from first-hand experience, that I could become aware of from your ‘nobody knows’ song. Nevertheless, there may be something which you wish to address – or an aspect of the previous E-Mail you may want me to respond to specifically – in which case I am only too happy to reply. If not ... I do appreciate that the discussion was able to happen. RESPONDENT: Translation: Now that I understand that I cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong, I can rest my case. For since I cannot find that flaw, what you say is true, and in that it is true, it must be the case that I know it all already. For I am innocence. I am truth. And so in conclusion, there is nothing for me to speak to you about, I know everything already, though you might want to learn something from me, if you care to ask. RICHARD: You are joking, I presume? Because, if not, and if you have read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then you were obviously defending the indefensible by saying lamely that Richard ‘cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong’. As this is patently incorrect then the conclusions you thus come to are equally erroneous and not able to be responded to. And, further, if you are indeed not joking and if you have indeed not read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then what you write here is ignorantly erroneous and equally not able to be responded to. And if you are joking ... I do not get the point of such laboured humour.
RICHARD: And, not only was I interested as to why a ‘unmanifest, non-existent ... no-thing’ would be called ‘actual’, I had intended to query what the word <real> means, in your use of language, in your ‘matter is real but not actual’ sentence ... but you have already explained that ‘real’ indicates that space and time and matter are not fact, not actual and are but illusions or concepts. Vis.: [Respondent No. 4]: ‘It is only the manifestation of energy as materiality that I regard as impermanent and therefore as illusion, as non-actuality. Illusion is real, time-bound, ever-changing, arising and vanishing. Actuality is not real, not time-bounding, not ever changing’. <snip>. There is really nothing else I wanted to ask you about. I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ , which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’ because the ‘me’ as soul, who was parasitically inhabiting this body, was that non-material consciousness night and day for eleven years (only ‘he’ called it ‘The Absolute’) ... so there is nothing I am not already aware of, from first-hand experience, that I could become aware of from your ‘nobody knows’ song. Nevertheless, there may be something which you wish to address – or an aspect of the previous E-Mail you may want me to respond to specifically – in which case I am only too happy to reply. If not ... I do appreciate that the discussion was able to happen. RESPONDENT: Translation: Now that I understand that I cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong, I can rest my case. For since I cannot find that flaw, what you say is true, and in that it is true, it must be the case that I know it all already. For I am innocence. I am truth. And so in conclusion, there is nothing for me to speak to you about, I know everything already, though you might want to learn something from me, if you care to ask. RICHARD: You are joking, I presume? Because, if not, and if you have read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then you were obviously defending the indefensible by saying lamely that Richard ‘cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong’. As this is patently incorrect then the conclusions you thus come to are equally erroneous and not able to be responded to. And, further, if you are indeed not joking and if you have indeed not read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then what you write here is ignorantly erroneous and equally not able to be responded to. And if you are joking ... I do not get the point of such laboured humour. RESPONDENT: Can’t decide which interpretation to go with? RICHARD: I would not make such a basic mistake as what you suggest here ... surely it must be obvious I was doing no such thing as you are surreptitiously implying: I was asking you if it were a joke you were making (and providing reasons why I asked). So I will ask again: You were joking, I presume? RESPONDENT: Selfless pomposity is funny, but I would not expect you to see the reflection. RICHARD: Where is this ‘selfless pomposity’ which you see? For it to be ‘funny’, for me to ‘see the reflection’ which you see, it would have to be factual pomposity (else you are but laughing at your own intrapolation). RESPONDENT: A line such as ‘there is nothing for me to speak to you about, I know everything already’ ... RICHARD: But that is your line, and not mine, which you are laughing at. RESPONDENT: ... or a line such as ‘I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ ...’ is based on the belief that you have an intimate comprehension of that energy which is innocence. RICHARD: In order for you to find it funny – and in order for you to get me to see the humour – it must first be established, that your mind-reading abilities that it is ‘based upon a belief’ that I have, be accurate (else you are but laughing at your own intrapolation). RESPONDENT: And that belief is contrary to the nature of innocence. RICHARD: If you were to read what I said with both eyes you will see that the ‘innocence’ I was referring to is in quotes and italicised ... it is the supposed ‘innocence’ of the non-material consciousness (by whatever name) I was speaking of. And yes, that supposed ‘innocence’ has the supposed nature of humility and would give the impression to the gullible that it is indeed humble. And now here is a ‘God-Man’ joke for you: ‘I Am Humble – I am God On Earth’. Do you get the ‘incompatible tension’ in that statement? After all, it is incompatible tension that ‘makes for humour’, eh? RESPONDENT: You set yourself up as some All knowing One, and at the same time claim that there is no self present that is doing that. RICHARD: The capitalised phrase ‘All knowing One’ is religio-spiritual jargon and does not apply to me at all ... I am a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. Again, you are laughing at your own intrapolation. RESPONDENT: And this incompatible tension is that what makes for humour. Of course, in order to get that humour, there needs to be the ability for you to laugh at your superciliousness. RICHARD: Again, in order for you to get me to see the humour it must first be established that there is any ‘superciliousness’ in me ... outside of your own mind, that is. And, again, you are but once more laughing at your own intrapolation. RESPONDENT: But since you claim that the ego is extinct, you find that there is nothing at all to laugh at, or that can laugh. RICHARD: Not just ‘I’ as ego ... ‘me’ as soul is also extinct (the identity in toto is not extant). Of course you are correct that there be nothing in what you have intrapolated that I can find to be humorous at all ... I do not even find it funny that you do so. As for your last statement (‘... or that can laugh’ ) I can assure you, for what that is worth, that one has no need to have an ‘ego’ in order to laugh. I laugh a lot ... there is so much about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is, sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, that I find irrepressibly ludicrous. RESPONDENT: But there is something that is serious in your reply. RICHARD: No, there is nothing ‘serious’ in what I do or say – sincere yes – but ‘serious’? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious (in order for there to be seriousness there must be an in situ responsibility). RESPONDENT: You do believe that you have found a flaw in No. 4’s presentation. RICHARD: I do not ‘believe’ I have found a flaw ... I know it to be flawed (the entire proposition is fatally flawed from its very first premise). RESPONDENT: So here is your chance to repeat that penetrating analysis. RICHARD: Nope ... it is your proposal that there be no flaws so you do your own work in demonstrating your theory to be correct (you have not even acknowledged whether you read the in-depth and detailed exchange or not yet). I have had lengthy correspondence with you in the past – extending over two or so years – and you demonstrated again and again that you have the proclivity of holding your cards close to your chest ... as if this be a poker game rather than an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition. I am up-front and out in the open in all my writings.
RICHARD: And, not only was I interested as to why a ‘unmanifest, non-existent ... no-thing’ would be called ‘actual’, I had intended to query what the word <real> means, in your use of language, in your ‘matter is real but not actual’ sentence ... but you have already explained that ‘real’ indicates that space and time and matter are not fact, not actual and are but illusions or concepts. Vis.: [Respondent No. 4]: ‘It is only the manifestation of energy as materiality that I regard as impermanent and therefore as illusion, as non-actuality. Illusion is real, time-bound, ever-changing, arising and vanishing. Actuality is not real, not time-bounding, not ever changing’. <snip>. There is really nothing else I wanted to ask you about. I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ , which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’ because the ‘me’ as soul, who was parasitically inhabiting this body, was that non-material consciousness night and day for eleven years (only ‘he’ called it ‘The Absolute’) ... so there is nothing I am not already aware of, from first-hand experience, that I could become aware of from your ‘nobody knows’ song. Nevertheless, there may be something which you wish to address – or an aspect of the previous E-Mail you may want me to respond to specifically – in which case I am only too happy to reply. If not ... I do appreciate that the discussion was able to happen. RESPONDENT: Translation: Now that I understand that I cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong, I can rest my case. For since I cannot find that flaw, what you say is true, and in that it is true, it must be the case that I know it all already. For I am innocence. I am truth. And so in conclusion, there is nothing for me to speak to you about, I know everything already, though you might want to learn something from me, if you care to ask. RICHARD: You are joking, I presume? Because, if not, and if you have read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then you were obviously defending the indefensible by saying lamely that Richard ‘cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong’. As this is patently incorrect then the conclusions you thus come to are equally erroneous and not able to be responded to. And, further, if you are indeed not joking and if you have indeed not read the lengthy and detailed exchange, whence came this quote of mine (further above), then what you write here is ignorantly erroneous and equally not able to be responded to. And if you are joking ... I do not get the point of such laboured humour. RESPONDENT: Can’t decide which interpretation to go with? RICHARD: I would not make such a basic mistake as what you suggest here ... surely it must be obvious I was doing no such thing as you are surreptitiously implying: I was asking you if it were a joke you were making (and providing reasons why I asked). So I will ask again: You were joking, I presume? RESPONDENT: Your post shows that you cannot decide whether I am joking or not. RICHARD: No ... my post shows that I am asking you whether you were joking or not (and that you do not answer is an example of what I mean by holding your cards close to your chest). RESPONDENT: And apparently my first reply did not help you decide the question. RICHARD: It is this simple: I was asking you if it were a joke you were making (and providing reasons why I asked). So I will ask again: You were joking, I presume? RESPONDENT: My suggestion is that this indicates something amiss in your faculties of discernment. Since I think that it is not difficult to detect the humour in making my point. RICHARD: Is this an oblique way of saying that you were not joking when you wrote ‘now that I [Richard] understand that I [Richard] cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong, I [Richard] can rest my case’ ... but were using humour to make your point that I could not find a flaw and that I was resting my case? If so, and if this is indeed your point, why does it take three E-Mails just to establish a firm base from which to discuss a topic sensibly? * RESPONDENT: Selfless pomposity is funny, but I would not expect you to see the reflection. RICHARD: Where is this ‘selfless pomposity’ which you see? For it to be ‘funny’, for me to ‘see the reflection’ which you see, it would have to be factual pomposity (else you are but laughing at your own intrapolation). RESPONDENT: Of course, you can claim that it is my interpolation. RICHARD: Hmm ... if I had wanted to say that it is your ‘interpolation’ (‘an insertion of something additional or different’) I would have said ‘interpolation’ . Whereas, as what you are doing is intrapolating, I said intrapolation (‘an inference within the scope or framework of what is known’). Consequently, as there is not the slightest trace of ‘selfless pomposity’ in this flesh and blood body it cannot be a ‘claim’ I am making that it be your intrapolation ... it is indeed your intrapolation. Whereas a person saying ‘I am Humble – I am God On Earth’ could be said to be displaying ‘selfless pomposity’. RESPONDENT: But I gave two examples directly below. Instead of holding off your response until you read those examples, you start in with some defence. RICHARD: You apparently read/respond to E-Mails differently than I do: I first read the E-Mail from beginning to end as-it-is on-line; I then put it through an auto-cleaner (which strips out everything but raw text and then auto-formats it); I then read it through a second time in its re-formatted layout in a Word Processor ... and then type in my response with this refreshed appraisal of the general thrust the whole of the E-Mail in mind. * RESPONDENT: A line such as ‘there is nothing for me to speak to you about, I know everything already’ ... RICHARD: But that is your line, and not mine, which you are laughing at. RESPONDENT: This is not an honest reply to the example. Taking a line out of context leaves out information. RICHARD: Oh? I will put it into context, then. Vis.:
Put into context I see that the entire paragraph – and not just the line – is your paragraph, and not mine, which you are laughing at. RESPONDENT: But my point is not what your point to Respondent No. 4 was, but how you are expressing it!! Why is there NOTHING?? Why do you know EVERYTHING?? Those are absolutist terms for what is not an absolute matter. RICHARD: You must be referring to this sentence (at the top of the page):
The reason why there is ‘NOTHING’ I could become aware of from the ‘nobody knows’ song should be strikingly obvious: if ‘nobody knows’ there is ‘NOTHING’ to be obtained from the ‘nobody knows’ song. The reason why I know ‘EVERYTHING’ of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’, which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’ is because the ‘me’ as soul, who was parasitically inhabiting this body, was that non-material consciousness night and day for eleven years (only ‘he’ called it ‘The Absolute’). They are indeed ‘absolutist terms’ for it is indeed an ‘absolute matter’ ... and the way I am ‘expressing it!!’ is simple, straightforward, direct to the point, up-front and out in the open. I lay all my cards on the table from the very beginning ... my agenda is explicitly expressed: it is possible to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only. * RESPONDENT: ... or a line such as ‘I already have intimate comprehension, of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ ...’ is based on the belief that you have an intimate comprehension of that energy which is innocence. RICHARD: In order for you to find it funny – and in order for you to get me to see the humour – it must first be established, that your mind-reading abilities that it is ‘based upon a belief’ that I have, be accurate (else you are but laughing at your own intrapolation). RESPONDENT: No, this is not the way humour operates. Humour operates by suggestion, and the line is suggestive of that belief. RICHARD: What ‘belief’? Are you referring to your intrapolation that my intimate comprehension (of the nature of the non-material consciousness or energy which is ‘innocence’ which ‘itself never suffers’, which is ‘independent of its manifestations’) is based on ‘the belief’ that I have an intimate comprehension of that energy which is ‘innocence’? If so, all that the line ‘is suggestive of’ is your intrapolation. Thus the humour which is operating is operating only in your intrapolation. RESPONDENT: You are looking for there to be some factual determination of what is actually in your mind, in order to find what you say funny, and this is not what happens. RICHARD: So I have noticed. RESPONDENT: Human beings have a great ability to understand what others think, believe and feel, and this has nothing to do with mind reading. That does not mean that they get it always right. But they get it right a great deal of the time. And there are reasons for this, if you are interested. So calling it my mind reading abilities, must be seen as an attempt to avoid and defend against the possibility of another seeing you for what you are. RICHARD: This is the second time in this E-Mail that you have raised this notion of ‘defend’ or ‘defence’ (as in your ‘you start in with some defence’ further above) as if my responding in the negative, to what you intrapolated, has some profound psychological implications. Maybe if I put what you suggest into an outrageously simple example: if I were to say to a female ‘you are a male, and that is not my intrapolation because it is my great ability to understand’, and if she then said to me ‘no I am not a male’ I could then rightfully say, according to your above rationale, ‘calling it my mind reading abilities must be seen as an attempt to avoid and defend against the possibility of another seeing you for what you are’. Is this not a silly approach to adopt in an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition? * RESPONDENT: And that belief is contrary to the nature of innocence. RICHARD: If you were to read what I said with both eyes you will see that the ‘innocence’ I was referring to is in quotes and italicised ... it is the supposed ‘innocence’ of the non-material consciousness (by whatever name) I was speaking of. And yes, that supposed ‘innocence’ has the supposed nature of humility and would give the impression to the gullible that it is indeed humble. And now here is a ‘God-Man’ joke for you: ‘I Am Humble – I am God On Earth’. RESPONDENT: Do you notice your use of ‘gullible’, your use of ‘see with both eyes’. These are put downs of the person who is challenging you. I don’t care that you are resorting to these underhanded tactics at intimidation, they do not have the desired effect. But it is important to point out what you are doing!! You want the right to put down the other and at the same time claim that you don’t have a self. You want to provoke hurt in another, and yet you speak about peace on earth. But you don’t see any of this. All you see is the belief that you are truth, you are innocence (in italics). How can you ever see that you are mistaken, when you leave no error in your conception of who you are, for making such errors? RICHARD: Of course I know that I wrote ‘if you were to read what I said with both eyes’ (I said it because you had obviously overlooked and/or only part-read what I was saying) ... and you do it again here: ‘all you see is the belief that you are innocence (in italics)’. So I will say it again: if you were to read what I said with both eyes you will see that the ‘innocence’ I was referring to is the supposed ‘innocence’ of the non-material consciousness (by whatever name) that I was speaking of. I do not have ‘the belief’ that I am ‘innocence (in italics)’ and nowhere do I say that I am that supposed ‘innocence’ (and nowhere do I say that I am ‘truth’, either, for that matter). Therefore, it is not a ‘putdown of the person who is challenging’ me at all; it is not an ‘underhanded tactic at intimidation’; it is not an indication that I ‘want to provoke hurt in another’ ... as that is not what I am ‘doing!!’ at all. I am suggesting that you read what I have to say with both eyes ... then you will be much better informed in your ‘challenging’ of me. As for my use of ‘gullible’ ... surely one would have to be gullible to buy their ‘I Am Humble – I am God On Earth’ message, no? Therefore, my use of the word is not a ‘putdown of the person who is challenging’ me at all; it is not an ‘underhanded tactic at intimidation’; it is not an indication that I ‘want to provoke hurt in another’ ... as that is not what I am ‘doing!!’ at all. It is but an accurate description of why the saints, sages and seers have been getting away with their hypocrisy for centuries. * RICHARD: Do you get the ‘incompatible tension’ in that statement? After all, it is incompatible tension that ‘makes for humour’ , eh? RESPONDENT: Yes, I did get the humour. I also got the ill-spirit that went with it. RICHARD: Yet there was no ‘ill-spirit that went with it’. Maybe the ‘ill-spirit’ you experience is sourced in the absurdity of the saints, sages and seers strutting the world stage preaching humility, whilst saying (either subtly or blatantly) ‘I Am God’ or ‘I Am That’, and so on, in conjunction the absurdity of the gullible buying it, hook, line and sinker, that the saints, sages and seers are, in fact, humble? Just a suggestion, mind you. * RESPONDENT: You set yourself up as some All knowing One, and at the same time claim that there is no self present that is doing that. RICHARD: The capitalised phrase ‘All knowing One’ is religio-spiritual jargon and does not apply to me at all ... I am a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. Again, you are laughing at your own intrapolation. RESPONDENT: Maybe All Knowing One is religio-spiritual jargon for you. You interpret a great deal that way, because it fits so well into your frame of reference. I don’t believe in any of that. RICHARD: Yet it was you who used the ‘All Knowing One’ phrase in the context you created (‘the belief that you are truth, you are innocence (in italics)’ ) and not me. As I am not ‘truth’ and as I am not ‘innocence (in italics)’ therefore I am not setting myself up ‘as some All knowing One’ ... it is you who made that ‘translation’ replete with all its religio-spiritual connotations and not me. RESPONDENT: For me it means megalomania. RICHARD: Then why not say ‘megalomania’ in the first place? RESPONDENT: The defence in all this is so clear. RICHARD: Here again is this notion of ‘defence’ (as in ‘you start in with some defence’ ) or ‘defend’ (as in ‘calling it my mind reading abilities must be seen as an attempt to defend’ ) as if my responding in the negative, to what you intrapolated, has some profound psychological implications. It does not ... I am simply setting the record straight. RESPONDENT: You don’t find anything funny about yourself, so it must be that it is all in my mind. RICHARD: It is this simple: there is no ‘megalomania’ (aka an ‘All Knowing One’ ) in this flesh and blood body to find funny ... therefore it can only be all in your mind. RESPONDENT: But it is funny that a person claims that they are selfless, as in ‘I am selfless’, and that is what you keep doing in a variety of forms over and over. RICHARD: I generally say ‘I am a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul’ or ‘there is neither ‘self’ nor ‘Self’ in this flesh and blood body’. I also say that there are three I’s altogether but only one is actual (this flesh and blood body). I also say that I use the first person pronoun so as to save writing in a stilted fashion such as this:
* RESPONDENT: And this incompatible tension is that what makes for humour. Of course, in order to get that humour, there needs to be the ability for you to laugh at your superciliousness. RICHARD: Again, in order for you to get me to see the humour it must first be established that there is any ‘superciliousness’ in me ... outside of your own mind, that is. And, again, you are but once more laughing at your own intrapolation. RESPONDENT: I do not know whether I can get you to see the humour. RICHARD: It may be becoming more clear, by now, that this is because ‘the humour’ only exists in the same place as your ‘translation’ exists? RESPONDENT: To do that would require that you can see yourself. RICHARD: No, to do that would require that I see myself as you see me. * RESPONDENT: But since you claim that the ego is extinct, you find that there is nothing at all to laugh at, or that can laugh. RICHARD: Not just ‘I’ as ego ... ‘me’ as soul is also extinct (the identity in toto is not extant). Of course you are correct that there be nothing in what you have intrapolated that I can find to be humorous at all ... I do not even find it funny that you do so. As for your last statement (‘... or that can laugh’) I can assure you, for what that is worth, that one has no need to have an ‘ego’ in order to laugh. RESPONDENT: That ‘I’ that is assuring me, could be that mysterious ego. RICHARD: Again, I use the first person pronoun so as to save writing in a stilted fashion such as this:
RESPONDENT: Your statement as to what an egoless person can and cannot do, rests on nothing but your claim that you do not have an ego and that you laugh. RICHARD: Not just ‘I’ as ego ... ‘me’ as soul is also extinct (the identity in toto is not extant). The whole point of this Mailing List is to discuss together each others’ experience so as to clarify what oneself understands. There is enough written by enough people to find similarities that may be reliably taken as a prima facie case for investigation without having to believe anyone. It is called ‘establishing a working hypothesis’ ... and can further human knowledge and thus experience. One can read one saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – and cross-reference them with other saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – so as to gain a reasonable notion of what they are describing (pointing to). This is the whole point of communication: to share experience so that another does not have to travel down the same-same path and find out for themselves what others have already discovered. RESPONDENT: If we do not accept the premise that you do not have an ego, then the deduction fails. RICHARD: I would simply suggest that I am proffering sufficient validated information and annotated
quotes, in combination with a personal report, such as to generate a prima facie case that is worthy of further investigation * RICHARD: I laugh a lot ... there is so much about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is, sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, that I find irrepressibly ludicrous. RESPONDENT: But there is something that is serious in your reply. RICHARD: No, there is nothing ‘serious’ in what I do or say – sincere yes – but ‘serious’? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious (in order for there to be seriousness there must be an in situ responsibility). RESPONDENT: Oh my, didn’t you learn that it is a lot of fun to take things seriously? RICHARD: No ... surely you are not really suggesting that it is ‘a lot of fun’ (‘fun’: playful, humorous, comical, amusing, entertaining, pleasurable) to be ‘serious’ (‘serious’: solemn, staid, stolid, sombre, grave, stern, grim)? RESPONDENT: I enjoy seriousness, just as I enjoy the humorous (excuse me, I didn’t mean to imply that you do not know something). RICHARD: Okay. * RESPONDENT: You do believe that you have found a flaw in Respondent No. 4’s presentation. RICHARD: I do not ‘believe’ I have found a flaw ... I know it to be flawed (the entire proposition is fatally flawed from its very first premise). RESPONDENT: It is not knowledge unless it has been established by fact. Until that demonstration, I continue to regard it as your belief. RICHARD: The ‘demonstration’ is contained in the in-depth and detailed exchange which, although you say (further below) you have read, you also say that reading it does not imply that you have studied it (‘reading it does not imply that I studied it. I study that which I find to be worth studying’). Ergo: you have missed the ‘demonstration’ through not having read it with both eyes. * RESPONDENT: So here is your chance to repeat that penetrating analysis. RICHARD: Nope ... it is your proposal that there be no flaws so you do your own work in demonstrating your theory to be correct ... RESPONDENT: Either you are interested in explaining your point or not. RICHARD: If I might point out? It is your point that I ‘believe’ I have found a flaw ... not mine. I cannot explain your point other than to say it be an intrapolation. RESPONDENT: You can find someone else to do your bidding. RICHARD: If I might point out? It is your ‘bidding’ ... not mine (‘you do believe that you have found a flaw in Respondent No. 4’s presentation. So here is your chance to repeat that penetrating analysis’). It is you who discerns it be but what I ‘believe’ and not me. RESPONDENT: I have nothing to demonstrate to you, in that I have not found where you have presented a reasoned argument for demonstrating a flaw. RICHARD: You do have something to ‘demonstrate’ to me: you need to substantiate your ‘great ability to understand what others think, believe and feel’ in that you have discerned that I ‘believe’ that I have found a flaw. RESPONDENT: And instead of reproducing this argument so that it can be reviewed, you turn to the person requesting the information, and claim they have a theory? or a proposal? RICHARD: Why would I reproduce something you did not find worthy of studying in the first place? Anyway, as it is your ill-informed discernment which you are speaking of having ‘be reviewed’ then that is what I am already busily reviewing. Once that is cleared up maybe – just maybe – we can review what I actually did say. It is up to you, of course, if you wish to do that. RESPONDENT: What I have found are many cases where you have attempted to package what Respondent No. 4 has said, so that it is flawed. RICHARD: I have not packaged anything. RESPONDENT: That is not an honest attempt of dealing with what he has presented. For example, what does it mean that NMC (non-material consciousness) is not ascertainable? RICHARD: It means that ‘water can never find out what water is’. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Before you can determine that this is flawed, do you not have to first understand why NMC is not ascertainable? RICHARD: Indeed ... yet when I do say that I do understand you say ‘why is there NOTHING?? Why do you know EVERYTHING?? Those are absolutist terms for what is not an absolute matter’ . RESPONDENT: That is the serious effort I am looking for in this lengthy, repetitious discussion. RICHARD: If I may point out? If you were to cease intrapolating then this discussion would be a lot less lengthy and not at all repetitious. RESPONDENT: And though you want me to do the work in setting up the issue for you, it is your discussion and your conclusion that I am attempting to review. RICHARD: Not so ... it is your ‘translation’ and your ‘conclusion’ that you are ‘attempting to review’. You are yet to even touch upon what I am on about. * RICHARD: ... (you have not even acknowledged whether you read the in-depth and detailed exchange or not yet). RESPONDENT: Is it not to be assumed that I have? RICHARD: No. For starters, I find it easier and more accurate to ask the other rather than assume and, second, your initial E-Mail (your ‘translation’) indicated that you may have not read – or only part-read – the in-depth and detailed discussion (which is why I asked if you had read it). Also, the content of your ‘translation’ is what prompted me to suggest that you read with both eyes what I had written. RESPONDENT: Why do you require a confession? RICHARD: Not a ‘confession’ ... a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or ‘only part-read’ would suffice. Because, if you had read the in-depth and detailed exchange, whence came that quote of mine (at the top of the page), with both eyes then you were obviously defending the indefensible by saying lamely that Richard ‘cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong’. RESPONDENT: Yes, I have, otherwise, I would not have written to you. But reading it does not imply that I studied it. I study that which I find to be worth studying. RICHARD: My point exactly. Therefore, as it is your ill-informed proposal that there be no flaws demonstrated then it is up to you do your own leg-work in demonstrating your theory to be correct ... and not me. * RICHARD: I have had lengthy correspondence with you in the past – extending over two or so years – and you demonstrated again and again that you have the proclivity of holding your cards close to your chest ... as if this be a poker game rather than an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition. RESPONDENT: I do not recall lengthy conversations. I recall only a few conversations in this period of time. RICHARD: Okay ... it is simply a matter of what constitutes ‘lengthy’ according to each persons’ experience: I call 41 E-Mails, covering 84 pages of text (52,676 words or 1,008 paragraphs) a lengthy correspondence and you recall it as ‘only a few conversations’ . RESPONDENT: And what you take to be holding my cards close to my chest, is your inability to understand what I am getting at. RICHARD: If you were to actually present what you are ‘getting at’ you may find that I do have the requisite ability. RESPONDENT: Nor do I recall even one instance where I have not directly answered one of your questions. RICHARD: There are several ... but one instance will suffice for now: I was having a discussion with two co-respondents and you posted a 10 sentence quote of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, without any words of your own, to which I responded with a ‘I take it that you ...’? and ‘Does not this ...’? type of reply (giving reasons). To which you replied ‘that was not the point I was making in providing that quote ...’ (as if you had somehow made your point clear already) because you went on to say ‘it depends on the intentions of the contributor’ (yourself) as if I was somehow able to glean that from the bare quote. I eventually wrote ‘as you appear to be in agreement with ...’, so as to ascertain your intentions, to which you replied: ‘but my views on this statement were never made public. My reason for posting it may only be ...’. Given that you said ‘may only be’ I responded by saying ‘I am curious as to what makes you ‘think K was saying’ that ...’. This third probe for information as to your reason and intentions elicited this response:
Now perhaps you may see why I wrote (much further above):
‘Tis no wonder that I now ask for your intention up-front and out in the open, eh? RESPONDENT: But I do confess to finding your posts quite funny, and this goes back to our very first conversation. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is your ‘translation’ of what I have to say which you find ‘quite funny’ ... and this goes back to our very first conversation. RESPONDENT: The only poker game going on is in your belief as to what I am about. RICHARD: If you say so, then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as I have such little information from you to go on that I am barely cognisant of what you are on about. RESPONDENT: That is what happens when people fail to understand another’s intentions, they invent and imagine what those intentions are based on their conditioned reactions. RICHARD: Which is why I asked you whether your initial post was a joke ... a simple question that you still have not answered (except obliquely) and are instead telling me to use my discernment as to your intentions. Vis.:
Yet you are now saying that ‘what happens when people fail to understand another’s intentions is they invent and imagine what those intentions are based on their conditioned reactions’ . Is it clear yet why I now ask for your intention up-front and out in the open? * RICHARD: I am up-front and out in the open in all my writings. RESPONDENT: The only reason for you writing this is to compare your image of what you are doing, with your image of what you think I am doing. RICHARD: In order for your appraisal to be valid it must first be established that your mind-reading abilities (that ‘the only reason’ I have for writing that I am up-front and out in the open in all my writings is ‘to compare [my] image’ of what I am doing with ‘[my] image’ of what I ‘think’ you are doing) be accurate ... else your appraisal is but your ‘great ability to understand what others think, believe and feel’. RESPONDENT: And it is not surprising, that you find that you are the noble and sincere one. RICHARD: Am I to take it that your phrase ‘the noble and sincere one’ is not religio-spiritual jargon? Can you substitute what you really mean by this phrase before I am so foolish as to assume that you mean what the words say? RESPONDENT: And that is funny that an egoless person needs to do this. RICHARD: Not just ‘egoless’ ... ‘soulless’ as well (the identity in toto is extinct): I am this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. And, as this ‘only reason’ I have (for writing that I am up-front and out in the open in all my writings) is ‘to compare [my] image’ of what I am doing with ‘[my] image’ of what I ‘think’ you are doing is but your ‘great ability to understand what others think, believe and feel’, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to. RESPONDENT: For you it seems that being upfront and open ... RICHARD: Yet it is not the case that it ‘seems’ to be that at all ... I am indeed being up-front and out in the open. RESPONDENT: ... is about expressing what you think about yourself. RICHARD: I am not expressing what I ‘think’ about myself ... I am giving an accurate report of my on-going experiencing of being this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: For me it is about the ability to actually look at what you are doing, and saying. RICHARD: Good ... when are you going to start? RESPONDENT: And I have yet to find evidence that you have that ability. RICHARD: Sure ... this is possibly because, although you say (further above) that you have read the in-depth and detailed exchange, you also say that reading it does not imply that you have studied it (‘reading it does not imply that I studied it. I study that which I find to be worth studying’ ). Ergo: you have ‘yet to find evidence’ through not having read it with both eyes. RESPONDENT: That isn’t hard to understand, it is simply that you present yourself as the perfect embodiment of what you believe to be the highest truth and the greatest good. RICHARD: Yet apparently it is, for you, ‘hard to understand’ that I am not presenting myself as ‘the perfect embodiment of what [I] believe to be the highest truth and the greatest good’ at all. If you had read what I have to say with both eyes it would be patently clear to you that I am not ‘the embodiment’ of anything whatsoever (let alone ‘the highest truth’ or ‘the greatest good’). At the risk of being chastised for using discernment ... they are religio-spiritual terms pointing to the supposed innocence of the immaterial consciousness which manifests (on this planet at least) maliciously and sorrowfully, rather than happily and harmlessly, and thus requiring the antidotal pacifiers of love and compassion. Whereas I am a fellow human being sans both ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Six) 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 |
