|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT No 19: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT No 19: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT No 19: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT: Yes, bulls eye. RICHARD: And just what ‘bulls eye’ might that be?
RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT No 19: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT No 19: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT No 19: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT: Yes, bulls eye. RESPONDENT No 19: We’ll see. He’s a fast moving target, you know, and slipperier than a greased mamba snake. LOL. RESPONDENT: It does not matter how he nor anyone reacts to what you pointed out regarding how thought deludes itself. RICHARD: Except that there has been no thought deluding itself here ... and I see that you have made up your mind in advance irregardless of what Richard would have to say on the subject (‘it does not matter how he ... reacts’ ). RESPONDENT: That pointing reflects how someone can sincerely blame another for doing what he/she is doing, but is blind to. RICHARD: Yet ‘the pointing’ overlooks the fact that I am neither a pacifist nor do I advocate pacifism ... a fact that you have also missed. RESPONDENT: This blindness to what I AM is the basis of an unaware hypocrisy, which is then reflected in our unrealistic images of ourselves with an accompanying attitude marked by superiority and differentiation. RICHARD: This ‘blindness’ to what you are may very well be the case for you – only you can know that – but it would be helpful to your own understanding to not project it onto another. As I know what I am (this flesh and blood body) there is no such ‘blindness’ here ... thus your pronouncements have no application outside of your own psyche. Life is uncomplicated here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT No 19: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT No 19: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT No 19: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT: Yes, bulls eye. RICHARD: And just what ‘bulls eye’ might that be? RESPONDENT: Your view of using the legal system (that it is based on the same physical force as war), coupled with your own use of copy right law, runs directly counter to the claim of living a ‘harmless’ existence as well, as running directly counter to the claim that you are living an existence that does not promote conflict in the world. RICHARD: How does it ‘run directly counter ...’? Being harmless refers to the total absence
of malice RESPONDENT: The bull’s eye, refers to exposing this contradiction. RICHARD: Yet all that you have exposed is that you have not read what I have to say with both eyes in the very e-mail of mine you have previously been responding to. Viz.:
Now do you see it? RESPONDENT: This is a version of your argument against K, (which I have found to be wanting). RICHARD: Not at all ... he proposed non-action (what is otherwise known as pacifism) or what I called changing behaviour rather than eradicating (in this instance anger) that which causes the behaviour in the first place (his very words were ‘refuse to join the army’ and ‘refuse to fight’). Here is the above passage again:
Now do you see it? RESPONDENT: Unlike your view of K, you are not a pacifist ... RICHARD: I do not have to be ... there is no anger (in this instance) extant in this flesh and blood body which would require such a behaviour-changing or non-action approach. RESPONDENT: ... yet you claim to live a totally peaceful, and harmless existence. RICHARD: Yes ... the altruistic ‘self’-immolation by the identity parasitically inhabiting this body had the by-product of eradicating all the affective feelings (the emotions and passions and calentures ... which of course includes the eradication of anger). This (eradicating anger) is what this thread is all about. RESPONDENT: So how do you explain the contradiction, and failure to apply to your case, what you have been criticizing in K? RICHARD: If you read what I write with both eyes you will see that there is no ‘contradiction’ to explain.
RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT No. 19: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT No. 19: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT No. 19: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT: Yes, bulls eye. RESPONDENT No. 19: We’ll see. He’s a fast moving target, you know, and slipperier than a greased mamba snake. LOL. RESPONDENT: It does not matter how he nor anyone reacts to what you pointed out regarding how thought deludes itself. RICHARD: Except that there has been no thought deluding itself here ... and I see that you have made up your mind in advance irregardless of what Richard would have to say on the subject (‘it does not matter how he ... reacts’ ). RESPONDENT: No, I have not made up my mind irregardless of what you have to say. That is not what is meant by ‘it does not matter how he reacts’. No. 19 seemed to say that the value in what she said depended on whether she had trapped you, and that I felt is not at all important, indeed, it makes of the action of confronting thinking, a hunt, a game, a competition, and that distracted from the way her remarks acted as a mirror to us all, for how thought deludes itself. RICHARD: Again you are overlooking the fact that there has been no thought deluding itself in this brain in action in this skull ... if you wish to speak about thought as a generalisation, as in how it works when driven by the instinctual passionate ‘self’, then you would be far better off using a different example than the one you used (further above) based on what is supposedly implied by my writings being held in copyright. Which means, to be specific, that what my co-respondent ‘pointed out regarding how thought deludes itself’ has no application when it comes to the subject of the hypocrisy of a pacifist using the full weight of the law courts as I am not a pacifist and I do not advocate pacifism ... I do not need to be as there is no anger (in this instance) extant in this flesh and blood body which would require such a behaviour-changing (the pacifistic non-action) approach when it comes to being involved in a war. And this (eradicating anger) is what this thread is about. RESPONDENT: There is always the chance that these remarks are based on a misunderstanding of what you intended to say. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: In that regard, what you have to say, needs to be considered. RICHARD: And are you, or have you, considered them? RESPONDENT: But what you have to say, and how you react to her remarks, cannot take away the way these remarks mirror thinking. Mirroring thinking is never personal. It is a mirror to the mind of all mankind. RICHARD: You can include me out of your sweeping conclusion ... the thinking that occurs as this brain in action is not ‘the mirror of all mankind’. RESPONDENT: So personal reactions cannot change that, not your reaction, nor anyone else’s. RICHARD: Not so ... one of the benefits of being free of the human condition is that one’s mind is not ‘the mirror of all mankind’. RESPONDENT: That is why I said, ‘regarding how thought deludes itself’, and not ‘how Richard deludes himself’. RICHARD: Except that, as there has been no thought deluding itself here, your observation is a non
sequitur And the issue in this instance is the eradication of anger. * RESPONDENT: That pointing reflects how someone can sincerely blame another for doing what he/she is doing, but is blind to. RICHARD: Yet ‘the pointing’ overlooks the fact that I am neither a pacifist nor do I advocate pacifism ... a fact that you have also missed. RESPONDENT: That fact is given consideration in an earlier post, concerning what I meant by ‘bull’s eye’. RICHARD: And I responded to your ‘consideration in an earlier post’ a full three hours before you posted this e-mail ... yet nothing I had to say there seems to have been considered by you when you wrote this post. And, in case you misunderstand what I am getting at here, your ‘consideration in an earlier post’ that I am not a pacifist and that I do not advocate pacifism essentially comprises of two lines (coming immediately after an ill-founded preamble):
May I ask? What does the word ‘communication’ mean to you? * RESPONDENT: This blindness to what I AM is the basis of an unaware hypocrisy, which is then reflected in our unrealistic images of ourselves with an accompanying attitude marked by superiority and differentiation. RICHARD: This ‘blindness’ to what you are may very well be the case for you – only you can know that – but it would be helpful to your own understanding to not project it onto another. As I know what I am (this flesh and blood body) there is no such ‘blindness’ here ... thus your pronouncements have no application outside of your own psyche. RESPONDENT: As you can note, my comments are not in a personal form. They do not refer particularly to you ... RICHARD: Oh? Just try this for size and see how it fits (from further below):
You are clearly saying that there is evidence which ‘does’ support that Richard is (a) hypocritical ... and (b) that he is unaware of being hypocritical ... and (c) that he has an image of himself (and an unrealistic one at that) ... and (d) that he is unaware of having an image of himself ... and (e) that he has an attitude of superiority ... and (f) that he is unaware of having this superiority ... and (g) that he has an attitude of differentiation ... and (h) that he is unaware of having this differentiation ... and (i) this blindness is exceptionally prominent in his case (presumably over and above the normal human blindness you refer to). Now do you see why I look askance at your avowal (further above) that ‘I have not made up my mind irregardless of what you have to say ... that is not what is meant by ‘it does not matter how he reacts’’? RESPONDENT: ... nor do they focus on myself. They are about this ‘human blindness’ in general. RICHARD: You may say your comments are about ‘‘human blindness’ in general’ – and mean it when you say it – but the example you based it upon (as already detailed above) is an erroneous basis ... plus you very soon follow-up with an unsolicited testimonial regarding Richard’s ‘exceptionally prominent’ blindness. And, as there is no ‘‘human blindness’ in general’ operating as this brain in action in this skull your pronouncements to me have no application ... you are not communicating anything at all to me that relates to me. RESPONDENT: And though you are separating yourself from that, the very nature of ‘blindness’ is that it is not usually observed, that it is avoided, denied. RICHARD: Goodness me ... this sentence is in the very same paragraph that starts with [quote]: ‘as you can note, my comments are not in a personal form. They do not refer particularly to you ...’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I can never know that you are blind, for I am not you ... RICHARD: Good ... then may I suggest that you cease telling me that I am and start listening to what I have to report instead? I am not asking you to believe me but rather just take what I have to say into consideration when composing your reply ... this way a meaningful (mutual) communication will happen instead of all this back and forth business which is currently occurring. RESPONDENT: I can only look at the evidence that is presented in your responses, and your own view of your actions. And that evidence does support that you are ‘blind’ to your hypocrisy, your unrealistic image of yourself, ‘blind’ to your attitude of superiority and differentiation. Indeed, it appears in your case, to be exceptionally prominent. RICHARD: Again I will point out that these three sentences are in the very same paragraph that starts with [quote]: ‘as you can note, my comments are not in a personal form. They do not refer particularly to you ...’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: And what is especially poignant in your case, is that this ‘blindness’ exists alongside that strong genuine interest in bringing about peace-on-earth. RICHARD: You are so convinced that Richard has this ‘blindness’ that you really do not take into consideration what I actually have to say ... despite you paying lip-service to doing so (further above). Viz.:
Specifically: I do not have ‘that strong genuine interest in bringing about peace-on-earth’ ... it is already happening (I have been living it for many years now). What I do have ‘that strong genuine interest in’ is in communicating this discovery to my fellow human beings so that they may be prompted to recall one of their own pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) and thus have the human condition end for them also. Multiplied exponentially this will have the effect of bringing 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 and so on which besets the human race. This actual world is already always an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Yet, blindness is a fundamental obstacle to that end. RICHARD: Another pointless comment as ‘that end’ happened many years ago and is now a matter of history ... what other peoples do with my history is, of course, their business. I simply want for the information to be freely available. * RICHARD: Life is uncomplicated here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: That appears completely out of touch, with the complexities manifested in your posts. RICHARD: What I have to say is very simple ... it is what peoples do with what I initially write that makes my posts become complex. Take this thread for example: eradicate anger in all its gradations and its complexities are over, finished forever ... no need then to be a pacifist practising non-action (no need to ‘refuse to join the army’ and no need to ‘refuse to fight’) whilst at the same time being an activist practising action in the law courts. It really is this simple.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Eleven) 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 |
