|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 21
RESPONDENT No. 10: This is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’. Can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true? RICHARD: Where on earth is your head at to repeat such asinine ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the simmering ’sixties? Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. Or, in the words of Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos: • [quote]: ‘Women are the carriers of society’s values ... men are deviant in the sense that many of the qualities admired in them are also one’s that society has to regard with disapproval ... Women’s Lib portrays society and morality as a male invention to coerce and punish women ... [yet] women are a virtuous group seeking to impose their moral standards on men’. [endquote]. ‘The Female Woman’; pps 134-135 © Arianna Stassinopoulos 1973; published by William Collins Sons & Coy Ltd Glascow). So as to assist in coming out of the ’sixties, where the battle of the sexes climbed sharply towards its zenith, and here into the ’noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success, you may or may not find the following URL helpful: www.jokeaday.com/nfweird014.shtml . (Whomsoever finds scatological humour to be of questionable taste is advised not to access this URL). RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). It is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ’sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.
RESPONDENT No. 10: This is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’. Can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true? RICHARD: Where on earth is your head at to repeat such asinine ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the simmering ‘sixties? Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed. RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family. RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony? RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity. RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)? RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way. RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads:
Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures ... why do you consider this to be the way that ‘it will always be’? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick? RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination. RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness? RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious. RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a ‘legitimate need for power’ ... let alone a basis for an ‘illegitimate need for power’: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power).
RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed. RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family. RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony? RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity. RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)? RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way. RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures ... why do you consider this to be the way that ‘it will always be’? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick? RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination. RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness? RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious. RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a ‘legitimate need for power’ ... let alone a basis for an ‘illegitimate need for power’: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power). RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here. RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (above)? If so, are you in agreement or not? RESPONDENT: What happened to your wife? RICHARD: Which wife? RESPONDENT: Who won? RICHARD: Who won what?
RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed. RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family. RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony? RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity. RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)? RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way. RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures ... why do you consider this to be the way that ‘it will always be’? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick? RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination. RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness? RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious. RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a ‘legitimate need for power’ ... let alone a basis for an ‘illegitimate need for power’: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power). RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here. RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (above)? If so, are you in agreement or not? RESPONDENT: It is so. RICHARD: It is not so. You will need to elaborate so as to avoid a continuation of this ’tis/’tisn’t school-child nonsense (or next you may very well be going ‘narny-narny nah-nah yah-boo-suck’) RESPONDENT: That is your prime directive. RICHARD: It is not my ‘directive’ at all ... let alone the ‘prime directive’. If you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious. RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power. RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all. RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it. RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing that there is equity and parity (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. * RESPONDENT: What happened to your wife? RICHARD: Which wife? RESPONDENT: Who won? RICHARD: Who won what? RESPONDENT: You know what. RICHARD: No ... I do not ‘know what’. I am not a mind-reader ... if I was I would not have asked for clarification as I am only to happy to discuss whatever you think may throw some light onto what is already a complex and complicated issue. If you actually want an answer you will have to be specific about both which wife you are referring to and plus whatever it was that you think someone won so as to find out who it was that won whatever it was that you think happened between myself and whichever wife it was that you think was involved. Meanwhile ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (much further above)? If so, are you in agreement or not?
RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). It is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed. RESPONDENT: The way you pose this statement and your question ... RICHARD: What question? RESPONDENT: ... indicated you do not know what I am writing about. RICHARD: Yet I do ... I was born and raised in the Australian culture which, being British-based, is not too dissimilar to the USA culture. RESPONDENT: It would be too hard to get you to see it ... and if you don’t want to it is unlikely you would, and I don’t think you would want to. RICHARD: I do recognise and comprehend what you are talking about – disagreement does not necessarily indicate non-understanding – because back when I was a man I too secretly feared women and their power as do all other men. These days, however, I would/will have no problem if/when women overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... because then men would/will covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’ just as what happens in any ‘balance of power’ scenario. It is power – and thus the need for power – that is the problem. RESPONDENT: I don’t look to history to see what is going on in life. RICHARD: Oh? Then did you invent this ‘man is the head of the house’ solution of yours (‘empower
women over men and chaos is the result’) all by yourself and in a vacuum? Is it because you ‘don’t look to history to
see what is going on in life’ that you fail to realise that if one isolates what is happening from both what was happening
and what could be happening then what will be happening is what was happening and what is RESPONDENT: I look at life itself. RICHARD: Question: What is the difference between this statement of yours and a psittacism? Answer: A psittacism has to have a history for it to be a psittacism. * RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family. RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony? RESPONDENT: Power means more than overt action or subservience. It has to do with who guides who and there is always one who does more of that. RICHARD: If you fondly imagine that power has more to do with meek and mild-sounding ‘who guides who’ waspy cant than with deep passions like aggression and fear and so on, then you certainly do live in a vacuum. * RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity. RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)? RESPONDENT: I don’t know what you mean by outwardly subservient. RICHARD: Maybe this is because you live in a vacuum (‘I don’t look to history to see what is going on in life’). RESPONDENT: I would not describe it that way. My wife is free to criticize me or tell me whatever she wants to. RICHARD: It is very generous of you to allow her to do that. RESPONDENT: She is not free to dominate me. RICHARD: Yet you are free to dominate her (‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’). RESPONDENT: In a difficult situation I will make the ultimate decision and the responsibility will be mine. Someone has to do that. RICHARD: Yea verily ... that is the way it has been done throughout history wherever the man is the ‘head of the house’ (although I do now realise that you would not be aware of this historical precedence). * RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way. RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures ... why do you consider this to be the way that ‘it will always be’? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick? RESPONDENT: The laws of the culture empower either the woman or the man if they favour one over the other. RICHARD: Yet the culture that does this ‘empowering law’ is the dominant group (‘might is right’) and not some abstract social entity in a vacuous mind ... which is all very convenient when it comes to making their domination legal, eh? * RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination. RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. RESPONDENT: If the man makes the decisions and takes the major responsibility, he has more power than the woman. There is no imagination involved. RICHARD: Okay ... then it can also be said that if the man and the woman make decisions on a 50-50 basis and take 50-50 responsibility then they have 50-50 power (under your definition of power) ... and there is also no imagination involved. Yet you said: ‘The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination’. Was this nothing but a lame-duck attempt to defend the status quo after all? * RICHARD: Why persist in a blind sickness? RESPONDENT: I did not say the man had more power than the woman. RICHARD: May I ask? What does ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ mean if it does not mean ‘the man has more power than the woman’ ... given that you said ‘a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination’? RESPONDENT: The balance of power goes to the woman, in this culture at least, and I suspect in the others as well. RICHARD: Okay ... then if these sentences do not say the same thing that I said in my initial post (neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand ... it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) then what does it say? RESPONDENT: Power means influence and the ability to have things done your way. RICHARD: In a word: domination. RESPONDENT: It all depends on whether your way is the better way. If the woman’s way is the better way, the man should go with it. If she usually has the better way, and she is the wiser of the two, the man should not marry her. She needs a man with more wisdom than herself for a husband. RICHARD: Implicit in this exegesis of yours is that all women will ultimately find a man who is wiser ... or else all the wise women are spinsters. RESPONDENT: Don’t bother to ask me why. RICHARD: I do not need to ... I recognise chauvinism when I see it. RESPONDENT: It is something you either see or you don’t. If you don’t see it, then believe your way. RICHARD: I would rather stick to facts, if that is all right with you? To believe oneself is to deceive oneself. * RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious. RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a ‘legitimate need for power’ ... let alone a basis for an ‘illegitimate need for power’: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power). RESPONDENT: Who should be the leader ... a person who knows what they are doing or the person who does not? RICHARD: You are now talking of expertise ... this thread is about power. RESPONDENT: There is always a leader in every relationship that is well established. You cannot have a bunch of people doing whatever they want to do because the result is a lot of fighting and chaos. RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked a ‘lot of fighting and chaos’ already reigned supreme (and this is with leaders leaping around all over the place busily ‘guiding’ like all get-out as per your requirements). RESPONDENT: It seems silly to even write that down. It is too obvious. If you are going to say each individual should always know what to do in each moment, and should never need any guidance, don’t bother. It is not that way and it is not going to be that way. RICHARD: You are back to talking of expertise ... this thread is about power. * RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here. RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue? If so, are you in agreement or not? RESPONDENT: Be more clear in what you are saying ... RICHARD: Yet I am very clear in what I am saying ... if you re-read the first two exchanges this will become obvious. RESPONDENT: ... and don’t do the why thing. RICHARD: Ahh ... you must have children, non? RESPONDENT: I am not in agreement. Why should I be? RICHARD: Who said you should be? I only wrote that because you ignored my second response in its entirety in order to rush to the bottom and indulge in school-child tactics about what you are convinced my ‘prime endeavours’ are and to ask asinine questions about wives and winning. I figured on getting you to at least look at what I had written ... if not respond somewhat more intelligently. * RESPONDENT: It is so [your prime endeavour to overpower people on the list]. RICHARD: It is not so. You will need to elaborate so as to avoid a continuation of this ‘tis/’tisn’t school-child nonsense (or next you may very well be going ‘narny-narny nah-nah yah-boo-suck’) RESPONDENT: That is your prime directive. RICHARD: It is not my ‘directive’ at all ... let alone the ‘prime directive’. If you re-read the exchange this will become obvious. RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power. RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all. RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it. RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing that there is equity and parity (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. RESPONDENT: You think the problem is a matter of equality. RICHARD: Not at all ... and I made this clear right from the beginning when I initially wrote: [Richard]: ‘it is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success’. [endquote]. So as to explicate why equity and parity is the sensible approach, perhaps you may be inclined to consider two very common platitudes ... but juxtaposed for clarity. Vis.: ‘we are all unique’/‘we are all equal’. RESPONDENT: Your power seeking involves being higher on the scale than others. RICHARD: What power-seeking? This plot (as is evidenced by your ‘prime directive’ nonsense) only exists in your imagination. * RESPONDENT: What happened to your wife? RICHARD: Which wife? RESPONDENT: Who won? RICHARD: Who won what? RESPONDENT: You know what. RICHARD: No ... I do not ‘know what’. I am not a mind-reader ... if I was I would not have asked for clarification as I am only to happy to discuss whatever you think may throw some light onto what is already a complex and complicated issue. If you actually want an answer you will have to be specific about both which wife you are referring to and plus whatever it was that you think someone won so as to find out who it was that won whatever it was that you think happened between myself and whichever wife it was that you think was involved. RESPONDENT: I do not think it is such a complex issue. The complexity lies in the nature of the man and the woman, and there are differences. Either the man or the woman is going to have the dominant role in the relationship. I say that if it is the woman, it means serious problems for sure. RICHARD: So you keep telling me ... I got the message the first time (‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’). RESPONDENT: If in your marriages, you did not see anything about this, I doubt I could convince you otherwise. You could have observed it. If you did not, I wonder why? RICHARD: Oh, but I did much more than merely ‘observe’ it: I lived it out (in my first marriage I was ‘masculine’; in my second marriage I was ‘feminine’). RESPONDENT: If your goal is just to prove you know more than I do ... RICHARD: This ‘prime directive’ scenario of yours is just that ... your scenario. RESPONDENT: .. then this is a waste of time unless you just unleash your knowledge on me now instead of making a big thing out of it. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is you who is making a ‘big thing out of it’ ... if you re-read the initial exchange this will become obvious: particularly where you originally said ‘you’ve got it right ... covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel’. Just consider what the ‘looks like’ part of the ‘covert looks like an angel’ phrase signifies ... but consider what it signifies in terms of emotions and passions, such as fear and aggression, this time. Then you may comprehend why you had to write ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ immediately after the ‘looks like an angel’ phrase. This thread is about power ... not expertise.
RESPONDENT: Either the man or the woman is going to have the dominant role in the relationship. I say that if it is the woman, it means serious problems for sure. If in your marriages, you did not see anything about this, I doubt I could convince you otherwise. You could have observed it. If you did not, I wonder why? RICHARD: Oh, but I did much more than merely ‘observe’ it: I lived it out (in my first marriage I was ‘masculine’; in my second marriage I was ‘feminine’). RESPONDENT: What happened was that you started out masculine ... RICHARD: Yes ... in my first marriage I was more or less like virtually any other man I met; I was a normal man, well bought-up and educated, a decent and responsible citizen in that I was a typical western youth, raised to believe in God, Queen and Country. I was what is called ‘happily married’ with four ‘lovely children’ owning my ‘own house’ and running my ‘own business’ successfully. People who were into things like what is discussed on this Mailing List were the ‘lunatic fringe’ and were not worth even listening to. All that ‘Love and Truth’ stuff was just ‘pie-in-the-sky’ idealism ... I knew better than they. Which is: if only other people would stop doing ... [insert whatever complaint here] ... then all would be well. In short, I was run by both an ego and a soul; I did not want to look at my instinctual passions or my sorrowful and malicious feelings or my corrupted thoughts or identity-controlled actions and behaviour at all. RESPONDENT: ... and wound up feminine ... RICHARD: Yes ... in the fourteenth year of my marriage I had an experience that showed me who ‘I’ was. ‘I’ was nothing but a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity inside this flesh and blood body. So I acted upon this and, as the result of an earnest and intense process, my ‘ego’ disappeared entirely in an edifying moment of awakening to an Absolute Reality. That is, I underwent a monumental transformation into an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which can only be described as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. I called this ASC an ‘Absolute Freedom’ because there was definitely a metaphysical Absolute in all this – as distinct from the temporal and spatial and material – that was ever-present, and this Divine state of being immediately imbued me with Love Agapé and Universal Compassion for all sentient beings. In short, I became very feminine indeed. RESPONDENT: ... so you found a masculine wife to match the new you. RICHARD: Yes, but that was not for another five years ... in the meanwhile I went through a time I call my ‘puritan period’. I whittled my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and cut all family ties. During that period I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean ... in short: whatever I could eliminate from my life that was an encumbrance and an attachment, I had let go of. Then, one sunny morn, I met the woman who was to become my second wife on a long, deserted beach. She was determined to ‘unmask the guru’ (her words) and, whilst remarking that while it was certainly something outstanding to ‘love everybody and everything unconditionally’, could I love one person totally, completely and utterly. In short, could man and woman live together in peace and harmony twenty four hours a day. RESPONDENT: The first wife won. RICHARD: Won what? RESPONDENT: You lost the power struggle. RICHARD: If you fondly imagine that becoming ‘God On Earth’ is to ‘lose the power struggle’ then you are certainly living in a vacuum.
RICHARD: I went through a time I call my ‘puritan period’. I whittled my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and cut all family ties. During that period I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean ... which means: whatever I could eliminate from my life that was an encumbrance and an attachment, I had let go of. Then, one sunny morn, I met the woman who was to become my second wife on a long, deserted beach. She was determined to ‘unmask the guru’ (her words) and, whilst remarking that while it was certainly something outstanding to ‘love everybody and everything unconditionally’, could I love one person totally, completely and utterly. In short, could man and woman live together in peace and harmony twenty four hours a day. RESPONDENT: Did you live in harmony 24 hours a day? RICHARD: For the first six years of my second marriage I was still endeavouring to extract myself from the Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which is known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and as this divine ‘State Of Being’ imbued me with Love Agapé and Universal Compassion for all sentient beings, I was unable to live in total peace and harmony for the twenty four hours of the day. For the latter five years of the marriage, since going beyond enlightenment and breaking through into an actual freedom from the human condition (wherein malice and sorrow is eliminated and not transcended as in spiritual enlightenment), I have consistently lived in total peace and harmony. This has been my condition since 1992, thus I have had eight years to compare it with the enlightened state ... I can find no fault anywhere. In the enlightened state there were occasional ‘bleed-throughs’ from the transcended ‘I’ as ego entity ... brief flashes of fear, irritation, anguish, desire and so on (a close examination of what is written regarding various Enlightened Masters’ day-to-day lived experience will verify this as being typical). I have had nary a hint nor a glimmer or even a whiff of the faintest trace of a ‘bleed-through’ in actual freedom ... and I am relentless in my examination of myself. After all, I am going public with an outrageous and outstanding claim that could – and should – set the squalid complacency of the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical communities on their ears ... and for those eleven years in the ASC I was determined to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before doing so. Five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not only beyond reasonable doubt – that this is that which is the answer to all the ills of humankind ... and I started writing of my experience in public. RESPONDENT: If so why was she your second wife? RICHARD: Because my first wife, being conventionally religious, and upon being faced with her husband’s spiritual enlightenment in the fifteenth year of a normal marriage, chose for the status-quo and, as far as I know, to this very day is still faithfully waiting for the ‘Second Coming’ of her God-Man (he who has a different notion of what a ‘generation’ means than virtually anyone else). RESPONDENT: What kind of peace are you talking about? RICHARD: The utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is. RESPONDENT: Who made peace with who? RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ – ‘who’ can never, ever be at peace – it is me as-this-body that is peace personified ... and no one else, as far as I can ascertain, is experiencing this. And, as this peace is so perfect, it does not require anybody else’s cooperation ... mutuality and reciprocity in relationship neither adds to perfection nor does their absence detract from perfection. RESPONDENT: Were you both perfect? RICHARD: What is with this ‘were’ business? The identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is extinct ... annihilated, expunged, liquidated, extirpated. As dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes ... there are no ashes. This is final, complete and total.
RICHARD: For the first six years of my second marriage I was still endeavouring to extract myself from the Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which is known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and as this divine ‘State Of Being’ imbued me with Love Agapé and Universal Compassion for all sentient beings, I was unable to live in total peace and harmony for the twenty four hours of the day. For the latter five years of the marriage, since going beyond enlightenment and breaking through into an actual freedom from the human condition (wherein malice and sorrow is eliminated and not transcended as in spiritual enlightenment), I have consistently lived in total peace and harmony. This has been my condition since 1992, thus I have had eight years to compare it with the enlightened state ... I can find no fault anywhere. In the enlightened state there were occasional ‘bleed-throughs’ from the transcended ‘I’ as ego entity ... brief flashes of fear, irritation, anguish, desire and so on (a close examination of what is written regarding various Enlightened Masters’ day-to-day lived experience will verify this as being typical). I have had nary a hint nor a glimmer or even a whiff of the faintest trace of a ‘bleed-through’ in actual freedom ... and I am relentless in my examination of myself. After all, I am going public with an outrageous and outstanding claim that could – and should – set the squalid complacency of the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical communities on their ears ... and for those eleven years in the ASC I was determined to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before doing so. Five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not only beyond reasonable doubt – that this is that which is the answer to all the ills of humankind ... and I started writing of my experience in public. RESPONDENT: If so why was she your second wife? RICHARD: Because my first wife, being conventionally religious, and upon being faced with her husband’s spiritual enlightenment in the fifteenth year of a normal marriage, chose for the status-quo and, as far as I know, to this very day is still faithfully waiting for the ‘Second Coming’ of her God-Man (he who has a different notion of what a ‘generation’ means than virtually anyone else). RESPONDENT: What I meant was, why did you end your second marriage if you had found such a harmonious state of existence while with your second wife? RICHARD: Because my second wife, being mystically feministic, and upon being faced with her husband’s
actual freedom from the human condition in the sixth year of an abnormal marriage, chose for ‘True Love’ (Matrilineal not
Patrilineal) and, as far as I know, to this very day is still faithfully waiting for the ‘True Peace’ * RESPONDENT: What kind of peace are you talking about? RICHARD: The utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is. RESPONDENT: Who made peace with who? RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ – ‘who’ can never, ever be at peace – it is me as-this-body that is peace personified ... and no one else, as far as I can ascertain, is experiencing this. And, as this peace is so perfect, it does not require anybody else’s cooperation ... mutuality and reciprocity in relationship neither adds to perfection nor does their absence detract from perfection. RESPONDENT: Were you both perfect? RICHARD: What is with this ‘were’ business? The identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is extinct ... annihilated, expunged, liquidated, extirpated. As dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes ... there are no ashes. This is final, complete and total. RESPONDENT: You claim that your soul is annihilated and expunged. RICHARD: Not ‘my soul’ ... ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: What is it that is writing to me on this list? I guess you would have to say it was your body. RICHARD: It is not ‘my body’ ... this is me as-this-body that is writing these words. RESPONDENT: What is it that is in your body that is directing it to write your words? RICHARD: There is nothing ‘in’ this flesh and blood body except heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on. This brain is perfectly capable of thinking thoughts of its own accord ... without any ‘I’/‘me’ in there stuffing things up. RESPONDENT: An automaton would have no reason to inform others of anything. RICHARD: Indeed ... I am not ‘an automaton’: I am a fellow human being sans identity (which was ‘being’ itself). As such, this flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth is apparent all about. It being so perfect I wish to notify my fellow human beings of its existence ... what they do with this information is their own business. RESPONDENT: My view of this is that the mind directs the body and something behind the mind directs the mind. RICHARD: Yes ... for 6.0 billion people this ‘something behind the mind’ is their genetic identity (‘being’) echoing through the millennia via the germ cells (the spermatozoa and the ova). RESPONDENT: Is there something directing your body that is not you? RICHARD: No ... the situation and the circumstance dictate the appropriate response each moment again. RESPONDENT: If so who or what is it, or do you know? RICHARD: Yes ... what I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a sensate and
reflective human being: as such the universe is intelligent. There is no anthropomorphic This is what it is.
RICHARD: The identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is extinct ... annihilated, expunged, liquidated, extirpated. As dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes ... there are no ashes. This is final, complete and total. RESPONDENT: You claim that your soul is annihilated and expunged. RICHARD: Not ‘my soul’ ... ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: What is it that is writing to me on this list? I guess you would have to say it was your body. RICHARD: It is not ‘my body’ ... this is me as-this-body that is writing these words. RESPONDENT: So you think you are pure body then? RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ I am this flesh and blood body ... it is a fact I am this flesh and blood body. And ‘pure body’ means, in the context I am using it, that this flesh and blood body is undefiled by the presence of any pernicious ontological entity ... the ‘being’ that arrogates ownership and causes all the misery and mayhem that epitomises human life on this otherwise fair planet we all live on. * RESPONDENT: What is it that is in your body that is directing it to write your words? RICHARD: There is nothing ‘in’ this flesh and blood body except heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on. This brain is perfectly capable of thinking thoughts of its own accord ... without any ‘I’/‘me’ in there stuffing things up. RESPONDENT: Why would the brain alone, a physical organ, have any motive to communicate to others what it has experienced? RICHARD: It is simply a matter of species acknowledgement (like recognises like) ... we are fellow human beings. As human suffering is global, anyone who finds a way that even eases suffering – let alone eliminates it – would involuntarily (as in not of volition or will) share this information with one’s fellow human beings ... it is an ‘of course’ that one does this. It is called caring ... being considerate of another’s well-being; being kind, as in thoughtfully aware of another’s suffering. * RESPONDENT: An automaton would have no reason to inform others of anything. RICHARD: Indeed ... I am not ‘an automaton’: I am a fellow human being sans identity (which was ‘being’ itself). As such, this flesh and blood body is apperceptively aware ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth is apparent all about. It being so perfect I wish to notify my fellow human beings of its existence ... what they do with this information is their own business. RESPONDENT: Why would you want to notify other people of its existence? RICHARD: Because my fellow human beings tell me that they are (a) suffering ... and (b) wanting to know the meaning of life. RESPONDENT: It would appear that what you are doing is simply tooting your own horn, which is simply an aspect of the ego life. RICHARD: Seeing that you say it ‘would appear’ to be that way to you, I would therefore ask: do you have some problem with success in eliminating suffering? Do you really like to (a) suffer yourself ... and (b) see your fellow human beings suffering as well? If so, then are you a sado-masochist? RESPONDENT: You want people to know that you have arrived at the ultimate in order to establish yourself as a leader of sorts. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that anyone – anyone at all – who makes a discovery about anything at all relating to human life on this planet, which discovery advances human knowledge and improves the quality of human life, should keep that discovery to themselves? Are you advising me to be selfish? * RESPONDENT: My view of this is that the mind directs the body and something behind the mind directs the mind. RICHARD: Yes ... for 6.0 billion people this ‘something behind the mind’ is their genetic identity (‘being’) echoing through the millennia via the germ cells (the spermatozoa and the ova). RESPONDENT: How can an identity be genetic? A body can be genetic ... not an identity. RICHARD: Any metaphysical identity (a psychological, emotional, psychic or autological ‘being’) is an epiphenomenon of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that forms itself, out of survival necessity, as the centre-point of the instinctual passions that blind nature genetically encodes in all sentient beings at conception in the genes ... ‘I’ am the current end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes. ‘I’ am the product of the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Being born of the biologically inherited instinctual passions genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically speaking – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. In other words: ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am nurture and nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’ and so on. This is one’s ‘Original Face’ (to use the Zen terminology); this is the source of the ‘we are all one’ feeling that is accessed in spiritual practices and mystical mediation. Because, genetically speaking we are indeed ‘all one’ inasmuch as all carbon based life-forms – not just sentient life-forms – have a common hereditary ‘survival instincts’ origin. * RESPONDENT: Is there something directing your body that is not you? RICHARD: No ... the situation and the circumstances dictate the appropriate response each moment again. RESPONDENT: Something in you responds to the situation and the circumstances. RICHARD: There is nothing ‘in’ this flesh and blood body except heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on. This brain, being apperceptive, is perfectly capable of responding to the situation and the circumstances of its own accord ... without any ‘I’/‘me’ in there stuffing things up. RESPONDENT: To say that the situation and the circumstance dictate the response is to ignore this obvious fact. RICHARD: What ‘obvious fact’? The obvious fact is that there is nothing ‘in’ this flesh and blood body except heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on. The ‘obvious fiction’ is that some entity, some ‘being’, has taken possession of these otherwise salubrious flesh and blood human bodies. RESPONDENT: The stimulus hits your brain and your brain responds in a particular way to it. It could respond in many ways but it is inclined to respond as it does. What is responsible for this inclination? RICHARD: Once again, it is not ‘my brain’ ... sensory data mostly caresses the eyes, ears, nostrils, tongue or skin and this stimulation elicits an appropriate response all of its own accord. If the sensory data impacts (as in someone bopping me on the nose) the appropriate response may very well be bopping them back ... or not. There is no such thing as ‘free will’ ... the situation and the circumstances dictate the appropriate response each moment again.. * RESPONDENT: If so who or what is it, or do you know? RICHARD: Yes ... what I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a sensate and
reflective human being: as such the universe is intelligent. There is no anthropomorphic RESPONDENT: It seems to me that you are making a lot of assumptions here. You are still alive and live in a physical world with a physical body in a life dimension. RICHARD: Again ... I do not live ‘with a physical body’: I am this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: When the body dies, and you say you are the body, you will therefore die with it and that will be the end for you. RICHARD: Yes, physical death is the end, finish. Oblivion. RESPONDENT: With such a finite existence you make a lot of infinite claims. In order to say the things you do, you would have to be an infinite being that had first hand and complete knowledge of the infinite. RICHARD: There is no ‘being’ inside this flesh and blood body ... let alone an ‘infinite being’. This flesh and blood body is undefiled ... which means this flesh and blood body is not a ‘temple for the soul’ (by whatever name). Therefore, as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware, one is instantly cognisant, with the direct immediacy of an unmediated perspicacity, of the actual qualities of this physical universe ... each moment again. RESPONDENT: After death there may be another dimension that you have not seen in your limited physical body existence. RICHARD: Ahh ... but not only have I seen it; being this very world I live in, I am constantly aware of it: I see it; I hear it; I taste it; I smell it; I touch it ... all of the time. This ‘other dimension’ I call the actual world, the actual universe. This infinite and eternal physical universe, being beginningless and endless, boundless and limitless, unborn and undying, was here long before I was born ... and will be here long after I am dead. Forever, in fact. RESPONDENT: Even if there is not one for you, there may be one for others. RICHARD: Only in someone’s dreams and fantasies.
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 |
