|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 25
RICHARD: None of them can actually care, though because they are not carefree. RESPONDENT: I [take] that to say: ‘because they are caught in the self-absorbed concerns of an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ they cannot actually care. I would appreciate your comments. RICHARD: As you have explained to me, in an exhaustive past correspondence, what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you then that is not what I meant at all. I mean something much, much deeper.
RICHARD: None of them can actually care, though because they are not carefree. RESPONDENT: I [take] that to say: ‘because they are caught in the self-absorbed concerns of an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ they cannot actually care. I would appreciate your comments. RICHARD: As you have explained to me, in an exhaustive past correspondence, what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you then that is not what I meant at all. I mean something much, much deeper. RESPONDENT: Yes, I did find that correspondence exhausting. RICHARD: Synonyms of ‘exhaustive’: thorough, comprehensive, complete. RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you describe it as above ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me? Is this what caring (about yourself in this case) means to you?
RESPONDENT No 31: ... Ramana Maharshi said that if you point out wrong in others, it is a greater wrong. RICHARD: Who did he say that to? (SNIP) RESPONDENT No. 54: ... I was just pointing out that Richard was possibly being a little ironic. RICHARD: I can assure you that there is no irony in me ... I am entirely sincere. I was merely nipping this hypocritical wisdom in the bud before it bloomed into yet another (unexamined) pithy aphorism tirelessly trotted out by those who cannot think for themselves. For a hoary example (which I have used before on this Mailing List): Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’. Who spoke those words of wisdom? Surely not those who know (for they do not speak). If it was spoken by those who speak ... then it is not worth the rice-paper it was written upon all those centuries ago as they do not know of what they speak. Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon hallowed (but specious) ‘ancient wisdom’? RESPONDENT: I think you are entirely missing the deeper meaning of the statement – trapped as you appear to be by the apparent contradiction inherent in the surface logic. RICHARD: I am somewhat surprised you would say this ... seeing that we had an exhaustive correspondence on the ‘deeper meaning of the statement’ some time ago on this very Mailing List. RESPONDENT: Lao Tzu’s words point to the fact that words cannot but represent actuality – they are not that which they re-present (excepting of course the word ‘word’ and perhaps a few others). RICHARD: If you say so ... nevertheless the pithy aphorism as quoted is taken as read by many a person, who does not splash about in shallow waters, just as the ‘if you point out wrong in others it is a greater wrong’ wisdom is taken as read. RESPONDENT: After all, words cannot capture the multi-dimensionality of living actuality – no matter how lengthy or erudite the discourse. RICHARD: Au contraire ... they can indeed by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge.
RICHARD: None of them can actually care, though because they are not carefree. RESPONDENT: I [take] that to say: ‘because they are caught in the self-absorbed concerns of an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ they cannot actually care. I would appreciate your comments. RICHARD: As you have explained to me, in an exhaustive past correspondence, what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you then that is not what I meant at all. I mean something much, much deeper. RESPONDENT: Yes, I did find that correspondence exhausting. RICHARD: Synonyms of ‘exhaustive’: thorough, comprehensive, complete. RESPONDENT: Yes, I’m familiar with the meanings of the word, but those were not the synonyms I had in mind. RICHARD: What you found to be an ‘exhausting’ correspondence I enjoyed as a thorough, comprehensive, complete explanation from you as to what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you. Here is the essence of that exchange (which came right at the end):
* RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you describe it as above ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me? RESPONDENT: First, I do not take definitions to be exact. They are only rough, reckless attempts to translate actuality. The particular pre-conditionings of past associations of a word seem to almost invariably come into play when we choose it. You see, although words can convey meaning, in our past correspondences I have found that we generally fail to understand one another. RICHARD: Please speak for yourself ... I had no trouble understanding you (and I can supply more quotes such as I did above to demonstrate if you want me too). RESPONDENT: You are seemingly willing to supply exhaustive time and words into trying to convey your meaning. RICHARD: That is because I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: Would that I could get you to spend such effort listening to he or she who you view as the ‘other’. RICHARD: First, I do not need to ‘view’ you (or ‘he or she’) as ‘the ‘other’’ because, as you are clearly not this particular flesh and blood body called Richard, you are indeed other than me. Second, if it be true, what you say, that ‘would that [you] could get [me] to spend such effort listening’ to you then what does that make your ‘thanks for listening’ response which I have re-quoted (further above) at the end of our exhaustive correspondence on what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ amount to? Were you lying to me then ... or now? * RICHARD: Is this what caring (about yourself in this case) means to you? RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you initially described it as above (‘shallow water’) ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me?
RICHARD: ... I was merely nipping this hypocritical wisdom in the bud before it bloomed into yet another (unexamined) pithy aphorism tirelessly trotted out by those who cannot think for themselves. For a hoary example (which I have used before on this Mailing List): Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’. Who spoke those words of wisdom? Surely not those who know (for they do not speak). If it was spoken by those who speak ... then it is not worth the rice-paper it was written upon all those centuries ago as they do not know of what they speak. Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon hallowed (but specious) ‘ancient wisdom’? RESPONDENT: I think you are entirely missing the deeper meaning of the statement – trapped as you appear to be by the apparent contradiction inherent in the surface logic. RICHARD: I am somewhat surprised you would say this ... seeing that we had an exhaustive correspondence on the ‘deeper meaning of the statement’ some time ago on this very Mailing List. RESPONDENT: Lao Tzu’s words point to the fact that words cannot but represent actuality – they are not that which they re-present (excepting of course the word ‘word’ and perhaps a few others). RICHARD: If you say so ... nevertheless the pithy aphorism as quoted is taken as read by many a person, who does not splash about in shallow waters, just as the ‘if you point out wrong in others it is a greater wrong’ wisdom is taken as read. RESPONDENT: After all, words cannot capture the multi-dimensionality of living actuality – no matter how lengthy or erudite the discourse. RICHARD: Au contraire ... they can indeed by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge. RESPONDENT: Okay, show me: please describe in words the living actuality of the smell of a rose in a way which captures the multi-dimensional actuality. RICHARD: You do seem to have overlooked the qualifier (‘... by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge’). Our exhaustive past correspondence indicates an extreme reluctance/unwillingness(??) to even contemplate that there be deeper waters ... let alone take the requisite plunge. The only time you came close to contemplating such a possibility was in an e-mail exchange that started when you wrote the following just prior to June 15 2000:
Whilst still fresh from that direct experience we had a lengthy exchange ... this is the closest you came to contemplating taking the plunge (please substitute ‘taken away’ for ‘taking the plunge’):
RICHARD: None of them can actually care, though because they are not carefree. RESPONDENT: I [take] that to say: ‘because they are caught in the self-absorbed concerns of an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ they cannot actually care. I would appreciate your comments. RICHARD: As you have explained to me, in an exhaustive past correspondence, what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you then that is not what I meant at all. I mean something much, much deeper. RESPONDENT: Yes, I did find that correspondence exhausting. RICHARD: Synonyms of ‘exhaustive’: thorough, comprehensive, complete. RESPONDENT: Yes, I’m familiar with the meanings of the word, but those were not the synonyms I had in mind. RICHARD: What you found to be an ‘exhausting’ correspondence I enjoyed as a thorough, comprehensive, complete explanation from you as to what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you. Here is the essence of that exchange (which came right at the end): [Richard]: ‘I see that I need to phrase this specifically: are the ‘true passions’ the instinctual passions sans ‘the imaginary psychological self’s association and identification with/as the various desires’ ... or not?’ [Respondent]: ‘Yes, they are not sourced in the imaginary psychological self, though that does not preclude the imaginary psychological self from acting in concert with them’. [Richard]: ‘It would appear, then, that what you call the ‘true passions’ are indeed what I call the instinctual passions’. [Respondent]: ‘Thanks for listening’. (‘Re: The Instinctual Passions’; Sat, 9 Jun 2001). RESPONDENT: If I remember correctly I put the word listening in quotes and not the whole sentence. And that was an attempt to convey that your reply seemed to misunderstand what I was trying to say so self-assuredly that I was frustrated over what I took to be your tendency to tell me what I mean and then cite previous statements I’ve made to prove you are correct despite my suggesting that you are misconstruing what I mean. (Was the whole sentence in quotes or just the word listening in my original penning of that sentence?) RICHARD: If you genuinely are, as you seem to be conveying that you are, wanting me not to misunderstand what you are ‘trying to say’ (and you have noticed that I am ‘willing to supply exhaustive time and words’ to ensure that I am not misunderstood), then you would surely have at least taken the few minutes it takes to have checked in the e-scribe archives for yourself? At the very least it would have saved you writing a pointless paragraph. * RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you describe it as above ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me? RESPONDENT: First, I do not take definitions to be exact. They are only rough, reckless attempts to translate actuality. The particular pre-conditionings of past associations of a word seem to almost invariably come into play when we choose it. You see, although words can convey meaning, in our past correspondences I have found that we generally fail to understand one another. RICHARD: Please speak for yourself ... I had no trouble understanding you (and I can supply more quotes such as I did above to demonstrate if you want me too). RESPONDENT: This is a perfect example of what I take to be a failure on your part to listen to what I am saying. What I am suggesting is that when you say you have no trouble understanding me what you really mean is that you have no trouble understanding the particular interpretation of the words I have used which you ascribe to me. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I made sure that I was not misunderstanding what you were saying by specifically asking for corroboration. Viz.:
I find the affirmative nature of the word ‘yes’ to be unambiguous (and you even added an explanatory addendum (‘... they are not sourced in the imaginary psychological self, though that does not preclude the imaginary psychological self from acting in concert with them’) after your ‘yes’ which did not detract from its confirming nature one iota. May I ask? Does ‘yes’ sometimes mean ‘no’ to you? RESPONDENT: And, when I try to point out that your interpretation of what I mean is a misinterpretation of my words (though it may be technically accurate) you simply post definitions which bolster your interpretation. RICHARD: Are you really saying that I whilst I have a ‘technically accurate’ understanding it is an ‘interpretation’ nevertheless? RESPONDENT: For example I could say good morning to you and potentially mean by that a thousand different things. If you insist on only one interpretation then regardless of how another means it you only hear your particular interpretation. RICHARD: I have noticed that this word ‘interpretation’ is a favourite word among ‘K-readers’. You have used it five times in this particular section alone (plus the word ‘misinterpretation’ once) ... even though you have already said that ‘I do not take definitions to be exact. They are only rough, reckless attempts to translate actuality’? ‘Tis a strange world that you live in: you give your fellow human being inexact and rough translations ... and then criticise him for making interpretations and misinterpretations of your inexact and rough translations. And then become sarcastic into the bargain (further below)? RESPONDENT: And you are quite willing to whip out dictionary definitions to back up your interpretations. I don’t have leisure for such dog-paddling (though I don’t mind dog-paddling per se :-). RICHARD: Yet knowing all this you chose to write to me, specifically with a cc, asking for my comment? * RESPONDENT: You are seemingly willing to supply exhaustive time and words into trying to convey your meaning. RICHARD: That is because I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: Would that I could get you to spend such effort listening to he or she who you view as the ‘other’. RICHARD: First, I do not need to ‘view’ you (or ‘he or she’) as ‘the ‘other’’ because, as you are clearly not this particular flesh and blood body called Richard, you are indeed other than me. Second, if it be true, what you say, that ‘would that [you] could get [me] to spend such effort listening’ to you then what does that make your ‘thanks for listening’ response which I have re-quoted (further above) at the end of our exhaustive correspondence on what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ amount to? Were you lying to me then ... or now? RESPONDENT: I was (as an imagination based separate self) feeling frustrated at our inability to ‘meet’ and hence I was being sarcastic. RICHARD: Thank you for explaining your usage of the English language to me. For future reference, and seeing as your ‘thanks for listening’ response now means (in effect) ‘you are not listening’, what am I to take your ‘you are not listening’ to mean? And I am not being frivolous in asking this. * RICHARD: Is this what caring (about yourself in this case) means to you? RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you initially described it as above (‘shallow water’) ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me? RESPONDENT: No, it was a request for you to elaborate whether being carefree – in your use of that word – entails being free of absorption in the imaginary concerns of a psychological self. RICHARD: And I answered honestly: I mean something much, much deeper than ‘being free of absorption in the imaginary concerns of a psychological self’ (by any definition) ... why are you having such difficulty with me being frank? RESPONDENT: I do appreciate your response however I do not feel interest in rehashing past correspondences. RICHARD: If you had not put your phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ in your query I would have answered differently ... ‘twas you who set the content of the conversation by doing so. RESPONDENT: If you are willing to explain what you mean by carefree without reference to past discussions – I am all ears. RICHARD: Sure ... rephrase your question sans *your* reference to past discussions and I will do likewise. This is how it all began:
Do you see it? RESPONDENT: Otherwise – I am afraid I am too exhausted to swim further. RICHARD: And so all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on will go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: Bon voyage. RICHARD: ‘Tis too late ... I set sail years ago and the dock you are wishing ‘pleasant journey’ from no longer exists.
RICHARD: ... I was merely nipping this hypocritical wisdom in the bud before it bloomed into yet another (unexamined) pithy aphorism tirelessly trotted out by those who cannot think for themselves. For a hoary example (which I have used before on this Mailing List): Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’. Who spoke those words of wisdom? Surely not those who know (for they do not speak). If it was spoken by those who speak ... then it is not worth the rice-paper it was written upon all those centuries ago as they do not know of what they speak. Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon hallowed (but specious) ‘ancient wisdom’? RESPONDENT: I think you are entirely missing the deeper meaning of the statement – trapped as you appear to be by the apparent contradiction inherent in the surface logic. RICHARD: I am somewhat surprised you would say this ... seeing that we had an exhaustive correspondence on the ‘deeper meaning of the statement’ some time ago on this very Mailing List. RESPONDENT: Lao Tzu’s words point to the fact that words cannot but represent actuality – they are not that which they re-present (excepting of course the word ‘word’ and perhaps a few others). RICHARD: If you say so ... nevertheless the pithy aphorism as quoted is taken as read by many a person, who does not splash about in shallow waters, just as the ‘if you point out wrong in others it is a greater wrong’ wisdom is taken as read. RESPONDENT: After all, words cannot capture the multi-dimensionality of living actuality – no matter how lengthy or erudite the discourse. RICHARD: Au contraire ... they can indeed by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge. RESPONDENT: Okay, show me: please describe in words the living actuality of the smell of a rose in a way which captures the multi-dimensional actuality. RICHARD: You do seem to have overlooked the qualifier (‘... by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge’). Our exhaustive past correspondence indicates an extreme reluctance/unwillingness(??) to even contemplate that there be deeper waters ... let alone take the requisite plunge. RESPONDENT: That hardly qualifies your evasion of my request. RICHARD: As it was me that set the qualifier it is me that adjudges its fitness ... and not you. And particularly so as there are other peoples on this planet, that I am in correspondence with via e-mail, that write to say how chuffed they are that here is a man that is speaking their language and appreciate that finally somebody can express so unambiguously the actuality of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. You are not the only person in the world. RESPONDENT: Obviously you know enough not to speak – and thus you must certainly now understand what Lao Tzu was conveying through the [translated] words: ‘those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’. RICHARD: You are so convinced that the hidden meaning of those words are (in effect) that the Tao is unutterable or that God is unspeakable or that the Truth is ineffable, or however it is phrased that it cannot be put into words, that you fail to see the obvious: that the origins of Taoism are so vague and Chinese pictograms are so open to a variety of equally valid conceptions that what Mr. Lao Tzu actually meant (if such a person ever lived at all) will never be known for sure. There are at least 48 translations of the Tao Te Ching into English, such that I am aware of, all of which have many and various disparities such as to render any meaningful discussion about it enigmatic. Which mystification is possibly the whole point of the pictograms anyway. RESPONDENT: But, should you have the requisite sincerity to take the imaginary plunge which you have yet to demonstrate – please describe in words the living actuality of the smell of a rose in a way which captures the multi-dimensional actuality. RICHARD: Tellingly enough not one of those peoples I am in correspondence, that have had the requisite sincerity to take the actual plunge, has ever asked that I describe what the aroma of a flower is. RESPONDENT: (Till you successfully demonstrate the ability to put into words the smell of a rose, what you provide below seems merely diversionary. Instead – either comply with the above request or simply see that Lao Tzu’s words pointed to something actual). RICHARD: As Mr. Lao Tzu’s words point to something entirely metaphysical I have obligingly snipped off what I ‘provide below’ ... especially so as you appear to be hell-bent on remaining in the shallows as if they were the deep. Furthermore, you are issuing pointless orders – to a person cruising safely in the deep – all the while acting as if you know better than me what I should or should not be doing ... despite the fact that you wrote (in another e-mail concurrent to this one) that the last time we corresponded you were ‘an imagination based separate self feeling frustrated at our inability to ‘meet’’. I would sincerely suggest that you take pause to reconsider your current course of action before reaching for the keyboard again. ‘Tis only a suggestion, though.
RICHARD: None of them can actually care, though, because they are not carefree. RESPONDENT: I [take] that to say: ‘because they are caught in the self-absorbed concerns of an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ they cannot actually care. I would appreciate your comments. RICHARD: As you have explained to me, in an exhaustive past correspondence, what the phrase ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ means to you then that is not what I meant at all. I mean something much, much deeper. (snip) * RESPONDENT: Please do not let my splashing in what you view as shallow water detract you from deeper concerns. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘view’ what you mean by ‘an imaginary, psychologically separate self’ as being what you describe it as above (‘shallow water’) ... you told me exactly what it means to you in an exhaustive past correspondence on the subject. Look, you said ‘I would appreciate your comments’ ... was this just so you could duck-shove the onus for your ‘splashing’ onto me? Is this what caring (about yourself in this case) means to you? RESPONDENT: No, it was a request for you to elaborate whether being carefree – in your use of that word – entails being free of absorption in the imaginary concerns of a psychological self. RICHARD: And I answered honestly: I mean something much, much deeper than ‘being free of absorption in the imaginary concerns of a psychological self’ (by any definition) ... why are you having such difficulty with me being frank? RESPONDENT: It reads to me like you are taking it as axiomatic that you have a level of understanding much deeper than practically anyone else. RICHARD: I do not have to be ‘taking it as axiomatic’ ... I provide a report of what I am experiencing, each moment again day after day, and I listen to and/or read the responses my fellow human beings provide. And I have travelled the country – and have been overseas – talking with and listening to many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to come across or to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: To be frank, you seem much too full of yourself and your gospel to really listen to anyone else. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is the sequence you cut the ‘none of them can actually care, though, because they are not carefree’ sentence of mine (at the top of the page) out of:
I am clearly speaking about peoples having passion, peoples being passionate and peoples passionately caring, as not being able to be carefree ... and when I read what you have to say (what you tell me are your inexact rough and reckless translations of actuality) I do indeed ‘really listen’ when you say that the ‘true passions’ are not sourced in ‘the imaginary psychological self’. Viz.:
As I have reported, again and again, that there are no passions (neither ‘true passions’ nor false passions) extant, in this flesh and blood body called Richard, I must ask at this juncture whether it is you that the one which is ‘too full of yourself and your gospel to really listen’ ... to me? For example, here is my exact (and not a rough and reckless translation) description of actuality, as re-quoted by my co-respondent further above, from which exchange you snipped my ‘they are not carefree’ sentence:
Would it not save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails if you took pause to reconsider your current course of action before reaching for the keyboard again?
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 |
