|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 44
RICHARD: Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? RESPONDENT: It is almost like the question is assuming that it is not happening ... RICHARD: The question is not ‘assuming that it is not happening’ ... the question is only because it is indeed not happening. RESPONDENT: ... like you are looking for a barrier ... RICHARD: Whenever this moment of being alive – the only moment there is as an actuality – is not being experienced
as an on-going pure consciousness experiencing then there is most definitely something preventing such perfection. A pure consciousness experience
(PCE) of the world as-it-is with people as-they-are happens when the mind becomes aware of itself ... such awareness is called apperceptive
awareness. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness
of itself. Apperception RESPONDENT: ... like you are asking relative to some past PCE. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the whole point of being able to remember. When one has experienced the best one would have to be a fool to settle for second-best – or worse – because this moment of being alive is one’s only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: The question I am asking is simple: what is already happening now? RICHARD: To be more precise, I put it this way: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RESPONDENT: There is nothing to remove or prevent or break away from to go beyond, is there? RICHARD: Only if there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (an identity by any other name) lurking around inside the flesh and blood body and/or bodies that is each and every one of the 6.0 billion human beings currently inhabiting this fair planet we all live on. Such an identity reveals its presence by contaminating this moment of being alive with the malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives that are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’). As I was explaining, in the paragraph you snipped the sentence at the top of this post from, the most effective way to get to know one’s every thought and feeling and impulse is to ask oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? Or, to put it another way: what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent? Peace-on-earth is here – right now – for the very asking.
RICHARD: Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? RESPONDENT: It is almost like the question is assuming that it is not happening ... RICHARD: The question is not ‘assuming that it is not happening’ ... the question is only because it is indeed not happening. RESPONDENT: Why do you make reference to what is not, then? RICHARD: Because it is indeed not happening, it is not an assumption, it is a fact ... and a seminal fact at that. RESPONDENT: Silly! RICHARD: Indeed ... 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 are happening only because peoples would rather be silly than sensible. And to be in a state of denial about ‘my’ culpability is not only individually silly (personally insalubrious), but communally silly (socially reprehensible) as well. RESPONDENT: What is happening now? (And don’t begin by assuming it’s not a PCE, please). RICHARD: It is not an assumption ... and it has a global occurrence as well. I having been discussing these matters with many, many people for nineteen years now – and have been scouring the books to no avail – and, until I come across evidence to the opposite, what is happening now is that each and every person is being run by the instinctual passions (the origin of ‘self’) genetically endowed by blind nature at conception. Thus each and every person is missing out on the peace-on-earth that is already always right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... as is evidenced in a PCE (and the PCE has a global occurrence also). * RESPONDENT: ... like you are looking for a barrier ... RICHARD: Whenever this moment of being alive – the only moment there is as an actuality – is not being experienced
as an on-going pure consciousness experiencing then there is most definitely something preventing such perfection. A pure consciousness experience
(PCE) of the world as-it-is with people as-they-are happens when the mind becomes aware of itself ... such awareness is called apperceptive
awareness. Apperception RESPONDENT: You sure do use a lot of words. RICHARD: If it takes 138 words to provide an accurate description, of what is a somewhat difficult subject for 6.0 billion people, then I will use 138 words. RESPONDENT: Are all these words a barrier? RICHARD: No ... ‘a barrier’ is an illusory obstacle that only the illusory identity can see. * RESPONDENT: ... like you are asking relative to some past PCE. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the whole point of being able to remember. When one has experienced the best one would have to be a fool to settle for second-best – or worse – because this moment of being alive is one’s only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: When you are focusing on what is not, then and only then does this seem second-best. RICHARD: To waste this moment of being alive – the only moment one can actually be here now – by experiencing malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives thereof which are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’) by stating that it is not second best (or worse) is not only personally insalubrious but socially reprehensible. RESPONDENT: What is happening right now is second-best as compared to what? RICHARD: The pristine perfection of the PCE. * RESPONDENT: The question I am asking is simple: what is already happening now? RICHARD: To be more precise, I put it this way: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RESPONDENT: How is it more precise to include ‘I’ and focusing on this moment? RICHARD: Because it is honest to acknowledge ‘my’ part in stuffing up this moment – the only moment there actually is – by ‘my’ presence. RESPONDENT: Is this excluding others? RICHARD: No ... 6.0 billion people are avoiding the issue as well. RESPONDENT: Other moments? RICHARD: One does not have to exclude ‘other moments’ ... there is only this moment in actuality. RESPONDENT: Other people? RICHARD: Any investigation into ‘my’ psyche is an investigation into the ‘human’ psyche ... being born of blind nature’s genetic blue-print, ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. * RESPONDENT: There is nothing to remove or prevent or break away from to go beyond, is there? RICHARD: Only if there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (an identity by any other name) lurking around inside the flesh and blood body and/or bodies that is each and every one of the 6.0 billion human beings currently inhabiting this fair planet we all live on. Such an identity reveals its presence by contaminating this moment of being alive with the malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives that are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’). As I was explaining, in the paragraph you snipped the sentence at the top of this post from, the most effective way to get to know one’s every thought and feeling and impulse is to ask oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? Or, to put it another way: what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent? Peace-on-earth is here – right now – for the very asking. RESPONDENT: Before we were here – before we asked – was there no peace? RICHARD: No ... peace-on-earth is already always right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time. Therefore, it was here ‘before we were here’ as well as ‘before we asked’ ... and it is freely available every moment again. RESPONDENT: And is peace just another idea of what is not? RICHARD: No, it already always is ... and is apparent when ‘me’ and all ‘my’ ideas are not. RESPONDENT: Is your imaginary peace so vulnerable to contamination? RICHARD: It is not my peace-on-earth nor anybody else’s. It is freely available. And it is not ‘vulnerable to contamination’ because nothing dirty can get in ... therefore it is wide-open and unprotected. I have no imagination whatsoever ... the intuitive/imaginative faculty is not extant in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Is sorrow to be feared? RICHARD: No ... if sorrow is ‘to be’ anything it is to be eliminated along with its antidotal compassion. RESPONDENT: Silly! RICHARD: As I never said anything about fearing sorrow this a pointless ‘straw-man’ comment.
RICHARD: Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? RESPONDENT: It is almost like the question is assuming that it is not happening ... RICHARD: The question is not ‘assuming that it is not happening’ ... the question is only because it is indeed not happening. RESPONDENT: Now you are speaking for me? RICHARD: I was answering your question regarding that sentence of mine (top) which you snipped off the bottom of a post to another correspondent who had said that, as the PCE was not happening, it was history (hence my question ‘what is preventing it’). Therefore my answer to you is neither ‘assuming that it is not happening’ for I was told that it was not happening ... and nor am I ‘now speaking for you’ because I never was. * RESPONDENT: Why do you make reference to what is not, then? RICHARD: Because it is indeed not happening, it is not an assumption, it is a fact ... and a seminal fact at that. RESPONDENT: Fact or denial, you say you aren’t there, but we are to view you as an authority? RICHARD: Yet it is a fact until I am informed otherwise and it therefore has nothing to do with denial no matter how many ways you question it. As to how you view me: it is entirely up to you to view anyone as you see fit. If I may make a suggestion ... it is what is being written about that is worth focusing upon in this part of the E-Mail rather than the credentials of the writer. * RESPONDENT: Silly! RICHARD: Indeed ... 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 are happening only because peoples would rather be silly than sensible. And to be in a state of denial about ‘my’ culpability is not only individually silly (personally insalubrious), but communally silly (socially reprehensible) as well. RESPONDENT: Making what is not your reference point to me is silly – a sure-fire way to stay confused. RICHARD: Not so ... making what is currently happening the reference point (as what is currently happening is personal insalubrity and social reprehensibility) is to stay bemired in the malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion that epitomises the current human psyche. RESPONDENT: What is happening now? (And don’t begin by assuming it’s not a PCE, please). RICHARD: It is not an assumption. RESPONDENT: Well there we have it – your assumption – your denial that ‘PCE’ could be happening now. RICHARD: Until that correspondent writes, and tells me to the contrary that ‘what is happening now’ is not a PCE, then I can only go on the last bit of information provided ... I am not a mind-reader. * RICHARD: And what is happening now has a global occurrence as well. I have been discussing these matters with many, many people for nineteen years now and have been scouring the books to no avail. RESPONDENT: You have been scouring to support your assumption, I assume. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I would be delighted to come across someone no longer being run by the instinctual passions (the origin of ‘self’) genetically endowed by blind nature at conception as it would be such fun comparing notes. * RICHARD: Until I come across evidence to the opposite, what is happening now is that each and every person is being run by the instinctual passions (the origin of ‘self’) genetically endowed by blind nature at conception. Thus each and every person is missing out on the peace-on-earth that is already always right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... as is evidenced in a PCE (and the PCE has a global occurrence also). RESPONDENT: Why would you call nature blind? RICHARD: Nature is blind in that it does not care two hoots about you or me or him or her ... it is the survival of the species that is nature’s goal (and any species will do as far as nature is concerned). Whereas I care about you and me and him and her ... therefore I chose not to be run by blind nature. RESPONDENT: You are nature, yes? RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve intelligence ... and if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time and maybe that carbon-based life-form will not be so stupefied as the carbon-based life-form as is currently epitomised by those who are so hung up about assumptions that they insist that this what is happening now is, for better or worse, what is happing now (as if they were uttering a profound wisdom). Nature has all the time in the universe to personify perfection (as evidenced in the PCE) ... and that is eternal time. Whereas you have perhaps eighty or so years. * RESPONDENT: ... like you are looking for a barrier ... RICHARD: Whenever this moment of being alive – the only moment there is as an actuality – is not being experienced as an on-going pure consciousness experiencing then there is most definitely something preventing such perfection. A pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is with people as-they-are happens when the mind becomes aware of itself ... such awareness is called apperceptive awareness. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – which is to be the senses as a naked awareness – is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... which is one’s only moment of being alive. (Oxford Dictionary: apperception: the mind’s perception of itself). RESPONDENT: You sure do use a lot of words. RICHARD: If it takes 138 words to provide an accurate description, of what is a somewhat difficult subject for 6.0 billion people, then I will use 138 words. RESPONDENT: Are all these words a barrier? RICHARD: No ... ‘a barrier’ is an illusory obstacle that only the illusory identity can see. RESPONDENT: What is an illusory identity but a silly game you are playing! RICHARD: What is so silly about having eliminated the rudimentary animal ‘self’ inside this flesh and blood body – created by the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – who ruled the roost with malice and sorrow? Are you really suggesting that being happy and harmless through the extinction of this illusory identity is silly? And thus you saying that peace-on-earth is silly? * RESPONDENT: ... like you are asking relative to some past PCE. RICHARD: Aye ... this is the whole point of being able to remember. When one has experienced the best one would have to be a fool to settle for second-best – or worse – because this moment of being alive is one’s only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: When you are focusing on what is not, then and only then does this seem second-best. RICHARD: To waste this moment of being alive – the only moment one can actually be here now – by experiencing malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives thereof which are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’) by stating that it is not second best (or worse) is not only personally insalubrious but socially reprehensible. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that if I experience sorrow or love, that is a reprehensible waste? RICHARD: It was ’way back when this flesh and blood body experienced it last – both personally insalubrious as well as socially reprehensible – and all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that are happening now lend credence to the veracity of the observation. RESPONDENT: My, what a big word, Richard! RICHARD: You are not the first person to have a problem about another’s erudition and scholarship ... yet the English language has upwards of 650,000 words in it. Do you really suggest that I restrict myself to the usual 4,000 to 6,000 that is the extent of the vocabulary of the average person? If so, why? Must all peoples remain semi-illiterate just because peoples like yourself find linguistic expressiveness to be ‘big words’? RESPONDENT: What you call second best I call what is happening now. RICHARD: Okay ... how would you describe what is happening now for you? Pristine perfection? Consummate excellence? RESPONDENT: Even your judgement relative to some ‘what is not’ – I don’t call it second-best, but it is not the only way. RICHARD: Okay ... what other ways are there of experiencing this moment of being alive? Maliciously? Sorrowfully? Lovingly? Compassionately? RESPONDENT: What is happening right now is second-best as compared to what? RICHARD: The pristine perfection of the PCE. RESPONDENT: Pristine perfection is an illusion. RICHARD: Okay ... yet as there is no lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity (who is born of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire and who is epitomised by malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion) here in this actual world, then if the pristine perfection I am living in is the illusion that you say it is, it is infinitely superior to the illusion that 6.0 billion people say they are living in. * RESPONDENT: The question I am asking is simple: what is already happening now? RICHARD: To be more precise, I put it this way: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RESPONDENT: How is it more precise to include ‘I’ and focusing on this moment? RICHARD: Because it is honest to acknowledge ‘my’ part in stuffing up this moment – the only moment there actually is – by ‘my’ presence. RESPONDENT: You aren’t stuffing up my moment, thank you very much. RICHARD: Where did I say that I was? RESPONDENT: Is this excluding others? RICHARD: No ... 6.0 billion people are avoiding the issue as well. RESPONDENT: You are quite an expert it seems. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: You keep focusing on avoidance – don’t be so concerned with ‘the issue’ because I am telling you it is not an issue for me! RICHARD: I never said that it was an issue for you ... that is up to you to decide. It is your life you are living and only you reap the rewards or pay the consequences for an action or inaction you may or may not do. I was simply answering your question about excluding others when one includes ‘I’ in the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’. I am explaining, so as to avoid any misunderstanding, that the question is not only an investigation into ‘my’ psyche (an investigation into ‘my’ psyche is an investigation into the ‘human’ psyche) because being born of blind nature’s genetic blue-print, ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. RESPONDENT: Other moments? RICHARD: One does not have to exclude ‘other moments’ ... there is only this moment in actuality. RESPONDENT: Other people? RICHARD: Any investigation into ‘my’ psyche is an investigation into the ‘human’ psyche ... being born of blind nature’s genetic blue-print, ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. * RESPONDENT: There is nothing to remove or prevent or break away from to go beyond, is there? RICHARD: Only if there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (an identity by any other name) lurking around inside the flesh and blood body and/or bodies that is each and every one of the 6.0 billion human beings currently inhabiting this fair planet we all live on. Such an identity reveals its presence by contaminating this moment of being alive with the malice and sorrow (or the antidotal love and compassion) or any derivatives that are generated by the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with (which instincts are the origin of ‘self’). As I was explaining, in the paragraph you snipped the sentence at the top of this post from, the most effective way to get to know one’s every thought and feeling and impulse is to ask oneself, each moment again, ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ Which means: what is preventing the PCE from happening ... right now? Or, to put it another way: what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent? Peace-on-earth is here – right now – for the very asking. RESPONDENT: Before we were here – before we asked – was there no peace? RICHARD: Peace-on-earth is already always right here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time. Therefore, it was here ‘before we were here’ as well as ‘before we asked’ ... and it is freely available every moment again. RESPONDENT: And is peace just another idea of what is not? RICHARD: No, it already always is ... and is apparent when ‘me’ and all ‘my’ ideas are not. RESPONDENT: Is your imaginary peace so vulnerable to contamination? RICHARD: It is not my peace-on-earth nor anybody else’s. It is freely available. And it is not ‘vulnerable to contamination’ because nothing dirty can get in ... therefore it is wide-open and unprotected. I have no imagination whatsoever ... the intuitive/imaginative faculty is not extant in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Or so you would have us imagine. RICHARD: No, I always advise against using imagination ... and idealising, visualising, believing, trusting, hoping and having faith and so on. RESPONDENT: If peace is invulnerable, what’s the problem: peace is always here but we (6,000,000,000) always deny it – well then how do you know it’s here? RICHARD: Unless I am an aberration of nature, what I experience anyone can experience and, as the PCE has a global occurrence, a temporary episode of experiencing peace-on-earth is already evidenced by other people’s reports as well. RESPONDENT: How do you know that peace is so far beyond me (or me beyond it)? RICHARD: It is neither beyond you nor are you beyond it ... as any ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ is standing in the way of peace-on-earth, only the ending of identity in its totality makes it apparent. RESPONDENT: Are you struggling to end struggling? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Is it working? RICHARD: As ‘struggling to end struggling’ is your gratuitous interjection, I will leave that up to you to answer. * RESPONDENT: Is sorrow to be feared? RICHARD: No ... if sorrow is ‘to be’ anything it is to be eliminated along with its antidotal compassion. RESPONDENT: Silly! RICHARD: As I never said anything about fearing sorrow this a pointless ‘straw-man’ comment. RESPONDENT: So why all the interest in eliminating it? RICHARD: If you are not interested in living your life free of sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and so on – which can lead down the slippery-slope to suicide – then that is your decision. Speaking personally, I chose for blitheness and gaiety and happiness and helpfulness and so on ... and perfection being so delicious I chose to share my experience with my fellow human beings. What they do with the information is their business. RESPONDENT: That is what I am asking you (to imagine). RICHARD: I have no imagination whatsoever ... the intuitive/imaginative faculty is not extant in this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT No. 21: <SNIP> Man seems to have a need that calls something wrong out of women. He calls to her for mothering, ego support, and sex and this is a dangerous call, like the one that brings the male black widow to his mate (to put it a little strongly). He wants a combination mother-whore. What comes up through the woman as a result of man’s need is what destroys both of them. It results in dependence and insanity for the man and for the woman, an insane power and the destruction of her character. Neither the man nor the woman consciously do this. They just do it. <SNIP> The idea that we can find completion from another person is a lie, but we will try anyway. Our only hope is that we fail soon and learn the lesson early, and start to look within for what is missing. This conflict is endless. RESPONDENT: Is conflict endless – or does it begin and end and begin? RESPONDENT No. 21: It is endless until it is resolved. Most people do not resolve it. RESPONDENT: If there is a (even merely potential) resolution, is there undivided interest in the resolution (that potential)? Are we more interested in talking about the conflict and contesting our theories about the conflict? I can contest a conclusion – if it can be resolved (if it can end) then it is a bold-faced lie to call it endless. I can present theories of how to resolve it – even methods – but isn’t that just countering your theory? There is something called ‘conflict theory’ that I have read about. You might find it interesting or you might find it liberal (threatening?). I found it endless so I let my attention to it end and move on – not to other theories so much as onto conflicts and harmonies themselves. I wasn’t interested in looking at most people so much as selecting what didn’t seem threatening at the time, yet I found fear just the same – I didn’t just find external conflict among others. The harmony I looked at was also exclusive. Now it seems that I am looking at conflict theory (or some variation) anew in your words. I am not interested in whether any particular label does or does not fit. I am not interested in how conflict itself is resolved – I am not trying to end conflict itself. I am interested in how conflicts resolve and emerge, but perhaps I am more interested in harmony, not harmony theory, just harmony. Of course you realize that I am just using the word you introduced. I would say that a verb might be more appropriate, but I am not naming this or not that. Maybe this is all too reserved about the word theory, but again I am preferring verbs. Do you know the adjective ‘passive’ as it is used in language arts (grammar)? Have you noticed how passive most of your language is? The words of Richard and many others you may read or interact with, even this very sentence, are in passive tone (‘voice’). All the definitions and theories are passive. Passive is for ideas, not action. ‘The black widow kills her mate’, now that is active – that is not speculation, yet again, so what? RICHARD: Are you sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’ and that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you do give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say that ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). The ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, I would be hard pushed to categorically state that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ as you do above. But perhaps this grammatical anthropomorphism made you a trifle reckless in saying that ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ as well? Just because sentence structure has a grammatical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘active voice’, or a logical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘passive voice’, it does not necessarily follow that life in the physical world has a ‘subject’ as in the psychological ‘doer’ (active) or ‘non-doer’ (passive) inside the agent. And not all descriptive sentences have to be ‘ideas, not action’ – for there can indeed be action without an ‘actor’ inside the active body – wherein ‘action’ is being described fluently by liberal use of ‘middle voice’ (wherein the principle interest is in the verb) without it being ‘definitions and theories’. Viz.: ‘The black widow spider’s mate is getting killed’ (or as I often say: ‘I am the doing of the happening called living’). Which means, just as ‘the word is not the thing’, that ‘the grammar is not the action’ or that ‘the syntax is not the activity’ ... once there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul inside the body being a spanner in the works (otherwise it is just hyperbole). The end of the cause of conflict means there is no need for ‘conflict resolution’ or any variations thereof.
RICHARD: Are you sure that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’ and that you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Because you do give the example of ‘the black widow kills her mate’ (which describes a physical world activity) and say that ‘now that is active’ – which indeed it is in the grammatical sense of ‘voice’ – as if black widow spiders do not sit around pontificating all day long without putting any of their ideas into action (the very active word ‘kills’ is certainly not an ‘idea’ on the part of the black widow spider as spiders cannot think). The ‘passive tone (voice)’ of that sentence could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’ (the passive tone does not always require the agent to be expressed). If so, seeing that the black widow spider’s mate is busily getting killed either way it is grammatically articulated, I would be hard pushed to categorically state that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ as you do above. But perhaps this grammatical anthropomorphism made you a trifle reckless in saying that ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ as well? Just because sentence structure has a grammatical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘active voice’, or a logical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘passive voice’, it does not necessarily follow that life in the physical world has a ‘subject’ as in the psychological ‘doer’ (active) or ‘non-doer’ (passive) inside the agent. And not all descriptive sentences have to be ‘ideas, not action’ – for there can indeed be action without an ‘actor’ inside the active body – wherein ‘action’ is being described fluently by liberal use of ‘middle voice’ (wherein the principle interest is in the verb) without it being ‘definitions and theories’. Viz.: ‘The black widow spider’s mate is getting killed’ (or as I often say: ‘I am the doing of the happening called living’). Which means, just as ‘the word is not the thing’, that ‘the grammar is not the action’ or that ‘the syntax is not the activity’ ... once there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul inside the body being a spanner in the works (otherwise it is just hyperbole). The end of the cause of conflict means there is no need for ‘conflict resolution’ or any variations thereof. RESPONDENT: Richard, can you show me an active voice/tone whatever about ideas? RICHARD: Of course I can ... but looks to me that you are either not understanding the issue or are avoiding the issue: you said that ‘passive is for ideas, not action’ when discussing ‘language arts (grammar)’ and I pointed out that the ‘passive tone (voice)’ of the sentence ‘the black widow kills her mate’ could read: ‘the black widow spider’s mate gets killed’. So therefore I asked as to whether you are not confounding the abstract ‘passive tone (‘voice’) with the concrete ‘passive’ (as in physical non-action in the corporal world)? Nowhere in this reply (below) have you addressed the question and your response serves instead to deflect an investigation away from the subject to hand. To wit: whether ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ or not (given that such words are described by you as being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’). RESPONDENT: In one sentence? RICHARD: Hokey-dokey: (active voice/tone): ‘No. 44 ideated Richard’s modus vivendi It is this simple: in grammar, ‘voice’ indicates the relation between the participants in a narrated event (subject/object) and the event itself. The subject of an active verb governs the process as an actor, or agent, and the action may take an object as its goal. Thus a passive voice/tone of the above sentence could read: ‘Richard’s modus vivendi was ideated by No. 44’. The activity remains the same, but the focus is different. The passive voice indicates that the subject is being acted upon. The topicalised goal of the action (‘Richard’s modus vivendi’) is the grammatical subject of the passive sentence and is acted upon by the agent (‘No. 44’), which is the logical, but not the grammatical, subject of the passive sentence. Thus ‘active/passive’ as a grammatical voice need not have correlations to active/passive physical events. Viz.:
In both (1) and (2) the pacifist remained physically passive (in foolish obedience to dictums handed down on high by bodiless entities). RESPONDENT: Can you be direct and to the point? RICHARD: Yet I am already always ‘direct and to the point’ so your question is meaningless unless one takes your assumption to be correct. My words are an accurate self-report from a fellow human being sans identity ... which makes them direct to the point of human suffering. You will find that what is written is a factual account that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. As this is a fact – and not a fantasy – this actual freedom, unlike the ineffable ‘Truth’, can be put into words. It is incredibly difficult to live in an hallucination twenty four hours a day ... which is why only 0.0000001 of the population have become enlightened over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years. There is as much misery and mayhem now as then ... when will the ‘Tried and True’ be seen for what it is? RESPONDENT: Do you ever stop intellectualising? RICHARD: As this type of argumentation falls under the general category of ‘The Fallacy of Complex Question’ – sometimes known as ‘The Fallacy of Loaded Question’ (as in ‘have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet’) – it cannot be answered in any meaningful way. This is your second assumption and colours your further response below (just as it colours your initial surmise much further above). RESPONDENT: That’s the activity of manipulating ideas, and if you enjoy it, what can I say but do not waste time – be concise – do as you see fit. RICHARD: As this is a conclusion drawn from a false premise (an assumption) it is bound to be incorrect: as I do not ‘intellectualise’ I do not, therefore, ‘manipulate ideas’ and thus the question as to whether I ‘enjoy it’ or not is moot. Consequently I do not ‘waste time’ and am able to be succinct without having to be condensed, reduced, abbreviated, truncated, abridged, compact or any other ‘short is beautiful’ dimwitacism that tries to dictate that all the ills of humankind should be resolved with a few pithy one-liners à la Mr. Bob Hope. There are trillions upon trillions of words in the sacred scriptures and whenever I do come out with a ‘one-liner’ peoples generally try to tell me that it has all been said before in the ‘ancient wisdom’. Hence, if it takes me a hundred or two hundred words or more to clearly explain how everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction I will use a hundred or two hundred words or more. Needless to say, everything I have to say can indeed be expressed very concisely (as I have done on many an occasion). Viz.: Step out of the ‘real world’ into the pristine perfection of this actual world (as evidenced in a PCE) and leave your ‘self’ behind in the ‘Land of Lament’ where ‘you’ belong. RESPONDENT: Do you have a question of clear mutual interest to share? RICHARD: Yes ... this very one you started. Viz.: ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ which you further qualified with ‘all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’ ... which you have not addressed at all in this response. What was it you were saying (above) about being ‘direct and to the point’? RESPONDENT: I guess you wouldn’t know until you voice it (act on the idea)? RICHARD: Oh, I knew it the moment I read what you had to say four-five days ago about active/passive and ideas/action and conflict/harmony and your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end ... it fits in with your ‘what is happening now is what is happing now’ profundity as previously avowed by you in your posts to me a few weeks ago. My delay in (a) answering your allegations and (b) exploring your profound wisdom is because of other commitments that prevented me from writing to anyone at all and not from having to chew over ‘ideas’ about what to write. Am I to take it that you either cannot or will not address the question about Richard’s words being in the passive tone as described by yourself as being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’ ... and which ideation of yours now includes ‘intellectualising’ and the ‘manipulation of ideas’? To bring the issue into being an investigative focus upon the human condition: just because sentence structure has a grammatical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘active voice’, or a logical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘passive voice’, it does not necessarily follow that life in the physical world has an active ‘subject’ (as in the psychological ‘doer’) or a passive ‘subject’ (as in a psychological ‘non-doer’) inside the agent. And not all descriptive sentences have to be ‘ideas, not action’ – for there can indeed be action without an ‘actor’ inside the active body – wherein ‘action’ is being described fluently by liberal use of ‘middle voice’ (whereupon the principle interest is in the verb) without it being ‘definitions and theories’. Viz.: ‘The black widow spider’s mate is being killed’ (or as I often say: ‘I am the doing of the happening called living’). Which means, just as ‘the word is not the thing’, it can be said that ‘the grammar is not the action’ or that ‘the syntax is not the activity’ ... once there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul inside the body being a spanner in the works (otherwise it is just hyperbole). To put it concisely: The end of the cause of conflict (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) means there is no need for ‘conflict resolution’ or any variations thereof ... which variations include ‘verbing’ one’s way through life
RESPONDENT: Pretend I am No. 45 before he knew English so well. I can’t answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking (thus it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further). It’s really hard for me to follow your writing. You throw in stuff I don’t get and go from there, but I can’t go with you and I don’t know why I would want to. RICHARD: It is always so fascinating to be engaged in a discussion with you about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is full of people as-they-are. As it was you who started this foray into English grammar by saying that ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’, which you further qualified as being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’, I find it intriguing that you are now pleading ignorance of the very same English grammar. What I am asking of you is to explain why you say that ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’, which you further qualified as being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’, because if it is indeed of no interest to you, why did you hold forth about what you assume Richard’s writing to be in the first place (as if you knew what you were talking about then)? So where is the difficulty in following what I write? You say certain things about active/passive voice in English grammar and – because you made allegations about Richard’s words – I say certain things about active/passive voice in English grammar ... where is the difficulty? Do you, or do you not, know what you were talking of in the first place? Why would you not want to ‘go from there’? Why will you not demonstrate, substantiate, display, explain or in any other way (a) back your allegations and (b) demonstrate your knowledge of English grammar to bear out your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end? However, I am only too happy to ‘try again as I see fit’ because the subject of the end of conflict is of vital interest ... it is what this Mailing List is purportedly set up for. Viz.:
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that you turned the question back-to-front and wanted me to give you an example of ‘active voice/tone’ about ideas – whereas you had initially said that ‘passive voice/tone’ was not for action – and that you had either overlooked or ignored the example I gave that knocked your theory for a six. I asked whether you had confused the grammatical ‘active/passive’ with the physical ‘active/passive’. I also pointed out that you had not addressed the question about Richard’s writing being ‘passive voice/tone’ as in being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’. Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that ‘ideas’ can indeed be used in the ‘active voice/tone’ sentence structure and, not only do I give the example you asked for, but also explain the process of English grammar on the very subject that you introduced in your initial post to another correspondent. I further give an example of both the ‘active voice/tone’ and the ‘passive voice/tone’ being used where the physical action (by the pacifist) is passive in both cases. Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that your assumption that I am not ‘direct and to the point’ is just that
... your assumption. I then explain what my modus vivendi *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that your question is based upon an assumption and that to expect me to be able to answer meaningfully is a pointless expectation. I further explain that this is your second assumption in this post and thus colours your response just the same as it coloured your initial surmise to another correspondent. Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that because you have an assumption about me, then any conclusions that you draw from this assumption are going to be erroneous. I further explain why I use as many words as I consider it takes for me to explain what my experience is ... rather than have you dictate how many words I should use. As I am living this and you are not, it seems reasonable that I would know better than you how to write about my experience. Even so, I gave just one example of the many times where I am ‘concise’ in my writing and made sure that it related to this very topic being discussed. To wit: whether Richard’s words are merely ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’ or not. Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that the question that is of ‘clear mutual interest’ is this very question that you yourself started when you talked of Richard’s words being in the ‘passive tone (‘voice’)’ which you further qualified with ‘all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’. I also pointed out that you have not addressed this question at all in this response and asked whether you understood – for yourself – what it was that you were saying (above) about being ‘direct and to the point’? Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? *
RICHARD: What I am saying here is that I see things, people and events directly and do not form ‘ideas’ about them and then act upon those ‘ideas’. I explained this in reference to reading what you had to say about ‘active/passive’ and ‘ideas/action’ and ‘conflict/harmony’ and your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end in your initial post to another correspondent. I added the explanation that your words fitted in with your ‘what is happening now is what is happing now’ profundity as previously avowed by you in your posts to me a few weeks ago. I then asked whether you either cannot or will not address the question about Richard’s words being in the ‘passive tone/voice’ as described by yourself as being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’ and ‘speculations’... and which ideation of yours now includes ‘intellectualising’ and the ‘manipulation of ideas’. Whereabouts exactly is the difficulty in following what I am saying? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘intellectualising’? Whereabouts exactly am I ‘wasting time’? Whereabouts exactly can you not ‘answer your questions because I don’t know what you’re asking’? Whereabouts exactly is it that ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’? Whereabouts exactly is it that you ‘can’t go with [Richard] and I don’t know why I would want to’? Whereabouts exactly are ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... ‘definitions’ ... ‘theories’ ... ‘ideas’ ... ‘speculations’? * May I take this opportunity to bring the issue into being an investigative focus upon the human condition? Just because sentence structure has a grammatical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘active voice’, or a logical ‘subject’ as an agent in the ‘passive voice’, it does not necessarily follow that life in the physical world has an active ‘subject’ (as in the psychological ‘doer’) or a passive ‘subject’ (as in a psychological ‘non-doer’) inside the agent. And not all descriptive sentences have to be ‘ideas, not action’ – for there can indeed be action without an ‘actor’ inside the active body – wherein ‘action’ is being described fluently by liberal use of ‘middle voice’ (whereupon the principle interest is in the verb) without it being ‘definitions and theories’. Viz.: ‘The black widow spider’s mate is being killed’ (or as I often say: ‘I am the doing of the happening called living’). Which means, just as ‘the word is not the thing’, it can be said that ‘the grammar is not the action’ or that ‘the syntax is not the activity’ ... once there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul inside the body being a spanner in the works (otherwise it is just hyperbole). To put it concisely: The end of the cause of conflict (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) means there is no need for ‘conflict resolution’ or any variations thereof ... which variations include ‘verbing’ one’s way through life’. * RESPONDENT: Modus vivendi is Latin, right? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: That’s all I understood of that. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Remember, I am your ESL student. RICHARD: I do not know what ‘ESL’ is – I live in Australia – and I have no interest in discussing the issue of human conflict with anyone who sees themselves merely as a ‘student’. It is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) lurking around inside each and every one of the 6.0 billion flesh and blood bodies which is the sole cause of all this misery and mayhem ... and the best you can come up with is ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever to go further’. One needs to be more than merely a ‘student’ to investigate into the appalling mess that is the human condition ... over 160,000,000 people have been killed by their fellow human beings in wars alone this century and an estimated 40,000,000 people committed suicide in the same period. Unless there is action – unilateral action – there will be at least another 160,000,000 people killed by their fellow human beings in wars alone this next century and another 40,000,000 people will commit suicide ... not to mention the figures for all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and so on. Is this the fate which you wish for your fellow human beings? RESPONDENT: Try again as you see fit. RICHARD: If I may suggest? How about you trying? RESPONDENT: If you have already wrote six paragraphs before you got to this sentence – woe – have mercy! RICHARD: Why? For all of your talk of being a reporter and/or a journalist – and for all of your sometimes lengthy posts to some other peoples – you have a marked disdain of whenever Richard writes more than a hundred or so words. Why? RESPONDENT: That’s some momentum you have in that mind, huh? RICHARD: Not really, I am simply having a lot of fun at the keyboard – I am retired and on a pension and instead of pottering around in the garden I am currently pottering around the Internet – and I am sharing my experience of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is full of people as-they-are. What the other does with this information is their business.
RESPONDENT: ESL means English as a second language. My reference to being your student was only figurative – a reminder to imagine you were responding to one ignorant of the intricate complexities of your language. RICHARD: Yet you say that you are a reporter and/or a journalist and I see that you were quite content to air your knowledge, of a rather abstruse aspect of English grammar, to another correspondent and give an interpretation upon ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. You may be fooling yourself into thinking you have fooled me with your pleading of ignorance, of the very same English grammar that you expressed so eloquently until questioned, but I am sure you will excuse me in that I keep my own counsel on the matter? RESPONDENT: I read all of your response, but I have very little to say. RICHARD: So I noticed. Why? You had more than a little to say when you were expounding on Richard’s words to another correspondent. RESPONDENT: You mention the long length of some of my posts. I think it is easier to read a biographical sketch or a joke than abstract philosophy. RICHARD: Am I to take it that I am to add ‘abstract philosophy’ to your ideation about Richard’s words being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’ and the ‘manipulation of ideas’? If so, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a mire of your own making. RESPONDENT: On the other hand, reading No. 45’s retypes of K’s conversations didn’t tax me much. RICHARD: Indeed not ... a soothing lullaby never does. RESPONDENT: Perhaps the eyes are given frequent breaks with all the skipped lines and that is a factor to easy following. I know that when I saw the ten inch paragraph that you made from my earlier post to No. 21 I recoiled. The enter and tab keys are our friends. RICHARD: Goodness me ... is this the best justification that you can come up with for not demonstrating, substantiating, displaying, explaining or in any other way (a) backing your allegations about Richard’s modus vivendi and (b) demonstrating your knowledge of English grammar to bear out your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end? Can you not copy and paste the ‘ten inch paragraph’ and all the rest into a temporary file and ‘enter and tab key’ to your heart’s content if that is indeed your difficulty? Anyway, my last post to you was laid out making full use of both ‘enter and tab key’ ... and listed neatly as per question and answer then explanation and question. Is there no end to your requests on how I am to compose my responses to you before you will respond with substance? RESPONDENT: Your repeated questions have for me little impact ... RICHARD: Then why keep on asking me to repeat myself? Why not answer, with substance, my very first response to you and save all this to-ing and fro-ing? RESPONDENT: ... and I am saturated with the volume of your reply. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is you who has made it into a voluminous reply ... my initial response was but 403 words, which is a scant 40 more than your initial post of 374 words. To refresh your memory as to why this post has become voluminous:
So I did ‘try again as I saw fit’ and what is your response?
RESPONDENT: Maybe my non-compliance with exchanging a long response will challenge you to focus a bit more. Maybe not. RICHARD: Maybe – just maybe – you will discuss the substance of the issue instead of discussing how to discuss and arguing about how to argue? RESPONDENT: As for the questions I asked some time ago, such as ‘does Richard use mostly passive voice’ or whatever, well, I asked them. RICHARD: They were not ‘questions’ ... they were definitive statements with nary a question mark in sight. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘the words of Richard ... are in passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I am not offering answers, but sharing curiosity. RICHARD: If I may ask? How do you equate ‘sharing curiosity’ with ‘it is of no interest to me whatsoever’ and ‘I can’t go with you and I don’t know why I would want to’ ? RESPONDENT: The answer is of no particular interest to me, and now we have lost the context of my comments to No. 21 ... RICHARD: Not so ... the context of your comments are precisely where they always have been throughout this exchange: at the top of this page. The context was about ‘active/passive’ and ‘ideas/action’ and ‘conflict/harmony’ and your ‘word theory’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end. Scroll up to the top and see for yourself. RESPONDENT: So if the question doesn’t interest you enough to examine yourself, so be it. RICHARD: Yet the question does interest me and I have been examining all along ... it is yourself that keeps on saying that you are not interested enough to ‘examine yourself’ ... not me. RESPONDENT: If you see what seems an assumption ... RICHARD: It does not ‘seem’ to be an assumption ... it is an assumption. It is an assumption that (a) ‘passive tone (‘voice’)’ ... all the definitions and theories are passive ... passive is for ideas, not action ... that is ... speculation’ as an actual grammatical fact ... and it is also an assumption that (b) Richard’s words are ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘the manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’. Are you interested in examining these assumptions? RESPONDENT: ... take that as my opinion. RICHARD: I already did ‘take that as your opinion’ ... and I still do ‘take that as your opinion’. RESPONDENT: See if it fits or not ... RICHARD: It did not ‘fit’, it does not ‘fit’ and it will not ‘fit’ ... ever. RESPONDENT: ... or just outright reject it because I don’t present any evidence. RICHARD: If I may point out? You do not ‘present’ anything other than quibbling about how to quibble ... and you do not provide ‘any evidence’ to substantiate even that. RESPONDENT: But watch what you do, if you would. RICHARD: I did ‘watch’ and I do ‘watch’ and I will ‘watch’ as I already always ‘watch’ ... without any prompting from yourself. RESPONDENT: Take an assertion as feedback – an accusation that may indeed be wrong, or indeed quite right. RICHARD: No ... many, many peoples say all kinds of things about me and I would have a full-time job if I did what you are suggesting. A person needs to demonstrate and substantiate their statement before I will consider it. RESPONDENT: A conclusion that begs a question can be discarded as an assumption or questioned. RICHARD: Indeed, and it was ‘questioned’ by me and still is being ‘questioned’ by me ... the issue is: why will you not question it? RESPONDENT: You questioning me is fine ... RICHARD: Good ... because it is so fascinating to be engaged in a discussion with you about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is full of people as-they-are. RESPONDENT: ... but why not just explore without reference to me? RICHARD: Why on earth would I (a) want to ‘explore’ your ‘word theories’ about ‘a verb’ being ‘more appropriate’ rather than bringing conflict to an end ‘without reference to you’ ... and (b) want to ‘explore’ your ‘word theory’ about ‘the words of Richard’ being ‘definitions’, ‘theories’, ‘ideas’, ‘speculations’, ‘intellectualising’, ‘the manipulation of ideas’ and ‘abstract philosophy’ ... also ‘without reference to you’? Are you into setting ‘homework assignments’ now on top of all your other requests? RESPONDENT: That is my question for you. I am not requesting an answer. RICHARD: Oh, I am only too happy to answer your questions as I am vitally interested in the subject of the end of conflict ... it is what this Mailing List is purportedly set up for.
CORRESPONDENT No. 44 (Part Two) 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 |
