|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 53
Continued from Mailing List ‘B’, No. 40 RESPONDENT: ... I would like to remember you a few facts: No. 40 exposed (...) Richard’s fallacies, etc., giving [him] an opportunity for facing reality. You can review all those posts in the archive, I am not inventing it. RICHARD: My attention has been drawn to your statement which portrays the exposure of ‘Richard’s
fallacies, etc.’ as being part of ‘a few facts’. However, I have been unable to locate anything relating to this
description
RESPONDENT: ... I would like to remember you a few facts: No. 40 exposed (...) Richard’s fallacies, etc., giving [him] an opportunity for facing reality. You can review all those posts in the archive, I am not inventing it. RICHARD: My attention has been drawn to your statement which portrays the exposure of ‘Richard’s
fallacies, etc.’ as being part of ‘a few facts’. However, I have been unable to locate anything relating to this
description RESPONDENT: Have you been unable to locate anything relating to it? RICHARD: Indeed I have not ... which is why I asked if you would detail ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see. RESPONDENT: I see, it is expectable Richard, your typical behaviour of hypocrite sod. Let me help you, perhaps you have not the following definitions in your Oxford Dictionary: Fallacy is to avoid other’s questions and to flee like a fearful rabbit when someone is trying to understand you. Fallacy is to manipulate your past conversations in this list, copying and pasting in your web page what is convenient for you and skipping what is not. Fallacy is to select bit extracts from K’s quotes so that they can sound as you need. Fallacy is to come back with this shit of post for defending yourself of previous No. 40’s informations and comment when it is of public domain. RICHARD: I appreciate that you have explained what the word ‘fallacies’ means to you. Even so, I have been unable to locate anything relating to these descriptions of yours ‘in the archive’ or ‘of the public domain’ ... let alone any exposure of same. As you affirm that you are ‘not inventing it’ I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see. RESPONDENT: Fallacy are you man. Go to fuck with a duck and don’t bother me, idiot. My feelings are not extinct, as yours, and listening you is bringing to my ego a strong sense of repugnance. Is it clear, big sod? RICHARD: It is this simple: if you had not posted your unsubstantiated critique in the first place you
would not now be feeling bothered by these words. Howsoever, you will need to document your ‘few facts’ if you do not
wish to be hoist by your own petard
RESPONDENT: ... I would like to remember you a few facts: No. 40 exposed (...) Richard’s fallacies, etc., giving [him] an opportunity for facing reality. You can review all those posts in the archive, I am not inventing it. RICHARD: My attention has been drawn to your statement which portrays the exposure of ‘Richard’s
fallacies, etc.’ as being part of ‘a few facts’. However, I have been unable to locate anything relating to this
description RESPONDENT: Have you been unable to locate anything relating to it? RICHARD: Indeed I have not ... which is why I asked if you would detail ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see. RESPONDENT: I see, it is expectable Richard, your typical behaviour of hypocrite sod. Let me help you, perhaps you have not the following definitions in your Oxford Dictionary: Fallacy is to avoid other’s questions and to flee like a fearful rabbit when someone is trying to understand you. Fallacy is to manipulate your past conversations in this list, copying and pasting in your web page what is convenient for you and skipping what is not. Fallacy is to select bit extracts from K’s quotes so that they can sound as you need. Fallacy is to come back with this shit of post for defending yourself of previous No. 40’s informations and comment when it is of public domain. RICHARD: I appreciate that you have explained what the word ‘fallacies’ means to you. Even so, I have been unable to locate anything relating to these descriptions of yours ‘in the archive’ or ‘of the public domain’ ... let alone any exposure of same. As you affirm that you are ‘not inventing it’ I would appreciate your detailing of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ so as to comprehend just what it is that you see. RESPONDENT: Fallacy are you man. Go to fuck with a duck and don’t bother me, idiot. My feelings are not extinct, as yours, and listening you is bringing to my ego a strong sense of repugnance. Is it clear, big sod? RICHARD: It is this simple: if you had not posted your unsubstantiated critique in the first place you
would not now be feeling bothered by these words. Howsoever, you will need to document your ‘few facts’ if you do not
wish to be hoist by your own petard RESPONDENT: Look Richard, it seems you are not only idiot but deaf, I have been quite clear when saying that I didn’t want to give you a bit more of my time because you are a malicious being, a pure fallacy. RICHARD: Yet it was you who chose to post an unsubstantiated critique, on a Mailing List specifically set-up for discussion, and not me. RESPONDENT: I said you the following in the previous post: 1. You fled like a fearful rabbit the last time you have been here, you fled without saying a word when your hollow arguments were in danger because of peaceful questions. Is this your genuine concerned about Peace-on-earth and expounding Actual Freedom? Fallacy you are having this behaviour so often. RICHARD: If I did, in fact, ‘flee like a fearful rabbit’ the last time I wrote to this Mailing List you might have a case ... but as I did not (and neither have you demonstrated that I did) then there is no substance to what you propose here. (No. 1 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated). RESPONDENT: 2. And you come back now with this shit of post asking about No. 40’s informations and comments on your fallacies when it is of public domain, when every fair member of listening-l knows it. How can you be so cynic man? It’s amazing!! RICHARD: I have left the sequence at the top of this post ... if you care to look you will see that I specifically asked one thing and one thing only (three times):
I was very clear and explicit because it is what you see that I am endeavouring to comprehend ... and not another’s pseudo-venting. (No. 2 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated). RESPONDENT: 3. You manipulate your conversations in this list, cutting them for your convenience and pasting it so in your web page. RICHARD: I post a duplicate copy of all my correspondence, in toto, on my web page so as to save hunting through thousands of posts on various public mailing lists on the internet each time again and I never ‘cut them for my convenience’ (whatever that means) before I do so. Other than formatting and/or editing for anonymity, consistency, typo’s, spelling errors and so on, then what you see here is what appears there. You will need to demonstrate the validity of what you say if I am to comprehend just what it is that you see. (No. 3 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated). RESPONDENT: 4. You manipulate K’s quotes selecting bit extracts for your convenience. RICHARD: I provide annotated quotes from various validated sources (including quotes attributed to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti) so as to substantiate what I am saying and to demonstrate the point I am making. Furthermore, as it is a common practice on this Mailing List to provide quotes I rather fail to see why you are singling me out for special attention. Again: you will need to demonstrate the validity of what you say (whatever it is that you are saying) if I am to comprehend just what it is that you see. (No. 4 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated). RESPONDENT: 5. You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning? RICHARD: Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings? I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being. Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom. (No. 5 of ‘Richard’s fallacies, etc.’ not substantiated). RESPONDENT: It was [clear], but your tantrum is so big when listening the magic phrase ‘Richard’s fallacies’ that you are replying me with a game of words, suggesting that if I don’t give you the localization of No. 40’s comments about your fallacies I would be fleeing from you. Amazing! RICHARD: Not so ... this is what I asked (three times):
RESPONDENT: All right fake :), it doesn’t matter if you are a mental hateful ill or just a malicious being because it is the same in the deeper. You ask me for the comments about your fallacies from just one person but I will be generous giving you the comments from many persons. RICHARD: Once again you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am wanting you to repeat another’s pseudo-venting. I do not. It is what you see that I am endeavouring to comprehend. RESPONDENT: Furthermore, I am pondering on making a domain as [name deleted] has did, just for holding these ‘letters to Richard’, so that anyone at any moment will can review who are you, by themselves. Too many have used their precious time showing your fallacies and it must not be lost, it must be easily available in the net. I am pondering the name ‘actualfreedom.richardfake.com’ or similar, it seems adequate. In 2 weeks or lesser I will be with you, pristine fake, bringing a short thread with posts and comments from different persons on your pristine fallacies. Like a heavy beast you produce much noise, so that I will take what is more at hand avoiding to loose my time too much, it would be enough for remembering anew who are you. At the end, we can hold it in the new domain of the net so that you never will need to ask for details about your own fallacies. What about the name of the thread? ‘Shovelling the dirt’ seems adequate. RICHARD: You can, of course, write whatsoever you may wish ... but I can assure you in advance that, as it is what you see which I am endeavouring to comprehend, I will not respond to any proxy paragraphs. RESPONDENT: Impeccable Highness aka Richard, let me give you an introduction to the future thread on your fallacies. I, in my ego state, assume that all the below is correct, but I will understand you will disagree. RICHARD: If you can substantiate and demonstrate that what you state is correct then I will be listening with both ears. RESPONDENT: Anyway, perhaps it can help you to understand how others see you. I will use their words: First, <snip six paragraphs written by another person or persons> RICHARD: As you said that this (what I have snipped) is not what you see but ‘how others see’ I have no regard whatsoever for it ... let alone being induced into responding to some far-fetched proxy exercise. If you have something to say for yourself then why not get on with the business of saying it? Conversely, if you have nothing to say for yourself then why not acknowledge it and be done with all this? RESPONDENT: See you in a couple of weeks, cyber clown. RICHARD: Hmm ... if you do it may be worth your while to bear in mind that this is what I asked ... and am still asking:
But that is entirely up to you, of course.
RESPONDENT No. 33: ... There is no freedom from suffering – none, whatsoever. RESPONDENT No. 39: I can’t argue based on my own experience but how do you account for Richard’s view? RESPONDENT No. 33: When you say, ‘I can’t argue based on my experience’ it implies, in my opinion, that you are saying there is no freedom from your personal suffering. But a Buddha goes beyond that view. For him personal suffering may not exist, but he still suffers with his fellow human beings. That’s an important distinction between the suffering of X and that of a Buddha. RESPONDENT No. 39: This doesn’t make sense to me because suffering is still suffering whether it is personal or with others. Here is a piece of an article that I posted a few days ago which I found interesting: ‘Fear and the brain: Twenty years ago no one knew how fear conditioning worked. But by surgically removing discrete parts of rodents’ brains – and performing the same simple conditioning experiment – researchers have detailed the underlying mechanisms. The fear system’s command centre is the amygdala, a small, almond-shaped structure that rests near the centre of the brain and is elaborately tied to other regions through nerve fibres. A rat lacking an amygdala won’t freeze at the sound of a tone, no matter how often the tone is paired with a shock. And though human subjects can’t be carved up or electrocuted for the sake of science, studies of patients with damaged amygdalae show that they have similar deficits. Unlike people with intact brains, they’re no more attuned to emotionally charged words such as rape than to bland ones like handkerchief. And though they can recognize individual faces, they don’t perceive threatening expressions as unfriendly. Even a split-second glance at a hostile face activates the amygdala in a normal brain. (Newsweek, Feb 24: http//msnbc.com/news/873610.asp?0dm=c319N#BODY). I find it interesting that a person with a damaged amygdala has similar experiences as Richard. Evidently he has found a way to disconnect the amygdala which is where suffering is generated. RESPONDENT: Is your interpretation correct or are you making castles in the air? The above doesn’t mind that ‘a person with a damaged amygdala has similar experiences as Richard’ as you say. It means that a persons or a animal with a damaged amygdala can get a serious deficit for functionality in the outer world. To freeze is a defensive response in rats; the experiment shows that, after injuring the rat many times, the animal can not associate the tone and the injury and so doesn’t rise its defensive system. You are always interested in the amygdala business, perhaps the following can help you: [J Neurosci 2003 Jan 1;23(1):23-8]: ‘Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (a cerebral area) is critically involved in unlearned fear, whereas the amygdala is more involved in the acquisition and expression of learned fear’. [endquote]. Personal comment: Unlearned fear = innate passions. Learned fear = fear from memory. Amygdala doesn’t process especially the so called innate passions but learned emotions, it processes fear from memory (thought based). RICHARD: Here is the paragraph which contains the full sentence from which the quote you provide has been snipped:
As the parenthesised words ‘(a cerebral area)’ are not in the original it would appear they have been added by an interpolator as an explanatory aid ... yet the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis is generally designated as being part of the extended amygdala. Viz.:
The following URL provides both a photograph of a sliced human brain and a corresponding diagram (in which the stria terminus is annotated with the number 9): www.vh.org/adult/provider/anatomy/BrainAnatomy/Ch5Text/Section11.html In case the above URL is not accessible the relevant text on that page is as follows:
Put succinctly: the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (small patches of grey matter) lies in the latter part of the stria terminalis (a bundle of fibres) which is the main outwardly conducting pathway from the amygdaloid nuclear complex ... which complex is not generally held to be ‘a cerebral area’. Here is what the word ‘cerebral’ usually means:
Yet the first sentence of the paragraph which contains the full sentence from which the interpolated quote you provide states the following:
As it relates to experiments conducted on rats, and not humans, your ‘personal comment’ that the amygdalae process fear from ‘(thought based)’ memory is somewhat odd – unless you are suggesting that rats can think – as what the words ‘learned fear’ usually indicate in these types of experiments is that the rat has been conditioned to respond with fear to a tone (a tone initially paired with the passage of an electric shock through a metal plate upon which the rat is standing) ... therefore the words ‘learned fear’ in this instance refer to conditioned fear and not ‘(thought based)’ fear. Thus it is apparent that the amygdalae process fear from emotional/passional memory – and not thought-based memory – as is evidenced, for an example, by peoples with damaged amygdalae (as per the Newsweek quote much further above). Viz.:
What is even more odd is that you say that ‘unlearned fear = innate passions’ anyway – all you are doing is entering into the current scientific dispute as to where it is mediated – which innateness (meaning a genetically inherited origin) of emotion/passion is my main point when writing about these matters ... my associated point being that feelings come before thought (12-14 milliseconds earlier) in the perceptive process. Hence it is of little relevance, if any, precisely where in the extended amygdalae the unlearned/innate passions are mediated. RESPONDENT: ... I am not going to lose my time anymore with all this shit on the amygdala, it leads to nowhere. RICHARD: At the very least it has led to your acknowledgement that, at root, fear is an innate passion
... which innateness, as far as I have been able to ascertain Which could explain why he never discovered the already always existing peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: What’s the problem little Richard, are your disciples getting nervous? Is there such revolt in your church because neurology denies your statements than you must come hasty with this pathetic post, trying to inject confusion with tons of words painted with superficial logic and reasoning? Are you trying to disperse and expand the issue so that no one can ponder it and so little Richard recovers anew the profit from doubt? An old and nasty trick indeed. If you think that you can play such trick with me, hiding your fallacies under tons of words for simulating that you have tons of arguments you are wrong. As usually, I am not going to write from Friday to the middle of the next week; simply I can not use the net. So, till next Wednesday or Thursday, we will comment then your pathetic answers, cyber-clown. RICHARD: Okay ... if I recall correctly you once said you worked with small animals on interneurons (brain paths) – that it was your PhD at university – and, as I am but a lay-person when it comes to neurology, I look forward to reading your studied comments on the science of the nervous system ... in regards the human condition, of course. And also what part it can play in becoming free of the human condition. Continued on in The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 48
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 |
