|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 3 (Please make sure java-scripting is enabled in order for the mouse-hover tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to enlarge; left-click on the image to hold).
Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 18 Re: The Three-Keystroke Remedy RESPONDENT: Hello, Richard (and directors/ co-directors of the AF-Trust) and given the latest developements on the list again. Hello, to all who have cared to participate/ contribute in this evaluation of [No 1’s] hmm initiative. [... snip ...] THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE. RICHARD: G’day No. 3, I am taking this opportunity to share, with those who do consider the medium is the message,
what might euphemistically be called ‘The Three-Keystroke Remedy’
!Voila! Not only does all that distracting background imagery disappear, in an instant, that hard on eyes size-ten times-new-roman font can now be set to whatever is preferred. Here it is again in all its simplicity:
As I have been doing the above for more than a decade now, all around the internet, I really do wonder just why a problem is made out of what is purely a matter of taste. Speaking personally, I never download web pages as-is (and I have hundreds of them on various hard-drives and backup DVDs) but, instead, format them in a style which is to my taste. Yep, you guessed it (size-ten times-new-roman font). Regards, Richard.
Re: ZE DREM VIL FINALI KUM TRU! RESPONDENT: [Intro: For quite a while I have been mulling over these questions: Is Actual Freedom the ‘final frontier’? I think the answer has to be NO. Particularly when it comes down to considering the astonishing capacity of the human brain, it seems to me that a Darwinian based paradigm is too limiting. What then could be the ‘next step’? The Universe or better perhaps the Multiverse, is doing only one thing which is BEING. It is eternally repeating itself over and over again as EXISTENCE. Its (the Multiverse) nature is (imo) best described and referred to as self-sustaining, dynamic coherent in essence fractallic perpetual intelligent creative action. I prefer to use the term ‘intelligent creative action’ to the term ‘blind nature’ when considering a sentient life bringing and/or life preserving force such as that has brought about i.e. human beings... ^note I’m using the words fractallic and intelligent intuitively^ So... Is there perhaps a possibility of bringing forth a hypothesis which could describe a Universal Law for the existence of an eternal dynamic coherent equilibrium of consciousness (EDCEOC)? Such a Law may or may not include aspects of a Darwinian based evolution theory, however it will surpass the notion that sentient life ‘originates on earth’. This possibly may entail the re-introduce of the existence of spirit and/or soul in an entirely new way. ^note EDCEOC imo. a more accurate expression than a ‘perpetuum mobile’.^ End intro] Some facts: 1 This planet (Earth) orbiting around a star called our sun. Thus anybody on that planet is in orbit, thus everybody who lives now and has lived and will be living can be considered relatively having the same distance to that a centre and also is in the same orbit. A lifetime of a body conveniently can be measured in terms of duration of such an orbit and fragments of that duration. (i.e. years, months days aso.) 2 Our star (and thus all what is orbiting around that star) in its turn, describes an orbit likewise as many other stars around a centre. That centre allegedly is located in a galaxy called the Milky Way. [... snip 2002 text from ‘Science At NASA’ by Trudy E. Bell ...] [... snip 2003 text from ‘Wikipedia’ by pseudonymic writers ...] Would an actualist consider this as factual information? As a possibilist I take notice of it as ‘second-hand knowledge-acquired-through-third-party-observations’. That is not to say that an actualist would not do so, nor is it to say that this information, not need and /or will be considered, as valuable just because of the fact that it is merely ‘second-hand knowledge-acquired-through-third party-observations’. What do you think Richard? RICHARD: G’day No. 3, Given that you explicitly asked: what I think is that nowhere over the 9 or so years, in the 920+ emails you have posted to Yahoo Groups (30+) or ListBot (70+) or Topica (820+), can I recall you ever describing and/or detailing and/or mentioning how you have become peaceful and harmonious (as in as happy and harmless – as free from malice and sorrow – as is humanly possible) as an incremental and definitive result of all the reading of and writing to those aforementioned forums which were/are specifically set-up to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding so as to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming either actually or virtually free from the human condition. Of course, I may have missed the email, in which you did describe/ detail/ mention this ... in which case if you could copy-paste it here, at your convenience, I would be only too happy to read it. Thank you for asking what I think. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: I just popped in briefly again as I am still far too busy, locally, to catch-up on any pending posts yet.
Re: Better phrasings... RICHARD to Srid: Speaking of deceiving others, I see that not only has ‘John Wilde’ (alias ‘Respondent No. 4’;
alias ‘Sock Puppet ‘PW’’; alias ‘Sock Puppet ‘PD’’; alias ‘Sock-Puppet ‘R’’, et al.) recommenced his maligning, libelling
and defaming campaign ... RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’): How can anyone malign, libel, and defame someone who has no social identity; no self/Self/being? RICHARD to No. 37: [...] as your query, of necessity, implies that only an (illusory/ delusory) social identity/ self/ Self/ being can be maligned, libelled and defamed it does throw considerable light upon the quite uncivil behaviour exhibited on this forum (where normative legal laws and social protocols, designed expressly to curb such instinctual savagery, are entirely disregarded by more than a few). As you were one of them (...) it would be appreciated if you could provide a first-hand account of just what instinctual
impulse it is which compels a person to be so callous, so uncaring, so inconsiderate in the way they treat an innocent man? RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, When i apply the actualist method (HAIETMOBA) right here on the spot and ask myself if at this point the conversations currently going on ‘áffect’ me, in anyway, then to my surprise i realize that (like myself) more then a few readers may have or had some difficulty to see the difference between the ‘phantom’ Richard and the Actual Richard. Fortunately i seem to be now capable of indeed making this discrimination. Unfortunately it appears, that i have only been responding in the past to the ‘phantom’ Richard (an entity that *merely* is the ‘fruit’ of passionate fantazing identies). Understandably so YOU (the Actual Fleshblood Richard), have given it preference, not to respond to anything that i wrote which was ‘directed’ to the ‘phantom’/ janitor/ whatever image that was/is not in accordance with the Actual Richard. For that reason i like to give my take on the following:
As pointed out above, i myself could be counted into the category of persons that have been (wittngly/unwittingly) contributing to various degrees to the ‘fueling’ of the ‘phantom’ Richard. as to:
I’d say one might blame that on/ ascribe it to/ attribute it to, a defective/ malfunctioning/ ill discriminating factulty of the brain. So... Just to let you know how i deal with this: the ‘phantom’ Richard i consider by all measures of standards unquestionably an asshole of astronomical proportions. The Actual Richard (the fleshbloodbody), is in my book, to be considered to be an Innocent man. RICHARD: G’day No. 3, I appreciate your first-hand-account diagnosis (a brain-malfunction due to a defective discriminative faculty) and particularly so as it adds to the considerable light my co-respondent’s query threw upon that uncivil, uncaring, inconsiderate and callous behaviour. (As that query, of necessity, implied that a person sans an illusory/ delusory self/ Self/ being/ social identity can, ipso facto, be maligned, libelled, defamed with impunity, as no affective hurt/ psychological pain could ever be experienced, it exposes the lie of unenforced morals/ ethics/ values/ principles being sufficient for civil behaviour). Also, and even more to the point, I am pleased that you now consider the actual Richard (this flesh-and-blood body typing these very words) to be an innocent man ... as is evidenced by your follow-up email. Viz.:
A fresh start, eh? And, with a fresh start, who knows what might transpire? Perhaps even that which began getting derailed at its very commencement, nearly three years ago now, might start to get back on track and proceed towards delivering the goods? (I am, of course, referring to the opening-up of the direct-route to the already always existing peace-on-earth). Viz.:
All it takes is to enjoy and appreciate being alive, being here, each moment again throughout daily life. It is that simple Ain’t life grand! Regards, Richard.
Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism RICHARD: [...]. As briefly as possible: where Affer-Tarin says ‘weight’ can be given to any of the khandhā (i.e. the five components, in the buddhistic world-view, of which a person is comprised) he also uses the word ‘value’ elsewhere ... as in: a way to detach/ dissociate is to not value any of the khandhā (‘don’t give them any value’ or ‘don’t give any weight to them’) as the tendency to do so is inherent. Hence his ‘does one then delight in what is perceived?’ (The ‘not delighting in’ advice, from Affer-Trent, is the regular buddhistic way to detach/ dissociate from both your body and everything associated with it, within and without, including the world at large ... as in ‘all sensory-phenomena’). Put succinctly, there is no actual world in Buddhism (what is, in Buddhism, is ‘ajātaṃ
abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ Ergo: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism. RESPONDENT: G’d day Richard as to:
Lets see if i have got you correctly. 1. in Budhism the final stage is ‘ajatam abhutam akatam
asankhatam’ meaning the practioner is left with ‘something’ that is ‘not-born, not-become, not-made, not-caused’.. iow. that is the
result that can be attained by using of the product (TN8FT 2. In Actualism the final stage the practioner is left with ‘the universe experiencing itself as the senses as the flesh blood body sans identity in toto (iow. that is the result that can be attained by applying the AF-method.) Assuming 1. that when you write that: [it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism], you apply the word marry as a metafor, to refer to a particular kind of relationship between two individuals. 2. That this relationship is impossible. I take the liberty to provisionally infer that in stating: [it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism] you Actually meant to imply that: [it is impossible to merge Actualism and Buddhism]. I’m saying that because perhaps the meaning of the word marriage these days is prone to various interpretations and the word ‘impossible’, in this context might give rise to raising some eyebrows. so my question to you is: is my provisional inference that: In your book; [it is impossible to merge Actualism and Buddhism] would be a true statement. (‘True’ meaning in this context would imply that this statement would be void of any logical fallacy)? RICHARD: G’day No. 3, Yes, and I have previously indicated that the word equate is also what I mean by the word marry in this context. Viz.:
As a matter of related interest, the computer search for the above exchange shows that I have used the word marry in several similar contexts. For instance:
And another:
And again:
And another:
And yet another:
Incidentally, that last one there (about being ‘bound to be confused’ by attempting to marry Buddhism and Hinduism) should give due pause for re-consideration to anyone artfully trying to dismiss my eleven-year experience, night and day, of full-awakenment/ full-enlightenment via asserting it to be ... um ... more in line with how enlightenment is conceived in the Hindu tradition (for instance). RESPONDENT: ps. in my book such a merging would be possible (as i am a possibilist) however not with a high probabily. RICHARD: As I have first-hand experience of both buddhānasāsanaṃ (‘The
Message/ Dispensation of all the Buddhas) and of the very genesis of an actual freedom from the human condition and hence, directly know the utter
impossibility of merging the two, your adoption of the possibilism philosophy some time back is not standing you in good stead ... as is evidenced,
for instance, in your follow-up email (Message No. 11939 My records show that you first wrote to me on the 19th of Dec., 2000; this means you have had twelve (12) years exposure to the words and writings regarding actualism/an actual freedom; the fact that you are still straddling the fence, when you choose write to me 12 years hence, makes me ponder upon whether or not to respond any more. Just think: if the fence you are straddling were made of barbed wire ... what would the top strand be doing right now? Regards, Richard.
Re: Better phrasings... RICHARD: [...]. As briefly as possible: where Affer-Tarin says ‘weight’ can be given to any of the khandhā (i.e. the five components, in the buddhistic world-view, of which a person is comprised) he also uses the word ‘value’ elsewhere ... as in: a way to detach/ dissociate is to not value any of the khandhā (‘don’t give them any value’ or ‘don’t give any weight to them’) as the tendency to do so is inherent. Hence his ‘does one then delight in what is perceived?’ (The ‘not delighting in’ advice, from Affer-Trent, is the regular buddhistic way to detach/ dissociate from both your body and everything associated with it, within and without, including the world at large ... as in ‘all sensory-phenomena’). Put succinctly, there is no actual world in Buddhism (what is, in Buddhism, is ‘ajātaṃ
abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ Ergo: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism. RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’): ‘the already always existing peace-on-earth’ = ‘not-born, not-become, not-made, not-caused’ RESPONDENT:
if ‘ajatam abhutam akatam asankhatam’=‘not-born, not-become, not-made, not-caused’=‘the already always existing peace-on-earth’ then ending of ignorance (as i understand it, is the ultimate goal of Budhism) does not seem to contradict the ultimate goal (as i understand it to walk the ‘wide and wondrous path’) of Actualism). ergo it would be silly to even think of a marriage let alone a merging of the ‘two’. oh, silly ‘me’ oh silly ‘my’ RICHARD: G’day No. 3, What really is [quote] ‘silly ‘me’/silly ‘my’’ [endquote] is to take your co-respondent’s ill-conceived equation to be a valid premise for your conclusion. In my initial post I provided a reference for that quote from the Pali Canon (Ud 8.3; Tatiyanibbana Sutta; PTS: Ud 80). The reason why I referenced the Udāna ‘Tatiyanibbāna Sutta’, and not the Itivuttaka ‘Ajāta Sutta’ (where that same ‘Exalted Utterance’ is also to be found) is because the preceding text in the Udāna version clearly shows that those four words – which are essentially synonymic adjectives in that context – are referring to ‘saupādisesā nibbānadhātu’ (or, colloquially, nibbāna). Indeed, the fourth word (asaṅkhata, ‘not-caused’) is an epithet of nibbāna elsewhere in the Pali Canon. Viz.: • [Mr. John Ireland]: ‘Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anāthapiņḍika’s monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbāna, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma. Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned [Atthi bhikkhave ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ]’. (Ud 8.3; Tatiyanibbana Sutta; PTS: Ud 80). In other words, it is nibbāna which is not-born, not-become, not-made, not-caused. Thus, what your co-respondent is asserting is that nibbāna=the already always existing peace-on-earth. In order to do so he first snipped-off that which immediately preceded those four words ... namely:
Now, I know that ‘the already always existing peace-on-earth’ is to be found here in this actual world (the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as experienced in PCE’s) but that is clearly not what is being referred to in what I wrote; on the contrary, what I was indubitably doing was contrasting the actual world, of an actual freedom, with [quote] ‘what is’ [endquote] in Buddhism. And ‘what is’, in Buddhism, is nibbāna. Therefore, what your co-respondent is really doing, in effect, is asserting that nibbāna = the actual world. Thus, what your ‘if this = that, then ...’ conclusion really looks like is as follows (for example):
If you can find nibbāna described, anywhere in the Pāli Piṭaka (or the Chinese Agama), as being the world of the senses, the sensate world, the sensorial world where flesh-and-blood bodies already reside, as experienced in PCE’s, it would surely be the discovery of the millennia. * It has got me beat how people can accept, on the one hand, that Richard was cluey enough to discover and live in (what he calls) the actual world all on his own accord – as in, not ever studying and practicing what another rediscovered and taught over two millennia ago – but, on the other hand, is too dumb to realise the very thing they all know, from studying and practicing that which another rediscovered and taught, to be true ... to wit: nibbāna = the actual world. What makes it doubly mind-blowing is how they have to dismiss what Richard lived night and day for eleven years – also all of his own accord, as in, not ever studying and practicing what another rediscovered and taught over two millennia ago – as somehow not being what he calls it (full-blown awakenment/enlightenment) but something else which they know of from their book-learning. * If I may ask? Could this also be, perchance, attributed to a [quote] ‘defective/ malfunctioning/ ill discriminating
factulty of the brain’ Regards, Richard.
Re: emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff RESPONDENT:
Hi Richard As far as i am aware this issue has not been (properly) addressed yet. as to:
Since you seem to have inside information with regard to the existance of particulary ‘made up stuff’ about ‘Richard & his associates’ can and will you please provide any of the content of that material such as for perusal as to what kind of [emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & his associates’.] have been intercepted by the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust? RICHARD: G’day No. 3, What the directors were aware of was that emails were being privately circulated (clandestinely) and not the contents ... a person on another forum, for instance, publicly reported he had received one (and an entire thread was started on that very topic). RESPONDENT: Particulary an expression the like ‘all manner made-up stuff ‘ i find somewhat at odds with your usually accurately providing references to material, such as that a reader can make up s/his own opinion on the matter at hand. RICHARD: The person – or even persons – who was/who were ‘as yet unknown’ did not have/has not had the common decency and/or extend the common courtesy of Cc-ing either me or the directors a copy/copies. Hence my vague ‘all manner of made-up stuff’. In short: I have been/am being asked to rebut/ refute many and various things I was not/have not been informed of by the person – or even persons – who was/who were ‘as yet unknown’. Hence also my usage of ‘poltroons’. Incidentally, I neither need to know nor want to know the contents of those clandestine emails – I have no personal interest in carefully typed-out fantasies – because my 20+ years of living what is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website informs me as to what is fact and what is fancy. (Just as it does for the handful of daring pioneers). Regards, Richard.
Re: Richard, to be fair.. RICHARD to Andrew: [...]. (Incidentally, note how he begins it all with his ‘I was there when it happened’ stamp
of eye-witness authenticity even though ‘February 2010’ is *not* November/ December 2009). RESPONDENT No. 4: You keep repeating this ‘I was there when it happened’ line, taking it out of its immediate context, and juxtaposing it alongside something else entirely, to make it look like I was claiming to be present at something I couldn’t have been present at. Here’s the original context:
*********************** So, not for the first time, you’ve deleted the very words which supplied the immediate context, and you’ve juxtaposed those words alongside something else, implying that I’d claimed to be present at a completely different event, when I had done no such thing. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, The reason why I keep repeating that ‘I was there when it happened’ line (and taking it, as you correctly say, out of its *immediate* context) is because by virtue of them being your very first words – situated within that ‘not sure if that [i.e. hearsay sexual allegations] is the reason that Tom withdrew the sponsorship’/ ‘Tom told me his reasons’ context you put them in – they set in place the stamp of eye-witness authenticity you deliberately create, via interspersing your hearsay text with unreferenced allusions to it all being ‘informed by reliable testimony and observation’ (6th para) and ‘from on-site observation and direct testimony’ (15th para), so as to leave the reader in no doubt as to why that ‘sponsorship’ was withdrawn. Viz.:
If you are going to insist your ‘I was there when it happened’ line refers solely to the very moment of ‘withdrew the sponsorship’ (which is what the word ‘it’, in ‘when it happened’ refers directly back to) then you were *not* there when ‘it’ happened as you were located in the neighbouring domicile, completely oblivious to what was taking place in that regards, and only got to hear about it afterwards. In a word: hearsay. Now, given it was me speaking, I know what the words were which would have reached your ears when I informed Vineeto and Peter that Tom had rung me to say his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available, to finance the MSV Actualis, as the company he had a major investment in was in financial difficulty and unable to repay the loan. Here (in full) is your ‘I was there when it happened’ version of those words:
As Tom followed-up on his telephonic notification with an email verification (Cc-ed to both Vineeto and Peter) all three of us are left in no doubt that your ‘I was there when it happened/ Tom told me his reasons’ line is at odds with who was actually there when it happened/ with Tom’s actual reason (singular) in both verbal and written form. Are you saying that Tom lied to three people, of intimate association over many years, about a multi-million dollar company going bankrupt/ going into receivership but told a virtual stranger, of very, very brief acquaintance, the real reasons (plural) he ‘withdrew the sponsorship’ the day before he rang me to say his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available? In other words, you knew the ‘sponsorship’ was withdrawn nearly twenty-four hours before we three were told a
colossal lie? RESPONDENT: So...... Do i understand correctly that this implies that a reader might have construed that Tom’s reason to not go on with the provision of sponsorship for the ‘project MSV Actualis’ were disclosed as being not at ease with the situation. RICHARD: G’day No. 3, There is no need to be coy as a scroll through this forum’s archives shows that quite a few of the readers who responded have more than ‘construed’ it that way ... they swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the very way No. 4 evidentially intended them to take, via that opening line/ his introductory words, which he recently pointed out (at the top of this page), were to be taken in their *immediate* context. This is what he means by *immediate* context: ‘I was there when it [i.e. when ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’] happened. Tom told me his reasons’ [i.e. the reasons why ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’]. This forum’s archives also show that quite a few of the readers who responded, (tacitly) accepted that No. 4 was saying, in effect, that Tom lied to three people, of intimate association over many years, about a multi-million dollar company going bankrupt/ going into receivership but told a virtual stranger, of very, very brief acquaintance, the real reasons (plural) he ‘withdrew the sponsorship’ the day before he rang me to say his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available. In other words, they (tacitly) accepted that No. 4 not only knew that ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’ – as distinct from the funding not being available – but also knew the reasons why ‘the sponsorship’ was withdrawn nearly twenty-four hours before we three were told a colossal lie. He also recently explained why he set out on this 2 & 1/4 year campaign to [quote] ‘warn a few friends’ [endquote] as well. Viz.:
Please note that his ‘warn a few friends’ actions, over 2 & 1/4 years, stemmed from feelings and not facts ... as he explicitly expresses in his preceding [quote] ‘... because I felt like I’d been duped’ [endquote] words. RESPONDENT: This situation mainly with regard the kind of [...snip libellous speculation...]. This is of course highly specualtive from my point of view AND could easily be dismissed as a fabrication. RICHARD: So as to not further waste your time typing-out such libellous speculation I would suggest re-reading Message
No. 11502 As it is a very long post I would also suggest starting at the words ‘Look, by way of illustration, I can provide three
concurrent instances ...’ RESPONDENT: Be that as it may from No. 4s point of view if indeed such a kind of conversation had happened between him and Tom ... RICHARD: Aye, if indeed, eh? Shall we find out if it did? No. 4 elaborated, on where and when ‘such a kind of conversation had happened’, in
January this year upon having his attention drawn to my response to one of those readers saying [quote] ‘from what I have read its major
financier withdrew support due to reasons which may have to do with instinctual passions which are supposed to end after AF but apparently it is a
lie’ (Message No. 12076 Viz.:
Now, his last line is quite revealing, in regards to your ‘if indeed such a kind of conversation had happened’ proviso, as he explains why he cannot recall me informing Vineeto and Peter just what it was that Tom had said (when Tom rang me to say that his broker had just advised him there were insufficient funds available, to finance the MSV Actualis, as the company he had a major investment in was in financial difficulty and unable to repay the loan). Do you see it? (Incidentally, his parenthesised ‘in catamaran form, anyway’ words are an allusion to my publicly-announced notion,
first formulated at the time of the mutiny Do you see that, as those particulars were blown away, for him, by the *breaking news*, that the MSV Actualis was not going to be built, he could not have possibly known the day before that the MSV Actualis was not going to be built (for whatever reason)? Ergo, whatever it was that Tom told him, the day before, it most certainly was *not* the reason(s) why the MSV Actualis was not going to be built (else it would not have been *breaking news* for him the next day). In other words, his ‘Tom told me his reasons’ [why] ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’ introductory words are a crock. (As is his ‘I was there when it happened’ opening line). RESPONDENT: ... knowing No. 4 as a long standing correspondent i well can understand that he finds his position difficult at this point. RICHARD: You and me both, No. 3, and especially so as his 2 & 1/4 year campaign to [quote] ‘warn a few friends’ [endquote] need not ever have occurred had he shared his earlier concerns, in person, after he had returned from his river-side walk. Viz.:
Incidentally, and simply because No. 4 has said ‘This is side issue, but it was love, not compassion’ (in Message
No. 13664 (The reason why we remember so clearly is that, as all three of us were already suss of Tom’s claim to freedom (which he was himself unsure about back then), we were of course interested in teasing out just what had transpired such as to evoke a feeling of compassion in No. 4, for Tom, insofar a flesh-and-blood body sans a feeling-being/ sans instinctual passions is simply incapable of evoking pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion, and so on, in their fellow human being). RESPONDENT: Richard saying the cause of Tom’s withdrawal was purely a matter of finance, No. 4 in this case knowing better then that, as Tom disclosed his actual reasons for withdrawal confidently with him. RICHARD: No, he did not confidentially disclose his ‘reasons for withdrawal’ (be they actual or otherwise) because, as you now know from the above quite self-evident textual evidence, it never was the case that [quote] ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’ [endquote]. * All what remains now is to ascertain just who it was who implanted that ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’ lie (a lie
which No. 4, as impressionable as ever The following is the original context which he recently pointed out (at the top of this page) is to be taken as the *immediate* context for his opening line/ his introductory words. Viz.:
As there is no prize for guessing just who ‘Respondent No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘W’)’ is, the following URL will provide
some further food for thought: (Message 11312 Oh what a tangled web they weave ... Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine RICHARD to No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’): [...]. Now, I know for a fact that [Respondent No. 00] (posting as <email ID withheld>) is not a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ as that is both her birth-certificate name and the only email ID she used. Also, she was quite up-front about having met in-person. Viz.:
(Incidentally, she is the woman I referred to, in the post (#10532 CLAUDIU: I find it amazing how consistent and consistently positive people’s impressions of actually free people are after having met them in person. [No. 4]’s initial reports, my reports, woman-from-another-continent’s [No. 6] initial reports, [No. 25]’s reports, [No. 00]’s report here, etc... safe, sincere, helpful, fun, harmless indeed! It’s too bad it doesn’t always come across that way on the internets. But really – and this will unfortunately be lost on anyone who doesn’t already get it – you don’t know what (e.g.) Richard is like till you’ve met him in person.... and even then you might later forget. Here’s some more speculation as to why that is, using analogies from my experience with programming. It might be analogous to a broken abstraction. [...]. Writing is an abstraction over spoken communication. Thus as humanity has learned more and more to communicate with words, it has done so with the assumption of communication between feeling-beings. Writing is a proxy for full-fledged communication, one which conveys a lot less information... so we’ve had to learn to take that limited information and blow it back up to what the full-fledged message was, which involves accounting for all the feeling-states at the other end of it. [...]. Society has developed this abstraction of writing *amongst feeling-beings*. So of course when we see written word we automatically ascribe the feeling-tones that the person intended to convey – because those feeling-tones were indeed usually there on the other end. This seems to be more difficult with people from other cultures, then progressively easier as you get to the same culture, same peer-group, and then to those you know the best/who are closest to you, as it seems you fine-tune that feeling-tone-insertion algorithm more and more the more you get to know that person (though misunderstandings can still occur). The problem, as of 1981, is that this abstraction no longer holds true for every human that one can communicate with ... not all humans now have that feeling-being doing the talking for them (so to speak). Yet so intrinsic to writing is the generation of feeling-tones over it/the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side that of course we continue to do this even when communicating with someone who no longer is a feeling-being (e.g. Richard). Thus, broken abstraction --> unintended consequences. So, it seems to fix this broken abstraction, you can do one of two things: 1) Meet an actually free person in person so as to see exactly what it means for someone to be sans affect entirely. Then it will be possible – even as a feeling-being – to see how someone can communicate without affect, and how exactly that works out, which can then be used as something to keep in mind whenever reading words by said person. 2) Read the words of an actually free person while in a PCE, thus with your own affective faculty being in abeyance, and/or while tapping into pure intent. Here the filling-in-affect part of the process of reading written communication will also be temporarily in abeyance and you will be able to read those words as they were written – sans affect. (Message 13996) RESPONDENT No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): i see what you mean. But Tarin and Justine have withdrawn from AF. Justine’s progeny also. we have been informed by the lady from the other continent and some others on this forum that Pamela and Tom have left the AF too. so, there is something dubious about Richard’s ideology in the first place. CLAUDIU: Tarin withdrew his claim after finding it untenable to claim actual freedom while being unable to recognize it in others. Justine & his progeny withdrew their claims it seems because they disagree with Richard on important points. I haven’t heard about Pamela and Tom withdrawing their claims – where have you heard about that? There’s nothing dubious about this if you consider that a) an actual freedom is an objective, factual way of existing and b) it’s possible to consider yourself actually free when you aren’t. RESPONDENT No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): Lady from the other continent has written extensively about Richard and has revealed many details which put Richard in a very untenable situation. It is not about what and how Richard has written here or on internet, ALONE, but how has he acted with people – [No. 4] and Lady from the other continent who have met him extensivetly. [No. 4] actually did not write much about Richard after his second visit and pointed that he did not like the cult around Richard that had been buit. This was immediately after his second visit. CLAUDIU: All I’ve seen is a lot of talk and no substance (i.e. facts). When I ask for substance I’m told that the substance can’t be revealed due to privacy concerns. This despite the fact that supposedly ‘secret’ stuff keeps being leaked – which, after being leaked, is also shown to have no substance. Further, archived messages with supposed substance in them have been deleted. In the meantime Richard is slowly demolishing factoid by factoid with his considered replies. If there was indeed anything of substance about any claims that reveal something adverse about Richard, everybody propagating those claims has done a terrible job of it. Pro tip: don’t pose as somebody’s dead ex-wife when you are trying to perform a character assassination of that somebody. It... well, it just doesn’t really promote you as someone of an honest nature. RESPONDENT No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): First impressions can be totally wrong and misleading because it is less about the person but more about what you think of them. It is only when you meet someone for a longer time that you get to know a person, how he acts in different situatiosn , where your pre conclusion are not (mis -) guiding you. CLAUDIU: Sure, I could see that. So, how about Peter & Vineeto? Surely they would have said something by now if Richard had a history of violence. How many years have they known him? Likewise with Tom, Pamela, etc. In the meantime we have [No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)], [No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)], you [No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’)] and [No. 2], all railing against Richard without ever having met him. Richard is entirely consistent in all his interactions. I remember Vineeto telling me that once, after having already known Richard for some time, she came by to visit Richard and caught him just waking up (or he was sleeping & she woke him up). She said she was impressed by what she saw – that just-woken-up Richard was exactly the same as fully-awake Richard – because most people, having just woken up, haven’t yet put their face/their persona on. There’s a lot of talk, emotion, and feelings surrounding this whole debacle, but there’s simply not much in the way of
facts to support any adverse claim against Richard or actual freedom. (Message 13999 see RESPONDENT No. 32: Methinks it is all happening because, as feeling beings, they either dont get the nature of innocence or they forget it.. RICHARD: G’day No. 32, Where you say ‘it’ (as in, ‘this whole debacle’ above) is all happening because, as feeling beings, ‘they’ (as in, ‘[No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)], [No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)], you [No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’)] and [No. 2]’ further above) either do not get the nature of innocence, or they forget it, just what is it you are cognisant of about those four online personae which persuades you to think that? Also, just what is it that you are cognisant of about those two persons Claudiu referred to at the beginnning of this thread – in his [quote] ‘No. 4]’s initial reports, my reports, woman-from-another-continent’s initial [No. 6] reports, [No. 25]’s reports, No. 00]’s report here, etc.’ [endquote] words (much further above) – which persuades you to think that they too either do not get the nature of innocence or they forget it? I would be most interested to hear about just what pattern of behaviour it is – consistent throughout the online actions of all six personae – that you are cognisant of. P.S.: Pleased to read your ‘Resuming actualism practise’ post (#13xxx Re your query about ‘the benevolence aspect’ of the actual world: perhaps if you were to think of it in a similar way to what is expressed in the phrase ‘a benevolent climate’, for instance, it might start to make sense. Here are a few random samples from an Internet Search:
Of course, I mean it in much more than a ‘conducive to life’/ ‘conducive to growth’ sense ... oft-times expressed by me as ‘I am swimming in largesse’, for example, so as to convey the super-abundance of life, here, in this pristine paradise which this verdant and azure planet is in actuality. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It appears thus far that allegations made to Richard with regard to: pensionfraude, (sexual) abuse, him possibly involved with dubious transactions, creative bookkeeping, breaching laws of privacy, and copyright infringement, have thusfar not been sufficiently made substantial and/or supported by any material that could be used in order to substantiate any of such claims. The failure to provide any reliable testamony of a witness that indeed could shed light on those matters gives the readers the impression that indeed it has been a carefully ‘smear campagnain’ with the sole purpose to discredit the founder – and genitor – off as well as the to liable the entire AF-freedom organisation. congratulations Richard, you did it again. RICHARD: Ha ... de kogel door de kerk Wonderbaar! Regards, Richard.
Re: Popcorn anyone? :D RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’): STILL lost the plot i see. so much for your actualism hehehe ANDREW: What plot? I’m just living my life and enjoying it. Lovely stuff this awesome universe – seems to be running itself. Fancy that. You haven’t proven to be any sort of diversion at all, it’s been an excellent few days, been on the edge of something quite new. Re-engaged the warp-drives and feeling quite free. Decided to play in whatever way appeals to me; your a consenting adult bunyip, so it’s a fair deal yeah? so anyway, Humanbeingadickhead, (Your name is a proper noun so I’ve capitalised it see?) I hope you are enjoying yourself, I know I am. I only wish you had something intelligent or funny to say; it’s not that I’m ungrateful for what you come up with, it’s just hard to believe you aren’t sitting there with a frown on your face writing it. It’s pretty sad. Hence me thinking you must be pretty sad. But hey, I’m probably just projecting that from the poor quality of the prose and wit; there is a open mouthed smiley face in the thread title after all..who would lie about there only moment of being alive? You must really be, like, so happy. Good for you, pumkin. :D RESPONDENT: Don’t be deluded by this seemingly soooo suggestive header ‘popcorn anyone’ such as to draw the attention of gullible readers, who may be left with the impression that s/he is just merely watching somekind of freak show (aka fun soapy). I can assure you when [No. 2], [No 4] and [No. 25] come to find out how they have been used(to be actors in this [quote: ‘fun soapy’], that she may get first hand experience of what it is like to be in a position, the like Richard found himself when all kind of baseless allegations were made with regard to the way he conducts his private life. And...frankly i’m looking forward to material that indeed will disclose the malicious intentions that this women (who obviously operates from a long kept grudge to Richard) had in mind when she made up all that stuff. RICHARD: G’day No. 3, Just a quick note as I am still in the process of composing my next post (being of epic proportions, as befits this stage of the melodrama, it is taking a while to collect all the quotes, links, URLs, &c.). Although terms such as ‘fun soapy’ (#14112 Viz.:
Although the excerpt provided above is sufficient for the purpose (explaining why the word melodrama) it is, of course, best read in context at the URL just above. If you do read that context – the entire post – then it will be of supplementary benefit to read what Claudiu had to say at the following URL.
‘Tis best not to access that second URL before the first, though, as all of the further above context is essential for comprehension. Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Please be advised that ‘Chas’ (No. 5) is not as informed as he tries to make out he is; despite his aspirations
towards being an inside player he is but an opportunistic ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.P.S.: Given that ... um ... that Elvis (No. 4, see
RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ 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 |
