|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 12 (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. 68 RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, somebody of late middle-age, known to me personally, added another aspect to virtual freedom last year via an ongoing pure consciousness experience of 4 months and 28 days duration. (Prior to that the longest known so far had been one of 3 weeks duration). RESPONDENT: Wow! After contemplating this for a bit I have a few questions. 1) After having this giganto PCE for months on end, did the person at some point think something to the effect of ‘this is it, I’m actually free.’? RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Yes ... within the first 7-10 days, actually. The way she put it at the time – first to her spouse and then to me shortly after – was that she thought it was ‘all over bar the shouting’ (a popular expression meaning, according to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘bar none with no exceptions’). She also informed me that the difference between this sustained PCE and other, short-lived ones was that she was ‘at peace’ as opposed to having a sense of peace. RESPONDENT: 2) How long had the person been practicing actualism? RICHARD: She had first read ‘Richard’s Journal’ about twelve years ago, and had agreed with it without understanding the fundamental difference between spiritual and actual; around six years ago it was pointed out to her that she did not, in fact, understand what an actual freedom from the human condition was ... whereupon she read it again and started to put it into practice. RESPONDENT: On the one hand this is an amazing event and could be quite motivational. RICHARD: It is indeed an amazing event ... to say I was chuffed is to put it mildly as it is to everyone’s benefit to have somebody advance what is humanly possible. RESPONDENT: On the other, it could be kind of a downer to consider having been apparently actually free (PCE) for nearly 5 months and then back to virtually free (I assume VF). RICHARD: Oh no, not a downer at all – quite the obverse – and her exact words to me at the time were that she was excellent. Viz.:
In subsequent face-to-face conversations she has reported being even more keen than ever before ... which is quite understandable when you think about it. RESPONDENT: The closest I can relate to with this is that I considered myself to be living in a virtual freedom for 3-4 months and then due to certain events and ‘my’ reaction to them I lost it and my-self started strutting the stage to a larger extent again. This cycle has repeated itself a few times actually. Luckily no one in my real/actual life has suffered over this ... ‘I’ and ‘I’ alone have reaped the disadvantages of letting a VF slip through ‘my’ fingers once again. It does come down to intent, pure intent that is in the end. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: I know I used to ask all kinds of questions about ‘methods’ and ‘techniques’ to you in the past and I always found you, P and V ‘stubborn’ to not be willing to add more ‘techniques’ to the AF method. I’ve learned the hard way that intent is the key and that intent is to be backed up by becoming obsessed enough with attentiveness to have it up and running near constantly and to investigate whatever issue that is keeping me from feeling excellent. RICHARD: Indeed so. RESPONDENT: Ha, so simple ... but quite a challenge. The challenge of a lifetime in fact. I’ve been off the wide and wondrous path and in so doing have come to a firm confidence that the only path I wish to traverse for the rest of my lifetime is the wide and wondrous one ... until ‘I’ am no more. I mention this because I think in the past ‘I’ was sometimes fabricating a somewhat ‘forced’ conviction that I wanted this thing called actual freedom. Kinda like how I would ‘convince myself’ that I believed in my former religions dogmas (albeit in far more subtle ways). RICHARD: Unless it is the number one priority in one’s life any results will, of course, faithfully reflect just what the degree of interest is. RESPONDENT: I used to think you were being a bit harsh to call the human condition ‘rotten to the core’, but alas as for myself I have no doubts about that statement whatsoever. Of course the human condition has its ‘endearing side’, nonetheless ... as a whole it is rotten. :) RICHARD: Precisely. Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, * RESPONDENT: 1. After having this giganto PCE for months on end, did the person at some point think something to the effect of ‘this is it, I’m actually free.’? RICHARD: Yes ... within the first 7-10 days, actually. The way she put it at the time – first to her spouse and then to me shortly after – was that she thought it was ‘all over bar the shouting’ (a popular expression meaning, according to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘bar none with no exceptions’). She also informed me that the difference between this sustained PCE and other, short-lived ones was that she was ‘at peace’ as opposed to having a sense of peace. RESPONDENT: Hmm. ‘Having a sense of peace’ sounds more like a EE than a PCE. RICHARD: As you might readily comprehend the exact nature of the experiencing was of vital interest to me. (Were a second human being to genuinely have become actually free from the human condition – and of the female gender as an added bonus – it would have me duly impressed and thus dancing down the hallway, so to speak, as promised to another more than a decade ago). Meeting up with her again eight days after the face-to-face interaction in which the event had been precipitated – plus a telephonic conversation six days after – enabled me to ascertain beyond all reasonable doubt, just as she already intimately knew from prior experiencing, that it was not an ongoing excellence experience (EE). The question as to whether it was indeed an actual freedom from the human condition, and not a sustained pure consciousness experience (PCE), quite obviously exercised both of our minds – plus those of others in the know – and a rigorous watching brief then became the modus operandi in the weeks then months which followed. Incidentally, the person concerned has all the necessary integrity to be outright scrupulous in regards qualitative assessment. RESPONDENT: Nonetheless, I take it the main difference was that the small element of knowing the PCE is coming to a end was not present. RICHARD: Indeed so ... plus an unprompted report, six weeks later during another face-to-face meeting, that it was qualitively different, although of a similar character, to previous and shorter-term PCE’s – such as what she had experienced with me during the DVD video-shoot, for instance, a couple of years earlier – added considerably to the confidence required to make a provisional assessment that this was something to most certainly sit up take notice of. Here is a (slightly edited) extract from an email, sent to others in the know shortly after that meeting, which conveys the rigorous caution being exercised at the time:
* RESPONDENT: 2. How long had the person been practicing actualism? RICHARD: She had first read ‘Richard’s Journal’ about twelve years ago, and had agreed with it without understanding the fundamental difference between spiritual and actual; around six years ago it was pointed out to her that she did not, in fact, understand what an actual freedom from the human condition was ... whereupon she read it again and started to put it into practice. RESPONDENT: Ah, that’s delightful to hear! It would appear there is still ‘hope’ for those of us still plugging away at this endeavour (especially for those of us who have commingled spirituality with actualism). RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, the person concerned not only totally abandoned spiritualism but also tapered of all association with erstwhile compatriots, of that ilk, until the final ‘heart-string’ connection was severed a few months previously. As her spiritual search had endured for many a long year, and encompassed nearly all her relationships, this left her virtually friendless as earlier materialist friends had, by and large, gone by the wayside many, many years prior to that. Indeed, the dearth of intimacy was both the content of conversation and the precipitative feature at the interactive occasion which elicited (what turned out to be) the sustained PCE. An actual intimacy (no separate identity) requires no reciprocation. * RESPONDENT: On the one hand this is an amazing event and could be quite motivational. RICHARD: It is indeed an amazing event ... to say I was chuffed is to put it mildly as it is to everyone’s benefit to have somebody advance what is humanly possible. RESPONDENT: Indeed, I was quite ‘jazzed’ to hear of this. RICHARD: Ha ... good one! * RESPONDENT: On the other, it could be kind of a downer to consider having been apparently actually free (PCE) for nearly 5 months and then back to virtually free (I assume VF). RICHARD: Oh no, not a downer at all – quite the obverse – and her exact words to me at the time were that she was excellent. Viz.:
In subsequent face-to-face conversations she has reported being even more keen than ever before ... which is quite understandable when you think about it. RESPONDENT: Yes I see. She now knows she can live that selflessness for extended periods and she can remain in excellence back on her way to that destination. Ha, human pessimism must run deep for me to have even considered this situation a possible ‘downer’. RICHARD: To have lived ‘a truly wonderful four months and 28 days’ in ‘absolute pristine perfection’ experientially removes absolutely any doubts whatsoever that it be (a) not possible for her personally and (b) not liveable for both practical and interactive purposes and (c) not possible/ not liveable for each and every human being alive today on this planet. Consequently, she now has that oh-so-essential ‘magic elixir’ in munificent abundance ... in a word: destiny. * RICHARD: Unless it is the number one priority in one’s life any results will, of course, faithfully reflect just what the degree of interest is. RESPONDENT: Indeed. For various reasons I wavered in making freedom the number one thing in my life to number two and even number 3 at times. Results have followed (or not followed) accordingly. Since the beginning of this year I’ve been more and more consistent with the ‘boots and all’ approach with increasingly good results. While myself still gets activated, I do almost always immediately notice ‘me’ in action and that really takes the wind out of ‘my’ sails indeed. RICHARD: In which case, then, it apposite to mention that the person being discussed (further above) has her destiny firmly established as being the unqualified number one priority in her life. Indeed, as recently as a few weeks ago she informed me, in no uncertain terms (and with her spouse sitting opposite), that reading my writings/listening to my words has been and is the most significant thing in her entire life ... over and above family, marriage, children, and all else. Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: Hey list and hello Richard, There has been a lot of activity on the list lately, with much of it of little interest to me, so it seems somewhere along the line I’ve missed something. RICHARD: G’day No 12, Ha ... that somewhere along the line where you missed it was when you were busy with setting an all-time record for the longest un-snipped email exchange ever. (As I transfer all the emails into a word-processor, for ease of access as an archive, it is a simple matter to let you know that your message numbered 7451 was fifteen pages long). RESPONDENT: At some point someone started talking about Richard being single, which was news to me as I never remember reading anything about Richard dissolving his relationship with his third ‘wife’. RICHARD: There is nothing amiss with your memory about what you have read as I never wrote anything at all about my third wife purchasing her own residence, so as to have a place to live in by herself, about eighteen months ago (the 5th of May 2008 to be precise). Just so there be no misunderstanding: we still maintain our association (albeit platonic) and have regular contact on a weekly basis, at the very least, plus telephonic communication in between. RESPONDENT: Richard later confirmed that, but I’m wondering where did I miss that initial information in the first place? RICHARD: Your wondering would be best answered by the person who first raised the topic, in Message No. 7286 RESPONDENT: Which leads me to my question to Richard: Did your third wife discontinue the actualism process? RICHARD: She informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so. The primary reason why we are both residing in our own abodes is because to have remained living under the same roof – with all of what is implied in that – would have been detrimental to her continued progress. RESPONDENT: As she was someone who sounded like they had achieved remarkable results with the actualism process, it could be informative if she discontinued it and why. RICHARD: In view of the publicised fact of my second wife’s abrupt about-face I can readily comprehend just why your question came about. Incidentally, the two of them meet up once a fortnight (they both rent-shared a house way back before either of them ever knew me). Regards, Richard. * Editorial note: Thirty minutes later there was an email from the person who first raised the topic saying that ‘No
mystery. I discovered it here:
RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, RICHARD: G’day No. 12. * RESPONDENT: Did your third wife discontinue the actualism process? RICHARD: She informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so. The primary reason why we are both residing in our own abodes is because to have remained living under the same roof – with all of what is implied in that – would have been detrimental to her continued progress. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... another case of the bird needing to leave the nest, eh? RICHARD: No, on the contrary (‘needing to leave the nest’ was an analogy for my second wife going her own way) there is no flying away at all as she informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so. Residing in our own abodes, whilst still maintaining our association (albeit platonic) by having regular weekly contact, at the very least, plus telephonic communication in between, is primarily to do with breaking an impasse brought about by the very intimacy implied by living under the same roof/ eating at a communal table/ sharing the marital bed. All what is required to be living communally with me is to have an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom as a status quo (rather than a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being modus operandi). She is totally in accord with this determination (she came up with that ‘same way of being’ phrase herself) as she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how the issue is all about being still-in-control/ the same-way-of-being (aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being). My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one outstanding PCE (and as soon at it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who I was talking to just a minute ago?’ ‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded famously from then on. * RESPONDENT: As she was someone who sounded like they had achieved remarkable results with the actualism process, it could be informative if she discontinued it and why. RICHARD: In view of the publicised fact of my second wife’s abrupt about-face I can readily comprehend just why your question came about. Incidentally, the two of them meet up once a fortnight (they both rent-shared a house way back before either of them ever knew me). RESPONDENT: Indeed and thanks for the clarification. I found your post to No. 6 about intimacy was very illuminating by the way. RICHARD: Why the ‘another case of the bird needing to leave the nest’ observation, then? RESPONDENT: Your idea about a secular presentation of AF is interesting as well. While the AF Trust site already has more than what is necessary to become free, I’m still appreciative of the fact that you have continued to share very insightful new information in regards to becoming free. Good to know third wife is still on AF path ... and still a candidate for second person free from human condition. The 5-month PCE lady though is strong evidence that others will indeed replicate your condition. Truly this is the greatest time in all of history to be alive. It will take time to bear collective fruit, but I think your discovery will gradually wash over humanity in due time, if humanity doesn’t destroy itself first (which is a very real possibility). RICHARD: Ha ... as what you are saying, in effect, is that every single man, woman and child on the planet – all 6.5 billion – are going to be destroyed, as a very real possibility, by every single man, woman and child on the planet (aka species extinction) then here is a ‘word of the day’ for future reference:
Regards, Richard.
RICHARD: [...] [...] she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how the issue is all about being still-in-control/the same-way-of-being (aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being). My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one outstanding PCE (and as soon at
it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who I was talking to just a minute ago?’
‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded famously from then on. RESPONDENT: I appreciate the fascinating glimpse into the interaction between you and your third wife. I can relate to her last line ‘she’s full of problems!’ as I have said/wrote similar things about ‘[Respondent]’ to my ex-wife and a friend when having a very pure peak experience. I said ‘While ‘[No. 12]’ could talk about your present lover with you, it would be painful to ‘him’ where for me it is experienced as two individuals just talking about life without the felt sense of all the past history between ‘us’.’ Even to this day, my capacity of talking to her about her lover (the man she left me for) is an excellent marking stick for whether or not I’m on the wide and wondrous path. RICHARD: Ahh ... that is quite familiar. Over the years I have oft-times discussed my third wife’s marriage (de facto) with her husband as two individuals just talking about whatever issue she was currently engaged by as there is no other person – psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counsellor, whatever – she could have a useful discussion with. (As I have discussed domestic issues on many an occasion with peoples from various walks of life it is essentially no different for me to be like that). ‘Twas the same with my second wife: she would sometimes say there was no one she could turn to in order to facilitate an understanding of how a marriage (de jure) with a man like no other person living or dead (as far as can be ascertained) could be lived in an optimum manner. (The optimum manner when still in the human condition is an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom, of course, but there was no counsellor of any description who could advise her of that). * RESPONDENT: It will take time to bear collective fruit, but I think your discovery will gradually wash over humanity in due time, if humanity doesn’t destroy itself first (which is a very real possibility). RICHARD: Ha ... as what you are saying, in effect, is that every single man, woman and child on the planet – all 6.5 billion – are going to be destroyed, as a very real possibility, by every single man, woman and child on the planet (aka species extinction) then here is a ‘word of the day’ for future reference: hyperbole: [snip dictionary definition]. RESPONDENT: Yes, that was a ill considered overstatement. It would have been more accurate to have said: if humanity is not destroyed first. That taking into account all of the various ways that humanity could come to an end like the sun dying out, the environment becoming inhospitable to life, etc. RICHARD: Obviously I cannot comment on an etcetera but, as the astronomical evidence of stars with similar magnitude to the star at the centre of our solar system shows there is about another 4.5 billion years left in the sun, it is reasonable to assume humankind is not about to be destroyed en masse that way in the foreseeable future. For the environment to become so inhospitable to life as to destroy humankind in toto it would require the planet becoming colder than where humans have lived/are living (the arctic circle, for instance, often reaches lows of -50ºF and the lowest temperature on record is -90ºF in Siberia; the antarctic circle, the coldest and windiest area on the planet, has a record -129ºF and a mean winter range from -40ºF to -94ºF plus winds commonly up to 200 miles per hour) or hotter than where humans have lived/are living (the highest annual mean temperature, of 94ºF, was recorded in Ethiopia from 1960 to 1966; the hottest temperature ever, 136ºF, was recorded in Libya with 128ºF in Queensland coming a close second; an unconfirmed 188ºF occurred during a ‘heat burst’ in Iran). Put succinctly: provided the temperature remains somewhere between those extremes – and there are many, many millions of years worth of proxy evidence in regards to temperatures remaining well between that range – it is reasonable to assume humankind is not about to be destroyed en masse via an inhospitable environment in the foreseeable future. RESPONDENT: Humanity could certainly destroy a large part of itself via something like nuclear warfare ... RICHARD: As chemical warfare existed long before nuclear warfare (the 17th century Strasbourg Agreement banned the use of ‘perfidious and odious’ toxic devices; the 1899 Hague Declaration, and the 1907 Hague Convention, forbade the use of ‘poison or poisonous weapons’ in warfare), as well as biological warfare (the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of ‘Bacteriological Methods of Warfare’), there is adequate historical reason to assume that humankind will continue to show such restraint in regards to both the radioactive fallout (ionising radiation) and the substantial explosive capacity of nuclear weapons. RESPONDENT: ... but yes, not everyone would be destroyed. Though, society as we know it could be radically altered. RICHARD: As societies in general have not altered radically In fact, were the remarkable restraint shown over the last 65 years to continue – a bit too short to yet call it a trend – as a thus-far enduring result of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Doctrine, then the twenty-first century may very well end with the percentage being measured in the tenths of a percent. (Especially so with nearly 60% of the world’s population now living under democratic governance). RESPONDENT: I’m actually quite pleased you pointed this out as I think some people could get the wrong impression that you think that humanity could destroy itself, and now you are on record saying that you think such a scenario to be nonsense. RICHARD: I am already on record as saying there is neither an historical nor foreseeable reason to presume humankind will not continue to prevail. Viz.:
* I know I have said it before but it is worth saying again: as it is an historical fact that democracies do not go to war against each other (with minor exceptions depending on the way war is defined and how a democracy is structured) there is reason to foresee a world-wide peace (cessation of warfare) in the not-too-distant future as the democratisation of nations gains more momentum. Furthermore, just as the ‘Green Revolution’ has enabled a burgeoning population to be fed, the ‘GM Technology’ (the advances in genetically modified crops) will ensure food for all until the population stabilises (already foreseeable) and the rising standard of living in impoverished nations brings an end to the population explosion. (Please note: these are neither prophecies nor predictions but rational projections based upon historical and empirical fact). * The only way societies will radically alter is by radical change on an individual level as it is individuals collectively who make society what it is. And this is where actualism is pivotal as it must be borne in mind that the way children are raised is in accord with the prevailing wisdom of the time (currently in the form of values/ principles and morals/ ethics per favour the trickle-down effect of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment). Thus it is the flow-on effect of the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition – as in practically anyone now being able to be as happy and as harmless (virtually free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible – which is the most probable and realistic prospect, in the foreseeable future, for all of humankind ... and which is why I stress the importance of a virtual freedom. Although that is, of course, according to the current situation; the moment another becomes actually free from the human
condition (especially if it be a female) that scenario may very well undergo a profound reappraisal. Regards, Richard.
RICHARD: No, I do not intend to tape/ chronicle/ publish/ disseminate these forthcoming sessions ... just as the personal conversations which are currently taking place with an outstanding fellow human being, well-known to this forum, are not being recorded either. RESPONDENT No. 2: Nevertheless, I (and perhaps most others on this list) look forward to your and the well-known correspondent’s reports/reminiscences on the meeting, if and when either of you is inclined to share them. RICHARD to Respondent No. 2: G’day No. 2, Of course ... the well-known correspondent is free to say whatever he deems appropriate about me – other than any thing of a personal security/ physical privacy nature – but I will remain circumspect as always. Suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that I had the pleasure of spending five and half hours, yesterday afternoon, in the
company of a remarkably sincere fellow human being (who was visibly moved to be the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence The itinerary for the few remaining days thereafter remains open as yet but may very well include meeting some other
actualists (fellow travellers). It does bode well in regards to what I had characterised as being [quote] ‘all experimental at this stage’ Thank you for your obvious interest ... it makes for a most refreshing contrast to the sourpuss cynicism of ... um ... of the
conjoined twins (Messages 7952 RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, Thanks for the fascinating glimpse into the encounter. The ‘heckle
and jeckle’ part was quite amusing as well. I got a good chuckle from that. :) I will be interested in hearing whether or not the encounters are
‘life changing’ for No. 4 and particularly No. 2 (as someone who appears to have already reaped great benefit by the actualism process).
Looking forward to No. 4’s ‘take’ on the experience if he so chooses to share PS. The addition of meeting two people in the ‘deep waters’/end of the pool of a virtual freedom from the human condition is about the best bonus I could imagine. Beats going snorkelling hands down! :) RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Yes, the best bonus made all the more bester
This fostering was convincingly made apparent when the well-known correspondent gratuitously (unsolicited) reported how the
intimacy of the first meeting – due to being the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (as per the brief
allusion much further above As a direct result I spontaneously stayed overnight in Peter’s and Vineeto’s residence as that next day had been arranged in such a way so as to have the woman of the 5-month PCE and her spouse join the festivities; the ambience/ atmosphere/ milieu soon had her also out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (or affirmed/ confirmed how she already was as she tends to not rate her experiencing in actualist terminology). It was at this point there was much pleasure in me being able to point out the bleeding obvious ... to wit: that (excluding myself) there were five people present and it was the two women who were generating the atmosphere/ fostering the milieu in which happiness and harmlessness was the norm rather than the exception. (Today, being the last day of the well-known correspondent’s series of meetings, is being spent solely in the company of Vineeto and Peter as they have a lot to discuss; for me a report of how the day eventuates will be a matter of keen interest due to not being present to establish an ambience). * Thank you for your obvious interest also ... I have in mind to respond to your post about letting go of the controls This is all going so well that to say I am chuffed would be far too inadequate an expression. Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: Hi No. 15, maybe we are speaking of different things. Lets see. RESPONDENT No. 15: Hi No. 12, I don’t see any reason why this would relate only to those in virtual freedom. I wouldn’t say I’m there, yet letting go of the controls is key to my practice of actualism. I have found it relevant at all levels of my practice in the past 5 years and it keeps deepening. Has it been different for you? RESPONDENT: Ok, first lets establish that only in a PCE are the controls actually let go of. In a very pure excellence experience the controls are virtually let go of. So, this aspect of ‘letting go’ has been a experience of mine from the early days of actualism when I was either allowing or provoking peak experiences. However, it has never been customary for me to intentionally ‘let go’ of the controls. It naturally happened at times when I focused on what I was sensing. It also happened when I focused on what I was feeling. Of course there was the over a decade of spiritualist practice prior to actualism. RESPONDENT No. 15: Is it possible you stumbled upon it after you were in VF? RESPONDENT: Just to be clear, I’ve never claimed to be VF. What I’ve claimed is I’ve experienced VF days, weeks and even months. I’ve yet to stabilize a virtual freedom. RESPONDENT No. 15: I’m not sure how that could work. Here is how it seems to me at the moment: I think it’s a prerequisite to the practice of (as distinct from an interest in) actualism. RESPONDENT: In the beginning the practice of actualism is mostly about getting attentiveness up and running habitually and investigating and discards one’s beliefs. Sure, a certain degree of letting go (of beliefs and old patterns) is naturally involved in this. This is not the same thing as Richard has been calling an out of control virtual freedom as opposed to a in control virtual freedom. RESPONDENT No. 15: Without it, we’re in the unenviable position of being powerless to feel good, left at the mercy of our whimsical nature to only feel good when the fates are aligned and life is a breeze or everything goes our way – all too rare occurrences. RESPONDENT: Applying attentiveness/ the bright light of awareness and investigating and discarding one’s beliefs (particularly the light-hearted seeing the silliness of wasting this moment by emotionally suffering) even from the beginning defuses a hole heap of emotional suffering without any intentional ‘letting go’. Somewhere Irene says something like ‘no I don’t ‘let go’. In the seeing it just goes’. RESPONDENT No. 15: Letting go of the controls is a skill that needs to be developed in response to discovering the persistent gripping of the controls. The mechanism of gripping starts out as an unconscious behaviour. Once the gripping of the controls is seen for what it is, letting go is as simple as loosening the grip of our hand. RESPONDENT: Maybe we are getting a little lost in the metaphor. In my experience the very act of being attentive and seeing the silliness renders any conscious/ intentional ‘letting go’ unnecessary. Plus, the phrase ‘letting go’ has quite the spiritualist history and there are even spiritualist methods that are almost exclusively based on this (i.e. the Sedona Method/ The Release Technique). Plus ‘letting go’ of the controls only happens virtually fully in the out from control virtual freedom and not as much in the in control virtual freedom. I do not have much time spent in this ‘out from control’ stage save for peak experiences. The in-control-virtual freedom where one is happy and harmless 99% of the time, but attentiveness must be ‘guarded’ and still slips, is what I have experienced for prolonged periods of time. RESPONDENT No. 15: Feeling good is only available to me once the controls are let go of. RESPONDENT: Feeling good to me is a relatively simple and easy state to achieve. It takes nothing more then dropping seriousness for carefreeness. Feeling good is not a state where the controls are let go of. Feeling good is much more like what I recommended to No. 21, when I said ‘I can see the benefit of having a more loose grip on them thar controls.’ Did you happen to miss that? RESPONDENT No. 15: Hence it is a prerequisite to practice. Now I must make the habit stick and go from good to great etc. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this goes some way into why I don’t see ‘letting go of the controls’ as a prerequisite to the practice of actualism. Actually having let go of the controls is to be having a peak experience and while that is a important thing, it doesn’t necessarily involve any conscious/ intentional letting go and is not the main task of a fledgling actualist. The main tasks for a beginning actualist is to get attentiveness up and running and to investigate all of one’s beliefs, seeing the silliness of prolonging suffering (for any reason). To put much emphasis on ‘letting go of the controls’ in the beginning of the practice of actualism may very well lead to one practicing something other than the actualism method (as the Sedona Method/the Release Technique is very much similar to buddhism, it would seem this could be yet another way that spiritualism slips into actualist practice). This may intellectually sound subtle, kind of like the difference between ‘choiceless awareness’/ passive awareness/ awareness watching awareness versus actualist attentiveness/ awareness but it is a noticeably different on a experiential level. I’m not sure if I have succeeded in clarifying this, but I gave it a go. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I appreciate you giving it a go to clarify and a timely word from me will make your clarification complete. First of all, it is probably inevitable the phrase out-from-control be (incorrectly) expressed as ‘letting go of control’ yet the fact remains that the controller, being the controls, cannot let go of that which they are. Secondly, the hyphenated term you mention as me having been calling [quote] ‘an out of control virtual freedom as opposed to a in control virtual freedom’ [endquote] clearly has the hyphenated term different-way-of-being immediately after the forward slash betwixt the two hyphenated terms. Viz.:
Upon reflection it will be seen I am not – repeat not – referring to a PCE as ‘being’ is in abeyance then (the very fact not ‘being’ renders any different way of ‘being’ impossible). Thirdly, and most importantly for any flow-on effect, in a PCE there is similarly a marked absence of both affective vibes and
psychic currents – a pristine ambience – to that of an actual freedom. (As an aside: the 5-month PCE was as useless in regards affectively/
psychically fostering a milieu An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later. (Being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being is quite daunting to contemplate as an on-going EE marks the end of the
beginning of the end of ‘me’ and the commencement of the actualism process – as distinct from the actualism method Fourth, as any being out-from-control/in a different-way-of-being (and there are varying degrees of such intimacy experiences) implicitly requires pure intent – which renders the necessity for morals/ ethics/ values/ principles null and void – it is certainly not the territory a fledgling actualist (to use your phraseology) has any business venturing into precipitously. Fifth, as any ‘letting go of the controls’ by the controller means, ipso facto, the controller still remaining in situ it can only refer to – just as you do – something of the nature of a [quote] ‘certain degree of letting go (of beliefs and old patterns)’ [endquote] else it does indeed bring a spiritualist practice into an actualist practice ... complete with the still in situ controller cunningly morphing into the watcher of religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical lore and legend. Sixth, regarding your comment about somewhere Irene (pronounced ee-rain-uh incidentally) saying something like ‘no I don’t ‘let go’; in the seeing it just goes’ you might be recollecting the following excerpt from ‘Richard’s Journal’ (the only instance a computer search through my second wife’s writings for the word seeing came up with):
If it is not then I do not know what you are referring to but one thing is for sure: Irene (as distinct from Devika) never spoke in such a manner as to bring about the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom which Devika lived for thirteen months, from November 1996 to December 1997, such as to occasion me to coin that term (and during which she penned those now-italicised passages of hers specifically for inclusion in what was to become ‘Richard’s Journal’). (At the time of writing it was titled ‘The Actualism Journal’ and was written in such a manner as to make it impossible to know which of the two persons featured – an unnamed man and a woman – was the one actually free and the one virtually free as we had figured the whole focus on something better than love and compassion would be more palatable if the gender of the actually free person remained unknown). * Lastly, I will take this opportunity to suggest that your own classification system – mini-PCE and virtual-PCE for just a
couple of instances – may be worth a revisit as to their necessity (or validity for that matter) as they can be confusing to others, just as they
are to me, because the term mini-PCE, for example, was first used by Respondent No. 27 ‘Tis just a suggestion, mind you. Regards, Richard. * (Postscript): RICHARD: [...] Oops ... both a typo and a mis-spelling in one post:
*
Ha ... perhaps it signals a retirement from writing as being in order. * (Postscript 2): Golly ... a mis-dating as well: ‘ ... from November 1996 to December 1997 ...’. ‘ ... from November 1995 to December 1996 ...’. (No smart-aleck comment this time around). Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: [...] G’day Richard, The addition of meeting two people in the ‘deep waters’/ end of the pool of a virtual freedom from the human condition is about the best bonus I could imagine. Beats going snorkelling hands down! :) RICHARD: Yes, the best bonus made all the more bester due to Vineeto being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being such as to affectively/ psychically generate a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere – begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/selfless ambience – which fostered a milieu where happiness and harmlessness could be the norm rather than the exception. RESPONDENT: After reading this, I can’t help but wonder ‘where’ this leaves Peter. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, It leaves him being one of the two most advantaged men on the planet, of course (what some not
in the know might call the luckiest), as their womenfolk are experientially demonstrating – not just saying so or intellectually agreeing – how
they will not settle for second-best (affection, empathy, love and all the rest) but want only the best, both for themselves and for their spouses,
which life has to offer. (See Message No. 7585 RESPONDENT: Would I be correct in assuming then that Peter is in a in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom? RICHARD: What Peter has been doing, in conjunction with Vineeto, is what he characterised as beating down all the long, dry grass (and every single bit of persistent regrowth) leading up to and obscuring the gate in the fence separating it from the greener pastures on the other side. As such they have both done a sterling service for their fellow human beings – having written prolifically about it all
whilst they were doing it (rather than after the fact from memory) – in ensuring an in-control virtual freedom is now possible for any normal
person/ normal couple simply by applying the actualism method In other words, they have both shown and documented the way how a virtual freedom which does not require being out-from-control – let alone something peculiar happening in the nape of the neck – can spread exponentially around the globe without disrupting civilisation (as a bloody revolution would, for example, in a futile attempt to change society). I will refer you to a previous exchange of ours. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I understand that you may not be at liberty to discuss that. RICHARD: I appreciate your sensitivity – and I am always circumspect where other persons are concerned – yet in this case both Peter and Vineeto are already public figures (having gone public with the most revealing details of their lives) and are thus liable to attract public scrutiny. They both have my highest regard for establishing not just a wide path for their fellow human beings to travel, if they so choose, but a wide and wondrous one with all the otherwise rank undergrowth on either side gentrified as well. And now the second stage of their odyssey RESPONDENT: Again, thanks for sharing this and I look forward to No. 4 writing about it in his enjoyable style of writing if he so chooses. RICHARD: As he has so chosen, since you sent this reply, it would be redundant for me to add anything other than to endorse what he has posted to date as being a remarkably accurate rendition of both what took place and his understanding of actualism in action (with the possible exception of that safety net/ lightning rod analogy). His summary at Message No. 8138 contains the most succinct way I have seen to deliver the essence of how actualism operates
(the second last paragraph) * I will leave the remainder of your response for another day as ... um ... as The-Lady-Who-Had-The-5-Month-PCE and
The-Spouse-Of-The-Lady-Who-Had-The-Five-Month-PCE will be arriving shortly to spend the day with me Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: Hey Big Boy, RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I have re-inserted a preceding exchange solely so as to facilitate my response to your queries (further below). :-))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((-: Ha ... magically, of course. :-))))))))))))))))(((((((((((((((((-: << o >> ~~~~~~~~~~_/)~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~after~actual~freedom~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RESPONDENT: While a gather all the above is said jokingly ... RICHARD: The Q&A immediately above my signature/ sign-off is indeed said jokingly – hence the 4 (slightly hypnotic) big smilies top and bottom – but the ASCII art signature line is most certainly not a joke. And the reason why I replied jokingly is because I had already answered that query with my response in the (re-inserted exchange) preceding it. What I should have said is that it has to be experienced, as a flesh and blood body only (as in here in this actual world) in order to understand how things operate in actuality. And, just as stone-age natives thought of cameras/ photographs as ‘magic’ boxes/ ‘magic’ pictures (and not as the readily explicable technology it is) so too is the way in which things can operate here quite ‘magical’. * Furthermore: even though there is no psyche in actuality – and even though I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here – the feelings ‘beings’ those bodies unwittingly host can utilise their host body’s vocal chords (for instance) and inform me as to their experience of what is happening in the real-world. I have spoken of these kind of things before ... for example:
RESPONDENT: ... the ‘~after~actual~freedom~’ part gave me pause. RICHARD: It is representative of a yacht under full sail (an underscore, a forward slash, a closing parenthesis) on an open ocean (the several rows of the tilde character) with a full sun (a lower-case o enclosed by the greater-than/ less-than symbols) riding clear above the oceanic horizon. RESPONDENT: Just to be clear ... you’re not now ‘beyond an actual freedom from the human condition’ are you? RICHARD: Goodness me, no ... that ASCII art signature line represents what the convivialists, of the very first convivium ever to emerge on this verdant and azure paradise called planet earth, are doing/ will be doing after an actual freedom from the human condition happens. There is nothing beyond actuality, as this physically infinite, eternal and perdurable universe, being a veritable perpetuus mobilis, has no other ... there is no (timeless, spaceless and formless) beyond whatsoever in actuality. RESPONDENT: Of course I figure/ assume/ KNOW this is a joke ... just checking ... kinda:) RICHARD: Sure ... with the inevitable implosion of both spiritualism and materialism actualism will also cease to exist (it has no existence in actuality); the end of actualism (which exists only in the real-world) means the end of actualists (a convenient label which is only useful as a counterpoint to the convenient labels spiritualist and materialist); in the meanwhile the name convivialist – for a person living convivially in a convivium – will serve to distinguish them from those isolated nuclear couples living in separative nuclear households/ lifestyles (a convivium can also take up residence on land, in suitably designed housing, of course). For instance:
And (more specifically):
So as to provide some idea of what is planned: the MSV Actualis has eight cabins – in four suites each with a common washroom (with basin/ shower/ toilet) plus common tea- and coffee-making facilities à la motels, betwixt each – with wall-to-wall beds (king-size beds in popular parlance) with one cabin for each (nominal) crew-member and at least one cabin always reserved for guests ... a guest cabin, in other words. Put simplistically: no married couples; only single people living intimately as one big happy (and harmless) convivium. (Many more details, at a later date, on the new website). Regards, Richard. P.S.: I can just as easily put the ship’s name below the signature line. Viz.: << o >> ~~~~~~~~~~_/)~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ msv actualis ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Continued on Direct Route: No. 10
Continued from Direct Route: No. 10 RICHARD: [...]. Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread), and the topic of there being no feelings in actuality ... RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, Good to see you are alive and well (at least well enough to write). Some time ago you talked about writing a novel and then there was supposed to be more writing in regards to Buddhism/Pali Canon and actual freedom. Are those projects still in the works? Since you are writing again, I’ll take this as an opportunity to ask a question that has been on and off in my mind since you started pointing out the discrepancies in Tarin’s writings in regards to being actually free. I ended up spending a considerable part of almost every weekend visiting Tarin for a number of months. In that time my impression of Tarin (and I’m an excellent read of people both innately and enhanced by training) was that he was extremely intelligent, very open-minded, as objective as one could be, sincere, honest, free from all suffering, emotions and sense of identity/self. Obviously I cannot be literally inside someone’s head/experience so I’m open to being mistaken. That being said he seemed to obviously know what a PCE and an actual freedom is and considered himself to be living that and nothing he said or did in our time together directly contradicted that. It is true that he was less lively and vibrant appearing then another person I was spending time with that became actually free, but I have always chalked that up to individual idiosyncrasies. So, what exactly do you think he is experiencing then, if not an actual freedom? Are you suggesting there is some condition where the person has no emotions nor sense of identity/ self that is somehow not quite yet an actual freedom? I see you’ve referred to the ‘AFers’ as being of a mongrel state of being. By this I’m taking it that you are saying by engaging in both Buddistic practices and actualist practices they have come across a ‘mixed’ condition where they are experiencing aspects of both Buddhist enlightenment and actual freedom but not either one in there purity (and hence not an actual freedom). That would make some sense with someone like Nik who practice both simultaneously. However, Tarin stopped practicing buddhistic practices and practiced only actualism to come to the condition he has (likewise for Trent). RICHARD: G’day No. 12, The pragmatic/ hardcore affers are neither experiencing aspects of awakenment/ enlightenment (Buddhism) nor of an actual freedom (Actualism); my usage of ‘a mongrel state of being’ stems, simply and solely, from Trent’s hubristic usage of ‘hybrid’ to describe an utter impossibility which has become known as ‘actualising the jhanas’. Viz.:
Because he introduced the term [quote] ‘buddhist-actualist hybrid’ [endquote] in that passage, which gained some currency amongst its ill-advised practitioners, it is apposite to point out that, whilst a cross between two pedigree species may properly called a hybrid, a cross between a watered-down-and-westernised Buddhism and a watered-down-and-bastardised Actualism can best be called a mongrel ... as in a ‘buddhistic-affer mongrel’. Viz.:
Words cannot properly express just how much of a dastardly act it was for them to co-opt Actualism, subsume it under a tawdry facsimile of Buddhism (there have been no arahants for more than two millennia because of sectarianism), and thus unnecessarily perpetuate the suffering of humankind. In a little over two weeks time the direct-route, to the already always existing peace-on-earth, will have been available for three (3) years ... and what do they do instead? Go sit on a cushion, withdraw from the physical, induce altered states, ‘dark nights’, depressions, anxieties ... there is even a jhana-jockey hospice being set-up to nurse the causalties. ‘Tis craziness run riot ... utter madness. * As you have written more in two other posts, about a person you were spending time with whom you say [quote] ‘became actually free’ [endquote], I will append that text of yours here first, to flesh-out what you wrote above, before responding to your questions. Viz.:
*
And here are your two questions again. Viz.:
First, obviously I am not suggesting there is some condition where a person sans identity in toto/the entire affective faculty is not actually free from the human condition (as that would simply be absurd). Second, I am not suggesting there is some condition where a person (newly) free of the instinctual passions/the feeling-being
formed thereof is not actually free ... albeit not yet fully-free due, in part at least, to some shadowy remnants of a lingering social identity (The social identity, being a culturally-inculcated societal/ familial entity, and not instinctually-based, is not necessarily rendered completely null and void at the definitive event/pivotal moment an actual freedom takes place; a period of accommodation and adjustment and acclimatisation, all throughout the normal day-to-day life, ensures the habituated patterns of a life-time cease). Third, I have written before (on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website) about personally experiencing a major dissociative state, of an extended duration during a period of my life in a war-zone as a youth, which was not unlike being in the centre of a cyclone – all about raged fear and hatred, anger and aggression – and in that unreality all was calm, peaceful (and ‘fearless’). I provided a link leading to a lengthy description/ explanation of it in the earlier part of the very email you responded to. Viz.: (Richard, List D, Srid, 7 December 2012) It is the third quote, in the second email of that three-consecutive-email-exchange, and is preceded by the words ‘The
following will be of interest’ (and the operative words ‘my mind somehow created a new ‘reality’ built out of the extremities of
animalistic fear, which hallucination I would nowadays call ‘unreality’’ are highlighted) Fourth, and specifically in regards to your question, about my thoughts on what that aff state is (which affers such as Tarin write about): again I will refer you to quotes, and the link for them, a little further down in the very email you responded to. Viz.:
And:
Plus:
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. Regards, Richard.
RICHARD: [...]. Put succinctly, there is no actual world in Buddhism (what is, in Buddhism, is ‘ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ’ RESPONDENT: Now here is the meat of where actualism and Buddhism do seem to be at unavoidable odds. I do not think Tarin or Trent actually believe/think this. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Why do you say that you do not think Tarin or Trent actually [quote] ‘believe/think’ [endquote] this? After all, back in 2009 they both made it public knowledge they had become arahants, did they not? In other words, what is the value of arahantship if an arahant does not have immediate knowledge of this (as in, an on-going, ever-fresh, direct experiencing)? RESPONDENT: In fact I recall Tarin saying something about there being nothing but the actual world in his experience. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well we do not have to rely upon your recall of what is ‘in fact’; it only took around three minutes to locate what he wrote to you at 3:54 pm on December the 16th, 2009. Viz.:
His own words there (‘pulling me toward the actual world’) are distinctly different to your recall (‘nothing but the actual world’). RESPONDENT: I don’t think even Nik believes the above statement ... RICHARD: Once again for emphasis: of what value is arahantship when an arahant is not directly knowing that (as in, an on-going, ever-fresh, immediate experiencing)? (In saying all the above I am, of course, speaking from my own personal experiencing, night and day, for eleven years). Regards, Richard.
RICHARD: [...]. Put succinctly, there is no actual world in Buddhism (what is, in Buddhism, is ‘ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ RESPONDENT: Now here is the meat of where actualism and Buddhism do seem to be at unavoidable odds. I do not think Tarin or Trent actually believe/ think this. RICHARD: Why do you say that you do not think Tarin or Trent actually [quote] ‘believe/think’ [endquote] this? RESPONDENT: For one there is nothing in either of their writings (after they claimed actual freedom at least) that suggests they affirmatively believe the above. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Why I wrote [quote] ‘what is, in Buddhism, is ...’ [endquote] in the above is because that particular term (‘what is’) has gained considerable currency as an accepted English translation of the Buddhist yathābhutaṃ and the following quote, by being quite explicit, will demonstrate why I put it that way:
By putting that term in scare quotes he is conveying that meditation, in the specific way he means when he uses that word, is a mind ‘seeing actually’ absolute truth (aka yathābhutaṃ) or ultimate reality. Indeed, the pericope ‘yathābhūtam jānāti’ (where jānāti = to know/ to understand) in the Pali Canon translates as ‘he knows as an absolute truth or in reality’, according to the PTS Pali-English dictionary, and the pericope ‘yathābhutaṃ jānāti passati’ – where passati (to see) = to recognise, realise, know, only because it is in combination with jānāti – has a remarkable correspondence with what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is conveying (his usage of ‘seeing actually’ does not, of course, mean visually seeing). Thus what I am affirming, in the above, is how absolute truth/ ultimate reality (aka ‘what is’), in Buddhism, is ajātaṃ (‘not-born’) abhūtaṃ (‘not-become’) akataṃ (‘not-made’) asaṅkhataṃ (‘not-caused’). And, surely, anyone can see that I am not making that up – I quite obviously copy-pasted it from the Pali Canon – as I also provided a reference (Ud 8.3; Tatiyanibbana Sutta; PTS: Ud 80) as well as two regular online translations as a supplementary and in-context footnote. The reason why I referenced the Udana ‘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). In fact, the fourth word (asaṅkhataṃ, ‘not-caused’) is an epithet of nibbāna elsewhere in the Pali Canon.Now, even without my eleven years of directly experiencing this, night and day, and thus having intimate knowledge of nibbana as being ‘ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ’, I would never say to anyone that I do not actually think this because it is quite evident that it is a central tenet of Buddhism. In fact, it is the fundamental core of Buddhism, in all its various sectarian iterations, as no escape (nissaranaṃ) from samsāra – as in ‘jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa’ as per that sutta – would be possible were it not that ‘there is’ (atthi), according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan himself, ‘ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ’. RESPONDENT: As for Tarin, I’m quite certain he did not believe that as he was very explicit in person that he did not believe in a non-physical world. RICHARD: So what? I do not believe in a ‘non-physical world’ either yet it is undeniably obvious that what is, in Buddhism, is ‘ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ’, is it not? * I will wait for your response to this before proceeding lest this discussion about the affers, and their aff, becomes even
more weird Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: Hello Dea Listmembers, Since [No. 4] has mentioned my name and [No. 4’s] credibility/ honesty as been questioned, I’d like to just say that No. 4 is mostly right in saying that I don’t care about Richard’s behavior. [...]. I would like to add, having ‘known’ [No. 4] since 2004 via his writings, I have *never* known him to be a liar. I often don’t agree with his conclusions nor the thought processes(involving his unique to himself biases that *we all* have) he uses to get there, but I have no doubts to his honesty. [...]. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I have known since early-to-mid 2005 that this ‘[No. 4]’/ ‘John Wilde’/‘[Sock Puppet ‘PW’]/ ‘[Sock Puppet ‘PD’]/ ‘[Sock Puppet ‘R’]’ character is a liar and have thus had more than mere doubts about his honesty. For instance:
A brief explanatory note: the person he refers to as ‘[No. 64]’ was also subscribed to The Actual Freedom Trust list forum, as ‘[No. 64]’, and had never hesitated to ‘throw his weight around’ (to use a colloquialism) when interacting with the actualists.
A brief explanatory note: the person he refers to as ‘my bro’ is the same-same person he referred to as ‘[No. 64]’ in Dec 2004 (the same-same person subscribed as ‘[No. 64]’).
An explanatory note: as those in initials ‘IMO’ are a short-hand way of saying ‘in my opinion’ you may well comprehend my surprise as he had previously said, on two occasions, that it – i.e. ‘actual pathological process’ – was [No. 64’s] opinion/his bro’s opinion (the same-same person subscribed as ‘[No. 64]’). Quite evidentially, he was either lying on the earlier two occasions (Dec 2004 & Jan 2005) or he was now lying (May 2005) as there is no way both versions can be true. Anyway, I responded by asking if he were intending to write ‘in my bro’s opinion’ but had inadvertently written ‘in my opinion’ instead. I also added numerous quotes, from the person subscribed as ‘[No. 64]’, to demonstrate that my query was well-founded. Viz.:
A brief explanatory note: you will have seen that I had also added a few footnote quotes Anyway, realising he was caught in a trap of his own making – it was either his opinion or his bro’s opinion but not both at once – he chose to brazen it out with me. (Why peoples think they can out-smart me, when the archives clearly show that smart-aleckry comes off a pathetic second-best, has got me beat). Viz.:
Fast-forward to 2012 and he is still lying. Viz.:
Almost needless is it to add that the ‘good authority’ on whom he relies to, supposedly, authenticate his assertion (and thus justify his snide remarks about ‘trippers’ and ‘caffeine’) is ... um ... is Someone Universally Recognised By Her Inventions. Viz.:
Here are the two versions juxtaposed for ease of comparison (both versions are lies, of course, but that is another matter):
He was on a roll, that day, with his totally fabricated golden energy/ golden glow theme. Viz.:
And, of course, he even lied about such trivial things as that ‘slight jaundice’ and ‘tired and ill’ It is as if he cannot help but make stuff up. Regards, Richard.
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 |
