|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 29 (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 Direct Route No. 19 RESPONDENT: Re: a nice way of framing haietmoba By [No. 28] At <snipped link> RICHARD: G’day [No. 29], The way you titled this thread has caught my eye. You are, presumably, cognisant of how that string of letters – [quote] ‘haietmoba’ [endquote] – is the manner in which quite a few persons refer to the actualism method? If not, it features prominently on this web page: I am curious as to why you characterise the way in which No. 28 has hijacked it, by making out it points to nibbana, as being [quote] ‘a nice way of framing’ [endquote] the actualism method? Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RICHARD: It is no secret that I had two major ‘nervous breakdowns’, and at least one minor one (where I became catatonic and was rushed to a local hospital’s EU), the first of which occurred ‘with sudden onset’ (one of the diagnostic symptoms) at sunrise on the 6th of September, 1981, and the second, also ‘with sudden onset’, in the late afternoon of the 30th of October, 1992, in an abandoned cow-pasture. RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, Appreciate the response. You say that that you have suffered two major nervous breakdowns. The first one led to enlightement. RICHARD: G’day No. 29, First, a technical point: a breakdown does not lead to something; a breakdown is the onset of something – as per that ‘with sudden onset’ wording above – and that ‘something’, a mental disorder of some sort, can be either mild or severe and either acute (of short duration) or chronic (long-lasting) and either curable or incurable (inasmuch palliative care is prescribed to help manage the symptoms). So, the first major breakdown was the onset of a very severe psychotic disorder – so severe, in fact, as to entail massive delusions of grandeur and megalomania, such as being the ‘Parousia’ and the next ‘Maitreya’, for instance, with acute dissociative and solipsistic thought patterns plus major reality impairment (object estrangement, space dislocation and time distortion) – which persisted, night and day, for eleven years. Now, at the time I did not know that it was a mental disorder – let alone a very severe psychotic disorder – even though there was something suss about it all; it was only in that 30+ month period afterwards it gradually became clear to me that spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment was insanity ... albeit an institutionalised insanity. Viz.:
In fact, at the time of the onset of that very severe psychotic disorder, I did not even know that it was spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment as I had never even heard of those terms let alone what they referred to. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: The second to AF. RICHARD: As I am an actualist, and not an affer, your query indicates a double confusion (stemming from both text popping-up hither and thither on the internet and claims of aff posted to various buddhistic forums) which would not have come about had you utilised what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website as your guaranteed-to-be-accurate source material. I have written to this forum before about how vital it is that there be this guaranteed-to-be-accurate repository, of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition, so as to obviate any such confusion as peoples are nowadays subject to (and thus necessitating me coming out of my retirement from writing in order to clarify what others have muddied). Viz.:
Having clarified that: the second major breakdown was the onset of what has been officially diagnosed as a chronic psychotic disorder entailing depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia – which began with a 30+ month period of a macabre and gruesome ‘mental anguish’ that both psychiatrists and psychologists were baffled by – and which has persisted for 20+ years. Now, lest there be any confusion generated by my own words I will take this opportunity to add that I have oft-times stated how I do find it cute that peace-on-earth, in this life-time and as this flesh-and-body, be considered, by sane peoples, to be insanity. Viz.:
Even more to that point is that those same sane peoples, who consider me insane, consider insanity (albeit institutionalised)
to be the solution for all the ills of humankind – as in, all the ills of sanity – and deliberately leave it out of the DSM IV So as to clarify the entire sanity-insanity issue I will draw your attention to the following quotes. Viz.:
Furthermore, I characterise that third alternative, to either sanity or insanity, as salubrity (and the third alternative, to either being sane or being insane, as being salubrious).
Here are some examples. Viz.:
Moreover, as I clearly state that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution), the entire email
exchange starting at ... Here are a few excerpts. Viz.: Richard, List B, No. 19 l, 13 April 2003b) • [Richard]: ‘(...) you classified what you see, when observing the world (peoples in general) and yourself, as being
[quote] ‘insanity’ [endquote] and all I did was point out that what was really going on was sanity in action (and, further to the point, that
sanity sucks big-time)’. • [Richard]: ‘(...) Speaking personally, for the first 34 years of my life I was sane (the ordinary, normal, common, or
everyday sanity of people in general all over the world) and peace-on-earth was nowhere to be found; for the next 11 years I was in a transformed
state of being (which I gradually came to realise was an institutionalised insanity) called The Absolute or Truth, God, Being, Presence, Self, and
so on, which was exemplified by (...) a timeless, spaceless, formless immortal otherness which was a peace that passeth all understanding ... yet
all the while peace-on-earth was still nowhere to be found. By ‘institutionalised’ I mean altered states of consciousness that have become
institutions over the aeons: instituted as being states of consciousness which are universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence ...
a model to either live by, aspire to, become, or be. (...)’. • [Richard]: ‘When ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becomes extinct all its states of
being, ranging from sanity through to insanity, also cease to be ... there is no ‘presence’ whatsoever here in this actual world to be either
sane or insane. I just find it cute that the solution to all the ills of humankind be considered insanity by sane people (most of whom live by, or
aspire to become, the model provided by the insanity of the altered states of consciousness which have become institutionalised over the aeons by
being universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence anyway).’ • [Richard]: (...). Here in this actual world all is salubrious and irreprehensible ... just consider, for a moment if you
will, that it is only a sanity-based analysis which would determine that permanent happiness and harmlessness be insanity (it speaks volumes about
the nature of sanity that it does so). I know I have said it many times before but I will say it again for emphasis: I do find it cute that
peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, be considered a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder’. RESPONDENT: So they aren’t quite a deliberate process of a guy to get into enlightement ... RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was not engaged in a process to ‘get into enlightenment’ at all (as already mentioned ‘he’ knew naught of enlightenment) as what ‘he’ was actively involved in was enabling the peerless purity and pristine perfection which had been indelibly imprinted in ‘his’ (non-affective) memory banks during a 4-hour PCE six months previously. RESPONDENT: ... and later, AF, but outcomes out of those two major breakdowns? RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try reading at least some of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, first, before asking me what has the appearance of being un-researched and/ or ill-informed questions. Before doing so, however, please read Message No. 10915 Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: are you seriously suggesting pushing this PTSD issue didn’t warrant the energy? RESPONDENT No. 4: It’s a good example. What came of it, loud and clear, after defusing all the passionate attack/ defense stuff is:
RESPONDENT: Apart from past what about your other allegations abt Richard crying.. Stuff that hap in India and all the rest of the stuff that you said and heard.. Are you now sayin all of them were lies? Or they are still valid but you have decided to push those discrepancies under the rug? This is an serious enquiry from my part. It would help me formulate my own thoughts about the whole enterprise. Was it all just a smear campaign and lies? RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Yes, it was indeed ‘all just a smear campaign and lies’. The term ‘made-up stuff’ is but a milder way of saying that it is all a pack of lies ... lies and deceit. Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RICHARD: [...]. If I might suggest? Try reading at least some of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, first, before asking me what has the appearance of being unresearched and/or ill-informed questions. Before doing so, however, please read Message No. 10915 RESPONDENT: [...]. You haven’t responded to the rest of my mail about all the allegations and you have already stated before that you won’t be. So that’s that. It will be upto me to take a call though on the authencity of those reports. Of course, there is no way I can make a proper call! If i trust them, it will be on faith that those who made them were true and If I don’t trust them, I am making it on faith they were lying or mistaken. either way it’s a subjective guess work on my part. Hmmm... RICHARD: G’day No. 29, I did not respond to the rest of your email ‘about all the allegations’ partly for the reason my response was way too long already but mainly because to have done so would have detracted from the far, far more important central theme ... to wit: that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution). Look, here is the essence of what you are referring to as ‘the allegations’ in the rest of your email. Viz.:
I will now demonstrate something via the very first question you asked me ... namely:
First, I will draw your attention to what I wrote on Wednesday the 2nd of January 2013, at 3:04 am, in Message No. 12293
Now, back to that very first question of yours. Viz.:
The key words are [quote] ‘one reads all those stuff’ [endquote], right? Now, I have read every word that the ... um ... the ‘star witness’ has posted to this forum, since she commenced her vindictive smear campaign, all of her own accord, at 1:45 pm on Thursday the 15th of September, 2011, and nowhere do I recall any mention of her phantom ‘Richard’ having committed a fraud in India. If you will provide the relevant message number – of the original post and not someone’s compilation – so that I can read just what it is you are referring to it might throw some light upon the matter. What I can say, in the meanwhile, is that nobody from the Indian Police or the Indian Government – be they State or Federal – has contacted me, since my departure from India over two years ago, in regards to any matter at all (let alone any such fraud (purportedly) having been committed whilst in India). Indeed, there was no hold-up at all during the departure process at Trivandrum Airport, just prior to flying out on 02/09/2010, and the Immigration & Customs officials are the first to be notified in regards detaining suspect visitors. Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RICHARD: [...]. RESPONDENT: [...]. Then one reads all those stuff; allegations about the events in India. Did you commit a fraud there? Why were there investigators who took your memory stick? There are reports of you dragging someone and sitting on their neck ... RICHARD: G’day No. 29, ‘Tis fascinating to see that your phantom ‘Richard’ is ‘sitting on their neck’ (i.e. the neck of a phantom ‘someone’). Whereas, for instance, [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] has his phantom ‘Richard’ sitting on a terrified phantom woman’s
chest (as well as horrifying his phantom visitors by squeezing her phantom throat till she is ‘breathless’). (Message No. 11xxx As the ... um ... the ‘star witness’ has her phantom ‘Richard’ sitting on his phantom partner’s chest – and holding her down with both his phantom hands on her phantom neck (Message No. 10570) – it would surely be worth your while to ask the person she got her hearsay account from just what the truth of the matter is, would it not? Viz.:
Now, I have deliberately removed the name she gave because, somewhere along the line, all you people regurgitating all this made-up stuff do need to look – with your own eyes – at what was actually written, in the original text, because it is demonstrably evident that imagination is stitching together some disparate ‘data’-points – all of which are also imaginary, – so as to make something other than what actually happened a (feeling-fed) ‘reality’. I have written to this forum about this much-lauded aspect of being a feeling-being (i.e. the imaginative facility) only recently. Viz.:
Note well how I provided [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] with a one-off opportunity to produce his so-called ‘reports’,
of [quote] ‘perverted woman bashing’ [endquote], and yet he failed to do so. (That way he can keep on making assertions, such as ‘its
about time something was done before it gets even more out of hand and YOU physically hurt someone AGAIN!’ in Message No. 12xxx So, it is up to you, now. Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RICHARD: [...]. I did not respond to the rest of your email ‘about all the allegations’ partly for the reason my response was way too long already but mainly because to have done so would have detracted from the far, far more important central theme ... to wit: that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution). RESPONDENT: Okay. My concern was you arrived at actual freedom from a position of insanity. And further that insanity itself arrived from a severe psychotic disorder. So whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like me. I use normal here to talk about guys without any breakdown and disorders. And sane. You have pointed out that sanity is the problem. I wonder whether the mutations that is entailed in actualism process can be done by normal people. The likes of vineeto peter and few others have shown that it can be done. Let me digest all of this. RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Sure ... just a couple of minor points, in regards to your reply above, to aid the digestive process. First, I did indeed arrive at an actual freedom from the human condition from ‘a position of insanity’ (aka fully-fledged spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment). However, to say further that ‘insanity itself arrived from a severe psychotic disorder’ is to confuse terminology within itself as the word insanity is but another word for the (politically correct) term ‘severe psychotic disorder’. (Otherwise, what you are saying, in effect, is ‘and further that insanity itself arrived from insanity’). Second, regarding whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like yourself (people without any breakdown, disorders and sane): nobody, absolutely nobody, has to and/or needs to – or even can nowadays (if they were silly enough to want to) – follow in my footsteps. The direct-route to an actual freedom – a down-to-earth manumission Regards, Richard.
Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest RICHARD: [...] regarding whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like yourself (people without any breakdown, disorders and sane): nobody, absolutely nobody, has to and/or needs to – or even can nowadays (if they were silly enough to want to) – follow in my footsteps. The direct-route to an actual freedom – a down-to-earth manumission hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – obviates going through (institutionalised) insanity to get to the other side. RESPONDENT: Curious about the usage of manumission. It refers to the act of the slave owner freeing his slaves. Why are you using it in this context? Any particular reason? RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Yes, it is a particularly apt word I specifically selected when I first started to put together ‘Richard’s Personal Web Page’ – a more biographical account, with many snapshots taken at various stages of my life going back to childhood, of my discovery presented in a secular way (and which goes into the personal details of my childhood experiences, my military experience, my marriage experiences, my parental experiences, my artistic experiences, my latter-day lifestyle and so on and so forth) – so as to quite graphically convey just what a vital role it is ‘I’ have to play in setting free the flesh-and-blood body that is ‘my’ unwitting host. To set the context I will first draw your attention to what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote (for example) at the very beginning of ‘his’ opus ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ presentation. Viz.:
That second sentence conveys the information that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) are the root cause of ‘human bondage’ – the slavery/ servitude of the flesh and blood body to its master/ its overlord who is called, in actualism terminology, the identity within – plus the malice and sorrow which arises out of those passions/ that identity. To explain that latter point first: both malice and sorrow are not instinctual passions per se but arise in the human animal because of its unique-amongst-animals ability to be aware of being conscious/ of being sentient, which thereby automatically forms an affective identity/a feeling being who is those very passions in action – as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – and that affective identity/ that feeling being is malicious and sorrowful (and, compensatingly, loving and compassionate) as a result of thus being conscious/ being aware of its innate ‘good and bad’ dichotomous nature, popularly known as ‘the human condition’, and all the misery and mayhem it brings about by its very presence/ the very passions it is). Now, the slavery which the word bondage refers to is also expressed via the word thralldom at the bottom of every web-page, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, as well as being situated at the top of my homepage. Viz.:
At the risk of belabouring the point: that tenant/ person/ villein/ serf/ slave is, as it were, the flesh and blood body and that proprietor/ lord/ master is, so to speak, the identity within (who persuades and/or dictates or in any other way forces the body to act or behave in a reprehensible or insalubrious manner). Hence my usage of manumission (and/or manumit, manumited); also, because it is an unusual word/a word not in common usage, there is the likely possibility a reader/listener will take note of it – look it up if they truly want to know what is being referred to – and remember it, later, if only because of its quaintness. Viz.:
(I have a predilection for utilising little-known words/obsolete words – such as psittacisms, those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning, instead of, say, clichés – for this very reason). I will take this opportunity to add that an as-fully-informed-as-possible identity is vital to the whole process as only an identity, and no-one else, can set its host free. For instance:
Another way of putting it is that identity has a job to do. Viz.:
Regards, Richard.
Re: Few humble words from Justine RICHARD to No. 4: [...] And it is not correct because what you had actually said, in that post being referred to, was
in relation to a woman who back then was in New Zealand (which, as you rightly noted in your previous email, is not ‘another continent’). CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, For what it’s worth, I appreciate the clarification here. I didn’t
look back at [No.4]’s #11349 It actually does seem like a really simple thing that did get massively overblown. RICHARD to Claudiu: Thank you for your feedback; especially so as I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth my
while to continue writing about any topic/any issue if none of the peoples active on this forum could comprehend something which – to me anyway
– was such an obvious thing RESPONDENT: Hi Richard This is what I got from this latest interactions between you and [No. 4]. RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Thank you for your feedback; especially so as it is of much assistance in regards to what areas of [No. 4]’s self-proclaimed ‘on-site observation’ and ‘reliable ... observation’ still need to be addressed and exposed for the self-evident deceit they are. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: 1)In his original post, [No. 4] had referred to your ex wife. RICHARD: Yes, clearly and unambiguously: his words ‘back into’ are distinctly different to ‘recruiting another’ inasmuch the former refers to a prior situation (purportedly) being re-established and the latter to a (purportedly) yet-to-be established situation. Is it clear to you, from my recent posts, that neither his ‘back into’ words nor his ‘recruiting another’ words are a product of either ‘on-site observation’ or ‘reliable ... observation’? If not, read on (immediately below). RESPONDENT: 2) The interpretation sustained by not correcting [No. 37]’s ‘remembrance’ replaces ‘ex wife’ with the other lady, who, these days, owns a negative belief about you and who has quit the forum, after alleging a lot of dramatic stuff about you, which led to doubts about you, and actualism, in many people’s mind. RICHARD: Yes, and the self-evident deceit in this situation is the fact that he (No. 4) prefaces his ‘recruiting another’ words with both the word ‘actively’ and the date ‘February 2010’. Viz.:
Not only had the woman he refers to recruited herself (to use his phraseology) but the fact she did so in December 2009 makes it self-evident that his ‘recruiting another’ words are not a product of either ‘on-site observation’ or ‘reliable ... observation’. RESPONDENT: So, as an aside, can one then infer that you never tried to enter into a relationship with this lady (not your ex wife) and her fears of you were about whole lot of different issues (which I would like to clarify in this manner but not sure whether you are ready to go with me on that ride; if not, you can perhaps give a reason for not wanting. If you can talk about that issue, then we can start it later to sort out the intrpretations of her allegations) ? RICHARD: There is no need to infer as I have been up-front and out-in-the-open about my part in what actually transpired. Viz.:
And:
As for [quote] ‘her fears of you’ [endquote] the following, straight from the horse’s mouth, should suffice for the nonce. Viz.:
Plus what I posted 17 months earlier. Viz.:
Please note that his ‘warn a few friends’ actions stemmed from feelings and not facts ... as expressed explicitly in his preceding [quote] ‘because I felt like I’d been duped’ [endquote] words. RESPONDENT: 3) There have been clarifications about [No. 4]’s original post itself. That wooing ( and words of that ilk) is not the correct word to be used as there was no such thing done by you. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: That it was your wife who was interested in the communal-lifestyle and wanted to get back-into. Also, she had taken a break from the relationship because she got frightened of perfection (which clarified yet another [No. 4]’s perspective). Hmm ... 1) your wife wanted to come back after being frightened of perfection, and you just encouraged it. There was no active recruiting. 2) You never wooed the other lady or tried to actively recruit her either. RICHARD: The following – heavily edited for reasons of space – will show that the words ‘back into’ (a nuclear couple association/a nuclear household living arrangement) do not adequately convey what was planned for ‘The Floating Convivium Project’. Viz.:
Personally, if I were the one to have written what became known as ‘[No. 4]’s Historical Statement’ I would have used words such as ‘move forward into’, rather than ‘back into’, but, then again, I am not a feeling-being who had [quote] ‘felt like I’d been duped’ [endquote] at the time of writing. 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 |
