|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’ with Correspondent No. 5
Continued from Mailing List ‘B’: Sock Puppet ‘S’ and from Mailing List ‘AF’: Sock Puppet ‘N’ / Sock Puppet ‘C’ / Sock Puppet ‘X’ / Sock Puppet ‘R’ Re: Howler Of The Week This must surely win the Howler Of The Week award RESPONDENT: ‘Interesting that the only thing Richard found worthy of entering here for was to protect an imagined threat to his pay packet. Talk about hyperactive survival instincts’. RICHARD: ! Random quote from The Actual Freedom Trust web site:
! Copied from the archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (posted on the 2nd of February 2006):
! Copied from the archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (posted on the 10th of May 2002):
! Copied from Message No. 5129 posted on Tuesday, 05 May, 2009:
! Copied from the archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (posted on the 21st of February 2005):
! Copied from the archives of ‘Mailing List B’ (circa 1979):
! Copied from the top of the order form page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: form ! Copied from the archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (posted on the 10th of February 2003):
Subject: Re: Howler Of The Week (Now Censored) CO-RESPONDENT: I agree Richard. I thought it was a howler when I first read it. RESPONDENT: :-))) I knew it!!! I knew I should have added ‘He’s only come here to talk to me you guys, you watch’ LOL! Hey Fritzl (that’s what really did it ;-) Can’t you see? Richard is totally predictable, like substance. He has nothing new to say, no new behaviour to show us, he’s here to talk down, to prey, and play, with not just a beautiful face :-)))))))) RICHARD: :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) WOW! So spiteful, [Sock Puppet ‘C’]! So frustrated and so mean! I’m calling you ‘Mean-Spirited Man’ from now on. Go back and read the post that made you so spiteful. Nowhere did I place any burdens on you or even complain, I merely offered suggestions. You have a lot to learn, middle-aged man. R :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Subject: Once upon a time (Now Censored) RESPONDENT: This list is like a novel, for readers with incredibly unusual taste. When I read it, I get vague mental images of the characters in this book and the possible environments they live in. Richard, I was just goading, you don’t really look like Fritzl, but your silly big daddy power trip reminds me of him. Your quite handsome in fact (for an old dude) and no I’m not buttering you up, just setting the record straight. RICHARD: G’day [Sock Puppet ‘C’] You’re wearing quite well yourself, considering how you are a middle-aged codger now. Speaking of which: how is the ‘Death by Chocolate’ dessert at the Bon Ton Café these days ... still as glorious as ever? Regards, Richard.
Subject: Re: Howler Of The Week (Now Censored) CO-RESPONDENT: I agree Richard. I thought it was a howler when I first read it. RESPONDENT: :-))) I knew it!!! I knew I should have added ‘He’s only come here to talk to me you guys, you watch’ LOL! Hey Fritzl (that’s what really did it ;-) Can’t you see? Richard is totally predictable, like substance. He has nothing new to say, no new behaviour to show us, he’s here to talk down, to prey, and play, with not just a beautiful face :-)))))))) RICHARD: :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) WOW! So spiteful, [Sock Puppet ‘C’]! So frustrated and so mean! I’m calling you ‘Mean-Spirited Man’ from now on. Go back and read the post that made you so spiteful. Nowhere did I place any burdens on you or even complain, I merely offered suggestions. You have a lot to learn, middle-aged man. R :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) RESPONDENT: Richard, have you gone bonkers or what? This is such childish behaviour! RICHARD: What a strange coincidence, [Sock Puppet ‘C’]. That is exactly what I thought, at the time. 4786 4787
Re: Internet Anonymity RESPONDENT: Richard has absolutely no confidential information about me. RICHARD: Au contraire ... Richard does indeed have confidential information about you. RESPONDENT: The only way anyone can know the actual identity and age of the people they converse with over the net is to meet them in person, speak with them on live video AND read their birth certificate. I could be 78 years old for all Richard knows! RICHARD: That paragraph (and indeed your entire email) is a red-herring ... for here is the text you are reacting to:
It is quite clear I am referring to medical information (and not identifying information) by both the words ‘extenuating circumstances’ and the text at the referred link. Here is an edited and appropriately-censored copy-paste of that confidential information (which I will never, ever be revealing as it is just not my style):
And here is why I will never, ever be revealing it (sent 3 hrs and 5 mins later):
To explain: it is in the very nature of that congenital illness (it can give rise to a little-known syndrome herein referred to only as, say, ‘MM’ for convenience) that the extenuating circumstances clearly mentioned lie ... specifically: it more than-adequately provides understanding for the sporadic and uncalled-for outbursts which mar so many of your posts. (Provided the above medical condition is not yet another one of your multitudinous lies that is). The following should require no explanation:
And that is why I went on to say (in that email you are reacting to) the following words:
Both No. 4 and I are clearly referring to the person behind the array of sock-puppet aliases because that is who we care about ... that living, and thus a hurting and hurtful, human being who is sitting at the keyboard communicating with us. (... snip two irrelevant paragraphs...) * RESPONDENT: I am just amazed how he (how anyone) can claim from a medium that enables unprecidented anonymity, that what he reads here is enough to give him factual information that he claims to be keeping confidential about an individual that he then attempts to expose ... RICHARD: Richard did not, repeat not, attempt to expose factual information about an individual ... his simple greeting [quote] ‘G’day [Sock Puppet ‘C’]’ [endquote] is entirely in accord with the information about it being your family name you provided to all and sundry on another mailing list. Vis.:
And here is the pivotal post from that Actual Freedom list (when hosted by ListBot):
And here is the follow-up (mea culpa) post a few days later:
Even more to the point (in regards to exposing factual information about an individual): I choose my words very carefully. Vis.:
It was yourself who did the exposing by your all-of-sudden deleting of emails only after this following email was posted (notice and remember the time-stamp):
Up until that point none of the preceding emails had been deleted, you even answered one of them – which contained the name [Sock Puppet ‘C’]. Here is the first one, with the slightly reworded text in question surrounded top and bottom with huge smiles to indicate jesting, which you freely answered soon after (notice and remember the time-stamp):
And here is the original text, which that slightly reworded version came from, purely for comparison (message
4786
Put succinctly: my first email (posted at 11:00 am) – plus my second email, your reply to my first email, my response to your reply – sat there for all to see until shortly after ‘[No. 18]’ posted his email a long 2 hrs and 13 mins later (at 1:13 pm). It was then, and only then, that your all-of-sudden deleting began to take place. Again, I will stress that I choose my words very carefully. Vis.:
It would seem that the expression ‘come in spinner’ (... snip three irrelevant paragraphs...) * RESPONDENT: P.S. (...) [Sock Puppet ‘C’] was an alias (but don’t believe that of course) and [No. 5] was too (but don’t believe that either). Maybe I really am [No. 53 List AF] but wtf does it matter ... RICHARD: It matters this way: as I have received five death threats/ death wishes (albeit some quite juvenile), so far, the following should be self-explanatory: Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 49, 19 Dec 2003). Having been an ISP myself (albeit in a small way) I am well aware of the detailed information sitting behind emails. The police force in this country are well-versed in tracing email addresses (child porn, for instance). The police also have extraordinary powers to access information civilians cannot. I am sure that, were I ever to be assassinated, they would fully use those extraordinary powers. As I already said, in another context, this is not a child’s game; you are out there playing with the big boys and girls, now, and in the adult world grown-up laws apply. Here’s a deal: if you will freely acknowledge all the countless lies – lies as in porkies, [Sock Puppet ‘R’] – which you scattered about to all and sundry for more than nine years, now, I am eminently capable of wiping the slate clean (as in ‘let bygones be bygones’ in the real world) completely, and starting totally afresh, as I am simply incapable of having/ holding a grudge (as in ‘no hard feelings’ in the real world). Because it is entirely up to you I will finish with that (edited) essence of very first email the person (presumably) behind whatever public image(s) ever wrote to me:
Who knows ... that initial inspiration/ enthusiasm may not be forever lost but just buried. Regards, Richard.
Re: Internet Anonymity RESPONDENT: I haven’t read this yet Richard because quite frankly I don’t care, it will just be more of the same, and all of it needing to be taken by faith. I’m more interested in knowing what actual caring has to do with storming into a chat room like a big oaf brandishing aliases ... RICHARD: The reason I wrote the opening line (which you must have seen) is because of this:
As you knew perfectly well that Richard did indeed have confidential information about you it was, quite straight-forwardly, a lie. Put briefly: if you stop writing these lies I will have nothing to respond to It is that simple. Regards, Richard.
Re: Internet Anonymity RICHARD: To explain: it is in the very nature of that congenital illness (it can give rise to a little-known syndrome herein referred to only as, say, ‘MM’ for convenience) that the extenuating circumstances clearly mentioned lie ... specifically: it more than-adequately provides understanding for the sporadic and uncalled-for outbursts which mar so many of your posts. (Provided the above medical condition is not yet another one of your multitudinous lies that is). RESPONDENT: DUH??? So far I’ve got this and pulled up short with a huge screech and eyes agog! because I’m stunned! Totally and utterly! What ARE you going on about??? WHAT MM? What is MM and if I research it there are most probably all kinds of MM. I can’t believe this. How can an actually free person make up this crap without imagination? I am so totally astonished to see a complete fantasy coming from a person claims to have no imagination. And I am sad. Because truly does means I have been right all along, you really are not free and AF may never be possible. You are nothing but a word man, a spin artist whose fallen even shorter than Buddha. Sad indeed. BTW if anyone is concerned, please don’t be, I’m as healthy as an Ox (and feel truly blessed that I’ve never had a back pain in my life). This is so sad, I shall be shaking my head in amazment and dismay all day. I don’t think I’m ready for this. I truly thought AF might be possible. Dissappointing isn’t the word, there are no words to describe the awful realisation. RICHARD: Pass Regards, Richard.
Re: Internet Anonymity RICHARD:
RESPONDENT: The WORD is not actuality Richard. Regardless of what I write. If you are actually free my words (about my doubts) should not reduce you to this DESPARATE and DECIEVING attempt to get back at the doubter. I am not here to BELIEVE in words. And most certainly not yours … and especially after today. Tis a good thing I returned, to defend myself from your fabrications. YOU ARE A LIAR Richard! and THIS is the saddest day for actualism. RICHARD: Dream on. Regards, Richard.
Re: Internet Anonymity RICHARD: Who knows ... that initial inspiration/ enthusiasm may not be forever lost but just buried. RESPONDENT: This post is so long it will take more time than I have today to read it and the more I read the more I wonder why you are discussing me with anyone else on this list. This last comment had me wondering tho. How does a man who has sussed so much about the human condition come up with the mellow dramatic statement [To No. 4 (wtf why discuss me with No. 4?)]; ‘Who knows ... that initial inspiration/ enthusiasm may not be forever lost but just buried’. Yet you have watched me like a hawke (for some unknown reason) discuss actualism enthusiastically (albeit with doubts about YOU – and well founded now) for over 10 years. Is this really the depths of your insight, or are you just pretending to be dumb. Christ it gets worse every minute. Man we are such a bunch of fools here. You guys have NO idea. It’s freeky. RICHARD: Repulsive! Pass. Regards, Richard.
Re: Internet Anonymity RESPONDENT: I can’t put this down, The more I read the more astonished I am and I’m fluctuating between moment of grief at losing so much of what I had put store in all these years (actualism that is, not your claim to AF – I have never put store in that as you know) and then moments of joy that finally I have enough evidence to free up my time. But gees you really are quite the word spinner man. There were times when I was tempted to be fooled by you like (almost) everyone else was. I can only shake my head in wonder that I was right. That a simple gal like me was seeing through it all correctly all this time? And I’m not even a farmers daughter. But still it’s a sad day, it looked so good on paper, I was so close to being fooled. Did keep wondering why it never worked tho, on me or anyone else. Now I know. You are still in the psyche. RICHARD: Yawn...... PASS. Regards, Richard.
Re: No 4 RESPONDENT: You be careful No. 4. VERY VERY careful. CO-RESPONDENT: I’ll be alright, No. 5. RESPONDENT: And I’ll be alright too, No. 4 :-) Just don’t believe THE WORD. The best thing we all got out of this was that we can only depend on experiential facts. All the rest is psyche and today proved (to me anyway) that Richards’ still got PLENTY of that. Whoa! my head is still spinning over the MM fabrication. To see him blatently lie like that was such a shocker, fucking depressing in fact. There was always an element of possibility in the background and now he’s proved to me he’s a fake. Don’t be malleable No. 4, because we know how important it is for you to mean well. Be careful. Sometimes it pays to take no shit, because then those pretending to have NONE start chucking theirs ... that’s what we have here today. RICHARD: Boring ..... pass. Regards, Richard.
Re: No. 4 CO-RESPONDENT: Seriously, No. 5 ... it must be worthwhile reading to the bottom RESPONDENT: ... the most important thing I learn about me, No. 4, is that no matter what alias I use I NEVER pretend to be Ms Nice Gal/Guy. When I am, I really am, and when I’m not, I’m fucking well not! You can count on it LOL :-) But not Richard you can’t. The guys’ a phoney. His imagination is a crackin’ like a whip. RICHARD: Tacky tactics man. Regards, Richard.
Re: [No. 9 List AF] too eh:-) RESPONDENT: ... as tacky as you eh? :-) LOL! Oh Man ...you have a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y NO IDEA WHO I am, do you? :-) You fell for that photo didn’t you? Poor obsessed lying bugga RICHARD: Pull the other one. Regards, Richard.
Re: No. 12 and [List Owner] RESPONDENT: (...) [List owner], I notice the subject title and the first few lines of the message still appear after deletion – depending on which search option is used. So Richard’s surname is still visible (and who he is, on those first few lines) even though the full body of the message has been deleted. Many of the post where people discussed it have also missed detection for deletion because they don’t come up in the search box if it wasn’t in their subject title. IOW it remains as visible as ever. But ... when scrolling through the posts month by month, the deleted posts have successfully vanished. RICHARD: G’day S+N+C+X+R et alia, A brief note purely to let you know the consideration displayed, in this follow-up email of yours, has not passed unnoticed. Thank you. Regards, Richard.
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RESPONDENT: Richard you seem more like a [...]. To put your action in contrast with [...]. If what you [...]. If you are [...]. Anyone who thinks about so [...]. Those who are actually free either [...] or would [...]. RICHARD: G’day Sock Puppet ‘C’, Ha ... in with a vengeance, eh? (280-odd posts in around 16 days is equivalent to about 18 emails per day). Incidentally, the disinformation in your presumptive impertinencies (above) was snipped out for obvious reasons. For instance (although not entirely applicable): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrediting_tactics Regards, Richard. P.S.: Just for future reference: swanky screen names – such as Zero Infinity and El Dude for instance – which are reminiscent of those monikers left behind wherever fly-by-night graffiti scrawlers abound can have quite an ichthyoid odour (in view of the vital importance of the reason for the forum’s existence).
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RICHARD: [...] Ha ... in with a vengeance, eh? (280-odd posts in around 16 days is equivalent to about 18 emails per day). RESPONDENT: [...] [...] Did you reply to me out of vengeance? RICHARD: Nope ... I have only written 1 email to you/about you (as compared to your 280-odd). Vis.:
And, as this is only my 2nd one, I still have 278-odd to go before attaining to your degree. Regards, Richard.
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RESPONDENT: [...] Anyone who is completely free from harm and malice won’t interpret messages such as mine to be a vengeful act. [...] RICHARD: I did not interpret your 280-odd posts, in around 16 days, as being [quote] ‘a vengeful act’ [endquote]. Vis.:
If anything, I would characterise them as being futile attempts to discredit what PCEs (pure consciousness experiences) so readily evidence. * RESPONDENT: [...] It is not a wonder that [...] even moving around the countryside is a chore for you. RICHARD: A chronic lower back displacement – first incurred at age 24 and acutely exacerbated by senescence’s stenosis is in no way related to being either actually free from malice and sorrow or not. Regards, Richard.
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RESPONDENT: [...] Did you reply to me out of vengeance? RICHARD: Nope ... I have only written 1 email to you/about you (as compared to your 280-odd). Vis.: ‘with a vengeance: in an extreme degree’. (Oxford Dictionary). And, as this is only my 2nd one, I still have 278-odd to go before attaining to your degree. RESPONDENT: I didn’t know that I wrote the 280 odd emails to you! RICHARD: As the above wording quite clearly is [quote] ‘to you/about you’ [endquote] then this is a classic case of frittering away yet another vital opportunity on immature retorts. * RESPONDENT: Are you experiencing an ASC? RICHARD: As that is an impossibility – only identities can have ASCs (and PCEs) – your stock-in-trade retort to others on this forum is but a waste of both the time tapping it out on the keyboard and the band- width used in sending it. Regards, Richard.
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RICHARD: [...] Ha ... in with a vengeance, eh? (280-odd posts in around 16 days is equivalent to about 18 emails per day). RESPONDENT: [...] [...] Did you reply to me out of vengeance? RICHARD: Nope ... I have only written 1 email to you/about you (as compared to your 280-odd). Vis.: ‘with a vengeance: in an extreme degree’. (Oxford Dictionary). And, as this is only my 2nd one, I still have 278-odd to go before attaining to your degree. RESPONDENT: Do you have the habit of overlooking many points in favor of those you can answer thinking they can be helpful to you? RICHARD: As you only had two queries in that post Here is a clue for future reference:
It is your call. Regards, Richard.
Re: Hi Richard! – Part Three RICHARD: [...] Incidentally, the disinformation in your presumptive impertinencies (above) was snipped out for obvious reasons. For instance (although not entirely applicable): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrediting_tactics RESPONDENT: [...] Did my questions sound like bullets to you? RICHARD: Nope, they sound just like what they are ... to wit:
* RESPONDENT: Those were just words as are these! You need freedom from words first ... RICHARD: Ha ... if that were indeed the case there would be no need to react with retorts such as ‘hooked on to words’ and ‘which creates the illusion’ and ‘a kid who gets a kick out of’ and ‘fall into your trap’ and ‘dirt gained vitality’ and ‘out of vengeance’ and ‘be on the offensive’ and ‘call it vengeance’ and ‘interpret messages’ and ‘goes on to show’ and ‘offensive techniques’ and ‘a shadow of the past’ and ‘questions sound like bullets’ (just to pluck a few a random). RESPONDENT: ... afterwards we can talk about actual freedom :) RICHARD: By my count you have thus far frittered away 6 (six) vital opportunities on these incongruous reactions. Regards, Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 CO-RESPONDENT: The first actualists praised the iniciative of scientists like LeDoux. Me too. Anyway, sometimes I compare the ‘Reactive Mind’ experiences of Mr Hubbard (read Dianetics) with the ‘modern’ scientific approach and they are both similares: all in search for our biological ‘self/Self’ to fix(?) it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_mind. And if you change ‘reactive mind’ by ‘human condition’, maybe Mr. Hubbard was a pioneer in this strange land inside our skulls... RESPONDENT: Hubbard was a science fiction author. [snip disinformation]. Nobody can claim to be a ‘pioneer’ in any field. All the ‘pioneers’ stand on the shoulder of giants. CO-RESPONDENT No. 15: Of course ... RICHARD: G’day No. 14, Because you have, perhaps hastily, thereby endorsed a mere assertion that all
pioneers are nanos gigantum humeris insidentes In mid-1980 I had an indelibly-imprinted-in-memory pure consciousness experience (PCE), which lasted for four hours, during which the pristine perfection of the significance of life itself was openly apparent in all its immaculate purity. Plus, of course, an individual peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body only. This four-hour PCE – in conjunction with many other thence-recalled similar perfection experiences stretching away back into my earliest childhood – is what initiated taking my first step on what is nowadays known as the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. (And only upon taking that first step did the next step became obvious; whereupon taking that second step revealed the third ... and so on, and so on, right through unto the last step). I knew perfectly well that I was standing on no shoulders whatsoever – be they those of giants or otherwise – as that PCE indubitably informed that living such a condition was entirely new to human experience/ human history. Indeed, I would say to anyone prepared to listen to me, at the time, how everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong and that nobody has to physically die to be in paradise (inasmuch eternity does not cease at birth only to then recommence at death after a 70+ year interregnum). As all the above information, and more, is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site there is no excuse for tamely acquiescing to any tendentious words to the contrary. Indeed, metaphysicist’s cherished giants (those many and various spiritually enlightened/mystically awakened ones) all had feet of clay. Had the venerated Mr. Siddhartha Gautama, for instance, gone all the way two and a half thousand years ago then peace-on-earth might very well have been a global occurrence by now. And that is quite something to bear in mind, eh? RESPONDENT: Misinterpreting/ misrepresenting information won’t make it otherwise Richard. RICHARD: As the information I provided above is entirely accurate your unsubstantiated assertion is nothing but noise. RESPONDENT: Hubbard was a science fiction writer who later developed Scientology which itself is mostly a work of fiction. RICHARD: As I never mentioned either Mr. L. Ron Hubbard or the Church of Scientology in my above response – that was a matter between you and your co-respondent – then your irrelevant comment is nothing but distractive noise. RESPONDENT: It is clear to anyone familiar with Buddhism that it is you who is trying to present things in a new way ... RICHARD: As I am not presenting Buddhism in a new way – it is a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical way of deliverance from birth/ death through release from the bonds of tanha (the craving for earthly existence) and its resultant dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/ suffering) upon the realisation of, or the awakening to amata (deathless/ immortality) – then your ill-informed allegation is nothing but more noise. As the remainder of your post is also nothing but a whole lot of divertive noise – the topic at hand being your mere assertion that all pioneers stand on the shoulder of giants – there is simply no point in continuing this charade of a discussion. And yet another vital opportunity frittered away. Regards, Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RESPONDENT: It is clear to anyone familiar with Buddhism that it is you who is trying to present things in a new way ... RICHARD: As I am not presenting Buddhism in a new way – it is a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical way of deliverance from birth/ death through release from the bonds of tanha (the craving for earthly existence) and its resultant dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/ suffering) upon the realisation of, or the awakening to amata (deathless/ immortality) – then your ill-informed allegation is nothing but more noise. RESPONDENT: It is you who doesn’t want to see beyond the as per your words: religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical way of deliverance from birth/ death through release from the bonds of tanha (the craving for earthly existence) and its resultant dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/ suffering) upon the realisation of, or the awakening to amata (deathless/ immortality). But if you let yourself to see beyond that, you will see what you are presenting is nothing new but a subset of Buddhism. RICHARD: First of all, there is no necessity for me to merely see [quote] ‘beyond the’ [endquote] or [quote] ‘beyond that’ [endquote] as there is eleven years of experiential understanding – insider information (so to speak) – to inform what words such as tanha, dukkha and amata, in context, are pointing to. There is simply no way in which you could bend, twist, fold or staple anything which is at all buddhistic in order to render an actual freedom from the human condition into being a subset of Buddhism as it is impossible to deny how the central elements of its many and various sects are essentially identical. Take out those core elements and what remains is, put somewhat simplistically, a whole lot of ethical precepts. (Just as attempts to strip Christianity of its core elements has left it as being nothing but a collection of moralistic homilies). I am aware of a movement (mainly in the western world) to strip The Awakened One of his mysticism (as well as The Anointed One of his divinity) but a rotting carcass sans its skeleton is as if rubber duckies are being venerated as the ultimate source of the wisdom of the ages. Put succinctly: that boned corpse which you drag around, and limply prop up on forums such as this, may as well be a busty blow-up doll for all the use it currently provides. Regards, Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RESPONDENT No. 4 to Respondent: [...] If you’re still open to suggestions: Many of us have had the same initial difficulties either with actualism itself, or with Richard’s highly irreverent and seemingly confrontational style, or both. It is very understandable that you react the way you do, and you are far from alone. But, after much thought, spanning many years, some of us have come to understand the reasons for this, and to see things very differently from our early reactions. It is not because we are brainwashed, or stupid, or have become proselytes or acolytes, but because the more deeply you look into actualism the more sense it makes ... and then Richard himself becomes less of an enigma. Virtually everyone will admit it isn’t easy ... there are so many things that seem glaringly wrong at first ... and it takes time to work through these. And I can vouch for the fact that it’s possible to waste ENORMOUS amounts of time on the kind of petty reactions and provocations you’re posting here. For that reason, I suggest (take it or leave it) that, if you stick around, raise your concerns, questions, objections ... there are people who can/will discuss them ... but be genuine, listen to and think about the responses for a while (without assuming that you already know it all in advance), and don’t waste your time on petty smart-ass retorts, because it really is a waste. (Again, just suggestions based on much experience...). RESPONDENT: [...] I have gone over the description of PCE by different people and it doesn’t seem to me any different than what I get with meditation. RICHARD: Yet here is what you wrote in your 23rd post to this forum (in a total of 381 emails):
There is one thing you can now be sure of ... to wit: whatever it is you [quote] ‘get with meditation’ [endquote] it is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Regards, Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RESPONDENT: [...] I have gone over the description of PCE by different people and it doesn’t seem to me any different than what I get with meditation. RICHARD: [...] There is one thing you can now be sure of ... to wit: what ever it is you [quote] ‘get with meditation’ [endquote] it is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: Let me rephrase: ‘post’ meditation experience is PCE. RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my observation to accommodate your corrigendum. Vis.: There is one thing you can now be sure of ... to wit: whatever it is you [quote] ‘get with ‘post’ meditation experience’ [endquote] it is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: [...] I have gone over the description of PCE by different people and it doesn’t seem to me any different than what I get with meditation. RICHARD: Yet here is what you wrote in your 23rd post to this forum (in a total of 381 emails):
There is one thing you can now be sure of ... namely: whatever those experiences might have been they have not been PCE’s. Regards, Richard.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RICHARD: Yet here is what you wrote in your 23rd post to this forum (in a total of 381 emails):
There is one thing you can now be sure of ... namely: whatever those experiences might have been they have not been PCE’s. RESPONDENT: I was trying to find out from an Actualist about his experience. RICHARD: Oh? Yet this is what you wrote 22 hours after asking that ‘zombie’ question of yours:
Regards, Richard.
Re: I am that RESPONDENT No. 4: Can you walk over to a mirror and look into it? RESPONDENT: Yes. RESPONDENT No. 4: Well if the answer is yes, then that would be ASC. RICHARD: A clarification of your terminology will elucidate the ‘zombie’ issue of the other thread: going by your above response, then, where there be walking about (or, for that matter, even typing emails) it indicates to you that it be an ASC, right? In other words, the type of experience which you [quote] ‘get with meditation’ [endquote] is not something that can happen where there be walking about and/or typing emails, eh? Further to the point, this is what you have written previously:
And you have also written this:
If you could clarify just what [quote] ‘not having a functioning mind’ [endquote] means to you – and provide some indication via such terms as 6th jhana, 7th jhana and 8th jhana – it should further elucidate this ‘zombie’ issue. 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. |
