The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime. The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration.

I did (and do) agree with what No. 48 said about your communication style based on long experience and observation. As for this bunch of malcontents hanging out together for mutual security as they take pot-shots at Richard out of pure perversity and spite why not see it as several people who independently see you in pretty much the same light based on what we’ve observed and experienced over the months or years? What I wonder, though, is whether you have ever taken /their/ words at face value and wondered whether you might have a blind spot?

No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression  it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer. And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being. Are you saying that knowing another’s agenda, where they are coming from, where they were heading to justifies aggressive behaviour? That is besides the point under discussion right now: that of your aggressive style of communication.

Eliciting anything in particular from Richard is not the point. Exposure of Richard’s character to an audience is where it’s at. Watching Richard’s attempts to control audience perception is fascinating and revealing. How could I possibly snipe away at Richard? There’s nothing to shoot at, remember? It’s all water off a ducks back, remember? You’d like to be special but your particular brand of naive realism* is the most common wisdom of all. (* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_realism).

The words you choose (or do they choose themselves?) to communicate with seem to exhibit a worldview that is beleaguered, spiteful, presumptuous, condescending, reductive, etc. These views seem contrary to the idea of freedom, actualised or otherwise. Is this indicative of the Actual Freedom that you write about? As you are the spokesman for Actual Freedom, it would appear so.

In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent), No 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy. He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc. He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression, it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer. And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc. Never have. I do think it would be possible to do all of that in a friendly and peaceful way though. I think the impression I have of him being a ‘prick’ in his interactions with his fellow humans is separate/different from all of that but will keep my eyes/ears open to see if I’m wrong. Maybe it is, after all, the whole actualist paradigm that is wrong in my eyes, and Richard embodies it. But the way it seems at the moment is that Richard does indeed act like a prick, whether his discovery is what it seems to be or not.

But let’s look at the next exchange:
[Respondent]: ‘Secondly, what difference does it make whether Richard is the first to find actual freedom ...’.
[Richard]: ‘It makes no difference whatsoever who was the first to find an actual freedom from the human condition as it is what is found that makes a difference ... as expressed thisaway (also only a few weeks ago): [Co-Respondent]: ‘Questioning your ‘priority’ of discovery is tantamount to rejecting ‘peace on earth’. [Richard]: ‘It matters not one jot who discovered an actual freedom from the human condition – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any area of human endeavour as a matter of course – as what does matter is the discovery that, in order for the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent, identity in toto becomes extinct’. [endquote].
While he says ‘It matters not one jot ...’ if you read all of his arguments and attempts to prove this point while also denigrating his questioners and attempting to disprove their points you might conclude that it matters to him much more than one jot.