Richard, some objections and thoughts: I do not know what anything is fundamentally, or why it is that way or how it works beyond the layer of understanding below it which simply redefines what is not understood/known. ... Do you know these things? Does the process through which you have gone mean you now know lots of things. That is not your claim yet you speak as if you somehow know it all. Maybe you just claim to see the wood from the trees. In any case I doubt you know why you know or conscious, especially if all you are is meat. In particular how do you know that what worked for you will work elsewhere. You are making big claims about the whole of humanity. That you don’t acknowledge this lack of knowledge on your part I find distasteful. In fact your verbose writing has that air of it throughout. Your highbrow writing will not appeal to many people ...

The hypothesis that you are benign and harmless and free of malice and sorrow I hold as proved incorrect. It is not the case. I have documented consistently my observation that by persistently categorising the contributions of humans into WRONG normal and spiritual possibilities, or RIGHT Richard possibilities; you are propagating, continuing, and enhancing malicious disrespectful and legally reprehensible and offensive behaviour. You are incredibly ungrateful Richard. You are rude and arrogant Richard. At least acknowledge it; and take your seat in the community of humans as you are entitled to.

Richard’s interactions with people on the mailing list do not seem to be consistent with his claim that he lives in actual freedom and that he is happy and harmless 24 hours a day. Many people have noticed Richard’s argumentative attitude, one-upmanship, determination to win arguments at all cost, claims that he is the best thing since sliced bread, claims that he is the only free person in the world, evasiveness in answering direct questions, nit picking with precise definition of words to avoid answering difficult or uncomfortable questions, refusing to really listen to anybody else’s observations or points of view etc., etc.

Including, of course, the pathetic one-upmanship of ‘I have discovered truths no one else knows’. What I would like to understand is why all the self-proclaimed enlightened (I use that term loosely to include you Richard, though you don’t use it yourself) folk on this list are so all-fired certain that they are the only ones on the surface of the earth who have ever experienced what they experience? And why are y’all so arrogant that you can say things like ‘nowhere in the revered and sacred scripts, anywhere in history’ – as if you personally had studied each one? It is actually your attitude of smug disdain that most convincingly argues against your having achieved anything resembling equanimity, never mind true understanding of reality.

Intelligence does not use thought to try and prove that it knows more than everybody else. It doesn’t act like a fighting cock all strutting and prancing around ready to attack its opponent. This ‘cocky’ attitude somewhat present in some posts only reveals some philosophers wanting to do the battle of thought. I do not think this sort of display of thought is ever going to solve anguish. Is this list merely something to enjoy, pass the time of day, or is it a serious effort to understand and end the problematic child, thought? Humbly and respectfully submitted.

An effective communicator phrases statements in a context that is meaningful to the intended recipient. One who is only interested in stating what they hold to be truth speaks in words that are meaningful to themselves. Richard falls in the latter camp. That is his prerogative but it doesn’t do much to help spread actualism far and wide.

You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your theories, you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone. They can question your theories till the cows come home but you have laid down the laws of the universe this universe according to your understanding of it or what you like to call ‘experiential’ and now your words are to be carved in stone because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’ which trumps everyone else’s so-called direct experience. You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ...