|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 53
RICHARD: ... your proposition, that there be someone, somewhere, somewhen, who had already become actually free from the human condition long before I did, is nothing but an intellectual creation – an abstract person – who has no existence outside of your skull ... an imaginative entity who is, of course, of no use whatsoever to you where the tyre meets the road (as in comparing notes in regards to what may or may not have happened at 3:20am 7-8 days ago). RESPONDENT: Do I need to compare notes? RICHARD: I do not know whether you ‘need’ to compare notes or not ... all I said was that such an theoretical entity is, of course, of no use whatsoever to you where it comes to everyday practicality (aka ‘where the tyre meets the road’) as in a flesh and blood human being sharing their experience/ expertise with you (as in ‘perhaps you could tell me what you make of it’). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I don’t know if I do or not. In fact I do not ‘need’ to. RICHARD: Seeing that you have sorted out the problem you just now invented perhaps you could address the point I made? RESPONDENT: Whereas you claim to be interested in such a pursuit. RICHARD: In this instance it was you who expressed interest in a non-abstract person communicating to you what they made of that which happened at 3:20am 8-9 days ago ... and not me. RESPONDENT: Whether you are or not in reality, virtuality or actuality, I haven’t a real, virtual or actual clue. RICHARD: Is not the question whether you are, or are not, interested (and not me)? RESPONDENT: As to what may or may not have happened to me, I don’t care. RICHARD: If I may point out? You cared enough to write to me and ask me about it. RESPONDENT: It was a matter of a very short lived curiosity and is as simple as that, and as such is unimportant. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Your expertise is not needed, thank you very much, neither is that of your accused imagined entity living in my skull. RICHARD: Where is this (abstract) person living then ... if not in your skull? * RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/Mayan/Incan/Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? Just curious. RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter. RICHARD: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non? RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ... RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: ... unlike yourself, who knows it all. RICHARD: Is it not just a matter of commonsense? * RESPONDENT: Interesting. RICHARD: Aye ... there is nothing like a goodly dose of sincerity to flush the system of cynicism. RESPONDENT: Huh? As you say, you’ve got me stumped on that one. Don’t bother clearing it up either. RICHARD: Oh, it is no bother at all: you said it was [quote] ‘interesting’ [endquote] that what I meant by sincerity was pointing out to my fellow human being that an abstract entity was useless when it came to a sharing of experience/ expertise in regards what happened at 3:20am 8-9 days ago ... and thus made the observation that there is nothing like a goodly dose of sincerity to flush the system of cynicism. Of course it does have to be taken on board to be effective. * RESPONDENT: How does that phrase go that you like so much and use so often: something like ‘the dreams we weave, when first we practice to deceive’?? RICHARD: This is where it originates: [Mr. Walter Scott]: ‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!’ [endquote]. Mr. J. R. Pope, in ‘A Word of Encouragement’, added to that the lines ‘but when we’ve practised quite a while how vastly we improve our style’ ... howsoever, I usually put it this way: [Richard]: ‘To paraphrase an age-old aphorism: ‘Oh what a tangled web they weave, when first they practice to believe!’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the history lesson. You are if nothing else, thorough. RICHARD: Aye ... and such thoroughness, which I have elsewhere described as ‘application and diligence and patience and perseverance’, is one of the reasons why the already always existing peace-on-earth is now apparent 24/7 for the first time in human history. * RESPONDENT: Did I get that right? RICHARD: Nope. RESPONDENT: Close enough I suspect. RICHARD: Close enough for what? RESPONDENT: Close enough for a rather intelligent feeling being like yourself to get my drift. RICHARD: Hmm ... more smart-aleckry, eh? * RESPONDENT: Did I hurt your feelings in some way? RICHARD: This is such a waste of a question. RESPONDENT: Then that explains your waste of an answer. RICHARD: No, it is not a waste of an answer at all ... experience has shown me that a person indulging in smart-aleckry either eventually ceases doing so or moves on to more gullible pastures. RESPONDENT: I could throw your answer right back at yourself and consider it done. RICHARD: How you fritter away your opportunity is entirely up to you, of course. RESPONDENT: Other than that, is there any other possible course of action? RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try taking on board what the word ‘sincerity’ means as per the dictionary definition. RESPONDENT: Like to stick around till death do us part? RICHARD: What you do, or do not do, is your business – I can only suggest – as it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, of any action or inaction you may or may not do. Provided one complies with the legal laws, and observes the social protocols, one will usually be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they choose. * RICHARD: Mostly they move on [to more gullible pastures]. RESPONDENT: As they should. RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘should’ or ‘should not’ about it ... ‘tis entirely a matter of choice. * RESPONDENT: I was just asking since you have quite the experience in these matters from what I have read in your website. No problem, I don’t need any response. Thanks anyway. RICHARD: Whether you needed any response or not you got one anyway ... and look what you did with it, eh? RESPONDENT: Well then, why don’t you tell me what you think I did with it ... RICHARD: I do not have to ‘think’ what you did with it ... this is what you actually did: [Respondent]: ‘My my my my my my ... how sarcastic and cynical are we today? [endquote]. And: [Respondent]: ‘Did I hurt your feelings in some way? [endquote]. RESPONDENT: ... and what a good practicing actualist would have done with it ... eh? RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try looking-up the word ‘sincerity’ in a dictionary. RESPONDENT: Ok ... sincere: 1 a: free of dissimulation: honest <sincere interest>; b: free from adulteration: pure <a sincere doctrine>, <sincere wine>; 2: marked by genuineness: true. [endquote]. I just did what you said and I am still full of malice & sorrow. Go figure. RICHARD: I never said anything about ‘malice & sorrow’ ... the suggestion was in regards looking at what you did with the response you got which you now say you do not need. * RESPONDENT: Apparently one must not question your authority or authenticity. RICHARD: Au contraire ... I do indeed welcome questioning: [Richard]: ‘I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: That is a good public relations line. RICHARD: Not so ... it is a statement of fact. RESPONDENT: If its a statement of fact, that would be open to debate ... RICHARD: It is indeed a statement of fact. RESPONDENT: ... but it is most certainly a good public relations line. RICHARD: Not so ... it is a statement of fact. * RESPONDENT: Your actions speak otherwise at times. RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion I will most certainly attend to them. RESPONDENT: If you will excuse me, I don’t feel like going through your years of correspondence to find an instance, 2, 3 or 200. RICHARD: No, I will not excuse you: you made the allegation – ‘your actions speak otherwise at times’ – thus it is up to you to substantiate it. RESPONDENT: That’s not to say it would be that hard. RICHARD: Good ... then it will not be ‘that hard’ to provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion, eh? * RESPONDENT: Not all the times ... just some times. RICHARD: Again ... if you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ I will most certainly attend to them. RESPONDENT: Again ... you’ll have to excuse my lack of thoroughness. RICHARD: Again ... I will do no such thing: either provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ or withdraw the allegation. RESPONDENT: That is your strength/forte/downfall. RICHARD: And why is it my ‘downfall’ to not have a lack of thoroughness? * RESPONDENT: You sure take things personally. RICHARD: If you want an impersonal discussion about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, you are at the wrong address: actualism is not a matter of abstract logic – be it arm-chair philosophising, vacuous intellectualising, amateur psychologising, academic analysing, theoretical hypothesising, or whatever – as it is a hands-on moment-to-moment experiential matter ... and it does not come any more personal than that. RESPONDENT: So, in a rather long-winded, round-about way, you’re rationalizing taking questions regarding your authority and authenticity, personally. RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not ‘rationalising’ (justifying with plausible but specious reasons) anything of the sort ... I am explaining that actualism is a very, very, personal matter. RESPONDENT: I couldn’t agree more. RICHARD: I am pleased that the matter of taking things personally has been satisfactorily cleared up. * RESPONDENT: Ok. So much for having no feelings/emotions. RICHARD: How you can draw that conclusion from what I wrote has got me stumped ... perhaps that is why you had to first invent something I did not do in order to make it. RESPONDENT: My mistake if I misunderstood you. RICHARD: Why ‘if’ ... did you or did you not? * RESPONDENT: Perhaps that part of one’s personality [taking things personally] remains . RICHARD: Does being impersonal, then, equate to what being free of the affections signifies to you (as in fictional characters such as ‘Star Trek’ for instance)? RESPONDENT: No and very funny, as in you have an extremely dry sense of humour. RICHARD: What do you equate with taking things impersonally, then, if not dispassionately (given that the general thrust of both your responses has been to make the case that the feelings you are projecting into my words are coming from me)? RESPONDENT: Of course, it is always your correspondents projections on you. It couldn’t possibly be you. RICHARD: Indeed not (there is no affective faculty whatsoever in this flesh and blood body) ... so what do you equate with taking things impersonally, then, if not dispassionately? * RESPONDENT: Do you perhaps live in an arid climate? RICHARD: No, the area where I currently reside is well-known for its rain-forests and its climate is classified as sub-tropical. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the geography lesson. RICHARD: You are welcome. * RESPONDENT: Just like the anger you quoted UGK as saying stays there after the I &/or me goes. RICHARD: Does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Your question is not clear as I am not schooled enough in your particular brand of psychobabble or any school of psychobabble for that matter. RICHARD: This is what the word ‘psychobabble’ indicates to me: ‘psychobabble n. (colloq., derog.) lay jargon, esp. concerning personality and relationships, derived from the technical language of psychology. (Oxford Dictionary). In what way am I using the phrase ‘a feeling being’ that it is so much a departure from normal usage it signifies ‘your particular brand of psychobabble’ to you?RESPONDENT: ‘Feeling being’ means what? (according to your use). RICHARD: The same as it means in normal usage of course: (snip five instances of normal usage). It is a more-inclusive phrase than ‘an emotional being’ as it includes the passions as well. RESPONDENT: You have taught me a new phrase. RICHARD: Okay ... does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)? * RESPONDENT: You know Richard. I like you tonight despite yourself. RICHARD: What do you mean by the ‘despite yourself’ caveat? RESPONDENT: I’ve no idea why. RICHARD: As a suggestion only: why not compare it to when you do not like the ‘Richard’ you are liking on this occasion and see what happens? RESPONDENT: By the way, I like that one and only picture you have of yourself on the website. That old photo ... you look like a nice kid. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘he’ was, of course, as full of malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, as any other normal human being (born out of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, all sentient beings are genetically endowed with) so I do wonder what the term ‘a nice kid’ signifies to you. In fact the nicest thing ‘he’ ever did was ‘self’-immolate, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... as such I salute ‘his’ audacity (for daring to care). For to dare to care is to care to dare.
RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.
RESPONDENT (to Peter): ... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/Mayan/Incan/Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter. RICHARD: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non? RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ... RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic. RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that? RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence. RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to. Here is the context in which the ‘one line out of one thousand’ originated:
You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of; the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ was started by you (‘Question’; Wed 15/10/03 7:13 AM) and is not a topic which actualists would have any reason to discuss otherwise; it is not ‘the actualist term’ to say I was the first but rather that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history (I just happened to be the first to discover it was possible to live the pure consciousness experience (PCE) twenty four hours a day seven days a week) and it is interesting to note that objectors to being happy and harmless seize on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ topic and make an issue out of it; even though you qualify your ‘defenders of the faith’ term as being not offensively intended it does have the effect that when somebody sets the record straight (that actualism has nowt to do with faith) it can, and often does, elicit the hoary ‘you are being defensive’ reply and, as such, is just a waste of time saying it in the first place; the points you can ‘clearly see’ in another’s e-mails are spurious points (Zen Buddhism does not even remotely resemble an actual freedom from the human condition) and have been addressed extensively already (with supportive quotes); the writings of Mr. Carlos Casteneda are works of fiction and do not refer to any flesh and blood body (living or dead) nor do any of them refer to anything remotely resembling an actual freedom from the human condition; I have not only scoured the internet looking for another person actually free from the human condition I have also travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life, I have been watching television, videos, films, whatever media is available, I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and only latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. Are you really suggesting I should respond thus (to each and every point in your paragraph) rather than just taking the ‘one line out of one thousand’ which is germane to the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ you started a little over six weeks ago? As for Richard ‘makes up a question’ ... given the context (your focus on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ rather than focussing on what has been discovered) is it not a legitimate question to ask if (note ‘if’) the, thus far hypothetical/fictitious, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? In other words: what does it take to satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic? Lastly: what you call my ‘one line out of 1000’ answer was in direct regard to you saying that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, (supposedly) putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah ... wake me when it’s over’ response) ... so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making (rather than perpetuate the silliness masquerading as discussion you seem to favour) that nothing can satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic. For example: would it not also be correct to acknowledge, for example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay can indeed claim to be the first to have ascended Mt. Everest (on May 29, 1953) ... after all, how can they know that someone from Tibet/Nepal/Mongolia/Wherever had not already done so 10/100/1000/10,000 years ago and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings? Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr Robert Peary did lead the first expedition to the north pole (if only because any number of arctic dwellers may have picnicked there in the aeons gone by)? Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for yet another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland had not already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen? What about Mr. Yuri Gagarin ... was he the first human being to leave the planet’s atmosphere or not? Was Mr. Neil Armstrong the first human being to set foot on the moon or not? Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, is there any point in discovering, say, a cure for cancer (someone, somewhere, somewhen, may have already discovered it and just because they did not tell anybody else is irrelevant)? The entire thrust of your argument conveniently ignores what has sometimes been called ‘the law of probability’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based ... and I have written about this before:
And, if I may point out, neither have you been able to produce such a (flesh and blood) person or persons.
RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that? RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence. RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to. Here is the context in which the ‘one line out of one thousand’ originated: [Respondent]: ‘On another note and a popular topic of discussion on this list: while I have brought this up in the past regarding Richards claim of being the 1st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term). First I would like to say that regarding the ongoing discussion between Respondent No. 56 and the ‘defenders of the faith’ (my term – no offence intended referring to Richard, Peter, Vineeto, Respondent No. 18, et al) that I can clearly see Respondent No. 56’s points. That said, how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? Clearly the writings of Carlos Casteneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet. [emphasis added]. You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of ... (snipped for reasons of space). RESPONDENT: You cut & paste, you rearrange previous correspondences in an absurd abstract manner ... RICHARD: I did no such thing ... and I even explained this (above):
First you say I pulled [quote] ‘one line out of one thousand’ [endquote] and now you say I ‘rearrange previous correspondences’ ... I do wonder what you will come up with next. Incidentally, I copy and paste ... that way the original stays intact for future reference.
RESPONDENT (to Peter): ... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/ Mayan/ Incan/ Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter. RICHARD: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non? RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ... RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic. RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that? RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence. RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to. (snipped for reasons of space). RESPONDENT: My original comment of ‘pathetic’ was referring to you pulling one line out of one thousand and posing a self serving question which would then be answered by that particular line of your choosing to illustrate your point. In fact, in the following correspondence, you rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts according to your whims & purposes. You essentially fabricate a conversation of your choosing to state your case. It reminds me of a serial killer who leaves clues for the law by piecing together different letters and words from various periodicals. RICHARD: I suggest you access the following URL before you remind yourself of something even more grotesque: www.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909115558 Just in case you do not get around to it here is the relevant text (in its native format):
Now I ask you ... where have I ‘rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts’ in the formatted query/response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page so the remainder can be read in context (just as I did five days ago)? The only out-of-sequence line is the ‘Respondent to Peter’ passage which I shifted from being a footnote
in the original thread to being a header in this thread – again for the sake of being able to be read in context – and if that
is what you are calling [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] then all of your ‘out of context’ protestations As for what you say was me ‘pulling one line out of one thousand’ ... it was in direct regard to your comment that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, supposedly putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah – wake me when it’s over’ response) so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making that your proposition (that there be someone, somewhere, somewhen, who had already become actually free from the human condition long before I did) is nothing but an intellectual creation – an abstract entity – who is, of course, of no use whatsoever where it comes to everyday practicality (as in a flesh and blood human being sharing their experience/ expertise with you). In short: your argument is as hollow as your protestations about the way I conduct my correspondence.
RESPONDENT: My original comment of ‘pathetic’ was referring to you pulling one line out of one thousand and posing a self serving question which would then be answered by that particular line of your choosing to illustrate your point. In fact, in the following correspondence, you rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts according to your whims & purposes. You essentially fabricate a conversation of your choosing to state your case. It reminds me of a serial killer who leaves clues for the law by piecing together different letters and words from various periodicals. RICHARD: I suggest you access the following URL before you remind yourself of something even more grotesque: (snip link). Just in case you do not get around to it here is the relevant text (in its native format): (snip verbatim text). Now I ask you ... where have I ‘rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts’ in the formatted query/response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page [now snipped again] so the remainder can be read in context (just as I did five days ago)? The only out-of-sequence line is the ‘Respondent to Peter’ passage which I shifted from being a footnote in the original thread to being a header in this thread – again for the sake of being able to be read in context – and if that is what you are calling [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] then all of your ‘out of context’ protestations amount to nothing but bombast and blather. As for what you say was me ‘pulling one line out of one thousand’ ... it was in direct regard to your comment that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, supposedly putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah – wake me when it’s over’ response) so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making that your proposition (that there be someone, somewhere, somewhen, who had already become actually free from the human condition long before I did) is nothing but an intellectual creation – an abstract entity – who is, of course, of no use whatsoever where it comes to everyday practicality (as in a flesh and blood human being sharing their experience/expertise with you). In short: your argument is as hollow as your protestations about the way I conduct my correspondence. RESPONDENT: In short: You are a serial cut, paster, rearranger ... RICHARD: This is just silliness masquerading as a response: not only is your [quote] ‘extremely
pathetic’ [endquote] comment without substance; not only is your [quote] ‘one line out of one thousand’ [endquote] remark
without justification; not only is your [quote] ‘makes up a question’ [endquote] observation without validity; not only is
your [quote] ‘rearranged lines and responses, mixing & matching from various posts’ [endquote] allegation without any
basis in fact; not only is your [quote] ‘out of context’ [endquote] claim without legitimacy; but you continue to make such
vaporous I have listened to what you have to contribute with interest – as I do with any of my fellow human beings who are concerned enough to respond to what I have to report – and have replied in detail, sometimes examining what you have to say point-by-point, to no avail as (for whatever reason it may be) you either cannot see or have no interest in seeing that what you are doing is dodging the issue and fudging the point each time again ... which makes mockery of your avowal 5 weeks ago. Viz.:
It would appear that the problem with a ‘change of heart’ is that, being fickle as it is well-known to be, it can change right back to where it was before without even missing a beat. RESPONDENT: I am not the first to bring this up ... RICHARD: At a guess the number of people who, when all else fails, have resorted to the hackneyed ‘out of context’ reply can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. RESPONDENT: ... and I won’t be the last. As is said, where there’s smoke there’s fire. RICHARD: Except that in this case there is no ‘smoke’ – there is only a lot of huff and puff coming from your keyboard in lieu of sensible discussion – so any ‘fire’ you infer is yet more fantasy assuming the status of fact in your eyes (you may very well have been able to bamboozle your co-respondents on other mailing lists with such hoary ploys but they do not cut the ice here). My question, at this stage, is why do you do this in the first place (let alone continue to do it)?
RESPONDENT (to Peter): ... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/Mayan/Incan/Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well? RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter. RICHARD: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non? RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ... RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic. RESPONDENT No. 18: (...) what on earth is pathetic about that? RESPONDENT: (...) he pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence. RICHARD: (...) I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to (...). RESPONDENT: (...) You essentially fabricate a conversation of your choosing to state your case. It reminds me of a serial killer who leaves clues for the law by piecing together different letters and words from various periodicals. RICHARD: I suggest you access the following URL before you remind yourself of something even more grotesque: (...). In short: your argument is as hollow as your protestations about the way I conduct my correspondence. RESPONDENT: In short: You are a serial cut, paster, rearranger ... RICHARD: (...) not only is your [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] comment without substance (...) but you continue to make such vaporous assertions as if mere repetition will turn fantasy into fact. RESPONDENT: (...) it is you who avoid the issue of twisting the past and present quotes of list participants to make your case. RICHARD: Here is the relevant text (in its native format):
If you can show me where I twisted ‘the past and present quotes’ in the formatted query/response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page so the remainder can be read in context it will be most appreciated.
RESPONDENT: In short: You are a serial cut, paster, rearranger ... RICHARD: (...) not only is your [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] comment without substance (...) but you continue to make such vaporous assertions as if mere repetition will turn fantasy into fact. RESPONDENT: (...) it is you who avoid the issue of twisting the past and present quotes of list participants to make your case. RICHARD: Here is the relevant text (in its native format): (snip verbatim text). If you can show me where I twisted ‘the past and present quotes’ in the formatted query/ response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page so the remainder can be read in context it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: (...) I have made my point, you disagree and don’t think my point holds water ... that’s fine. RICHARD: As your ‘point’ is that I am [quote] ‘just pathetic’ [endquote] because of what you say I did to the text in the exchange under question you are yet to make it ... just where have I twisted ‘the past and present quotes’ in the formatted query/response sequence?
RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ... RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions. RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic. RESPONDENT No. 18: (...) what on earth is pathetic about that? RESPONDENT: (...) he pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence. RICHARD: (...) I cannot see how the above exchange [now snipped] is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/ response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to (...). RESPONDENT: (...) You essentially fabricate a conversation of your choosing to state your case. It reminds me of a serial killer who leaves clues for the law by piecing together different letters and words from various periodicals. RICHARD: I suggest you access the following URL before you remind yourself of something even more grotesque: (...). In short: your argument is as hollow as your protestations about the way I conduct my correspondence. RESPONDENT: In short: You are a serial cut, paster, rearranger ... RICHARD: (...) not only is your [quote] ‘extremely pathetic’ [endquote] comment without substance (...) but you continue to make such vaporous assertions as if mere repetition will turn fantasy into fact. RESPONDENT: (...) it is you who avoid the issue of twisting the past and present quotes of list participants to make your case. RICHARD: Here is the relevant text (in its native format): (snip verbatim text). If you can show me where I twisted ‘the past and present quotes’ in the formatted query/ response sequence I have re-inserted at the top of this page so the remainder can be read in context it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: (...) I have made my point, you disagree and don’t think my point holds water ... that’s fine. RICHARD: As your ‘point’ is that I am [quote] ‘just pathetic’ [endquote] because of what you say I did to the text in the exchange under question you are yet to make it ... just where have I twisted ‘the past and present quotes’ in the formatted query/ response sequence at the top of this page [now snipped]? RESPONDENT: (...) I take back my calling you pathetic. RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you do so. I have no further questions.
CORRESPONDENT No. 53 (Part Four) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE 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 |
